Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

[Warin]

On 09/09/19 11:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Would you also tag the area as hazardous / contaminated?


Unfortunately I think that is a default condition. All the more reason 
to map them with suitable tags.


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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Also see Singapore: it's an island, city and country. And more?

 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q334 - instance of
Q3624078 sovereign state,
Q133442, city-state,
Q112099 island nation,
Q515 city
Q2264924 port city
Q6256 country

It looks like there is a separate entry for the main island:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1054746 - probably because there is a
separate wikipedia article.

- Joseph

On 9/9/19, Imre Samu  wrote:
>>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>> Relation 1124039 should be  the only one with the wikidata tag.
>> It's the only one that represents the country (boundary=administrative +
> admin_level=2), which the wikipedia article is about.
>> Relation 2220322 is a city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the
> country.
>
> imho: Monaco ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235 )
> instance of(P31)
> - "city-state"  ->  r2220322 (place=city)
> - AND "country"->  r1124039  (country )
>
> so  1:2 relationship  ( 1 wikidata : 2 osm object)  is correct.
> Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state
>
>
>
>
> Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 9., H,
> 0:54):
>
>> ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>>
>>> the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
>>> What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
>>> now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
>>> - 2 nodes
>>> - 3 relations
>>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>>>
>>
>> Relation 1124039  should
>> be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that represents
>> the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the
>> wikipedia
>> article is about.
>> Relation 2220322  is a
>> city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
>> Relation 36990  is land
>> area of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used
>> for,
>> but it's not a boundary of a country.
>> Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
>> renderers anymore.
>>
>> Janko
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Creeks and rivers are tricky, since it's hard to confirm whether or
not they are good for swimming. Tagging sport=swimming on certain
nodes of a river or stream is sort of like a review or recommendation,
and these are not good for the main OSM database.

The linked page says 'leisure=swimming_area' is for an "enclosed
natural water area inside a facility" and the main wiki page for the
tag says "an officially designated place where you can swim in natural
water reservoirs such as rivers, lakes or the sea. It could be marked
by e.g. signs or buoys and/or may be supervised by lifeguards"

So if there is an area for swimming in a lake or pond (or river?) that
is delimited by floating buoys and ropes, that would be good to map.

If there's a natural=beach you can also map that.

-Joseph

On 9/9/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> Looks good Joseph.
>
> One question, thanks, which has just come to mind while I was updating
> details on a camp ground.
>
> You have swimming_pool=yes/no to say whether the camp ground has a pool or
> not.
>
> The place I'm working on (& others that I know) doesn't have a swimming
> pool, but is on the banks of a creek, to which there is access to swim.
>
> Would that also be included under the camp ground in some way, or would it
> be best to just draw the creek in, & possibly mark sport=swimming, or
> leisure=swimming_area alongside the camp ground?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Swimming_and_bathing#Natural_water_where_swimming_is_possible
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Would you also tag the area as hazardous / contaminated?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Looks good Joseph.

One question, thanks, which has just come to mind while I was updating
details on a camp ground.

You have swimming_pool=yes/no to say whether the camp ground has a pool or
not.

The place I'm working on (& others that I know) doesn't have a swimming
pool, but is on the banks of a creek, to which there is access to swim.

Would that also be included under the camp ground in some way, or would it
be best to just draw the creek in, & possibly mark sport=swimming, or
leisure=swimming_area alongside the camp ground?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Swimming_and_bathing#Natural_water_where_swimming_is_possible


Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Imre Samu]

>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
> Relation 1124039 should be  the only one with the wikidata tag.
> It's the only one that represents the country (boundary=administrative +
admin_level=2), which the wikipedia article is about.
> Relation 2220322 is a city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the
country.

imho: Monaco ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235 )
instance of(P31)
- "city-state"  ->  r2220322 (place=city)
- AND "country"->  r1124039  (country )

so  1:2 relationship  ( 1 wikidata : 2 osm object)  is correct.
Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state




Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 9., H,
0:54):

> ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:
>
>> the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
>> What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
>> now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
>> - 2 nodes
>> - 3 relations
>> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>>
>
> Relation 1124039  should
> be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that represents
> the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the wikipedia
> article is about.
> Relation 2220322  is a
> city (place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
> Relation 36990  is land
> area of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used for,
> but it's not a boundary of a country.
> Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
> renderers anymore.
>
> Janko
> ___
> 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] Open Defecation Areas

[Warin]

From  a current posting on the HOT list is for Open Deification Areas.


Quote: "Open Defecation, people going to the toilet in the open, 
specially in dense urban areas. Open defecation areas ODA are use by 
about 850 million people. If they each use 10 different areas a year 
then that is 8.5 billion areas."


Taginfo has 53 uses of watsan:open_defecation_area=yes, no wiki. Most use in 
Africa. just east nor east of Nairobi.

Is this the 'best' tag to use?

Would 'open_defecation_area=yes' be better?

And I'd add a wiki page ..

There seems to be little consideration by HOT on asking the tagging group nor 
on documenting the tags they use.
Possibly this comes from past results of these contacts. I have very thick skin.




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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Several new and existing property and feature tags for campsites,
caravan sites, camp pitches, picnic sites and related tourism features
are now open for voting:

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

Main changes:

- Deprecate booking=* (use reservation=* instead)
- Deprecate bbq=* (use barbecue_grill=* instead).

There is also a list of new properties and features. These do not yet
have wiki pages:

- amenity=power_supply
- amenity=bear_box
- bear_box=yes/no
- amenity=greywater_drain
- greywater_drain=yes/no
- kitchen=yes/no
- waste_disposal=yes/no
- scout=yes/no

See the whole list at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties#Tagging:_List_of_Proposed_Tags_To_Approve

I apologize for including this many tags in the proposal.

However, it appears that they are non-controversial since there were
no specific negative comments during the RFC, and they are already
used at least a few times in the database, so I'm proceeding with
voting for them all together to save everyone time.

But since I think it's not best practice to include so many tags in
one proposal, I've got a special deal for anyone who objects to one of
these tags:

Just include a comment with your vote stating which tag you oppose and
why, and we will consider it "vetoed", and I will bring it up as a
separate proposal later which can be discussed in more detail.

This could be a comment with a "approve" vote, a "disapprove" vote, or
an "abstain", depending on how you feel about the rest of the proposed
tags.

If you missed the previous discussions about these tags, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties#External_discussions

Here's the link for voting:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties#Voting

-Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

ned, 8. ruj 2019. u 23:17 Imre Samu  napisao je:

> the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
> What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
> now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
> - 2 nodes
> - 3 relations
> Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?
>

Relation 1124039  should
be  the only one with the wikidata tag. It's the only one that represents
the country (boundary=administrative + admin_level=2), which the wikipedia
article is about.
Relation 2220322  is a city
(place=city). Wikipedia article is about the country.
Relation 36990  is land area
of a country (boundary=land_area). Not quite sure what it's used for, but
it's not a boundary of a country.
Nodes are helpers for label placement, which are not widely used by
renderers anymore.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The correct value for WIFI access is "internet_access=wlan" - this is
distinct from cellular internet or a wired connection
("internat_access=wired"). See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:internet_access

" there are global tags that don't need to be applied to
each individual camp_pitch. And that each camp_pitch within that
camp_site should only have the tag if it differs from the global value"

Sure. I was trying to mention something about that at the proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties

On 9/9/19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 20:24, Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/19 1:09 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> > Also, cellular connectivity changes as operators add towers or
>> > reconfigure existing ones.  There's also the consideration of whether
>> > there's 2G,  3G, 4G or 5G.  Probably best left to one of the
>> > dedicated cellular mapping apps such as cellmapper because that info
>> > is a little more likely to be updated more frequently.
>>
>>   Ah, hadn't thought of that. I'm not hung up on using this tag, I was
>> just trying to make a complete list... but a different database might be
>> better maintained.
>>
>
> Maybe, maybe not.  There are two or three different ones (at least).  I
> like cellmapper
> because there's an option to use OSM as the basemap (actually, it's about
> the only
> option after they dropped Google maps) so I can get some cellular data
> while
> surveying then later (can be up to a couple of weeks when their servers are
> overloaded) see where I've been.  Could be useful for some mapping
> footpaths
> through woods, but I think you can run something like GPSlogger at the same
> time.
>
> The other thing with cellmapper is it calculates where towers are but gives
> you
> the option to relocate them if you identify the tower visually.  I can not
> only
> relocate the tower in cellmapper, I can tag the tower on OSM too and have
> them
> coincide.
>
> Oh, and something like cellmapper displays signal strengths on the map
> rather than
> hiding them away in a tag where you have to use the query tool to find out
> if a camp pitch
> has a signal.
>
>> In the UK if a campground stated they offer WiFi and some pitches didn't
>> > get it there would be complaints.  Grounds for prosecution about
>> misleading
>> > advertising, even.
>>
>>   Interesting. That isn't the case in the western US, or other countries
>> I've been in. Some even tell you were to stay if you want better
>> connectivity from your camp.
>
>
> The websites of UK campgrounds I've looked at say WiFi with nothing about
> spotty
> coverage.  Anybody who booked a pitch on the basis of that and then found
> their
> pitch didn't have coverage would be very upset.  And be able to make a
> legitimate
> complaint to Trading Standards.
>
> Often the only wifi router is in the main office/lodge, so it's pretty easy
>> be out of range.
>>
>
> In which case they're doing things on the cheap.  Especially if some of the
> pitches
> have power. WiFi relays are dirt cheap these days.  More expensive is a
> weatherproof,
> non-metallic enclosure to stop them getting soaked or stolen without
> blocking the
> signal.
>
>   Note the entire purpose of camping should not be making sure you have
>> a data connection. :-)
>
>
> If you have kids, WiFi is probably essential.  Especially around here,
> where it's often
> raining.  If you're a FarceBook addict, WiFi is definitely essential.
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - appointment

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 01:12, Ruben  wrote:

> Proposal for opening_hours syntax element "appointment", similar to "open"
> and "off":
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Opening_hours:_standard_appointment_syntax


Not a bad idea at all, Ruben.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 06:13, Simon Poole  wrote:

> Isn't this semantically in the end not the same as "unknown"


In some ways I suppose you could say it is unknown, but in other's it's not
quite the same!


> (as in any
> application would have to equate this to  "you have to inquire if it is
> open")?
>

Yes, you would - it tells you that you can't just walk in the door & expect
to be seen, you have to ring them & make an appointment.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Imre Samu]

Thanks for the proposal,

> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "A Wikidata item cannot
be connected to more than one OSM item".

the 1:1 relationship is not so easy.
What is your proposal for  Monaco (Q235) ?
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q235
now: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikidata=Q235#overview
- 2 nodes
- 3 relations
Which OSM object will be the real "Monaco"?

thanks,
 Imre







Janko Mihelić  ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 6., P,
15:08):

> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
> openstreetmap database:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html
>
> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless,
> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item cannot
> be connected to more than one OSM item*".
>
> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>
> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
> if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
> downloaded.
>
> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>
> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>
> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>
> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
> on the route relation.
>
> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
> general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Janko Mihelić
> ___
> 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] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I think that it is fine to repeat 
Wikipedia link 
(so probably also its Wikidata equivalent)
in some cases:
- streets with Wikipedia article
- structure that combines for example footway bridge and Weir- beach with 
Wikipedia article split into parts
due to differing surfacesetc


8 Sep 2019, 19:26 by jan...@gmail.com:

> Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the 
> future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..
>
> Janko
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić <> jan...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the 
>> openstreetmap database:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html 
>> 
>>
>> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless, I 
>> think we should consider having a hard rule of ">> A Wikidata item cannot be 
>> connected to more than one OSM item>> ".
>>
>> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>>
>> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure if 
>> a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is downloaded.
>>
>> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag 
>> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that 
>> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above 
>> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>>
>> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should 
>> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any 
>> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be 
>> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>>
>> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be 
>> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in 
>> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a 
>> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>>
>> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only on 
>> the route relation.
>>
>> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a 
>> general usage ">> part:wikidata=*>> " which would be used when a single 
>> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata 
>> 
>>
>> Thanks for reading,
>> Janko Mihelić
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Tobias Knerr]

On 08.09.19 18:26, Janko Mihelić wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić wrote:
> "*A Wikidata item cannot be connected to more than one OSM item*".
[...]
> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I
> propose a general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when
> a single wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata

Seems reasonable enough to me. It upholds the (generally desirable) 1:1
relationship while offering a realistic solution for items where there
is no single OSM element representing the feature as a whole. Streets
are probably the most prominent example where this would be used.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 20:24, Rob Savoye  wrote:

> On 9/8/19 1:09 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> > Also, cellular connectivity changes as operators add towers or
> > reconfigure existing ones.  There's also the consideration of whether
> > there's 2G,  3G, 4G or 5G.  Probably best left to one of the
> > dedicated cellular mapping apps such as cellmapper because that info
> > is a little more likely to be updated more frequently.
>
>   Ah, hadn't thought of that. I'm not hung up on using this tag, I was
> just trying to make a complete list... but a different database might be
> better maintained.
>

Maybe, maybe not.  There are two or three different ones (at least).  I
like cellmapper
because there's an option to use OSM as the basemap (actually, it's about
the only
option after they dropped Google maps) so I can get some cellular data while
surveying then later (can be up to a couple of weeks when their servers are
overloaded) see where I've been.  Could be useful for some mapping footpaths
through woods, but I think you can run something like GPSlogger at the same
time.

The other thing with cellmapper is it calculates where towers are but gives
you
the option to relocate them if you identify the tower visually.  I can not
only
relocate the tower in cellmapper, I can tag the tower on OSM too and have
them
coincide.

Oh, and something like cellmapper displays signal strengths on the map
rather than
hiding them away in a tag where you have to use the query tool to find out
if a camp pitch
has a signal.

> In the UK if a campground stated they offer WiFi and some pitches didn't
> > get it there would be complaints.  Grounds for prosecution about
> misleading
> > advertising, even.
>
>   Interesting. That isn't the case in the western US, or other countries
> I've been in. Some even tell you were to stay if you want better
> connectivity from your camp.


The websites of UK campgrounds I've looked at say WiFi with nothing about
spotty
coverage.  Anybody who booked a pitch on the basis of that and then found
their
pitch didn't have coverage would be very upset.  And be able to make a
legitimate
complaint to Trading Standards.

Often the only wifi router is in the main office/lodge, so it's pretty easy
> be out of range.
>

In which case they're doing things on the cheap.  Especially if some of the
pitches
have power. WiFi relays are dirt cheap these days.  More expensive is a
weatherproof,
non-metallic enclosure to stop them getting soaked or stolen without
blocking the
signal.

  Note the entire purpose of camping should not be making sure you have
> a data connection. :-)


If you have kids, WiFi is probably essential.  Especially around here,
where it's often
raining.  If you're a FarceBook addict, WiFi is definitely essential.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - appointment

[Simon Poole]

Isn't this semantically in the end not the same as "unknown" (as in any
application would have to equate this to  "you have to inquire if it is
open")?

Am 08.09.2019 um 17:10 schrieb Ruben:
> Proposal for opening_hours syntax element "appointment", similar to "open" 
> and "off":
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Opening_hours:_standard_appointment_syntax
>
> Kind regards
> Ruben
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

[Rob Savoye]

On 9/8/19 1:09 PM, Paul Allen wrote:

> Also, cellular connectivity changes as operators add towers or 
> reconfigure existing ones.  There's also the consideration of whether
> there's 2G,  3G, 4G or 5G.  Probably best left to one of the
> dedicated cellular mapping apps such as cellmapper because that info
> is a little more likely to be updated more frequently.

  Ah, hadn't thought of that. I'm not hung up on using this tag, I was
just trying to make a complete list... but a different database might be
better maintained.

> In the UK if a campground stated they offer WiFi and some pitches didn't
> get it there would be complaints.  Grounds for prosecution about misleading
> advertising, even.

  Interesting. That isn't the case in the western US, or other countries
I've been in. Some even tell you were to stay if you want better
connectivity from your camp. They're usually honest about spotty
coverage, so not really a problem. Often the only wifi router is in the
main office/lodge, so it's pretty easy be out of range.

  Note the entire purpose of camping should not be making sure you have
a data connection. :-) I work in the field for prolonged periods, so
sometimes drop into a real campground to sync up data. (and a shower)

> With wired ethernet you have a point.  I've not seen any campgrounds
> here offer anything other than WiFI, though.

  Chaos Camp. :-) And a few other Hacker camp-outs I've attended. These
are temporary, so of course not worth mapping.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 19:55, Rob Savoye  wrote:

>
>   I agree it's trivial data, and probably the wrong tag. I was trying to
> cover cases were an individual camp_pitch may have a cell connection.
> Especially in widely distributed camp spots in the more remote parts of
> the western US, I occasionally find a camping spot with cell
> connectivity, and others may find that useful.
>

Cell connection isn't (necessarily) an internet connection.  More
importantly, WiFi
may be free or chargeable by the site operator but cellular internet is
something
you pay your ISP for.  Not the same thing at all.

Also, cellular connectivity changes as operators add towers or reconfigure
existing
ones.  There's also the consideration of whether there's 2G,  3G, 4G or
5G.  Probably
best left to one of the dedicated cellular mapping apps such as cellmapper
because
that info is a little more likely to be updated more frequently.

  Also note that in the US, most KOA and other commercial campgrounds
> have wifi. That coverage doesn't get to every camp_pitch though.
>

In the UK if a campground stated they offer WiFi and some pitches didn't
get it
there would be complaints.  Grounds for prosecution about misleading
advertising, even.

  And yes, I have definitely camped where there were ethernet and power
> cables running to many locations. :-)
>

With wired ethernet you have a point.  I've not seen any campgrounds here
offer
anything other than WiFI, though.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

[Rob Savoye]

On 9/8/19 12:46 PM, Paul Allen wrote:

> So a campground owner is going to put Faraday cages around certain
> pitches to ensure
> they cannot receive WiFi?  Or is going to put very restricted-range WiFi
> points on certain
> pitches?  Or is going to run ethernet cables to some pitches but not others?
> 
> I don't see this of being much use in real-life situations.

  I agree it's trivial data, and probably the wrong tag. I was trying to
cover cases were an individual camp_pitch may have a cell connection.
Especially in widely distributed camp spots in the more remote parts of
the western US, I occasionally find a camping spot with cell
connectivity, and others may find that useful.

  Also note that in the US, most KOA and other commercial campgrounds
have wifi. That coverage doesn't get to every camp_pitch though.

  And yes, I have definitely camped where there were ethernet and power
cables running to many locations. :-)

-rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 19:38, Rob Savoye  wrote:

>
> For camp_pitch:
>

[...]

> internet_access=yes/no
>

So a campground owner is going to put Faraday cages around certain pitches
to ensure
they cannot receive WiFi?  Or is going to put very restricted-range WiFi
points on certain
pitches?  Or is going to run ethernet cables to some pitches but not others?

I don't see this of being much use in real-life situations.

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Jo]

For what it's worth, I think your proposal makes sense.

Polyglot

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 6:28 PM Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the
> future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..
>
> Janko
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
>> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
>> openstreetmap database:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html
>>
>> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless,
>> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item
>> cannot be connected to more than one OSM item*".
>>
>> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>>
>> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
>> if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
>> downloaded.
>>
>> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
>> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
>> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
>> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>>
>> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
>> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
>> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
>> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>>
>> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
>> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
>> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
>> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>>
>> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
>> on the route relation.
>>
>> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
>> general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
>> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata
>>
>> Thanks for reading,
>> Janko Mihelić
>>
> ___
> 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 camping

[Rob Savoye]

  I've been wondering about the proper way to tag camp_pitches and
camp_sites to avoid bloat and duplication. It seems to me that within
most campgrounds, there are global tags that don't need to be applied to
each individual camp_pitch. And that each camp_pitch within that
camp_site should only have the tag if it differs from the global value;

 I think that the camp node/way/relation should have tags like:

For camp_site:
 toilets=yes/no
 openfire=yes/no
 drinking_water=yes/no
 fee=yes/no
 barbeque_grill=yes/no
 picnic_table=yes/no
 bear_box=yes/no
 tents=yes/no
 caravans=yes/no
 group_only=yes/no
 internet_access=yes/no
 power=yes/no

For camp_pitch:
 openfire=yes/no
 barbeque_grill=yes/no
 picnic_table=yes/no
 bear_box=yes/no
 tents=yes/no
 caravans=yes/no
 group_only=yes/no
 access=handicap
 internet_access=yes/no
 power=yes/no
 drinking_water=yes/no

  The wiki doesn't say much about this topic. Many camp_sites within OSM
are sparsely tagged (at least around here), so that wasn't much of a
guide either.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Janko Mihelić]

Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the
future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..

Janko

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Last year there was a little discussion about unique wikidata ids in the
> openstreetmap database:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-August/038249.html
>
> It was more or less decided there was no problem with this. Nevertheless,
> I think we should consider having a hard rule of "*A Wikidata item cannot
> be connected to more than one OSM item*".
>
> Problems with not enforcing this rule:
>
> - the problem of a partially downloaded database, where one is never sure
> if a wikidata item is fully downloaded unless the whole database is
> downloaded.
>
> - we could get a flood of wikidata tags where one would, for example, tag
> every building in a town with the wikidata id of the town, because that
> building is a part of the town. Is that wrong tagging? Well, if the above
> rule is not in place, I'm not sure.
>
> - if a road segment has two road routes that are using it, then we should
> tag it as "wikidata=Q1234;Q5678". That means, if we want to find any
> wikidata id, we should be prepared to parse all wikidata tags and be
> prepared for semicolons. This slows down any wikidata searches
>
> - we can't enforce some rules like "tag leisure=stadium can only be
> connected to something that is, or is derived from Q483110 (Stadium) in
> Wikidata" because, if we tag all the parts of an entity, we can also tag a
> water fountain in the stadium, because that is a part of it.
>
> So I propose we enforce this rule, and we tag, for example, railways only
> on the route relation.
>
> If one wants to tag all route segments with a wikidata tag, I propose a
> general usage "*part:wikidata=**" which would be used when a single
> wikidata tag just isn't viable. Proposal wiki page here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/part:wikidata
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Janko Mihelić
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - appointment

[Ruben]

Proposal for opening_hours syntax element "appointment", similar to "open" and 
"off":

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Opening_hours:_standard_appointment_syntax

Kind regards
Ruben

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

[François Lacombe]

Hi everyone

Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 02:06, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> Because most mappers only add 1 tag to each new object. (Folks like
> you and me are an exception - and a year ago, when I was new at this,
> I only usually added 1 tag per feature). If an object can be described
> with one tag, it's better to do this and create several tags, (e.g.
> pipeline=marker, power=marker) rather than requiring each object to be
> tagged with 2 or 3 or 4 tags. This saves mapper time and makes sure
> that each object is fully described.
>

I understand the need of simplicity in chosen terms. Neverthess I can't
imagine OSM with single-key objects as a principle.
+1 with Martin : if occasional mappers want to reduce their typing time,
they will use presets in convenient editors like iD or JOSM.
This argument comes on many discussions and oppose kind of simplicity to
semantic consistency. Tagging with several consistent tags could be more
easily handled and versatile than one single key mixing concepts for
reasons that are not necessarily shared by the whole community.

However, this proposal will be reworked to take care of this batch of
comment, it's appreciable we can discuss these points here.

Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 07:17, Mateusz Konieczny  a
écrit :

> Is it typical to map "it is marker of an
> unknown kind" like splitting shop
> and opening hours makes sense?
>

It makes sense to map "here is a marker what it looks like" without
explicitly attaching it to a utility.
One mapper will describe what she/he sees, and a second will complete with
her/his own knowledge.

Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 16:11, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

> I would expect utility marker mapping to be a special interest. Jane
> Mapper will not map these, or will be so excited about her discovery on the
> ground that she will be willing to look it up on a wiki page ;-)
>
I definitely have to meet Jane Mapper, Martin :d


All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 10:09, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

>
> In cases for usage apparently contradicting the building type it often
> helps the fellow mapper to
> tag a note that this school building was converted into a hostel, or this
> church building is used
> for climbing now.
>

Good idea.  A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it
is information that
may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow
the
display of descriptions.  It's useful to know that the art studio you're
looking for is in a
church...

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

[Joseph Eisenberg]

If there's a horse riding arena with a roof (with 2 or 3 open walls)
that covers just the riding area, I would probably map a single closed
way with building=roof + leisure=pitch.

If there are other areas under the same roof, like bandstands to watch
the show and changing areas or toilets, it would be idea to map the
area of the pitch and the area of the building=roof separately, and
then I might add covered=yes to the leisure=pitch (though I suppose
this is not strictly necessary).

If there are 4 solid walls, I would use `building=riding_hall` - see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abuilding%3Driding_hall

Re: "How would you tag the covered horse walker (middle one)"

horse_walker + covered=yes, and map the roof separately. You could add
building=roof if it's mapped as an area and the area is the same as
the roof, but in your example the roof is donut-shaped.

On 9/8/19, Hufkratzer  wrote:
> On 08.09.2019 11:41, Warin wrote:
>  > On 07/09/19 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>  >>
>  >> sent from a phone
>  >>> On 7. Sep 2019, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> Per taginfo, building=yes is used 7500 times with leisure=pitch, and
>  >>> covered=yes is used 1017 times, so I suppose it's more common to match
>  >>> the pitch with the same outline as the building rather than using
>  >>> covered=yes and a separate building outline.
>  >>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=pitch#combinations
>  >>
>  >> for German sports halls in schools, tagging a single covered pitch
> would not usually be a nice representation, because these places are
> optimized for versatility: you can do a lot of different sports, and you
> will usually find several overlapping pitches (marked in different
> colors). There will also be equipment for gymnastics (high bar, parallel
> bars, mattresses, ropes, ...) and whatever is taught.
>  >
>  > [...]
>  >
>  > Some outside pitches have a roof over them for sun/rain, so I'd think
> that is where the tag for covered=yes comes from.
>
> How would you tag this covered riding arena? :
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjVCeE-4Ht0
>
> leisure=sports_hall + building=sports_hall ?
> leisure=sports_hall + building=roof ?
> leisure=pitch + building=roof ?
> leisure=pitch + covered=yes ? (pitch is covered by what?)
> leisure=pitch + covered=yes + building=roof ? (pitch is covered by roof,
> but that's obvious because of building=roof)
>
> How would you tag the covered horse walker (middle one) on this page? :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:animal=horse_walker
>
> ...=horse_wakler + building=roof ?
> ...=horse_wakler + covered=yes ? (horse_wakler is covered by what?)
> ...=horse_wakler + covered=yes + building=roof ? (horse_wakler is
> covered by roof, but that's obvious because of building=roof)
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

dieterdreist wrote
> you might want to refer to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nudism
> as suitable combination.

The difference with the nudism=* key though is that leisure=sunbathing is
supposed for tagging of a self-sufficient area which may be a part of some
larger area like a beach or a leisure=beach_resort or it may be completely
"stand-alone" area, dissociated of any hierarchy. 

Would it be useful to add something like sunbathing=* if needed?

value   description

designated  designated for sunbathing by authorities or a property owner
customary   popular place for sunbathing
no  prohibited, asking for trouble, or unsuitable, for example due to the
natural properties of a place
yes optional, not really useful, mere leisure=sunbathing is enough 

A pretty printed version is at the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/sunbathing#Optional_sunbathing.3D.2A




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

[Hufkratzer]

On 08.09.2019 11:41, Warin wrote:
> On 07/09/19 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>> On 7. Sep 2019, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:

>>>
>>> Per taginfo, building=yes is used 7500 times with leisure=pitch, and
>>> covered=yes is used 1017 times, so I suppose it's more common to match
>>> the pitch with the same outline as the building rather than using
>>> covered=yes and a separate building outline.
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=pitch#combinations
>>
>> for German sports halls in schools, tagging a single covered pitch 
would not usually be a nice representation, because these places are 
optimized for versatility: you can do a lot of different sports, and you 
will usually find several overlapping pitches (marked in different 
colors). There will also be equipment for gymnastics (high bar, parallel 
bars, mattresses, ropes, ...) and whatever is taught.

>
> [...]
>
> Some outside pitches have a roof over them for sun/rain, so I'd think 
that is where the tag for covered=yes comes from.


How would you tag this covered riding arena? :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjVCeE-4Ht0

leisure=sports_hall + building=sports_hall ?
leisure=sports_hall + building=roof ?
leisure=pitch + building=roof ?
leisure=pitch + covered=yes ? (pitch is covered by what?)
leisure=pitch + covered=yes + building=roof ? (pitch is covered by roof, 
but that's obvious because of building=roof)


How would you tag the covered horse walker (middle one) on this page? :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:animal=horse_walker

...=horse_wakler + building=roof ?
...=horse_wakler + covered=yes ? (horse_wakler is covered by what?)
...=horse_wakler + covered=yes + building=roof ? (horse_wakler is 
covered by roof, but that's obvious because of building=roof)


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

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

[Warin]

On 07/09/19 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 7. Sep 2019, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

Per taginfo, building=yes is used 7500 times with leisure=pitch, and
covered=yes is used 1017 times, so I suppose it's more common to match
the pitch with the same outline as the building rather than using
covered=yes and a separate building outline.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=pitch#combinations


for German sports halls in schools, tagging a single covered pitch would not 
usually be a nice representation, because these places are optimized for 
versatility: you can do a lot of different sports, and you will usually find 
several overlapping pitches (marked in different colors). There will also be 
equipment for gymnastics (high bar, parallel bars, mattresses, ropes, ...) and 
whatever is taught.


I have been mapping overlapping sports pitches for a while now.
All from satellite imagery so outside.

The advantage of mapping them individually is that you can see for one 
configuration if one tennis court is in use you cannot use the netball or 
basketball courts as either tennis court over laps both of them, or the tennis 
court only overlaps one of them leaving the other side free. Of course the 
configuration is fixed by the line makings and equipment provisions.

I don't think there is a way of tagging many of the individual gymnastic 
sports, most can be moved some as fixed.

Different line colours can be mapped as there are tags for it. The basketball 
and netball wiki pages have the tag descriptions for the line marking, hoops 
etc.



Some outside pitches have a roof over them for sun/rain, so I'd think that is 
where the tag for covered=yes comes from.



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

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 07.09.2019 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:

It is true that this is the canonical way of dealing with things,
however it would be interesting to check how mappers and editing tools
actually use this. We might well find that everyone is confused about this.
[...] 
I think we cannot simply throw the distinction over board and therefore

I do not agree with Josh, but I also think the distinction is not really
well thought out/well implemented in OSM and needs clarification.


In cases for usage apparently contradicting the building type it often helps the fellow mapper to 
tag a note that this school building was converted into a hostel, or this church building is used 
for climbing now.


tom

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