Re: [Tagging] Mismatched tag status

[Yuri Astrakhan]

P.S. I'm all for merging the inuse and defacto statuses, but that's a
separate discussion.

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 03:34 Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:

> Paul, as a programmer, I'm sure you know the difference between a keyword
> and the text shown to the user.  The issue is not in translation, the issue
> is that we have two __keywords__:   "defacto" or "inuse".  It does not
> matter how English, German, and other wiki pages translate those keywords.
>
> You can see all status translations here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:StatusLang=edit
>
> German translates "inuse" as "in Benutzung", and "defacto" as "de facto"
> -- so clearly both are defined. In most cases, status is the same in
> English and in German, except the cases I found with a query.  BTW,
> templates should use _keywords_, and not english/german/other text for the
> "status=" parameter.
>
> As for definition -- Template:Description shows this:
> * inuse: the feature is in use
> * defacto: the tag is in widespread use, but no formal proposal process
> has taken place
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Description
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:43 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 00:21, Yuri Astrakhan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is currently 267 key & tags on OSM wiki with mismatching STATUS
>>> field, as seen in http://tinyurl.com/y62j5m5e - e.g. amenity=fast_food
>>> has status=defacto in 10 languages, except German where it is marked as
>>> status=in use. Clearly this is not intentional, and should be the same in
>>> all languages.
>>>
>>
>> If everything should be the same in all languages then we only need one
>> language.  Oh, you
>> didn't mean everything, just certain phrases describing status.  But I'm
>> fairly sure that not every
>> language uses the word "approved" to mean approved, so obviously we need
>> a language-
>> specific translation of the term.
>>
>> Here's the thing.  In terms of OSM statuses, "de facto" means that the
>> tag is in use.  So you
>> appear to be complaining that idiomatic German prefers not to use a
>> phrase from a dead
>> language to describe a tag's status as being in use.
>>
>> I'm not convinced you chose a good example.  Ones where the mismatch is
>> between "approved"
>> and "in use" are a definite mismatch which need correcting.  I'd be
>> inclined to leave "in use" as
>> a German synonym for "de facto" unless people who have German as a first
>> language say that
>> "de facto" would be acceptable.  Not all languages borrow phrases from
>> Latin, and in some
>> languages "de facto" is incomprehensible gibberish.  Mutatis mutandis, of
>> course.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Mismatched tag status

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Paul, as a programmer, I'm sure you know the difference between a keyword
and the text shown to the user.  The issue is not in translation, the issue
is that we have two __keywords__:   "defacto" or "inuse".  It does not
matter how English, German, and other wiki pages translate those keywords.

You can see all status translations here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:StatusLang=edit

German translates "inuse" as "in Benutzung", and "defacto" as "de facto" --
so clearly both are defined. In most cases, status is the same in English
and in German, except the cases I found with a query.  BTW, templates
should use _keywords_, and not english/german/other text for the "status="
parameter.

As for definition -- Template:Description shows this:
* inuse: the feature is in use
* defacto: the tag is in widespread use, but no formal proposal process has
taken place
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Description


On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:43 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 00:21, Yuri Astrakhan 
> wrote:
>
>> There is currently 267 key & tags on OSM wiki with mismatching STATUS
>> field, as seen in http://tinyurl.com/y62j5m5e - e.g. amenity=fast_food
>> has status=defacto in 10 languages, except German where it is marked as
>> status=in use. Clearly this is not intentional, and should be the same in
>> all languages.
>>
>
> If everything should be the same in all languages then we only need one
> language.  Oh, you
> didn't mean everything, just certain phrases describing status.  But I'm
> fairly sure that not every
> language uses the word "approved" to mean approved, so obviously we need a
> language-
> specific translation of the term.
>
> Here's the thing.  In terms of OSM statuses, "de facto" means that the tag
> is in use.  So you
> appear to be complaining that idiomatic German prefers not to use a phrase
> from a dead
> language to describe a tag's status as being in use.
>
> I'm not convinced you chose a good example.  Ones where the mismatch is
> between "approved"
> and "in use" are a definite mismatch which need correcting.  I'd be
> inclined to leave "in use" as
> a German synonym for "de facto" unless people who have German as a first
> language say that
> "de facto" would be acceptable.  Not all languages borrow phrases from
> Latin, and in some
> languages "de facto" is incomprehensible gibberish.  Mutatis mutandis, of
> course.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Mismatched tag status

[Warin]

On 11/06/19 09:41, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 00:21, Yuri Astrakhan > wrote:


There is currently 267 key & tags on OSM wiki with mismatching
STATUS field, as seen in http://tinyurl.com/y62j5m5e -
e.g. amenity=fast_food has status=defacto in 10 languages, except
German where it is marked as status=in use. Clearly this is not
intentional, and should be the same in all languages.


If everything should be the same in all languages then we only need 
one language.  Oh, you
didn't mean everything, just certain phrases describing status.  But 
I'm fairly sure that not every
language uses the word "approved" to mean approved, so obviously we 
need a language-

specific translation of the term.

Here's the thing.  In terms of OSM statuses, "de facto" means that the 
tag is in use.


Err I thought
'de facto' = "approved" but before the formal approval process was in place
'in use' = widely used and in large numbers, sufficient to be recognised 
by renders
' undefined' = low numbers, or restricted use .. some incorrectly place 
these as 'in use'


There should be a list of these ??? with their meaning. My wikifoo 
deserts me. It should be easier to find..





So you
appear to be complaining that idiomatic German prefers not to use a 
phrase from a dead

language to describe a tag's status as being in use.

I'm not convinced you chose a good example.  Ones where the mismatch 
is between "approved"
and "in use" are a definite mismatch which need correcting.  I'd be 
inclined to leave "in use" as
a German synonym for "de facto" unless people who have German as a 
first language say that
"de facto" would be acceptable.  Not all languages borrow phrases from 
Latin, and in some
languages "de facto" is incomprehensible gibberish. Mutatis mutandis, 
of course.


scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim*
*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mismatched tag status

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 00:21, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> There is currently 267 key & tags on OSM wiki with mismatching STATUS
> field, as seen in http://tinyurl.com/y62j5m5e - e.g. amenity=fast_food
> has status=defacto in 10 languages, except German where it is marked as
> status=in use. Clearly this is not intentional, and should be the same in
> all languages.
>

If everything should be the same in all languages then we only need one
language.  Oh, you
didn't mean everything, just certain phrases describing status.  But I'm
fairly sure that not every
language uses the word "approved" to mean approved, so obviously we need a
language-
specific translation of the term.

Here's the thing.  In terms of OSM statuses, "de facto" means that the tag
is in use.  So you
appear to be complaining that idiomatic German prefers not to use a phrase
from a dead
language to describe a tag's status as being in use.

I'm not convinced you chose a good example.  Ones where the mismatch is
between "approved"
and "in use" are a definite mismatch which need correcting.  I'd be
inclined to leave "in use" as
a German synonym for "de facto" unless people who have German as a first
language say that
"de facto" would be acceptable.  Not all languages borrow phrases from
Latin, and in some
languages "de facto" is incomprehensible gibberish.  Mutatis mutandis, of
course.

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

[Tagging] Mismatched tag status

[Yuri Astrakhan]

There is currently 267 key & tags on OSM wiki with mismatching STATUS
field, as seen in http://tinyurl.com/y62j5m5e - e.g. amenity=fast_food has
status=defacto in 10 languages, except German where it is marked as
status=in use. Clearly this is not intentional, and should be the same in
all languages.  Please help fix the wiki pages, and the above query will
automatically reflect that after some time.

Note that in some very rare cases, it might be possible for a region (but
not a language) to have a different value if a community has discussed it.
If you know of such cases, please respond and we can figure out how to
document it properly.

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

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

[marc marc]

Le 09.06.19 à 01:12, Richard a écrit :
> The water level drops a few inches and
> suddenly the "pipe" is no longer water filled

intermittent=yes/no

some industrial installations (I am thinking of an waterway between 
retention basins at the Grande-Dixence Dam, part of which is natural) 
have been under water since before I was born.
to say that this can no longer be a waterway=pressurised is to say that 
it should be divided into 2, a waterway=pressurised-in-a-mandmade-stuff 
and a waterway=pressurised-in-a-cave, this kind of micro-mapping
has its place in a subkey, not as a top-level value.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] refugee camp

[Dave Swarthout]

The refugee camps I'm familiar with in Thailand are not social facilities
except in an incidental way. They are essentially internment camps
surrounded by fences with guarded gates where undocumented aliens are kept.
They are landuse=residential because they're isolated areas in the
countryside and contain permanent dwellings but having no other way to tag
it at the time, I tagged a big refugee camp near Mae Sot as place=town and
name=Mae La Refugee Camp. As for the refugee aspect, I made a note and left
it at that.

I'm not sure which approach would be better between social_facility,
amenity or what have you, but any tourism-related tag definitely will not
work. In this particluar case, place=town is appropriate because it's so
large; smaller camps might be tagged as place=hamlet, etc.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 6:04 AM Phake Nick  wrote:

> If you look at it from a temporary residence for the group of people
> perspective, then I guess tags like place=village/town/neighbourhood could
> be better choices?
>
> 在 2019年6月10日週一 20:18，Joseph Eisenberg  寫道：
>
>> I understand why refugee camps have been mapped with
>> amenity=social_facility - it's the closest existing tag, since
>> tourism=camp_site is clearly wrong and landuse=residential isn't quite
>> right.
>>
>> However, I don't think that large refugee camps are a perfect fit for
>> amenity=social_facility.
>>
>>  Most of these are group homes (eg orphanages), nursing homes (for the
>> elderly), hospices, assisted living facilities, homeless shelters,
>> outreach facilities for the homelss, etc - they provide services for
>> vulnerable groups in the community who have difficulty living on their
>> own.
>>
>> Refugee camps are closer to an informal residential settlement in many
>> developing countries, especially those that are larger or have been in
>> place for more than a few months (these are the ones most likely to be
>> mapped, I believe).
>>
>> I would encourage creating a proposal and a new tag specifically for
>> these sorts of places. There could perhaps be a distinction between
>> sites for people temporarily displaced locally (eg a camp for people
>> in the same town, after a flood) versus long-distance or international
>> migrants.
>>
>> On 6/10/19, Jan S  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 6/6/2019 5:27 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> >> >>* I'd suggest something like social_facility=temporary_housing.
>> >> *>>>* To me, social_facility doesn't quite cut it for "refugees".
>> >> Refugees
>> >> *>* strike me as people fleeing from war / massive natural disaster -
>> >> *>* social_facility comes across as small scale for homeless people /
>> >> *>* women's refuge sort of thing?
>> >> *>>Browsing through the values of social_facility:for, it's a lot more
>> >> diverse than just victims of abuse and poverty -- and
>> >> social_facility:for=refugee(s) has hundreds of uses. But you definitely
>> >> have a point about scale -- some of these camps house over a hundred
>> >> thousand people. That's on the scale of a small city -- a community,
>> not
>> >> a facility. So maybe place=refugee_camp is a better solution.
>> >>
>> >> J
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Picking up the subject again (and having noticed that the refugee camps
>> I
>> > know in my area are not tagged at all or at least very rudimentary
>> simply
>> > as amenity=social_facility), I've done another search on the internet
>> and
>> > have dug up this wiki page:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Refugee_Camp_Mapping
>> >
>> > It's been modified in 2018 for the last time, is quite rudimentary in
>> the
>> > description of the tags and values proposed and apparently oriented
>> mainly
>> > at makeshift camps in Africa or the Levante. It would be an effort to
>> bring
>> > some order into this and to make it more diverse (covering anything from
>> > spontaneous camps like the infamous Jungle in Calais or the already
>> > dismantled Idomeini camp, to permanent structures like asylum-seeker
>> > reception centres like this:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390153052).
>> >
>> > I'll see if I can give it a try over the next weeks... or would that be
>> a
>> > task for a coordinated action?
>> >
>> > Best, Jan
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[François Lacombe]

Hi all

Following the pretty long discussion occurred in March, the proposal has
been updated again with two main improvements :
* Moved line_attachment=shackle to pulley since shackle was not used in a
proper sense.
* Improved examples, especially for complex configurations for which
parenthesis are used consistently with what is done for highway lanes
tagging.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_attachements

Despite the proposal is focused on utility networks, tagging should be
suitable for any line
Terms and concepts may be extended later to better match any further need
in a particular domain.

As climbing bolts were raised as a concern in previous discussions. The
support feature "bolt" is out of the scope of the proposal
You can use them independently as anchors or hold ropes with appropriate
pulleys (and the attachment is in the scope)
Permanent bolts would be supports similar to power=pole or power=tower for
power lines and they still need a dedicated tag to be mapped in OSM I guess.

Expect the vote to starts shortly if no further objection raise out of this
thread or Talk page.

All the best

François

Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 18:55, François Lacombe 
a écrit :

> Hi Sergio,
>
> Thank you for feedbacks, my answers below.
>
> One general reminder:
> I'm not the one who start to map nor line attachments, nor substations
> shared between pipelines and power lines.
> tower:type=anchor, tower:type=suspension and pipeline=substation were
> already widely used and reviewed.
> Tagging should be improved for the sake of benefits listed in proposed
> documents
>
> Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 01:21, Sergio Manzi  a écrit :
>
>> So, your updated picture made it clear that it is the "insulator set"
>> what should be mapped with your newly proposed tag. I suppose  that for
>> power lines the same would be true in case the "line attachment" would be
>> through a "pin insulator" or a "shackle insulator" or every other form of
>> insulator.
>>
> In case of power line, the insulator set (chains + linking accessories)
> AND clamps.
> Yes it may be the same for other values which I can provide similar
> pictures
>
>> So, when one is supposed to use the "power=insulator" tag instead?
>>
>> The wiki for that tag (*which you wrote*) is describing insulators as "*Power
>> insulator linking a power line to a support*" and also "*It's a power
>> insulator linking an overhead line to another (grounded) infrastructure*
>> ".
>>
>> In the examples there is also a picture of a concrete portal with the
>> caption stating: "*Support : Insulators are used to anchor the power
>> line on a concrete portal*".
>>
> When the support is mapped as a separate object. For instance a portal
> mapped as a way. The shared node between the portal and the line gets
> power=insulator + proposed line_attachment.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Portal_portal_as_way.png
>
>> *So we should tag the same node as both a "power=insulator" and
>> "line_attachment=suspension", or should we map a distinct node for the
>> "line_attachment"?*
>>
> When power=insulator is applicable, the same node can get a
> line_attachment tag also. There is not always an insulator involved with
> line attachment.
>
> In case of a tower mapped as a node (most of them), we can't mix
> power=tower and power=insulator on the same object.
>
>> I would barely understand if you only had *two values* for
>> line_attachment *as properties of the "insulator" key*: suspension and
>> anchor, distinguishing if the vector of forces on an insulator add-up to an
>> essentially vertical vector because the "traction" forces of two catenaries
>> compensate each other and you just have a vertical component of force at
>> the binding post (*suspension*), or you don't have the compensation of
>> the two catenaries (the line is attached to a fixed post or the two
>> catenaries are not compensated) and you also have an horizontal component
>> of force that the binding post must sustain (*anchor*). Not much useful
>> to know, IMHO,  but hey, who am I to judge that?
>>
>> But that's not the case, unhappily! In your proposal you also describe 
>> "*shackle
>> insulators*" and "*pin insulators*" as "line attachments". For me they
>> should have been documented in the "insulator" key as types of insulators 
>> (*yes,
>> Warin, I know you dislike "type" and it goes under your skin...*).
>>
> As Warin, I also dislike the type tags.
> Lines aren't always attached with insulators, unfortunately.
> Previous discussions shows that pin attachment isn't equivalent to
> suspension one and I already adapted the document for that as I remember.
> Shackle insulators and pin insulators are particular situations for
> shackle and pin attachments. I should provide more example without
> insulators for that.
> To me this is also shackle attachment :
> http://aac-publications.s3.amazonaws.com/anam-13201213050-1424994510.png
>
>> *A**s I wrote you in our personal mail exchange I have the 

Re: [Tagging] refugee camp

[Phake Nick]

If you look at it from a temporary residence for the group of people
perspective, then I guess tags like place=village/town/neighbourhood could
be better choices?

在 2019年6月10日週一 20:18，Joseph Eisenberg  寫道：

> I understand why refugee camps have been mapped with
> amenity=social_facility - it's the closest existing tag, since
> tourism=camp_site is clearly wrong and landuse=residential isn't quite
> right.
>
> However, I don't think that large refugee camps are a perfect fit for
> amenity=social_facility.
>
>  Most of these are group homes (eg orphanages), nursing homes (for the
> elderly), hospices, assisted living facilities, homeless shelters,
> outreach facilities for the homelss, etc - they provide services for
> vulnerable groups in the community who have difficulty living on their
> own.
>
> Refugee camps are closer to an informal residential settlement in many
> developing countries, especially those that are larger or have been in
> place for more than a few months (these are the ones most likely to be
> mapped, I believe).
>
> I would encourage creating a proposal and a new tag specifically for
> these sorts of places. There could perhaps be a distinction between
> sites for people temporarily displaced locally (eg a camp for people
> in the same town, after a flood) versus long-distance or international
> migrants.
>
> On 6/10/19, Jan S  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/6/2019 5:27 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >> >>* I'd suggest something like social_facility=temporary_housing.
> >> *>>>* To me, social_facility doesn't quite cut it for "refugees".
> >> Refugees
> >> *>* strike me as people fleeing from war / massive natural disaster -
> >> *>* social_facility comes across as small scale for homeless people /
> >> *>* women's refuge sort of thing?
> >> *>>Browsing through the values of social_facility:for, it's a lot more
> >> diverse than just victims of abuse and poverty -- and
> >> social_facility:for=refugee(s) has hundreds of uses. But you definitely
> >> have a point about scale -- some of these camps house over a hundred
> >> thousand people. That's on the scale of a small city -- a community, not
> >> a facility. So maybe place=refugee_camp is a better solution.
> >>
> >> J
> >>
> >>
> > Picking up the subject again (and having noticed that the refugee camps I
> > know in my area are not tagged at all or at least very rudimentary simply
> > as amenity=social_facility), I've done another search on the internet and
> > have dug up this wiki page:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Refugee_Camp_Mapping
> >
> > It's been modified in 2018 for the last time, is quite rudimentary in the
> > description of the tags and values proposed and apparently oriented
> mainly
> > at makeshift camps in Africa or the Levante. It would be an effort to
> bring
> > some order into this and to make it more diverse (covering anything from
> > spontaneous camps like the infamous Jungle in Calais or the already
> > dismantled Idomeini camp, to permanent structures like asylum-seeker
> > reception centres like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390153052
> ).
> >
> > I'll see if I can give it a try over the next weeks... or would that be a
> > task for a coordinated action?
> >
> > Best, Jan
> >
>
> ___
> 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] refugee camp

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I understand why refugee camps have been mapped with
amenity=social_facility - it's the closest existing tag, since
tourism=camp_site is clearly wrong and landuse=residential isn't quite
right.

However, I don't think that large refugee camps are a perfect fit for
amenity=social_facility.

 Most of these are group homes (eg orphanages), nursing homes (for the
elderly), hospices, assisted living facilities, homeless shelters,
outreach facilities for the homelss, etc - they provide services for
vulnerable groups in the community who have difficulty living on their
own.

Refugee camps are closer to an informal residential settlement in many
developing countries, especially those that are larger or have been in
place for more than a few months (these are the ones most likely to be
mapped, I believe).

I would encourage creating a proposal and a new tag specifically for
these sorts of places. There could perhaps be a distinction between
sites for people temporarily displaced locally (eg a camp for people
in the same town, after a flood) versus long-distance or international
migrants.

On 6/10/19, Jan S  wrote:
>>
>> On 6/6/2019 5:27 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> >>* I'd suggest something like social_facility=temporary_housing.
>> *>>>* To me, social_facility doesn't quite cut it for "refugees".
>> Refugees
>> *>* strike me as people fleeing from war / massive natural disaster -
>> *>* social_facility comes across as small scale for homeless people /
>> *>* women's refuge sort of thing?
>> *>>Browsing through the values of social_facility:for, it's a lot more
>> diverse than just victims of abuse and poverty -- and
>> social_facility:for=refugee(s) has hundreds of uses. But you definitely
>> have a point about scale -- some of these camps house over a hundred
>> thousand people. That's on the scale of a small city -- a community, not
>> a facility. So maybe place=refugee_camp is a better solution.
>>
>> J
>>
>>
> Picking up the subject again (and having noticed that the refugee camps I
> know in my area are not tagged at all or at least very rudimentary simply
> as amenity=social_facility), I've done another search on the internet and
> have dug up this wiki page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Refugee_Camp_Mapping
>
> It's been modified in 2018 for the last time, is quite rudimentary in the
> description of the tags and values proposed and apparently oriented mainly
> at makeshift camps in Africa or the Levante. It would be an effort to bring
> some order into this and to make it more diverse (covering anything from
> spontaneous camps like the infamous Jungle in Calais or the already
> dismantled Idomeini camp, to permanent structures like asylum-seeker
> reception centres like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390153052).
>
> I'll see if I can give it a try over the next weeks... or would that be a
> task for a coordinated action?
>
> Best, Jan
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:tourism=camp_pitch

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> The OSMwiki says tourism=caravan_site is not for sites that accept tents
> at all.

I think you are mistaken. The wiki page says "They may also have some
space for tents. If a site is primarily for tents, it should be tagged
as tourism=camp_site". This has always been a part of the page, since
2011.

However, the wording of the page was rather confusing. In July 2014,
it seems that someone wanted to define this tag as being mainly for a
"Reisemobil-Stellplatz", or "Motorhome stopover" rather than for
American-style RV Parks - they changed the wikipedia link from
[[wikipedia:RV_park]] to  [[wikipedia:Motorhome_stopover]].

But tourism=caravan_site tag is also used for full-service RV parks,
which usually allow tent campers.

I've fixed the page now.

> How do you handle sites that accept both caravans and tents on different
> pitches?

As I said: tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site for the whole
area, depending on the most common type of camping offered. If both
are about equal, I would personally use tourism=camp_site.

> How do you handle sites that accept both caravans and tents on the same
> pitch?

Are you asking: "how do you tag the individual pitch to show that it
can be used for either caravans or tents or both at the same time?"

That's not part of this specific proposal. It only includes the single
tag tourism=camp_pitch, which can be used for this case - it doesn't
distinguish between tent and caravan pitches.

However, the old version of the proposal, before I revived it,
included a tag "camp_pitch:type=" which could have a value like
"=tent;caravan;motorhome" - this would be a toursim=camp_pitch which
allows tents, caravans and even large "motorhome" vehicles.

We should discuss this if tourism=camp_pitch is approved

-Joseph

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:tourism=camp_pitch

[Warin]

On 10/06/19 13:48, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:


How do you handle sites that accept both caravans and tents on
different pitches?


I believe you may be thinking about how to choose between 
tourism=camp_site vs tourism=caravan_site for a dual-use campground or 
campsite. I would use camp_site if it is mostly used for tent camping 
and caravan_site if it is mostly used for RVs/caravans.


The OSMwiki says tourism=caravan_site is not for sites that accept tents 
at all.
The OSMwiki says tourism=camp_site can be used for sites that accept 
caravans and/or tents.


Joseph is correct in that some sites allow either a caravan or a tent to 
occupy a certain area. So the question remains



How do you handle sites that accept both caravans and tents on different 
pitches?


And I will add

How do you handle sites that accept both caravans and tents on the same 
pitch?






This new tag is about individual pitches (British English) and can be 
used for a caravan spot or a tent location.


How do you handle area within such a site that accept both
caravans and tents?  Some
parts of a site are for caravans only, with hard standing.  Other
parts are just an area of
grass where you can put a caravan or a tent.


The proposed tag tourism=camp_pitch can be used for either type: a 
tent pitch or a caravan pitch.


There was a separate proposal that includes some additional tags that 
can be used to specify if the camp_pitch is used for caravans or 
tents, but I have not updated that proposal yet:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch

If tourism=camp_pitch is approved, we can then consider which new 
attributes or subtypes are needed.



___
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] refugee camp

[Jan S]

>
> On 6/6/2019 5:27 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >>* I'd suggest something like social_facility=temporary_housing.
> *>>>* To me, social_facility doesn't quite cut it for "refugees". Refugees
> *>* strike me as people fleeing from war / massive natural disaster -
> *>* social_facility comes across as small scale for homeless people /
> *>* women's refuge sort of thing?
> *>>Browsing through the values of social_facility:for, it's a lot more
> diverse than just victims of abuse and poverty -- and
> social_facility:for=refugee(s) has hundreds of uses. But you definitely
> have a point about scale -- some of these camps house over a hundred
> thousand people. That's on the scale of a small city -- a community, not
> a facility. So maybe place=refugee_camp is a better solution.
>
> J
>
>
Picking up the subject again (and having noticed that the refugee camps I
know in my area are not tagged at all or at least very rudimentary simply
as amenity=social_facility), I've done another search on the internet and
have dug up this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Refugee_Camp_Mapping

It's been modified in 2018 for the last time, is quite rudimentary in the
description of the tags and values proposed and apparently oriented mainly
at makeshift camps in Africa or the Levante. It would be an effort to bring
some order into this and to make it more diverse (covering anything from
spontaneous camps like the infamous Jungle in Calais or the already
dismantled Idomeini camp, to permanent structures like asylum-seeker
reception centres like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390153052).

I'll see if I can give it a try over the next weeks... or would that be a
task for a coordinated action?

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