Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 13:48, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Units.
>
> On tag info there are values with no units... they could be hours,
> minute or days.
>
> I would suggest the default unit of hours.
>
> Abbreviations?
>
> h for hours
>
> m for minutes
>
> mos for months
>

d for days

w for weeks


>
> Notations?
>
> For infinite maximum stay time;
>
> 24/7?
>
> unlimilted - ?
>
> no_limit?
>

Doubt you'd have any of those options on anything with a maxstay mentioned
(car park, rest stop / camping ground etc)?

Thanks

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

[Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

[Warin]

Nothing I could see on the wiki for this. So some guidance would be good.

Units.

On tag info there are values with no units... they could be hours, 
minute or days.


I would suggest the default unit of hours.

Abbreviations?

h for hours

m for minutes

mos for months

Notations?

For infinite maximum stay time;

24/7?

unlimilted - ?

no_limit?

I would reject the following notations;

load/unload - not a stay but an access,

long_stay (how long?)

free (? no fee?)

private (that is an access tag)

multi_day (how many?)

--
thoughts?


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

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for depth

[Warin]

On 19/02/19 14:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


The wiki has no units for depth, I would suggest these be the same as
height.


Makes sense - default as m's, but can be marked as ft depending on 
local standards


There are also problems with estimation and variability.

Some are using the tilde mark '~' to indicate 'approximately'.

Some are using '-' for between eg depth=0.5-0.7 for between 0.5
and 0.7.

Any opposition or better ideas???


Not opposition, but for tidal areas, isn't this going to have the same 
problems of whether you mark the "coastline" at the high- or low-tide 
line?


You'd probably need something along the lines of
Average_low-tide=0.8
Average_high-tide=1.9


The depth at the high tide mark would usually go from 0 to some negative 
number.  and average would be a negative number.


The depth at the low tide mark would usually go from 0 to some positive 
number. So it could be mapped depth=0-1


I would not map those. But it does raise the problem of using'-' for 
'between' if there is any negative number to be used.


Is using 'to' an acceptable method to represent 'between'?

This comes out of the river navigation problem when I looked at what 
people were doing for variable depths.

--
For tidal or seasonal etc I would only tag the expected range .. thus

Average_low-tide=0.8
Average_high-tide=1.9

would become

depth=0.8-1.9 (or 0.8to1.9)


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

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for depth

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The wiki has no units for depth, I would suggest these be the same as
> height.
>

Makes sense - default as m's, but can be marked as ft depending on local
standards


> There are also problems with estimation and variability.
>
> Some are using the tilde mark '~' to indicate 'approximately'.
>
> Some are using '-' for between eg depth=0.5-0.7 for between 0.5 and 0.7.
>
> Any opposition or better ideas???
>

Not opposition, but for tidal areas, isn't this going to have the same
problems of whether you mark the "coastline" at the high- or low-tide line?

You'd probably need something along the lines of
Average_low-tide=0.8
Average_high-tide=1.9

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers intermittently navigable

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > Only navigability is intermittent.
>
> I think Graeme is suggesting
>
> boat=intermittent
>
> motorboat=intermittent
>
> These values are not documented but make sense.
>

Sorry, yes, that is what I was suggesting, rather than the river itself is
intermittent.

Out of interest, how is the river marked on official charts in regard to
navigability?

Thanks

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

[Tagging] units and notations for depth

[Warin]

The wiki has no units for depth, I would suggest these be the same as 
height.


There are also problems with estimation and variability.

Some are using the tilde mark '~' to indicate 'approximately'.

Some are using '-' for between eg depth=0.5-0.7 for between 0.5 and 0.7.

Any opposition or better ideas???




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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers intermittently navigable

[Warin]

On 19/02/19 11:33, Fernando Trebien wrote:


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:08 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:

With a range like that, that changes so frequently, I think you're stuck with 
=intermittent, maybe with a description= to say that water depth is constantly 
varying between 0.5 & 10m? !

It is not intermittent=yes as zero depth (no water) is never reached.
Only navigability is intermittent.


I think Graeme is suggesting

boat=intermittent

motorboat=intermittent

These values are not documented but make sense.



For clarity, it doesn't change that much in a single month (so, not
that quick), but in some years a month can have mostly a shallow
depth, and in another year the same month can have near the highest
level due to unexpected heavy rain. So I cannot come to a simple
description like "it is always navigable between March and May", as in
some years it will be February to August, others only June, in others
it may be navigable in November for a week or two, etc.

For example, Jaguarão river on the border between Brazil and Uruguay
has oscillated between 147cm and 579cm last month [1][2], being safely
navigable only for a few days, with a minimum of 73cm and maximum of
786cm during the last 10 years. 147cm is barely safe for a large
vessel and the local authority does not currently call it navigable
(it looks like their minimum is 2m to allow vessels with a draft of
1.5m), but says it is navigable when the level rises.


depth=0.15-0.58 ?? Again not documented.


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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers intermittently navigable

[Fernando Trebien]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:08 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> With a range like that, that changes so frequently, I think you're stuck with 
> =intermittent, maybe with a description= to say that water depth is 
> constantly varying between 0.5 & 10m? !

It is not intermittent=yes as zero depth (no water) is never reached.
Only navigability is intermittent.

For clarity, it doesn't change that much in a single month (so, not
that quick), but in some years a month can have mostly a shallow
depth, and in another year the same month can have near the highest
level due to unexpected heavy rain. So I cannot come to a simple
description like "it is always navigable between March and May", as in
some years it will be February to August, others only June, in others
it may be navigable in November for a week or two, etc.

For example, Jaguarão river on the border between Brazil and Uruguay
has oscillated between 147cm and 579cm last month [1][2], being safely
navigable only for a few days, with a minimum of 73cm and maximum of
786cm during the last 10 years. 147cm is barely safe for a large
vessel and the local authority does not currently call it navigable
(it looks like their minimum is 2m to allow vessels with a draft of
1.5m), but says it is navigable when the level rises.

[1] Graph provided by the local authority, depth in blue measured in
cm, rainfall in yellow measured in mm: https://imgur.com/Pc2jqd4
[2] Source, in portuguese:
http://www.smad.rs.gov.br/estacoes/informacaoDaEstacao.php?codigo=8826

-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

[Tagging] Off topic - Re: Drain vs ditch

[Warin]

On 19/02/19 10:39, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:


According to a sketch in a comedy show from so long ago I can
barely remember it, the source
of the River Thames was traced to a dripping tap.  Which was
fixed and the river dried up.

I don't think it was Monty Python, though it might have been. 
Possibly one of Python's
precursors.


Seem to remember that one!

Goodies?


Going well off topic here.

It was an isolated sketch, whereas Goodies had themed episodes.  TW3, 
maybe.  Something like
that.  The only reason I don't think it was the Python's is I can't 
find it on youtube or even google.  I

was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined it.

--


Thought it might have been the Goons .. but only got
BLOODNOK: What? He's brilliant I tell you. Eccles? Did you know that the 
Thames is two hundred and eighteen miles long


ECCLES: Two hundred and eighteen miles long, ayy

BLOODNOK: And you know it's thirty yards wide

ECCLES: Thirty yards wide

BLOODNOK: You see he has the answer to both questions

SEAGOON: Ahh, you know how wide it is, you know how long it is. But! Can 
you tell me where the source is?


ECCLES: Oh I think it's on the dinner table. ha ha, you're a funny man 
Eccles ..


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> According to a sketch in a comedy show from so long ago I can barely
>> remember it, the source
>> of the River Thames was traced to a dripping tap.  Which was fixed and
>> the river dried up.
>>
>> I don't think it was Monty Python, though it might have been.  Possibly
>> one of Python's
>> precursors.
>>
>
> Seem to remember that one!
>
> Goodies?
>

Going well off topic here.

It was an isolated sketch, whereas Goodies had themed episodes.  TW3,
maybe.  Something like
that.  The only reason I don't think it was the Python's is I can't find it
on youtube or even google.  I
was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined it.

-- 
Paul


> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Drain vs ditch

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> According to a sketch in a comedy show from so long ago I can barely
> remember it, the source
> of the River Thames was traced to a dripping tap.  Which was fixed and the
> river dried up.
>
> I don't think it was Monty Python, though it might have been.  Possibly
> one of Python's
> precursors.
>

Seem to remember that one!

Goodies?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 22:50, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:

> Any river starts as a waterway=stream which is some kind of a wooden leg,
> isn't it
>

According to a sketch in a comedy show from so long ago I can barely
remember it, the source
of the River Thames was traced to a dripping tap.  Which was fixed and the
river dried up.

I don't think it was Monty Python, though it might have been.  Possibly one
of Python's
precursors.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

*a wooden head*, to be more precise )

Cheers,
Eugene

вт, 19 февр. 2019 г. в 01:48, Eugene Podshivalov :

> Any river starts as a waterway=stream which is some kind of a wooden leg,
> isn't it?
>
> Cheers,
> Eugene
>
> вт, 19 февр. 2019 г. в 01:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick :
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 06:11, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 19:50, Martin Koppenhoefer <
>>> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>


 Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 19:41 Uhr schrieb Eugene Podshivalov <
 yauge...@gmail.com>:

> There are a lot of straightened rivers and streams all over the world.
> Would it make sense to tag the straightened sections as
> canal/ditch/drain rather than river/stream?
>


 I would not generally do it, but I agree at some point you might ask
 the question if that is still a river or really a canal close to where once
 was a river...

>>>
>> I'd agree not to change rivers to canals etc unless there's been such a
>> massive, dramatic change to the waterway, that anybody seeing it for the
>> first time is going to say "Wow, what happened here"? Think Panama Canal v
>> the natural river that it followed.
>>
>> I've dealt with a few like that.  It's not clear which is the best option
>>> even at the end of a waterway,
>>> but what do you do if it's in the middle?  It's like having a wooden leg
>>> with a real foot at the end
>>> of it...
>>>
>>
>> Or swap it round to a real knee in the middle of a wooden leg!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> 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] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

Any river starts as a waterway=stream which is some kind of a wooden leg,
isn't it?

Cheers,
Eugene

вт, 19 февр. 2019 г. в 01:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick :

>
>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 06:11, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 19:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 19:41 Uhr schrieb Eugene Podshivalov <
>>> yauge...@gmail.com>:
>>>
 There are a lot of straightened rivers and streams all over the world.
 Would it make sense to tag the straightened sections as
 canal/ditch/drain rather than river/stream?

>>>
>>>
>>> I would not generally do it, but I agree at some point you might ask the
>>> question if that is still a river or really a canal close to where once was
>>> a river...
>>>
>>
> I'd agree not to change rivers to canals etc unless there's been such a
> massive, dramatic change to the waterway, that anybody seeing it for the
> first time is going to say "Wow, what happened here"? Think Panama Canal v
> the natural river that it followed.
>
> I've dealt with a few like that.  It's not clear which is the best option
>> even at the end of a waterway,
>> but what do you do if it's in the middle?  It's like having a wooden leg
>> with a real foot at the end
>> of it...
>>
>
> Or swap it round to a real knee in the middle of a wooden leg!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Drain vs ditch

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 06:11, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 19:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 19:41 Uhr schrieb Eugene Podshivalov <
>> yauge...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> There are a lot of straightened rivers and streams all over the world.
>>> Would it make sense to tag the straightened sections as
>>> canal/ditch/drain rather than river/stream?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would not generally do it, but I agree at some point you might ask the
>> question if that is still a river or really a canal close to where once was
>> a river...
>>
>
I'd agree not to change rivers to canals etc unless there's been such a
massive, dramatic change to the waterway, that anybody seeing it for the
first time is going to say "Wow, what happened here"? Think Panama Canal v
the natural river that it followed.

I've dealt with a few like that.  It's not clear which is the best option
> even at the end of a waterway,
> but what do you do if it's in the middle?  It's like having a wooden leg
> with a real foot at the end
> of it...
>

Or swap it round to a real knee in the middle of a wooden leg!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Protected Areas with multiple award

[Topographe Fou]

Hi Emanuel,

I would first consider to put them under its Wikidata page (if any) with 
property P166. Personally I would not take time to enter awards on OSM but 
would link the OSM item to a Wikidata item and fill the Wikidata item with this 
kind of property.

Moreover looking on Taginfo I can't find a tag/key for this with more than 100 
use.

Yours,

LeTopographeFou


  Message original  



De: emanuelfreitassi...@gmail.com
Envoyé: 18 février 2019 7:46 PM
À: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Objet: [Tagging] Protected Areas with multiple award


I'm unsure how to tag two awards received by a specific protected area. Should 
it be something like protection_award=award1; award2?

Thanks in advance
___
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] start_date variants

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:28 AM Richard  wrote:

> It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction -
>> often construction starts many years before the building is finshed:
>> Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain
>> are famous examples. How to tag this? Maybe: construction:start_date?
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>
> you could map what was there at any particular time but I think it is
> better to provide the link to Wikipedia. Ordinary users will ever look at
> OSM data close enough to find out this details.
>

+1 (but link to Wikidata instead of [or in addition to] Wikipedia)

Most OSM data users only care about what is located where. Very few OSM
data users would be interested in historical information such as when a
building, a basilica, or an airport began and finished its construction.
The actual people who would be interested in such information would look
elsewhere instead of OSM and I think Wikidata is an excellent place to
document such rich types of information. For example, see the Wikidata item
for the Sagrada Família: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48435
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

[Richard]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:03:01AM +0100, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I have some thoughts in the start_date tag, as I find it a bit too vague -
> meaning start of what?
> 
> Example: There is this museum, which openened in 2011, but the building is
> much older, it was built in 1725: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535
> 
> An option would be to prefix start_date with the key of the indicating tag,
> e.g. amenity:start_date would describe the start_date of the current
> amenity. So, non-prefixed start_date would apply to all other tags.

exactly.


> This seems to be quite popular anyway, but I don't know if this ever has
> been agreed upon - at least it's not documented as such:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=start_date
> 
> For the museum, which I mentioned before, I used the following tags:
> - start_date=2011
> - building:start_date=1725

another variant has been documented:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Date_namespace

> 
> Other remarks:
> 
> It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction -
> often construction starts many years before the building is finshed:
> Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain
> are famous examples. How to tag this? Maybe: construction:start_date?
> 
> Any thougths on this?

you could map what was there at any particular time but I think it is better
to provide the link to wikipedia. Ordinary users will ever look at OSM data
close enough to find out this details.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 19:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 19:41 Uhr schrieb Eugene Podshivalov <
> yauge...@gmail.com>:
>
>> There are a lot of straightened rivers and streams all over the world.
>> Would it make sense to tag the straightened sections as canal/ditch/drain
>> rather than river/stream?
>>
>
>
> I would not generally do it, but I agree at some point you might ask the
> question if that is still a river or really a canal close to where once was
> a river...
>

I've dealt with a few like that.  It's not clear which is the best option
even at the end of a waterway,
but what do you do if it's in the middle?  It's like having a wooden leg
with a real foot at the end
of it...

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 19:41 Uhr schrieb Eugene Podshivalov <
yauge...@gmail.com>:

> There are a lot of straightened rivers and streams all over the world.
> Would it make sense to tag the straightened sections as canal/ditch/drain
> rather than river/stream?
>


I would not generally do it, but I agree at some point you might ask the
question if that is still a river or really a canal close to where once was
a river...


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

[Tagging] Protected Areas with multiple award

[Emanuel Silva]

I'm unsure how to tag two awards received by a specific protected area. Should 
it be something like protection_award=award1; award2? 

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Eugene Podshivalov]

There are a lot of straightened rivers and streams all over the world.
Would it make sense to tag the straightened sections as canal/ditch/drain
rather than river/stream?

Cheers,
Eugene

пн, 11 февр. 2019 г. в 22:07, Eugene Podshivalov :

> пн, 11 февр. 2019 г. в 19:19, Hufkratzer :
>
>> This would require to deprecate "drain" and remove it from the presets,
>> otherwise we will continue to have 2 tags in the long run.  As far as I
>> know deprecating a tag is only possible if it's usage declines. Currently
>> its usage increases steadily. How do you intend to change that? What is the
>> incentive for the mapper to use "ditch" instead of "drain" from now on? I
>> am not even sure that most mappers will notice the change on the wiki
>> pages.
>
> In Belarus we have 45366 ditches and 93320 drains mapped. 90% of those
> drains are drainage ditches (used for wet land drainage) because we have
> swamps and wetlands everywhere.
> You are right saying that the usage of "drain" increases, but as you see
> from the statistics the usage is upside down because people perceive
> "drainage ditches" and "drains" as one and the same thing. So why do we
> need two tags for one and the same thing?
>
> Cheers,
> Eugene
>
>
> пн, 11 февр. 2019 г. в 19:19, Hufkratzer :
>
>> On 10.02.2019 14:57, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>>
>> [...}
>> *Variant #2*
>> Combine "ditch" and "drain" tags into one.
>> [...}
>> Personally I lean toward variant 2 [...}
>>
>>
>> This would require to deprecate "drain" and remove it from the presets,
>> otherwise we will continue to have 2 tags in the long run.  As far as I
>> know deprecating a tag is only possible if it's usage declines. Currently
>> its usage increases steadily. How do you intend to change that? What is the
>> incentive for the mapper to use "ditch" instead of "drain" from now on? I
>> am not even sure that most mappers will notice the change on the wiki pages.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Sharps / syringe disposal

[Markus]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 23:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> So, would waste=sharps be an acceptable term?

According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharps_waste),
sharps waste includes:

* Hypodermic needles
* Disposable scalpels and blades
* Contaminated glass and some plastics

Therefore we may need both waste=sharps and waste=syringes as it is
most likely not allowed to throw e.g. scalpels into boxes that are
only labelled 'syringes'.

> Would they be best tagged as a separate node of their own? [...]
>
> Sharps bins like these https://goo.gl/images/pmXf7G are frequently found in 
> public toilet blocks - would they also get a separate tag on the building, or 
> just be listed under attributes of the toilet?

I would tag outdoor syringes drop boxes (like
https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/3712579179_78e4c15daa_b.jpg) on a
separate node and indoor ones as an attribute of the toilet, perhaps
syringes_bin=yes?

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-02-18 15:58, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
>> Different tagging will not remove the non-consensus. 
>
> What consensus will it remove? Misunderstanding the meaning of a tag is not 
> consensual. Different tags allows the specifying of varying objects/attributes


(not removing) (the non consensus) !== (removing) (the consenus)

(not removing) (the non consensus) == (keeping/maintaining) (the non consensus)

logic 101...

Cheers!

Sergio





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Dave F via Tagging]

As stated previously the sidewalk tag has no legal implication. The 
question within the app needs amending to clarify that's it's the 
legality of walking along the road that's being queried, not the ease or 
dangerousness.


Cheers
DaveF

On 18/02/2019 12:05, Tobias Wrede wrote:

Am 18.02.2019 um 00:48 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. 
Sidewalk has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate 
legality.


So? I don't think this is disputed.

The reasoning here is that the absence of a sidewalk in some 
situations goes along with a foot=no signage. Think of a 
motorized-traffic only overpass. So now if StreetComplete finds a 
situation with sidewalk=no and no foot=* tagged it merely asks if that 
is a situation where the original mapper forgot to put the access=no 
on the road or not.


Tobias


___
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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 18/02/2019 08:33, Peter Elderson wrote:
Different tagging will not remove the non-consensus. 


What consensus will it remove? Misunderstanding the meaning of a tag is 
not consensual. Different tags allows the specifying of varying 
objects/attributes



Non-conflation is unrealistic.


That conflation occurs doesn't make it acceptable. Your 
misunderstanding/misuse of the 'sidewalk' tag is resolved with another tag.

(wow, 5 negs in a row, respect!)

Mvg Peter Elderson

Op 18 feb. 2019 om 01:45 heeft Dave F via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> het 
volgende geschreven:


True. Primarily because there's a false conflation of meanings, such 
as yours. That there are laws in certain countries around the world 
is irrelevant. *Within* OSM that tag has no legality implied. A 
different tag would be required to map what you suggest.


Cheers
DaveF.

On 18/02/2019 00:30, Peter Elderson wrote:
I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of 
sidewalk.
This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with 
consensus. It never ends at all.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>:


As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object.
Sidewalk
has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate
legality.

On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote:
> Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:
>> I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes
>> sense; there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.
>>
> I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the
app
> merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warrant a
foot=no
> and asks the user if that is the case.
>
> As others and I have pointed out this speculation is not so
> ill-founded for some situations (e. g. bridges, tunnels) but
overdoes
> it for the standard roads out there.
>
> Tobias W
>
>
> ___
> 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


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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 18.02.2019 um 00:48 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk 
has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality.


So? I don't think this is disputed.

The reasoning here is that the absence of a sidewalk in some situations 
goes along with a foot=no signage. Think of a motorized-traffic only 
overpass. So now if StreetComplete finds a situation with sidewalk=no 
and no foot=* tagged it merely asks if that is a situation where the 
original mapper forgot to put the access=no on the road or not.


Tobias


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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers intermittently navigable

[Fernando Trebien]

I think my problem in particular is determining when it is navigable
or not. It's like the difference between seasonal=* (predictable) and
intermittent=* (unpredictable), my case is the intermittent one.

The local authority does not publish depth information about the
rivers, but publishes vessel draft. Historic depth data from river
monitoring stations show that some are navigable most of the time, but
can become shallow any month of the year, depending on the amount of
rainfall. Over the last 10 years, records of one river reveal depths
varying from ~0.5m to ~10m, and both minimum and maximum are reached
every month (but the pattern changes year-to-year due to irregular
rain).

In contrast, the rivers that are continuously navigable, mostly
shipping routes, are actively maintained by authorities to ensure the
published draft applies at all times.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:35 PM Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
> Fernando Trebien wrote:
> > motorboat:conditional only works if the periods where the river
> > is navigable are predictable, and that usually depends on the
> > variable amount of rain on the basin.
>
> motorboat= is an access tag, so it represents whether a use class is
> permitted on that way, not whether it's possible.
>
> I'd think a variant on depth= would be most appropriate. Something like
> depth:summer=0.5-3.0 might indicate that the river depth in summer can
> typically vary between 0.5m (i.e. only a canoe at a pinch) and 3m. Defining
> "typically" is left as an exercise to the reader. :)
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Tobias Zwick]

Because this is about foot=no, not handcart=no

On February 17, 2019 11:23:46 PM GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 17. Feb 2019, at 22:39, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>> 
>> No, that tag is correct. It is not allowed to walk in the tunnel,
>> because the tunnel is still part of the street Tunisstraße, which has
>a
>> sidewalk. See StVO §25 (1)
>> https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__25.html
>
>
>Why are you ignoring StVO p.25(2)?
>
>(2) Wer zu Fuß geht und Fahrzeuge oder sperrige Gegenstände mitführt,
>muss die Fahrbahn benutzen, wenn auf dem Gehweg oder auf dem
>Seitenstreifen andere zu Fuß Gehende erheblich behindert würden. 
>
>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] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

[Peter Elderson]

Different tagging will not remove the non-consensus. Non-conflation is 
unrealistic.
(wow, 5 negs in a row, respect!)

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 18 feb. 2019 om 01:45 heeft Dave F via Tagging  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> True. Primarily because there's a false conflation of meanings, such as 
> yours. That there are laws in certain countries around the world is 
> irrelevant. *Within* OSM that tag has no legality implied. A different tag 
> would be required to map what you suggest. 
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF.  
> 
>> On 18/02/2019 00:30, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of sidewalk. 
>> This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with consensus. 
>> It never ends at all.
>> 
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> 
>> 
>> Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging 
>> :
>>> As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk 
>>> has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality.
>>> 
>>> On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote:
>>> > Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend:
>>> >> I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes 
>>> >> sense; there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly.
>>> >>
>>> > I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app 
>>> > merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe warrant a foot=no 
>>> > and asks the user if that is the case.
>>> >
>>> > As others and I have pointed out this speculation is not so 
>>> > ill-founded for some situations (e. g. bridges, tunnels) but overdoes 
>>> > it for the standard roads out there.
>>> >
>>> > Tobias W
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> > 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