Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:soft_storey

On 03/02/19 13:13, marc marc wrote: Le 02.02.19 à 18:09, Stefano Maffulli a écrit : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:soft_storey Definition: a type of construction where any one floor is significantly more flexible (less stiff) than those above and below it if the

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On 03/02/19 13:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 12:07, marc marc > wrote: I think it would be better to continue the current club=scout system and add precision with scouts=Scouts|Guiding|Patro|Chiro or any other tag to describe

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 12:07, marc marc wrote: > I think it would be better to continue the current club=scout system and > add precision with > scouts=Scouts|Guiding|Patro|Chiro or any other tag to describe the > "upstream" organisation/variant. > That's a nice neat solution +1 Naturally

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:soft_storey

Le 02.02.19 à 18:09, Stefano Maffulli a écrit : >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:soft_storey >> Definition: a type of construction where any one floor is >> significantly more flexible (less stiff) than those above and below it if the goal is to define the

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

Le 02.02.19 à 15:11, Paul Allen a écrit : > unless somebody comes up with a valid objection, just go with club=chiro I and my family members are or have been part of the "Scouts", Guides and Patro. There are subtle numbers between them but I don't think any of them would contradict me if I say

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

A survey of international and some national lexicons indicates that the two terms 'ditch' and 'drain' are equivalent used in the context of liquids from the smallest to largest scales. The term 'drain' however seems mostly to apply at the interface where the water transitions from the substrate (

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On 02/02/19 19:21, s8evq wrote: Could we agree that club=youth does have a meaningful usage, despite what the wiki currently states? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:club +1 .. also the same comment on club=elderly. These clubs can have a variety of 'interests' to suit there age

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On 03/02/19 10:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 22:57, Tom Pfeifer > wrote: A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity. Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

Le 02.02.19 à 13:56, Tom Pfeifer a écrit : > On 02.02.2019 09:21, s8evq wrote: >> Thank you for your input. I'm glad there are other examples of youth >> organisation that are clearly different from Scouts. >> >> Could we agree that club=youth does have a meaningful usage, despite >> what the

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 22:57, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity. > > Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with > amenity=community_centre > Not disagreeing Tom, but at least in our area, community

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > We deal with indefinite objects more often than some people are > comfortable with. (I've mentioned previously that my state has such > things as county lines that are in part unsurveyed!) > > Rather than a new relation type, I think it would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 18:46, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Leave the geometrical limit, that's up to you. However, I doubt anybody > deciding about whether to use this tag would bother doing the math necessary > to compute lengths using the 3/2 * sq rt of the area formula but, IMO, > anybody who

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

I'm resending/forwarding the following email to the tagging list, because i forgot to reply to all. -- Forwarded message - From: Markus Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 17:56 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:49:54 +0100 From: Peter Elderson To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch Who is to decide? Mvg Peter Elderson Op 2 feb. 2019 om 15:38 heeft EthnicFood IsGreat het volgende geschreven: Date: Sat, 02 Feb

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:23, Hufkratzer wrote: > > If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing > waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is > not such an easy task. We already have 800k drains. I assume it > requires a proposal with volting to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:soft_storey

Hello folks, discussion is tapering off on The proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:soft_storey Definition: a type of construction where any one floor is significantly more flexible (less stiff) than those above and below it If there are no more

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Not all ditches can be called drains and not all drains can be called ditches and there is some overlapping in their meanings which causes the confusion. I see three ways to go: 1. Define the basic meanings from dictionaries and let users decide on which tag to use, similar to Peter Elderson's

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Who is to decide? Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 2 feb. 2019 om 15:38 heeft EthnicFood IsGreat > het volgende geschreven: > > >> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100 >> From: Hufkratzer >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" >> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch >> >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

If there is a drain worth mapping, I will map it as a drain. If the drain has the form of a ditch and I can see its only function is to be a drain, I will map a drain. Size and lining may be indicators, not definers. If a ditch has unclear function or multiple functions, I will map a ditch. If

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On 02/02/2019 14:11, Paul Allen wrote: My guess is because OSM was started by somebody in the UK; OSM is (supposedly) based upon British English usage; the UK has scouts but not Chiro or KSA.  OSM has scouts because back in the early days we wanted to map scouts but had no need to map Chiro.

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100 From: Hufkratzer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is not such

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 11:20:01 +0100 From: Sergio Manzi To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch Thank-you for confirming that, Mark. Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading English words with meanings they do not have in *any

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

I have no objection to remove the lined/unlined characteristic from the definitions but am not sure about leaving just one tag for both "ditch" and "drain" notions. Here are some examples to consider. 1. Industrial drains are not always digged out. The channal in the ground may get formed by the

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:00, s8evq wrote: > > How would you then tag the building and field where Chiro, KSA or > Australian Air Force Cadets youth groups gather weekly. club=??? > > In other words: why does the Scouts movement have it's own club= value? > While, in my opinion, scout is not a

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:07:00 +0300 From: Eugene Podshivalov To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch The direct images got blocked. So here are the links. Drainage ditches:

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 13:56:03 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity. That's clear, I can agree with that. > Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with > amenity=community_centre > where you can specify

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is not such an easy task. We already have 800k drains. I assume it requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the presets, perhaps a mass

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

+1 N > On 2 Feb 2019, at 10:39 pm, Markus wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> >> Thank-you for confirming that, Mark. >> >> Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading >> English words with meanings they do not have in any

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On 02.02.2019 09:21, s8evq wrote: Thank you for your input. I'm glad there are other examples of youth organisation that are clearly different from Scouts. Could we agree that club=youth does have a meaningful usage, despite what the wiki currently states?

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Thank-you for confirming that, Mark. > > Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading > English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary (be it AmE, > BrE, CaE, or whatever). > > Both the "ditch" and

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:22:30PM +, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:09, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > > If you think it is important to differentiate between lined vs. unlined > > minor waterways (*and I'm not objecting to that*), I guess the best > > option would be to use a

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 12:22:01AM -0800, Mark Wagner wrote: > > My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary has about a page of > definitions for "ditch" and "drain", and not a hint that either of them > needs to be lined. +1 ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 08:12:28 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31/01/19 13:02, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > > club=youth > > youth=* > > > > Slightly different, but also related ... > > Both my sons went through

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Thank-you for confirming that, Mark. Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading English words with meanings they do not have in *any *dictionary (be it AmE, BrE, CaE, or whatever). Both the "ditch" and "drain" words *can *be used to describe certain features in

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

There are two cases when I'm in doubt when choosing between "drainage ditch" and "drain". 1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Lake_tahoe_storm_drain_el_dorado_beach_2.jpg I would call the pipe a "drain", but is the channal in the ground carrying industrial discharge after the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Hi Dave, On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:33, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I like the proposal, Markus, but am confused by this statement: > > natural=peninsula is not intended for tagging coastal areas or coastal strips. > > What does it mean? Can you word it differently perhaps? I wasn't able to reword

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary has about a page of definitions for "ditch" and "drain", and not a hint that either of them needs to be lined. -- Mark On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 01:28:10 +0100 Sergio Manzi wrote: > I know, that's why I asked for a good one... > > On 2019-02-02 01:23,