Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-02-14 08:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019 um 08:19 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale 
> : 
> 
>> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The 
>> normal limits are set by the card issuer,
> 
> by the network. Most (?) cards nowadays can use several different networks, 
> some atms ask which one you want to use.

The network may have limits for fraud management purposes, but normally
it's the card issuer (bank) who sets the limits. They could actually be
set at the level of the individual card. Some issuers might allow you to
choose your own limits, within certain boundaries, so you can manage
your own exposure. 

However if the ATM cannot connect to the card issuer for whatever
reason, stand-in authorisation and limits may kick in at various levels,
or the transaction might be rejected anyway. 

Where you are offered a choice of accounts/networks to use, that
information is held on the card itself (in the chip). The chip can be
programmed with multiple "applications" and the terminal is free to
offer a choice where it is able to process more than one.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 14.02.19 08:17, Colin Smale wrote:
> Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions
> from small to large to work out the mix

That's what I see as an issue too. Something that is only verifiable if
you are a customer and can make a large number of withdrawals to test,
stretches our concept of verifiable. If I don't get a specific
denomination from the machine, or if I am set an upper limit for my
withdrawal, will another person experience the same on the next day,
when they have more money on their account and the machine has been
refilled in the mean time?

I'd say we stick to stuff that is explicitly signposted on the machine -
if the machine says what the limit is or what the network is or what
currencies it has, then map that, but don't map data gathered by
interacting with the machine.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I’m surprised to hear this about ATMs in Europe.

In Southeast Asia and in the USA, usually the ATM will only allow a certain
max withdrawal. It’s also uncommon to have more than one denomination
(though some do have 2 types).

Perhaps this tag can’t be used in all countries, but it could still be
useful in places where the ATM itself has a max withdrawal limit.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:29 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019 um 08:19 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
> colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
>
>> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The
>> normal limits are set by the card issuer,
>>
>
> by the network. Most (?) cards nowadays can use several different
> networks, some atms ask which one you want to use.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019 um 08:19 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:

> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The
> normal limits are set by the card issuer,
>

by the network. Most (?) cards nowadays can use several different networks,
some atms ask which one you want to use.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Colin Smale]

Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The
normal limits are set by the card issuer, and I can see many people
mistakenly putting their personal card limits into these tags on the
ATM. 

More relevant here would be the denomination mix. ATMs have a fixed
number of canisters (maybe 2/3/4), each of which can hold a single type
of note. Which denominations are loaded depends on historical usage
patterns. Stocking low denomination notes might be good for user
convenience, but bad for the possibility of running out of money in a
busy location. Knowing the normal mix for a particular ATM, in
particular the smallest denomination, is useful for knowing which
amounts can be dispensed, and which not.

So instead of min_withdrawal on the ATM, I would suggest
min_denomination. 

In the case of multi-currency ATMs there will need to be a
currency-specific variant, like min_denomination:EUR=20 

Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions
from small to large to work out the mix and we need to keep mappers
merging the data from their experience, and not overwriting the valid
data from a previous ATM user, while recognising that the denomination
mix can change, even according to the days of the week (weekends might
be different to weekdays in city centres). 

On 2019-02-14 07:29, OSMDoudou wrote:

> The minimum can also differ.
> 
> Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, 
> whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks will not 
> be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.
> 
> So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as options 
> on the ATM may depend on your card and your affiliation with the bank. 
> 
> This impairs verifiability on the ground of the information.
> 
> On 2/14/19, 03:45 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> The maximum may also be limited by the card provider. Need some careful words 
> on the proposal to say it is the limit of the ATM provider. 
> 
> On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Withdrawals are not the only type 
> of ATM transaction. 
> So use 
> withdraw_min=*
> withdraw_max=*
> 
> ???
> 
> The currency is set by some other tag that I forget now. That needs to be 
> mentioned in the proposal. 
> As a user .. I have no idea what the limits are. I suspect I may know the 
> lower limit, but not the upper. 
> 
> Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand  
> wrote: 
> Hello mappers,
> 
> I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these machines place 
> limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1 transaction. This can make it 
> inconvenient and expensive to withdraw money, requiring several transactions. 
> Another issue is that many machines only carry $20 notes, which forces people 
> to withdraw more or less than they actually desire. I am considering two tags 
> for use alongside 'amenity=atm':
> 
> MIN_TRANSACTION (the minimum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in one 
> transaction...typically the smallest denomination of notes in the machine)
> MAX _TRANSACTION (the maximum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in one 
> transaction)
> 
> This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to hear your input 
> and and advice. Thank you!
> 
> -Nathan ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 ___ Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Warin]

On 14/02/19 17:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 14. Feb 2019, at 07:29, OSMDoudou 
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

The minimum can also differ.

Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, 
whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks will not be 
allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.


the minimum also depends on the notes that are currently available, if the atm 
has issued all its 20 eur notes you will have 50 as a minimum (in an atm that 
has no 5 or 10 eur bank notes).


The maximum also depends on the amount of money remaining...
asking for 500 and getting 10 * 50 is fine  getting 20*20 gets very bulky 
and the machine has then run out of money...


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[Jo]

I also created a proposal, but I knew in advance it wouldn't be practical
to duplicate full GTFS functionality in OSM:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_timetables

I'm creating this proposal, which does have information about the operators
/ agencies, which we don't have yet and which would be maintainable, but I
should work some more on properly defining it:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport_agencies

Polyglot

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:24 AM santamariense  wrote:

> > The last edit on that proposals says
> >
> > 'Made this proposal abandoned and noted that it has been replaced by the
> > proposed key "departures"' So look there?
>
> Yup. I've already read all proposal and it's no too clear for me where
> departures=* and interval=* go. I've understood that they go in the
> route relation itself. Or would it be in a public_transport=timetable
> relation? If the answer is the second option, it goes in every
> bus_stop, only in the start one or all ones that have checkpoints?
>
> What are the current valid examples?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8873463 ? Would you have full
> examples to link into wiki?
>
> I feel the proposals is poorly exemplified.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Feb 2019, at 07:29, OSMDoudou 
> <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
> The minimum can also differ.
> 
> Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, 
> whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks will not 
> be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.


the minimum also depends on the notes that are currently available, if the atm 
has issued all its 20 eur notes you will have 50 as a minimum (in an atm that 
has no 5 or 10 eur bank notes).

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[OSMDoudou]

The minimum can also differ.

Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks will not be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.

So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as options on the ATM may depend on your card and your affiliation with the bank. 

This impairs verifiability on the ground of the information.

On 2/14/19, 03:45 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

  
The maximum may also be limited by the
  card provider. Need some careful words on the proposal to say it
  is the limit of the ATM provider. 
  
  
  On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:


  
  Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction. 


So use 
withdraw_min=*
withdraw_max=*

???

  The currency is set by some other tag that I forget now. That
  needs to be mentioned in the proposal. 
  As a user .. I have no idea what the limits are. I suspect I may
  know the lower limit, but not the upper. 
  
  
  

  Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
  
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand
  
  wrote:


   Hello mappers,

I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of
these machines place limits on how much can be withdrawn in
1 transaction. This can make it inconvenient and expensive
to withdraw money, requiring several transactions. Another
issue is that many machines only carry $20 notes, which
forces people to withdraw more or less than they actually
desire. I am considering two tags for use alongside
'amenity=atm':

min_transaction (the minimum amount of cash that can
be withdrawn in one transaction...typically the smallest
denomination of notes in the machine)
max _transaction (the maximum amount of cash that can
be withdrawn in one transaction)

This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to
hear your input and and advice. Thank you!

-Nathan
  
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

  
  
  
  
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




  
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[santamariense]

> The last edit on that proposals says
>
> 'Made this proposal abandoned and noted that it has been replaced by the
> proposed key "departures"' So look there?

Yup. I've already read all proposal and it's no too clear for me where
departures=* and interval=* go. I've understood that they go in the
route relation itself. Or would it be in a public_transport=timetable
relation? If the answer is the second option, it goes in every
bus_stop, only in the start one or all ones that have checkpoints?

What are the current valid examples?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8873463 ? Would you have full
examples to link into wiki?

I feel the proposals is poorly exemplified.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Nathan Wyand]

So I think I'm on board with using withdraw/withdrawal as opposed to 
transaction. The reason I formatted it as 'max_???' and 'min_???' is 
because there are already two tags in use with that ordering.


I would also be sure to clarify that the limits are imposed by the ATM 
provider and not the card provider.


Putting '$20' in my initial message was just for example, and the value 
should always be a plain integer.


On 02/13/2019 09:45 PM, Warin wrote:
The maximum may also be limited by the card provider. Need some 
careful words on the proposal to say it is the limit of the ATM provider.



On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction.


So use
withdraw_min=*
withdraw_max=/*

???

/The currency is set by some other tag that I forget now. That needs 
to be mentioned in the proposal.
As a user .. I have no idea what the limits are. I suspect I may know 
the lower limit, but not the upper.



//


Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand 
mailto:propaga...@nathanwyand.com>> wrote:


Hello mappers,

I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these
machines place limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1
transaction. This can make it inconvenient and expensive to
withdraw money, requiring several transactions. Another issue is
that many machines only carry $20 notes, which forces people to
withdraw more or less than they actually desire. I am considering
two tags for use alongside 'amenity=atm':

*min_transaction* (the minimum amount of cash that can be
withdrawn in one transaction...typically the smallest
denomination of notes in the machine)
*max _transaction* (the maximum amount of cash that can be
withdrawn in one transaction)

This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to hear
your input and and advice. Thank you!

-Nathan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Warin]

The maximum may also be limited by the card provider. Need some careful 
words on the proposal to say it is the limit of the ATM provider.



On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction.


So use
withdraw_min=*
withdraw_max=/*

???

/The currency is set by some other tag that I forget now. That needs to 
be mentioned in the proposal.
As a user .. I have no idea what the limits are. I suspect I may know 
the lower limit, but not the upper.



//


Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand 
mailto:propaga...@nathanwyand.com>> wrote:


Hello mappers,

I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these
machines place limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1
transaction. This can make it inconvenient and expensive to
withdraw money, requiring several transactions. Another issue is
that many machines only carry $20 notes, which forces people to
withdraw more or less than they actually desire. I am considering
two tags for use alongside 'amenity=atm':

*min_transaction* (the minimum amount of cash that can be
withdrawn in one transaction...typically the smallest denomination
of notes in the machine)
*max _transaction* (the maximum amount of cash that can be
withdrawn in one transaction)

This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to hear
your input and and advice. Thank you!

-Nathan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction.

Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer?
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand 
wrote:

> Hello mappers,
>
> I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these machines
> place limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1 transaction. This can make
> it inconvenient and expensive to withdraw money, requiring several
> transactions. Another issue is that many machines only carry $20 notes,
> which forces people to withdraw more or less than they actually desire. I
> am considering two tags for use alongside 'amenity=atm':
>
> *min_transaction* (the minimum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in
> one transaction...typically the smallest denomination of notes in the
> machine)
> *max _transaction* (the maximum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in
> one transaction)
>
> This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to hear your input
> and and advice. Thank you!
>
> -Nathan
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Nathan Wyand]

Hello mappers,

I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these machines 
place limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1 transaction. This can 
make it inconvenient and expensive to withdraw money, requiring several 
transactions. Another issue is that many machines only carry $20 notes, 
which forces people to withdraw more or less than they actually desire. 
I am considering two tags for use alongside 'amenity=atm':


*min_transaction* (the minimum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in 
one transaction...typically the smallest denomination of notes in the 
machine)
*max _transaction* (the maximum amount of cash that can be withdrawn in 
one transaction)


This is my first time proposing a tag, and I would love to hear your 
input and and advice. Thank you!


-Nathan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[Warin]

On 14/02/19 11:05, santamariense wrote:

Why did you abandon this proposal
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Timetable_relations)?
It seems to have never been voted. And, I support it.



The last edit on that proposals says

'Made this proposal abandoned and noted that it has been replaced by the 
proposed key "departures"' So look there?




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[santamariense]

Why did you abandon this proposal
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Timetable_relations)?
It seems to have never been voted. And, I support it.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Dave Swarthout]

>So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked)
channel, then it also gets seamark:type
=fairway
.

>Does that work?

Yes, indeed. That would work very well IMO.

As Kevin pointed out, I have used route=canoe in a relation but without
adding a tag to the ways, most maps either cannot, or choose not to, render
them so you're left with footways that end on both sides of a lake (the
portages) with no connection between them. Solving this problem is the
reason I made my suggestion.

Dave

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:45 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot
>> see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
>> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
>> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
>> should be removed.
>>
>> I've updated the wiki, please have a look and let me know if you
>> disagree. [1]
>>
>> > but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as
>> well.
>>
>> From the definition of waterway=fairway, it can be used for the
>> members of canoe routes as long as they are artificial and marked by
>> buoys. I expect this to be rare though.
>>
>
> I'd suggest a slight change of wording to clarify it even further:
>
> "A navigable route in a lake or sea. If the navigable area is marked by
> buoys or navigation markers, it should also be mapped with seamark:type
> =fairway
> ."
>
> So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked)
> channel, then it also gets seamark:type
> =fairway
> .
>
> Does that work?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >
> > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot
> see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
> should be removed.
>
> I've updated the wiki, please have a look and let me know if you disagree.
> [1]
>
> > but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as
> well.
>
> From the definition of waterway=fairway, it can be used for the
> members of canoe routes as long as they are artificial and marked by
> buoys. I expect this to be rare though.
>

I'd suggest a slight change of wording to clarify it even further:

"A navigable route in a lake or sea. If the navigable area is marked by
buoys or navigation markers, it should also be mapped with seamark:type
=fairway
."

So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked)
channel, then it also gets seamark:type
=fairway
.

Does that work?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Fernando Trebien]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see how 
> anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or 
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a 
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note 
> should be removed.

I've updated the wiki, please have a look and let me know if you disagree. [1]

> I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway

Well, the wiki says it is "de facto," I think it means it is already accepted.

> but I also hope we can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well.

From the definition of waterway=fairway, it can be used for the
members of canoe routes as long as they are artificial and marked by
buoys. I expect this to be rare though.

The definition of route=canoe says it should be used only in
relations, but I think it may be comparable to route=ferry, which is
allowed both in relations and in ways (I believe this is to make
rendering ferry routes easier). It seems that specialized maps already
render route=canoe relations [2].

Regards,

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AGeneric%3AMap_Features%3Awaterway&type=revision&diff=1790679&oldid=1787712
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dcanoe#Rendering

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[Leif Rasmussen]

Hi,
Thanks for bringing up this discussion again! I have now opened up the
departures tag proposal for voting, so please feel free to vote on the
proposal if you would like. I had been tweaking it for a while, and it
seems ready now.
Thanks again,
Leif Rasmussen

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 4:54 PM Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> Jo, Leif,
>
> My sincerest apologies.
>
> I couldn't find a request to vote on this list's archives. Must have
> overlooked it.
>
> Tijmen
>
> On 11-02-19 22:51, Jo wrote:
> > The proposal was voted upon.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 PM Tijmen Stam  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 31-10-18 00:54, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> >  > Hello everyone!
> >  > I recently wrote up a proposal page for public transport schedule
> > data.
> >  > This information would allow OpenStreetMap to store information
> > about
> >  > when or how often certain buses or trains arrive at a platform.
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules
> >  >
> >  > Please feel free to look over the page and give feedback.  I am
> very
> >  > open to changing the proposal, so let me know if you have any
> > ideas for
> >  > improvements to it.
> >  > Thanks,
> >  > Leif Rasmussen
> >
> > On January 3rd this year, Leif added the "Interval" and "duration"
> tags
> > to the wiki for bus route:
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aroute%3Dbus&type=revision&diff=1767271&oldid=1684316
> >
> > I have sideways followed this discussion, but I had the idea there
> was
> > widespread opposition for having any timetable info added to OSM.
> >
> > I don't think we should have this on the wiki without proper proposal
> > voting - or did I miss something?
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:55 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> usually you would try to go in a straight line though, unless there are other 
> factors like scenic highlights or currents, that seem worth the detour.
> I’m not opposing marking these with additional tags, but I would not expect 
> them to have fundamentally different tagging. Let’s keep it simple. This is 
> no different to a walking route crossing a square.


Ordinarily, a walking route will not have a way without other tags,
and in general we handle the issue by continuing a footway or crossing
across the square.

We don't have *any* way in common use to tag the water portion of a
canoe route. 'route=canoe' on the relation leaves an untagged way, and
a lot of rendering chains discard untagged ways early once they've
extracted the ones that are members of multipolygons.

I'm fine with 'fairway' - it's a recognized tag, in use, and the
proposed interpretation is a logical extension to its meaning.
Requiring 'fairway' to be an area makes sense in the 'big vessel and
developed harbour' case, where fairways have defined and charted
bounds: 'thou shalt not sail outside this polygon.' But pleasure-boat
ways and canoe routes are both much less formal, and to me it makes
sense to have a way marking the centre line of an indefinite fairway.

I know that it goes against the Wiki, but the Wiki is definitely
tilted toward the 'developed harbour and big vessel' case - its
language is clearly an attempt to mirror the IHO S100 standard. What
Dave wants to map are waterways far too small to get the attention of
the International Organization for Hydrography.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Feb 2019, at 12:05, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> Certainly, the portion of a canoe trail that crosses a lake or pond is 
> indefinite.


usually you would try to go in a straight line though, unless there are other 
factors like scenic highlights or currents, that seem worth the detour.
I’m not opposing marking these with additional tags, but I would not expect 
them to have fundamentally different tagging. Let’s keep it simple. This is no 
different to a walking route crossing a square.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

[Dave Swarthout]

Certainly, the portion of a canoe trail that crosses a lake or pond is
indefinite. I assume also that any part that travels along a river would
tend to follow its centerline. Such portions of a route can also be tagged
as indefinite=yes but what do people think about the canoe route as
waterway=fairway idea?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:12 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:49 AM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >
> > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot
> see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
> response will be forthcoming. Regardless, I agree that the conflict note
> should be removed.
> >
> > I would love to see the tag waterway=fairway accepted but I also hope we
> can somehow make it applicable to canoe routes as well. A canoe route is
> not as well defined as a shipping channel, for example, but it does have a
> preferred path and well-defined put-in and take-out points. It does not,
> however, typically have marker buoys or lights. If we removed that
> requirement or made it optional, that would save a lot of energy in trying
> to get a modification approved later. So, instead of saying: " A navigable
> route in a lake or sea marked by buoys", it might say, "A navigable route
> in a lake or sea usually marked by buoys. In the case of a fairway
> describing a canoe route, there would typically be no buoys."
> >
> > Opinions? I think the fairway tag fits so well it might be appropriated
> for use on such routes anyway.
>
> We recently were also discussing the idea of having an
> 'indefinite=yes' tag to mark the indefiniite portion of the closed set
> of ways that encloses a peninsula, isthmus, bay, strait, or similar
> form.  Is the on-water portion of a canoe route an indefinite way?  (I
> would imagine that portages are usually quite definite, but I've
> carried on a few where the mud was only slightly too thick to pole or
> paddle through.)
>
> It appears that the nearest thing on the seamark schema is
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Leading_Lines - and it
> states specifically that the centreline of a fairway should not be
> mapped.  In the nautical world, there are usually well-defined and
> charted limits of safe navigation, so that a fairway will be bounded
> by clearing lines. In the canoe world, it is for the boatman to decide
> where safe water is at the lake's current height or the river's
> current rate of flow.
>
> I'd imagine that a canoe route that follows a river would ordinarily
> share the river "centerline" or Thalweg with the 'river' object,
> except for where it comes ashore to portage or is plotted in a
> specific track around obstacles. On a paddle-and-portage from lake to
> lake, the waterway portions are quite indefinite indeed!
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

[Stephan Bösch-Plepelits]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:25:22AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > On 13. Feb 2019, at 05:26, John Willis via Tagging 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > I tagged it as a waste transfer station & power generator  (for 
> > consistency), but I feel this is an error. 
> 
> if there isnt a power generator you should not tag it like one. Maybe we 
> don’t have a common tag yet, you could tag it with man_made=incinerator 
> (there are already 8 of them and it seems a perfect fit)
> 
Sounds good!

I just added man_made=incincerator and power=generator,
generator:source=waste to the Category "Disposal" in OpenStreetBrowser.
Hope this is helpful!

=> https://www.openstreetbrowser.org/#categories=waste

greetings,
Stephan
-- 
Seid unbequem, seid Sand, nicht Öl im Getriebe der Welt! - Günther Eich
,--.
| Stephan Bösch-Plepelits  ❤ code ❤ urbanism ❤ free software ❤ cycling |
| Projects:|
| > OpenStreetMap: openstreetbrowser.org > openstreetmap.at|
| > Urbanism: Radlobby Wien|
| Contact: |
| > Mail: sk...@xover.mud.at > Blog: plepe.at > Code: github.com/plepe |
| > Twitter: twitter.com/plepe > Jabber: sk...@jabber.at   |
| > Mastodon: @pl...@en.osm.town   |
`--'


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

[Warin]

On 13/02/19 20:16, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> tag it with man_made=incinerator

+1


+ another 1

Use the description key if you think there should be any explanation 
e.g. description= waste incinerator


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:27 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




sent from a phone

> On 13. Feb 2019, at 05:26, John Willis via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
> I tagged it as a waste transfer station & power generator  (for
consistency), but I feel this is an error.


if there isnt a power generator you should not tag it like one.
Maybe we don’t have a common tag yet, you could tag it with
man_made=incinerator (there are already 8 of them and it seems a
perfect fit)

man_made=works does not apply as it is not a production plant.


Cheers, Martin



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> tag it with man_made=incinerator

+1
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:27 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 13. Feb 2019, at 05:26, John Willis via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > I tagged it as a waste transfer station & power generator  (for
> consistency), but I feel this is an error.
>
>
> if there isnt a power generator you should not tag it like one. Maybe we
> don’t have a common tag yet, you could tag it with man_made=incinerator
> (there are already 8 of them and it seems a perfect fit)
>
> man_made=works does not apply as it is not a production plant.
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging