Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school- alternative landuse=educational

[Warin]

On 05/04/19 07:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 4. Apr 2019, at 22:07, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

landuse is usually seen as a property about the use of land, this proposal uses 
it as a fe

feature to represent a named object of several schools. If I split the landuse 
in 2, will I get 2 campuses which happen to have the same name, or one 
distributed in 2 pieces?

With an explicit modeling (e.g. site or group) you can answer this question 
unambiguously.

In any case it would seem desirable to be explicit about the extent of every 
school so an area representation is better than just nodes, and as this will 
provide you with all the grounds covered at least once, adding another explicit 
polygon would seem redundant.
If you use just nodes for the schools you will not see the difference between a 
small school inside the campus of a big school and 2 similar sized schools 
which share the same grounds (for example).



Some schools share land with kindergartens, colleges etc. It may be difficult 
for the mapper to determine which facilities are exclusive and which shared.
 
Some educational places are for 'outdoor eduction' and located in the countryside.


e.g. https://www.joeys.org/outdoor-education/colo/


So I think a more expansive tag would be better - hence landuse=educational



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Apr 2019, at 22:07, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> landuse is usually seen as a property about the use of land, this proposal 
> uses it as a fe
feature to represent a named object of several schools. If I split the landuse 
in 2, will I get 2 campuses which happen to have the same name, or one 
distributed in 2 pieces?

With an explicit modeling (e.g. site or group) you can answer this question 
unambiguously.

In any case it would seem desirable to be explicit about the extent of every 
school so an area representation is better than just nodes, and as this will 
provide you with all the grounds covered at least once, adding another explicit 
polygon would seem redundant.
If you use just nodes for the schools you will not see the difference between a 
small school inside the campus of a big school and 2 similar sized schools 
which share the same grounds (for example).

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 4. Apr 2019, at 16:11, Jeroen Hoek  wrote:

>> Introducing yet another special landuse is just more confusing and it
>> does not fix a single issue.
> 
> It fixes the issue documented by the original proposal, extended with
> the issue I've described (higher education institutes sharing a campus).


landuse is usually seen as a property about the use of land, this proposal uses 
it as a fe
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Apr 2019, at 16:01, Jeroen Hoek  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't that leave only the collective schools' relation with a
> searchable name, rather than a named area rendered on maps that support it?


on maps you have the overlapping areas of the schools.


Cheers, Martin


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Jeroen,

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:11:19PM +0200, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> On 04-04-19 15:41, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Schools have forever been landuse=residential as schools belong to 
> > residential areas.
> 
> This is not always the case, especially in cases where schools share a
> common campus.

No - Amenity and landuse intermix - Basically for me an amenity is
always within a landuse. A landuse is a more general distinction
of rough land usage whereas amenity is a concrete thing.

Shifting an amenity into landuses confuses these two object classes, a rough
classification of land usage, and a very distinct thing.

> This proposal also co-opts existing tags rather than creating new one.
> Does that assuage your concern for landuse=confusion?

I still stand by my opposition.

And while looking through the wiki history of
landuse/landuse=residential and amenity=school i found this:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:residential%3Duniversity

Which is another issue like this.

I'd like to have a very clear hierarchy in which objects exist which
makes validation a lot easier.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 04-04-19 15:41, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Schools have forever been landuse=residential as schools belong to 
> residential areas.

This is not always the case, especially in cases where schools share a
common campus.

> Introducing yet another special landuse is just more confusing and it
> does not fix a single issue.

It fixes the issue documented by the original proposal, extended with
the issue I've described (higher education institutes sharing a campus).

> When schools share campus make it a large amenity=school area
> without any name and amenity=school + name nodes for the schools.

But the area itself is often named, and signposted as such (see the
French example in the OP mail).

To be clear: most mappers won't have to use these tags. They are implied
for the common case of one school, one school grounds. This is similar
to how amenity=place_of_worship/landuse=religuous works.

This proposal also co-opts existing tags rather than creating new one.
Does that assuage your concern for landuse=confusion?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 04-04-19 15:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> for the shared name of several schools I would suggest the group
> relation. Just add the schools as members and add the shared name to
> the relation.

Wouldn't that leave only the collective schools' relation with a
searchable name, rather than a named area rendered on maps that support it?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Apr 2019, at 15:50, Jeroen Hoek  wrote:
> 
> This doesn't solve the common case of the shared campus or location
> having a shared name, as in the French example I've linked to


for the shared name of several schools I would suggest the group relation. Just 
add the schools as members and add the shared name to the relation.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Apr 2019, at 15:41, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Schools have forever been landuse=residential as schools belong to 
> residential areas.


schools never have been residential landuse, although some people add them 
there, just like they add other things to residential landuse, like churches, 
hospitals, museums, shops, streets and everything (some people see residential 
as the catchall for builtup landuse).

Residential landuse requires someone living there, which is not the case for 
normal schools

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 04-04-19 13:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> why not overlap the amenity=school (one for each school, including the
> grounds)? This allows to show that it is a common campus, while
> otherwise you only associate the buildings with the school and make no
> statement about the campus, other than it is used by some (undefined)
> school. It also leads to better results in search (shows the whole
> school area), without any modification of the existing system. You could
> exclude those buildings from the area which are not part of the specific
> school.

This doesn't solve the common case of the shared campus or location
having a shared name, as in the French example I've linked to. A common
case in my experience; I have a named campus in my hometown that houses
a university, a college, and a research institute — each a distinct
organisation. The campus name is used in signage.

The association of school with campus can be deduced from the amenity
point/way lying inside the landuse area. This is the same as
amenity=place_of_worship inside a landuse=religuous.

I think the school amenity may also be linked to its grounds via a
relation, but that would go beyond the scope of this proposal.

Overlapping amenity areas also seem to go against the grain of most OSM
tagging solutions.

> landuse=school also conflicts with situations where a school is inside
> an administration (or other) building, but these may be few.

In these cases the current situation remains: using a node (or a way for
part of a building) for the amenity. The landuse for such a place might
eventually be one of those proposed in the landuse=civic proposal. I
think this is mostly an edge case though.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:55:36AM +0200, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> # Background
> 
> When tagging a school, as per the current documentation, ideally the
> amenity=school tag is applied to the school grounds, implying its
> landuse. This works fine for single schools that have their own
> building, on their own grounds.

I oppose this proposal.

Schools have forever been landuse=residential as schools belong to 
residential areas.

Introducing yet another special landuse is just more confusing and it
does not fix a single issue.

When schools share campus make it a large amenity=school area
without any name and amenity=school + name nodes for the schools.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 4. Apr. 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Jeroen Hoek :

> However, in many countries schools can share a common campus. To
> facilitate mapping these, the landuse=school proposal was drafted:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dschool
>
> This allows the mapper to tag the shared grounds as landuse=school, and
> place the separate schools as nodes or buildings tagged with
> amenity=school within.




why not overlap the amenity=school (one for each school, including the
grounds)? This allows to show that it is a common campus, while otherwise
you only associate the buildings with the school and make no statement
about the campus, other than it is used by some (undefined) school. It also
leads to better results in search (shows the whole school area), without
any modification of the existing system. You could exclude those buildings
from the area which are not part of the specific school.

landuse=school also conflicts with situations where a school is inside an
administration (or other) building, but these may be few.

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

Re: [Tagging] What's the default `access` value? | Re: amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 4. Apr. 2019 um 10:53 Uhr schrieb Rory McCann :

> I don't think there can be a default *for all types of PoW*.
> ...
> I think data consumers need to use their heads. ... If you're making a
> site to show tourist-y places in
> a city, don't include `amenity=place_of_worship` with
> `access=adherent(s)/no/private`, and if there's no `access` tag, then
> look at the other tags/location and make an educated guess. If you're
> making a "Find my local Catholic Church" app, then include
> `access=adherents` or a missing `access` tag on a catholic church.




exactly, well said!

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

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 4. Apr. 2019 um 08:39 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> Yes, but this tag is neither new nor basically unused (maybe "popular"
> would be be better
> than "used" in my sentence)
>



you are right, my bad, this is apparently a case of an organic tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

[Jyri-Petteri Paloposki]

On 3.4.2019 19.40, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Despite the feedback that maxspeed:conditional would be better suited
> for this use case, this key has now been documented on the wiki:
> https://wiki.osm.org/Key:maxspeed:seasonal:winter
> 
> I find that rather disappointing because the key is a poor fit with
> several existing conventions. Even if we keep "winter" in the key, the
> ":seasonal" should definitely be dropped. After all, we use
> maxspeed:forward (not maxspeed:directional:forward) and maxspeed:hgv
> (not maxspeed:vehicular:hgv).
> 
> Conditional restrictions still strike me as the best solution, though,
> and there are a few hundred examples in the database already.

The feedback was quite limited and you or anyone else expressed no
definite stance against documenting the current practice. As the use
case currently has no documented solutions, I considered it appropriate
to document at least the most common one. This is considering there was
no clear opposition for documenting it, although some alternatives were
suggested. We have also discussed this on #osm-fi@freenode and I
considered also that input in the decision to write the documentation.

Points raised raised in the discussions on #osm-fi@freenode were that

a) the winter speed limit is a relatively long-term condition, being
applied up to half of the year,

b) having this kind of long-term condition applied in the same scheme as
short-term conditions may make it more difficult to apply and understand
ways that have both a winter speed limit and other conditional speed limits,

c) many users also thought that the conditional scheme overall is
difficult for data consumers to use, and unlike short-term conditions,
it's important that the winter speed limit is easy to parse and use to
make sure the data is accurate at least most of the whole year.

I think it's most important that we at least have one scheme documented,
otherwise people won't create the tag at all. maxspeed:seasonal:winter
is the only one that is IMO used enough to warrant documentation without
proposal, and therefore I decided to document it based on the input.

Best regards,
-- 
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

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

Re: [Tagging] What's the default `access` value? | Re: amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/04/2019 09:52, Rory McCann wrote:


So what's the default `access` for `amenity=place_of_worship`?

I don't think there can be a default *for all types of PoW*.

Spot on - and actually that applies to plenty of other things within OSM 
too (for example - highway=track).  Anyone consuming OSM (or in fact any 
other) data needs to sanity check it themselves based on all sorts of 
other info (including where it is).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 04-04-19 11:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> Apr 4, 2019, 9:55 AM by m...@jeroenhoek.nl:
> 
> Then, landuse=school (~5000 in use)
> 
> Note that about 80% of landuse=school was added by automatic edits:
> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/47250831-3d2e6b00-d429-11e8-9aef-1ba334ebecaa.png
> spikes indicate that it was added by mechanical edit or import
> 
> 74% of landuse=school objects have amenity=school anyway -
> (checked with http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/HFl and
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=school#overview )
> 
> --
> speculation below
> --
> 
> It looks to me that it is likely that someone though that all areas
> needs to be covered by one
> of landuse=* values and added duplicated tags to amenity=school areas.

Agreed. This means the number of uses I've quoted are mostly incorrect
(or more specifically: redundant) uses of this tag.

I still think the proposal (my version and the original one) is valid,
but for the sake of discussion the numbers I quoted should not be
exclusively taken as landuse=school and landuse=education in use for the
proposed problem; i.e., multiple educational amenities sharing a campus.

Combining landuse=school with amenity=school is not wrong, just
redundant if we consider school grounds tagged with amenity=school to
imply that type of landuse (which both proposals do). It think that
combination should be discouraged (as the wiki does) and might even be a
candidate for automatic merging.

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

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 07:39, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

Yes, but this tag is neither new nor basically unused (maybe "popular"
> would be be better
> than "used" in my sentence)
>

De facto?

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

Re: [Tagging] What's the default `access` value? | Re: amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 4, 2019, 10:52 AM by r...@technomancy.org:

> So what's the default `access` for `amenity=place_of_worship`?
>
> I don't think there can be a default *for all types of PoW*.
>
>  * `access=permissive` is the default for Catholic church facilities in
> Ireland, but `access=private` for Catholic friaries & monasteries.
>
>  * `access=adherent(s)` for some Muslim facilities in Morocco (right?)
>
According to materials that I remember checking of all mosques in
Morocco only Hassan II Mosque and Tin Mal Mosque are
open for non-Muslims.

>
>  * `access=permissive` for Mormon genealogy facilities, but
> `access=adherent(s)` to the Mormon temple facility (right?)
>
> I think data consumers need to use their heads. If you're making a
> cycling routing engine, use a default `bicycle=no` for
> `highway=motorway`. If you're making a site to show tourist-y places in
> a city, don't include `amenity=place_of_worship` with
> `access=adherent(s)/no/private`, and if there's no `access` tag, then
> look at the other tags/location and make an educated guess. If you're
> making a "Find my local Catholic Church" app, then include
> `access=adherents` or a missing `access` tag on a catholic church.
>
I agree, though tagging some (even obvious for locals) access info may
be helpful.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 4, 2019, 9:55 AM by m...@jeroenhoek.nl:

> Then, landuse=school (~5000 in use) 
>
Note that about 80% of landuse=school was added by automatic edits:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/47250831-3d2e6b00-d429-11e8-9aef-1ba334ebecaa.png
 

spikes indicate that it was added by mechanical edit or import

74% of landuse=school objects have amenity=school anyway - 
(checked with http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/HFl  
and 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=school#overview 
 )

--
speculation below
--

It looks to me that it is likely that someone though that all areas needs to be 
covered by one
of landuse=* values and added duplicated tags to amenity=school areas.

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

[Tagging] What's the default `access` value? | Re: amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Rory McCann]

On 04/04/2019 00:14, marc marc wrote:

Le 04.04.19 à 00:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

There are such restrictions in some places and we should map them,
if we know it well, or not add or modify them if we’re unsure or unacquainted.


but we don't map the legislation, isn't it ?
or next step is adding access=private on all houses and
access=permissive on all shop ?
a default value per religion/country look like a better idea


What is the default value of the `access` tag?

The default value of the `oneway` tag on `highway` is `oneway=no`. But I
don't think `access` has a default value *for all OSM objects*. For
`highway=primary`, the default is `access=yes`. For `shop=supermarket`,
the default is `access=permissive`. We don't add `access=yes` to roads,
so we shouldn't add `access=permissive` to supermarkets.

So what's the default `access` for `amenity=place_of_worship`?

I don't think there can be a default *for all types of PoW*.

 * `access=permissive` is the default for Catholic church facilities in
Ireland, but `access=private` for Catholic friaries & monasteries.

 * `access=adherent(s)` for some Muslim facilities in Morocco (right?)

 * `access=permissive` for Mormon genealogy facilities, but
`access=adherent(s)` to the Mormon temple facility (right?)

I think data consumers need to use their heads. If you're making a
cycling routing engine, use a default `bicycle=no` for
`highway=motorway`. If you're making a site to show tourist-y places in
a city, don't include `amenity=place_of_worship` with
`access=adherent(s)/no/private`, and if there's no `access` tag, then
look at the other tags/location and make an educated guess. If you're
making a "Find my local Catholic Church" app, then include
`access=adherents` or a missing `access` tag on a catholic church.


Rory


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Tony Shield]

Hi

Like that. Similar issues in UK.

TonyS999

On 04/04/2019 08:55, Jeroen Hoek wrote:

# Background

When tagging a school, as per the current documentation, ideally the
amenity=school tag is applied to the school grounds, implying its
landuse. This works fine for single schools that have their own
building, on their own grounds.

However, in many countries schools can share a common campus. To
facilitate mapping these, the landuse=school proposal was drafted:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dschool

This allows the mapper to tag the shared grounds as landuse=school, and
place the separate schools as nodes or buildings tagged with
amenity=school within.


This approach appears to be used quite a lot in France. One example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/619185410

As you can see, Carto-OSM refuses to render landuse=school for now:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3381.--


The French OpenStreetMap rendering meanwhile does render it:

https://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?layers=BFF=18=48.94156=2.36763


Effectively, this means French mappers utilize landuse=school, while the
rest won't for lack of documentation and progress on the proposal.


# Proposal

I've encountered a number of cases where multiple institutions related
to education share a single campus or area. I'm missing a suitable tag
for shared grounds or campuses (which often have their own name).

A common example that is gaining popularity in the Netherlands is having
amenity=kindergarten and amenity=school share a building and grounds.

Another example is amenity=university sharing a campus with
amenity=college and amenity=research_institute. All distinct educational
entities on a single named campus.

For the former example landuse=school seems suitable, but for the latter
a more generic landuse seems desirable.

What I want to propose is a landuse=education that can be taken as the
most generic form of landuse for educational purposes. This tag is
already in use (~500). Here, landuse=education will be similar to how
landuse=religious is used for grounds that house multiple
amenity=place_of_worship. It can be used for a range for educational
amenities, such as school, college, and university.

Then, landuse=school (~5000 in use) can be seen as a more specific form
of landuse=education.

Would such a proposal help move this issue forward? Anything that is
missing or glaringly wrong? I'll write up the proposal (subsuming the
current landuse=school proposal) and documentation if there is enough
support for this.

Kind regards,

Jeroen Hoek

___
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] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

[Jeroen Hoek]

# Background

When tagging a school, as per the current documentation, ideally the
amenity=school tag is applied to the school grounds, implying its
landuse. This works fine for single schools that have their own
building, on their own grounds.

However, in many countries schools can share a common campus. To
facilitate mapping these, the landuse=school proposal was drafted:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dschool

This allows the mapper to tag the shared grounds as landuse=school, and
place the separate schools as nodes or buildings tagged with
amenity=school within.


This approach appears to be used quite a lot in France. One example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/619185410

As you can see, Carto-OSM refuses to render landuse=school for now:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3381.--


The French OpenStreetMap rendering meanwhile does render it:

https://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?layers=BFF=18=48.94156=2.36763


Effectively, this means French mappers utilize landuse=school, while the
rest won't for lack of documentation and progress on the proposal.


# Proposal

I've encountered a number of cases where multiple institutions related
to education share a single campus or area. I'm missing a suitable tag
for shared grounds or campuses (which often have their own name).

A common example that is gaining popularity in the Netherlands is having
amenity=kindergarten and amenity=school share a building and grounds.

Another example is amenity=university sharing a campus with
amenity=college and amenity=research_institute. All distinct educational
entities on a single named campus.

For the former example landuse=school seems suitable, but for the latter
a more generic landuse seems desirable.

What I want to propose is a landuse=education that can be taken as the
most generic form of landuse for educational purposes. This tag is
already in use (~500). Here, landuse=education will be similar to how
landuse=religious is used for grounds that house multiple
amenity=place_of_worship. It can be used for a range for educational
amenities, such as school, college, and university.

Then, landuse=school (~5000 in use) can be seen as a more specific form
of landuse=education.

Would such a proposal help move this issue forward? Anything that is
missing or glaringly wrong? I'll write up the proposal (subsuming the
current landuse=school proposal) and documentation if there is enough
support for this.

Kind regards,

Jeroen Hoek

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

Re: [Tagging] Horse mounting steps compared to horse walker

[Warin]

On 04/04/19 06:51, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 19:47 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 19:23, Tony Shield > wrote:


and have confidence that this historic grade II mounting block will 
fit into the schema? Its not presently in use as it is in a school yard.




I don't know about the schema, but whatever tags you settle on, don't 
forget to add:


heritage=2
heritage:operator=he
ref:he=184432


This evening I spotted this one, which I captured nearly 4 years ago.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ka6holLFNWJ_hUxljMxr1A




Handy for the resident to load/unload the roof rack.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does recycling:waste=yes/no mean?

[bkil]

That's another take on the question, although I don't think that
mappers have given so much deep thought into this. It might be helpful
to check the geographical distribution of this value to be sure,
though.

From a user perspective, I only need to decide where to throw out a
given item of trash, choosing from documented categories like glass,
plastic and "everything else". I am not expected to know where it ends
up. There is no separate compartment for plastics that go into either
toys, furniture or fuel via gasification.

I also imagine that all waste in a given city or county should be
routed to the same waste processing plant, hence one would think all
waste baskets should be retagged there to recycling, which seems to
defeat the purpose. Tourists may also not expect such local customs to
be different, looking for waste_baskets, only to find none.

In Hungarian, the two words "recycling" and "burning" have no
connection whatsoever between them, and people would definitely not
connect the two concepts around here in any case. Here is the
beginning of the Wikipedia definition of recycling:

"Recycling is the process of converting waste materials into new
materials and objects. It is an alternative to "conventional" waste
disposal that can save material and help lower greenhouse gas
emissions. Recycling can prevent the waste of potentially useful
materials and reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, thereby
reducing: energy usage, air pollution (from incineration), and water
pollution (from landfilling)."

While you might argue that you could create biogas from some (to be
burned anyway), I feel that to be a stretch.

Anyway, if this was really a thing (a notable thing), I'd definitely
introduce a new tag for that as well (recycling:gasifiable_waste
sounds awkward).

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:27 AM marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 02.04.19 à 20:16, bkil a écrit :
> > "General waste container (black bags) (don't use this if the waste is
> > not recycled, use a tag like amenity=waste_disposal or
> > amenity=waste_basket instead)"
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling
>
> I see 2 explanations:
>
> - greenwhasing: the sentence "incineration with recovery of a tiny part
> of the grey energy in the form of heat" is greenwhased into "recycling",
> suggesting that it is a good action to burn a lot of waste.
>
> - in some countries waste is landfilled or incinerated without any heat
> recovery, while in others the heat is used.
> But I doubt very much that contributors will make the difference or are
> able to make the difference when choosing the primary tag
> ___
> 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] Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 4, 2019, 8:37 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

>   What sites, in the rest of the world, are not mapped and what
> justification is there for not mapping them?
>  
>  Military sites, for example, usually don't get a lot of detail. 
>
Military sites in Poland are frequently poorly mapped but mostly due to lack of 
access not deliberate
refusal to map it.

In Poland there was proposal to stop mapping speed cameras, it was rejected.

Somebody asked about mapping nesting sites, it was considered as a poor idea 
with sole exception
of birds_nest=stork *goes to wiki to document tag and explain the difference*

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:birds_nest%3Dstork 


In general places that are not signposted - for example discrete homeless 
shelters or
shelters for victims of violence are not mapped. Both because it would make 
their job
harder and because it goes against mapping only verifiable objects.

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

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 4, 2019, 1:08 AM by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 3. Apr 2019, at 21:35, Mateusz Konieczny <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> Documenting used keys on Wiki is always a good idea.
>>
>
>
> I’m still advocating the proposal section for the documentation of new and 
> basically unused tags (or very low usage).
>
Yes, but this tag is neither new nor basically unused (maybe "popular" would be 
be better
than "used" in my sentence)

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Warin]

On 03/04/19 20:41, Phake Nick wrote:
There are religion=chinese_folk and religion=vietnamese_folk for 
indigenous religion for Chinese people and Vietnamese people, you 
might wish to check is there similar existing value in use for 
Australian aboriginal religious sites, if not you might wish to create 
a new value.


My small knowledge of Australian Aboriginal sites is;

Some sites are well known and sign posted .. so those can be mapped, 
publicly available information.


Some sites are 'open' but only through a paid system. Some times these 
are simple area access fees. Other sites you must be accompanied by a guide.

I'd think those can be mapped. They do want some customers.

Some sites they do not want on a public map... difficult when there is 
construction or mining in the area. I refuse to map these.


Some sites are closed to anyone not approved by the elders... to the 
extent that the road is closed going past it for 100s of kilometres.. 
and has been for decades. I would refuse to map these, if I knew where 
they were.


What sites, in the rest of the world, are not mapped and what 
justification is there for not mapping them?


Military sites, for example, usually don't get a lot of detail.



在 2019年4月3日週三 05:30，Graeme Fitzpatrick > 寫道：


There has been a recent discussion on the Australia list regarding
mapping of sites that may be considered sacred by the indigenous
peoples of that area
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-April/012538.html ,
& the question has been asked as to how it's done (or not!) in
other parts of the World?

Is there an OSM policy on mapping sacred / ceremonial sites?

Are there any other places where the local original inhabitants
may not want their sites mapped, & how did you work it out?

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



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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 3, 2019, 11:34 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

> We may state that the information isn't reliable, but I don't see that as an 
> excuse to map things
> incorrectly.  It's an admission that we make mistakes, not a licence to 
> deliberately mis-map.
>

With that I perfectly agree. OpenStreetMap data will be never 100% correct 
(like any map)
and there is always danger of not spotted deliberately malicious edit and we 
are unable
to make promises that it is perfect.

But going into this direction is desirable and what we are doing.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

[Warin]

On 04/04/19 10:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 3. Apr 2019, at 21:35, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

Documenting used keys on Wiki is always a good idea.


I’m still advocating the proposal section for the documentation of new and 
basically unused tags (or very low usage).



They are not proposals. If you want to propose them then make a new entry as a 
proposal.



I would be placing the alternative tagging method on the wiki page. And then on 
its discussion page the reasons why the alternative is preferred.


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