Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Mateusz Konieczny]

what about bus stops used both by 
normal busses and tourism busses?

I would expect highway=bus_stop as
more important feature

10 Sep 2019, 21:07 by franci...@gmail.com:

> Dear list,
>
> please find the proposal for the tag in subject:
> 
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:highway%3Dtourist_bus_stop
>  
> 
>
> the idea was born during a discussion on Talk-it and it is my first tagging 
> attempt, be kind... :)
>
> Cheers
> Francesco
>
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11 Sep 2019, 01:54 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <> graemefi...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of 
>> ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be 
>> much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it 
>> wouldn't be abbreviated) 
>>
>
> Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle 
> z-indexes
> to make it work.  They're not overly happy doing that, I believe. 
>
well, reality is that sometimes area
is actually both tree-covered area and
for example university or residential area.
> It also doesn't always
> work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you get
> waterlogged trees. 
>
this is intentional to encourage correct
mapping of tree-covered areas.
>   It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler if you're
> asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers, or 
> one of
> two answers chosen at random.
>
note that in many cases getting two
answers correctly represents reality
>
>   A multipolygon is a little more work for the mapper,
> but not much more.
>
> Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about that.  
> If they do,
> I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this
>
and in even more cases multipolygon
should be used___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Il mer 11 set 2019, 04:39 Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> My main concern is that some bus stops could be both for tourist buses and
> for public buses. Using ptv2 instead, with public_transport=platform +
> coach=designated or tourist_bus=designated would be easier.
> Leif Rasmussen
>

Sure. That cases can be addressed with existing tags...
But a non-public transport option is missing


> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 8:35 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for making a proposal, Francesco.
>>
>> “A tourist bus stop is a stop reserved to tourist buses.”
>>
>> The main issue is describing the term “tourist bus” clearly.
>>
>> The related wiki page Key:tourist_bus says:
>>
>> “The key tourist_bus=* is used to tag legal access restrictions on roads
>> for buses that are not acting as public transport vehicle (for the latter
>> see bus =*).”
>>
>> “This tag originated from a literal translation of the Italian word Autobus
>> turistici[1]
>> , which
>> can be understood to be synonymous to a coach.”
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourist_bus
>>
>> So is “tourist_bus=yes” identical to “coach=yes”?
>>
>> Does this include “minibuses” and large “vans” used as vehicles for hire?
>>
>> I assume it excludes intercity buses or buses to national parks, if they
>> run on a regular schedule and sell tickets to the general public?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:coach
>>
>> - Joseph
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:09 AM Francesco Ansanelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear list,
>>>
>>> please find the proposal for the tag in subject:
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:highway%3Dtourist_bus_stop
>>>
>>> the idea was born during a discussion on Talk-it and it is my first
>>> tagging attempt, be kind... :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Il mer 11 set 2019, 02:35 Joseph Eisenberg  ha
scritto:

> Thank you for making a proposal, Francesco.
>
> “A tourist bus stop is a stop reserved to tourist buses.”
>
> The main issue is describing the term “tourist bus” clearly.
>
> The related wiki page Key:tourist_bus says:
>
> “The key tourist_bus=* is used to tag legal access restrictions on roads
> for buses that are not acting as public transport vehicle (for the latter
> see bus =*).”
>
> “This tag originated from a literal translation of the Italian word Autobus
> turistici[1]
> , which
> can be understood to be synonymous to a coach.”
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourist_bus
>
> So is “tourist_bus=yes” identical to “coach=yes”?
>
I think so... But for consistency I would keep the term "tourist_bus"

>
> Does this include “minibuses” and large “vans” used as vehicles for hire?
>
Probably yes

>
> I assume it excludes intercity buses or buses to national parks, if they
> run on a regular schedule and sell tickets to the general public?
>
In my town, the Flixbus buses stop at Central station, this is supposed to
be a one-shot stop

>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:coach
>
> - Joseph
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:09 AM Francesco Ansanelli 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> please find the proposal for the tag in subject:
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:highway%3Dtourist_bus_stop
>>
>> the idea was born during a discussion on Talk-it and it is my first
>> tagging attempt, be kind... :)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Francesco
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tourist bus stop

[Leif Rasmussen]

My main concern is that some bus stops could be both for tourist buses and
for public buses. Using ptv2 instead, with public_transport=platform +
coach=designated or tourist_bus=designated would be easier.
Leif Rasmussen

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 8:35 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Thank you for making a proposal, Francesco.
>
> “A tourist bus stop is a stop reserved to tourist buses.”
>
> The main issue is describing the term “tourist bus” clearly.
>
> The related wiki page Key:tourist_bus says:
>
> “The key tourist_bus=* is used to tag legal access restrictions on roads
> for buses that are not acting as public transport vehicle (for the latter
> see bus =*).”
>
> “This tag originated from a literal translation of the Italian word Autobus
> turistici[1]
> , which
> can be understood to be synonymous to a coach.”
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourist_bus
>
> So is “tourist_bus=yes” identical to “coach=yes”?
>
> Does this include “minibuses” and large “vans” used as vehicles for hire?
>
> I assume it excludes intercity buses or buses to national parks, if they
> run on a regular schedule and sell tickets to the general public?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:coach
>
> - Joseph
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:09 AM Francesco Ansanelli 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> please find the proposal for the tag in subject:
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:highway%3Dtourist_bus_stop
>>
>> the idea was born during a discussion on Talk-it and it is my first
>> tagging attempt, be kind... :)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Francesco
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tourist bus stop

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Thank you for making a proposal, Francesco.

“A tourist bus stop is a stop reserved to tourist buses.”

The main issue is describing the term “tourist bus” clearly.

The related wiki page Key:tourist_bus says:

“The key tourist_bus=* is used to tag legal access restrictions on roads
for buses that are not acting as public transport vehicle (for the latter
see bus =*).”

“This tag originated from a literal translation of the Italian word Autobus
turistici[1]
, which
can be understood to be synonymous to a coach.”

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourist_bus

So is “tourist_bus=yes” identical to “coach=yes”?

Does this include “minibuses” and large “vans” used as vehicles for hire?

I assume it excludes intercity buses or buses to national parks, if they
run on a regular schedule and sell tickets to the general public?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:coach

- Joseph

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:09 AM Francesco Ansanelli 
wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> please find the proposal for the tag in subject:
>
>
> 
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:highway%3Dtourist_bus_stop
>
> the idea was born during a discussion on Talk-it and it is my first
> tagging attempt, be kind... :)
>
> Cheers
> Francesco
>
> ___
> 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] Open Defecation Areas

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Overlapping “landuse=“ is fine when it represents reality correctly. For
example, many city centres are both residential and commercial or
commercial and retail, when the buildings are mixed use.

Similarly, if you are micro mapping private residential lawns with
landuse=grass, or residential gardens with leisure=garden, these do not
need to be excluded from the residential landuse. (Not that I would waste
time on mapping private lawns myself, but if you want to...)

-Joseph

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:56 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch
>> of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it
>> be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it
>> wouldn't be abbreviated)
>>
>
> Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle
> z-indexes
> to make it work.  They're not overly happy doing that, I believe.  It also
> doesn't always
> work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you
> get
> waterlogged trees.   It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler
> if you're
> asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers,
> or one of
> two answers chosen at random.  A multipolygon is a little more work for
> the mapper,
> but not much more.
>
> Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about
> that.  If they do,
> I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this.
>
> --
> 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] Open Defecation Areas

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of
> ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be
> much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it
> wouldn't be abbreviated)
>

Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle
z-indexes
to make it work.  They're not overly happy doing that, I believe.  It also
doesn't always
work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you
get
waterlogged trees.   It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler
if you're
asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers,
or one of
two answers chosen at random.  A multipolygon is a little more work for the
mapper,
but not much more.

Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about that.
If they do,
I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this.

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

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 04:09, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 18:48, Bob Kerr via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I did consider using the toilet tag, unfortunately there is no toilet and
>> it would give the area a feeling of respectability. If it is piled high
>> with plastic bags, assorted rubbish and human piss and shit then it is more
>> a sign that they need a toilet. It would definitely need a different
>> symbol. I was thinking of a squatting man symbol
>>
>
> True.  I'd hate to go to what the map led me to believe was a public
> toilet and find it was
> actually one of these things.
>

"Slightly" tongue in cheek, but render the area in a light - mid brown
colour, with a regular pattern of
https://www.flaticon.com/free-icons/poop icons
across it (similar to dog-parks, forested areas & so on) ? :-)


>
>>  Maybe “landuse=open_defecation_area” would be more appropriate but that
>> may interfere with other land use tags.
>>
>
> Not really a problem.  Turn the existing landuse=whatever into the outer
> of a multipolygon
> and add landuse=open_defecation_area as an inner of the multipolygon.
> It's not that hard
> to do, especially as iD has made it a lot easier to cut and paste tags
> between objects.
>

Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of
ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it be
much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it
wouldn't be abbreviated)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Joseph Eisenberg]

According to https://skyvector.com/airport/1S1/Eckhart-International-Airport
- Eckhart "Airport" is only open to private chartered flights, and it
has a grass (turf) runway, unattended, closed in winter. It's
certainly not what an ordinary person would consider an "airport". It
doesn't have an IATA code, so that's a good hint that it doesn't have
any commercial airline service.

A general map users is not going to be interested in searching for a
place like Eckhart, unless they are the sort of person who charters
corporate jet flights, or a pilot, and there are specialized databases
for such purposes.

So "international_flights=no", "commercial_flights=no" is appropriate
for aerodromes like this.

On 9/11/19, Mark Wagner  wrote:
>
> Which is likely to cause confusion, because in the United States, an
> "international airport" is one that's got customs facilities.  John F.
> Kennedy International (New York City's largest airport) and Eckhart
> International (a small grass strip near the Idaho-Canada border) are
> both considered international airports.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:10:52 +0900
> Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
>
>> The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have
>> regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country.
>>
>> On 9/10/19, Chris Hill  wrote:
>> > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg
>> >  wrote:
>> >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>> >>
>> >>See
>> >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>> >>
>> >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>> >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>> >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>> >>
>> >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>> >>
>> >>Values to be approved:
>> >>* aerodrome=international - already common
>> >>* aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
>> >>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>> >>* aerodrome=private  - already common
>> >>* aerodrome=airstrip
>> >>
>> >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>> >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few
>> >>aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>> >>
>> >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international
>> >>flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used
>> >>over 1000 times.
>> >>
>> >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>> >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>> >>
>> >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>> >>adding access=*
>> >>
>> >>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
>> >>
>> >>- Joseph Eisenberg
>> >>
>> >>___
>> >>Tagging mailing list
>> >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>> > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights.
>> > I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield
>> > to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or
>> > regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually
>> > termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights:
>> > specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights
>> > etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of
>> > airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful
>> > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a
>> > scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. --
>> > Chris Hill
>> > ( OSM: chillly)
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

[Peter Elderson]

Sorry for the delay, I meant to post this earlier. My bad!
We have discussed the arguments again in the Dutch OSM forum. The Belgium
OSM forum did not respond, except for vmarc who took active part in the
Dutch forum discussion. The German OSM forum had some positive response but
no specific details. They have discussed the same problems earlier.

The only new argument from this tagging list was that the key network_type
or network:type is not very clear; it does not show what the difference is
with the key network. I thought that was a valid point, I thought of two
alternatives but mappers thought those were wrongfooting new mappers and
that's even worse than confusing them.

I am sorry to say that some mappers already had started to add the new tag
to cycle node networks even before we reached consensus.

The Dutch consensus (with a touch of expert Belgian input and no objection
from Germany) is:

*We add the tag network:type=node_network to all the junction nodes, to all
the node2node route relations, and the node network relation of the node
network.*

This applies to all recreational node networks: all transport modes, and
all geographical scopes.
Note that the key is not new. There already was some usage, mainly in
Spain, thought it wasn't documented. We had a quick look, it doesn't
conflict with our use.

When done, rXn in itself is no longer reserved for node networks. Node
networks can be separated easily and completely from linear routes. This
means tagging regular regional routes (linear routes) will once again be
possible in Nederland, Belgium and Germany. We actually have quite a few of
those, the are now tagged as national routes even when they are entirely
within a particular region.
The exception has been undone.

I will be happy to answer any questions arising from this.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 10 sep. 2019 om 19:49 schreef s8evq :

> I see that network:type=node_network has been added to the wiki:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3Drwn&diff=next&oldid=1897551
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dbicycle&diff=next&oldid=1866174
>
> Was there consensus on this in the end? I didn't follow the whole
> discussion.
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
> > LS
> > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and Belgian
> > mappers decided to claim (hijack)  the network value rcn for those node
> > networks. This exception was copied with the claim of network=rwn for the
> > walking node networks.
> >
> > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this
> > exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. To do that, we
> need
> > another way to identify (members of) a route network as (members of) a
> node
> > network.
> >
> > The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and these
> > "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to add another
> > dimension (configuration type) to the network=*  values of routes.
> >
> > Instead, we are thnking about just adding a tag to identify segment
> routes
> > as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need this, since
> > they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag.
> >
> > In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type=node_network
> > (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node network routes. Nothing
> > else has to change, which also means that renderers and data users who
> > don't change anything, will not notice anything! But if they want they
> can
> > make use of the separation and handle node networks different than
> non-node
> > networks.
> >
> > Notice that no new key or value is proposed here. If new network config
> > types arise, a new value for network_type can accommodate that.The method
> > is applicable for all transport modes and geographical scopes.
> >
> > Thoughts, anyone? What did we forget? Shoot!
> >
> > Fr gr Peter Elderson
> > ___
> > 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Mark Wagner]

Which is likely to cause confusion, because in the United States, an
"international airport" is one that's got customs facilities.  John F.
Kennedy International (New York City's largest airport) and Eckhart
International (a small grass strip near the Idaho-Canada border) are
both considered international airports.

-- 
Mark

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:10:52 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have
> regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country.
> 
> On 9/10/19, Chris Hill  wrote:
> > On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg
> >  wrote:  
> >>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
> >>
> >>See
> >>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
> >>
> >>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
> >>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
> >>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
> >>
> >>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
> >>
> >>Values to be approved:
> >>* aerodrome=international - already common
> >>* aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
> >>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
> >>* aerodrome=private  - already common
> >>* aerodrome=airstrip
> >>
> >>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
> >>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few
> >>aerodromes with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
> >>
> >>It would be helpful to know which airports have international
> >>flights, and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used
> >>over 1000 times.
> >>
> >>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
> >>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
> >>
> >>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
> >>adding access=*
> >>
> >>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
> >>
> >>- Joseph Eisenberg
> >>
> >>___
> >>Tagging mailing list
> >>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  
> >
> > Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights.
> > I have used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield
> > to fly from the UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or
> > regular flights, it was used by private pilots for fun (usually
> > termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights:
> > specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights
> > etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of
> > airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful
> > distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a
> > scheduled or charter flight to or from an airport. --
> > Chris Hill
> > ( OSM: chillly)  
> 
> ___
> 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] Open Defecation Areas

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 18:48, Bob Kerr via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

I did consider using the toilet tag, unfortunately there is no toilet and
> it would give the area a feeling of respectability. If it is piled high
> with plastic bags, assorted rubbish and human piss and shit then it is more
> a sign that they need a toilet. It would definitely need a different
> symbol. I was thinking of a squatting man symbol
>

True.  I'd hate to go to what the map led me to believe was a public toilet
and find it was
actually one of these things.

>
>  Maybe “landuse=open_defecation_area” would be more appropriate but that
> may interfere with other land use tags.
>

Not really a problem.  Turn the existing landuse=whatever into the outer of
a multipolygon
and add landuse=open_defecation_area as an inner of the multipolygon.  It's
not that hard
to do, especially as iD has made it a lot easier to cut and paste tags
between objects.

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

[Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Dear list,

please find the proposal for the tag in subject:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:highway%3Dtourist_bus_stop

the idea was born during a discussion on Talk-it and it is my first tagging
attempt, be kind... :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

[s8evq]

I see that network:type=node_network has been added to the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3Drwn&diff=next&oldid=1897551
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dbicycle&diff=next&oldid=1866174

Was there consensus on this in the end? I didn't follow the whole discussion.


On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> LS
> With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and Belgian
> mappers decided to claim (hijack)  the network value rcn for those node
> networks. This exception was copied with the claim of network=rwn for the
> walking node networks.
> 
> We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this
> exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. To do that, we need
> another way to identify (members of) a route network as (members of) a node
> network.
> 
> The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and these
> "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to add another
> dimension (configuration type) to the network=*  values of routes.
> 
> Instead, we are thnking about just adding a tag to identify segment routes
> as parts of a node network. The nodes themselves do not need this, since
> they ARE nodes and have a xxn_ref tag.
> 
> In short, we are thinking to simply add the tag network_type=node_network
> (or network:type=node_network) to the node2node network routes. Nothing
> else has to change, which also means that renderers and data users who
> don't change anything, will not notice anything! But if they want they can
> make use of the separation and handle node networks different than non-node
> networks.
> 
> Notice that no new key or value is proposed here. If new network config
> types arise, a new value for network_type can accommodate that.The method
> is applicable for all transport modes and geographical scopes.
> 
> Thoughts, anyone? What did we forget? Shoot!
> 
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> 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] Open Defecation Areas

[Bob Kerr via Tagging]

Hi,

I agree with you, that is why I need everyone’s input before making the proposal

I did consider using the toilet tag, unfortunately there is no toilet and it 
would give the area a feeling of respectability. If it is piled high with 
plastic bags, assorted rubbish and human piss and shit then it is more a sign 
that they need a toilet. It would definitely need a different symbol. I was 
thinking of a squatting man symbol

 Maybe “landuse=open_defecation_area” would be more appropriate but that may 
interfere with other land use tags. So I still lean towards open_defecation=yes

Thoughts?

Cheers

Bob


> On 10 Sep 2019, at 12:58, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
> 
> You are wanting to tag something that is identifiable on-the-ground. It could 
> be of great social value. What's not to like? The question is more about the 
> detail rather than whether it should happen.
> 
> Has there been any discussion about 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets applying (or not) 
> to an open area?
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:17 AM Bob Kerr via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Apologies if I started this conversation on the HOT list instead of here. I 
>> have been away for a while and my protocol is rusty.
>> 
>> I believe that Watsan will stand for Water/Sanitation. It was probably an 
>> experiment by someone new. 
>> 
>> I also stated that 850 million people open defecate, but they are likely to 
>> use 10 different places a year. This was an unclear guesstimate. Apologies
>> 
>> Proper Details here
>> 
>> https://www.unicef.org/wash/files/UNICEF_Game_plan_to_end_open_defecation_2018.pdf
>> 
>> For UN Sustainable development goal 6
>> 
>> https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6
>> 
>> There is a community of people that are interested in hygiene: they are 
>> inspired by the famous broad street pump that was the first time cholera was 
>> spread by dirty water
>> 
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak
>> 
>> This was made possible because they had a map.
>> 
>> My inspiration is that if there is a map of Open Defication Areas(ODA) then 
>> it will inspire communities to do something about it.
>> 
>> My personal favourite is using solar power to dry the faeces reducing the 
>> pathogen load, then burning it in a low oxygen environment to kill the last 
>> pathogens at 600C, this makes biochar/charcol. This makes a great soil 
>> additive, it has a large surface area, absorbs water and doesn’t degrade. 
>> This is carbon sequestration. Urine which is sterile makes an excellent 
>> fertiliser.
>> 
>> Before this I need Open Defecation = yes for an area and a point rendered on 
>> the humanitarian Openstreetmap tile set. I know that people will be inspired 
>> to make this map and therefore add to the rest of the important features of 
>> the map.
>> 
>> I am happy to make the proposal but I wanted to check if it is acceptable to 
>> the community first.
>> 
>> shall I go ahead with the proposal?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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]

10 Sep 2019, 12:06 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:

> On Monday, 9 September 2019, marc marc wrote:
>
>> Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com:
>> > 
>> > Imho:the real problem, why we have multiple objects for
>> > "name:*"   tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )
>> > 
>> > Label is an  attempt to manually
>> > specify optimal place for placement of a label.
>>
>> the label doesn't need any tag
>> exept that some of them duplicate a country with a node place=country
>>
>
> The label node is also used for navigation and is used to indicate the city 
> centre.
>
> If I tell OSMand I want to go to Liverpool today, I don't expect it to direct 
> me to a residential street at the geographical centre.
>
I thought that this is meaning of 
admin_centre

Note that for example for a seaside town
in most (not all) map styles optimal
label placement is on the sea, not
in the city center.

And directing driver to closest road to
such label would not help.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jez Nicholson]

I fixed the image linkit didn't like the space between '=' and 'File:'

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:19 PM Sven Geggus 
wrote:

> Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
>
> > That's an interesting idea. I don't know much about this concept
> > myself, so it would be better if this were kept separate. Is it like
> > renting a summer cabin, or more like having a permanent spot in a
> > mobile home park (eg for fixed caravans)?
>
> No this is all about renting a pitch for your own caravan not for renting a
> whole caravan.  We already have static_caravans=yes for the latter.
>
> > I see it's already been used 50 times. Maybe you can make a proposal
> > or a wiki page to document it?
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:permanent_camping&action=edit
>
> OK, added this page.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:permanent_camping
>
> Is it allowed to add images from Wikipedia to OSM-Wiki?
>
> If so, there would be:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dauercamper_Asel_Sued_Edersee_20101024.JPG
>
> Regards
>
> Sven
>
> --
> The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies
> in
> Australia is the law of Australia.
> (Australian prime minister Malcom Turnbull)
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> ___
> 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 - Campsite properties

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Is it allowed to add images from Wikipedia to OSM-Wiki?

Yes, and all you have to do is write image=
File:Dauercamper_Asel_Sued_Edersee_20101024.JPG in the Description
box, for example. I've updated the new page with the image and some
more details, like that it needs to be added to a camp_site,
caravan_site or camp_pitch feature.

Thanks for documenting the tag!

(While I wouldn't have picked the key "permanent_camping" myself if
it's only on a seasonal or annual basis, I think it's probably fine,
and I can't think of a better English term.)

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 9/10/19, Sven Geggus  wrote:
> Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
>
>> That's an interesting idea. I don't know much about this concept
>> myself, so it would be better if this were kept separate. Is it like
>> renting a summer cabin, or more like having a permanent spot in a
>> mobile home park (eg for fixed caravans)?
>
> No this is all about renting a pitch for your own caravan not for renting a
> whole caravan.  We already have static_caravans=yes for the latter.
>
>> I see it's already been used 50 times. Maybe you can make a proposal
>> or a wiki page to document it?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:permanent_camping&action=edit
>
> OK, added this page.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:permanent_camping
>
> Is it allowed to add images from Wikipedia to OSM-Wiki?
>
> If so, there would be:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dauercamper_Asel_Sued_Edersee_20101024.JPG
>
> Regards
>
> Sven
>
> --
> The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies
> in
> Australia is the law of Australia.
> (Australian prime minister Malcom Turnbull)
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> ___
> 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"you don't know if GA is supported or not."

I'm not sure how to find this out. I mean, it's obvious enough when
you go to a small aerodrome and see lots of little private planes
which are not branded as a part of an airline that it's
general_aviation, but if you go to a big international airport there
might be some general_aviation stuff way off in a corner that you
won't even notice from the passenger terminal.

>  is a one-off charter flight also "commercial"

No, that's general aviation.

Commercial Air Transport of passengers = scheduled Airline flights
with tickets sold to the general public.

> Airports don't need to have their own buildings for customs/immigration

In theory? But in practice international airports have facilities to
check baggage and check passports. We are looking for a definition
that an ordinary person will understand. That's why I was focused on
"are there scheduled flights to another country? Can I call up the
airline or go to the ticket office or search online and buy a ticket
for next month?"

I think that's what most database users will want to know, and it's
also the definition of "international airport' that local people will
probably usually understand.

There's certainly some risk that aerodrome=international currently
includes places that have "international" in the name of the airport,
though they haven't had a scheduled passenger flight to an
international destination for years, so that would be a point in favor
of "international_flights=yes/no" instead.

- Joseph

On 9/10/19, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 10/09/2019 11:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
>>> that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.
>> military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this.
>
> I wasn't making any comment about what may or may not be the "standard"
> way to do this; just saying that aerodrome:type is one of the ways that
> mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.
>
> Compare:
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McF
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McE
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McG
>
> You'll notice that in that area (and I'm sure elsewhere) that there are
> edge cases - "military=airfield + landuse=military" won't exclude
> Cambeltown, which has the old IATA code in OSM but isn't currently
> landuse=military.
>
> You didn't mention military at all in your initial email, which seems
> like an omission.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Campsite properties

[Sven Geggus]

Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> That's an interesting idea. I don't know much about this concept
> myself, so it would be better if this were kept separate. Is it like
> renting a summer cabin, or more like having a permanent spot in a
> mobile home park (eg for fixed caravans)?

No this is all about renting a pitch for your own caravan not for renting a
whole caravan.  We already have static_caravans=yes for the latter.

> I see it's already been used 50 times. Maybe you can make a proposal
> or a wiki page to document it?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:permanent_camping&action=edit

OK, added this page.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:permanent_camping

Is it allowed to add images from Wikipedia to OSM-Wiki?

If so, there would be:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dauercamper_Asel_Sued_Edersee_20101024.JPG

Regards

Sven

-- 
The laws of mathematics are very commendable but the only law that applies in
Australia is the law of Australia.
(Australian prime minister Malcom Turnbull)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

[Jez Nicholson]

You are wanting to tag something that is identifiable on-the-ground. It
could be of great social value. What's not to like? The question is more
about the detail rather than whether it should happen.

Has there been any discussion about
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets applying (or not)
to an open area?

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:17 AM Bob Kerr via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Apologies if I started this conversation on the HOT list instead of here.
> I have been away for a while and my protocol is rusty.
>
> I believe that Watsan will stand for Water/Sanitation. It was probably an
> experiment by someone new.
>
> I also stated that 850 million people open defecate, but they are likely
> to use 10 different places a year. This was an unclear guesstimate.
> Apologies
>
> Proper Details here
>
>
> https://www.unicef.org/wash/files/UNICEF_Game_plan_to_end_open_defecation_2018.pdf
>
> For UN Sustainable development goal 6
>
> https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6
>
> There is a community of people that are interested in hygiene: they are
> inspired by the famous broad street pump that was the first time cholera
> was spread by dirty water
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak
>
> This was made possible because they had a map.
>
> My inspiration is that if there is a map of Open Defication Areas(ODA)
> then it will inspire communities to do something about it.
>
> My personal favourite is using solar power to dry the faeces reducing the
> pathogen load, then burning it in a low oxygen environment to kill the last
> pathogens at 600C, this makes biochar/charcol. This makes a great soil
> additive, it has a large surface area, absorbs water and doesn’t degrade.
> This is carbon sequestration. Urine which is sterile makes an excellent
> fertiliser.
>
> Before this I need Open Defecation = yes for an area and a point rendered
> on the humanitarian Openstreetmap tile set. I know that people will be
> inspired to make this map and therefore add to the rest of the important
> features of the map.
>
> I am happy to make the proposal but I wanted to check if it is acceptable
> to the community first.
>
> shall I go ahead with the proposal?
>
> Cheers
>
> Bob
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Janko Mihelić]

pon, 9. ruj 2019. u 16:24 Mateusz Konieczny 
napisao je:

> Monaco includes for example territorial
> waters while it is not a part of the city.
> City states may include also other areas
> that is not a part of the city.
>

Then in OSM city and city-state are different things. In Wikidata we only
have an article about the city-state. This article also talks about the
city, but the overall theme is the city-state. That means, only the
admin_level=2 should get the wikidata tag. If we tagged everything that the
article describes, we could tag every entity inside the relation
(Monaco-Ville, formula race track, the port) with wikidata=Q235, and that
makes no sense. We only tag the one entity that best points to the subject
of the article.

If that is not possible, use part:wikidata=*.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/09/2019 11:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.

military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this.


I wasn't making any comment about what may or may not be the "standard" 
way to do this; just saying that aerodrome:type is one of the ways that 
mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.


Compare:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McF

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McE

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/McG

You'll notice that in that area (and I'm sure elsewhere) that there are 
edge cases - "military=airfield + landuse=military" won't exclude 
Cambeltown, which has the old IATA code in OSM but isn't currently 
landuse=military.


You didn't mention military at all in your initial email, which seems 
like an omission.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Colin Smale]

To keep things in one place, I have copied my comment on the wiki
discussion page together with Josephs response here. Once concepts have
been conflated, once accuracy is lost, it is impossible to recreate it.

> "An international airport currently is aeroway [1]=aerodrome [2] + name [3]=* 
> + iata [4]=* + icao [5]=* + operator [6]=*, so we can either add aerodrome 
> [7]=international [8] or add international_flights [9]=yes + 
> commercial_flights [10]=yes + general_aviation [11]=yes."

If you tag it as aerodrome=international, you don't know if GA is
supported or not. And is a one-off charter flight also "commercial"? 

Airports don't need to have their own buildings for customs/immigration,
any more than yacht harbours do. As long as a customs officer is
prepared to meet the flight, or if there is some other process in place,
then international flights can possibly be accommodated. 

=== 

Surely these values are orthogonal attributes, not a classifier for the
whole aerodrome? Looking from the air it would not be possible to see
the difference, unless you use this value as some kind of a proxy for
"size" or "apparent importance". An aerodrome is an aerodrome; it MAY
have commercial (scheduled?) flights, it MAY be used for cargo flights,
it MAY have facilities for international flights (presence or
availability of customs/immigration facilities), it MAY allow GA
traffic, etc. --Csmale [12] (talk [13]) 08:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
"Looking from the air it would not be possible to see the difference" -
Right, these tags are about the purpose/function of the
aerodrome/airport, not how it looks from the air or it's size on the
map. This can be calculated from the area, if it's mapped as one. The
definition in this proposal makes it clear that aerodrome
[7]=international [8] is a subset of commercial airports: it's an
aerodrome that has scheduled commercial passenger service to another
country. Similarly aerodrome [7]=airstrip [14] is a subset of
general_aviation aerodromes which lack services and paved runways. These
two tags are the ones that I'm interested in adding. But I thought it
would be reasonable to provide a tag for general_aviation aerodromes -
this is pretty much the "default" value, since most aerodromes fit this
definition, and "private" is widely used - as mentioned, I think we
should probably add access [15]=private [16] to these. While in theory
"an aerodrome is an aerodrome", airports don't suddently start offering
international flights without major construction projects to add customs
and immigration facilities, usually in a new terminal building or
addition. And an airstrip won't suddenly start offering commercial
flights. The alternative would be creating a bunch of new property tags,
like international_flights=yes, commercial_flights=yes,
general_aviation=yes, er... airstrip=yes? An international airport
currently is aeroway [1]=aerodrome [2] + name [3]=* + iata [4]=* + icao
[5]=* + operator [6]=*, so we can either add aerodrome [7]=international
[8] or add international_flights [9]=yes + commercial_flights [10]=yes +
general_aviation [11]=yes. And tagging an "airstrip" as fuel=no,
hangar=no, paved_runway=no etc. would be rather over-complicated. While
having such details might be nice for pilots, it wouldn't give general
map users much help. --Jeisenbe [17] (talk [18]) 10:03, 10 September
2019 (UTC) 

On 2019-09-10 11:14, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

>> re we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion 
>> page, or both, or what?
> 
> "Both" is probably the realistic option.
> 
> We can't require anyone to login to wiki.openstreetmap.org to comment
> on this idea, though I do think the discussion there would be easier
> to follow.
> 
>> aeroway=airstrip
> 
> This feature is not currently rendered by any maps that I am aware of.
> 
>> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an [aerodrome] with more uses and 
>> also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.
> 
> This would probably be aerodrome=private, since it's not open to
> anyone else other than the ranch / station owners and their invited
> guests, I imagine? Adding access=private would be recommended.
> 
> - Joseph
> 
> On 9/10/19, Colin Smale  wrote: Point of order, also 
> with half an eye on the "tagging governance"
> discussion Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in
> the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a
> single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform
> directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean.
> 
> On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote:
> 
> On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> 
> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
> 
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
> 
> This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
> aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
> airport, general aviation aero

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways
> that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.

military=airfield + landuse=military is the standard way to do this.

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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Christoph's comment is similar to what Simon Poole said on
Talk:Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

So the alternative would be to use several new property keys instead
of a single key, eg:

international_flights=yes/no (presence of international passenger flights)
commercial_flights=yes/no (presence and nature of regular passenger
flight service)
access=? (openness to public from the air/access restrictions on the ground)
fuel= etc. (presence of services for airplanes)
surface=* (surface and length of the runway) - length already shown

But it's quite a bit more work to map an airstrip as:
aeroway=aerodrome + name= + access=private + fuel=no + hangar=no +
commercial_flights=no + general_aviation=no + radio=no + ? etc

Versus just mapping aeroway=aerodrome + aerodrome=airstrip + name

I suspect that mappers will continue using aeroway=airstrip in most
cases, instead of setting a large number of property keys to "key=no"

On the other end of the spectrum, international_flights= or
commercial_flights= would not be too much trouble, but
international_flights=yes/ would be a little harder to verify and keep
up-to-date than whether the aerodrome has customs and immigration
(=international), which can't change as quickly.

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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/09/2019 08:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*


That seems like a bad idea because aerodrome:type is one of the ways 
that mappers distinguish between military and non-military airfields.


That, combined with whether the object has an iata code or note is 
useful for deciding whether something is what a normal person would 
describe as an "airport" or not:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L4812

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The tag aerodrome=international was meant for airports that have
regularly scheduled commercial passenger flights to another country.

On 9/10/19, Chris Hill  wrote:
> On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
>>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>>
>>See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>>
>>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>>
>>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>>
>>Values to be approved:
>>* aerodrome=international - already common
>>* aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
>>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>>* aerodrome=private  - already common
>>* aerodrome=airstrip
>>
>>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
>>with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>>
>>It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
>>and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
>>times.
>>
>>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>>
>>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>>adding access=*
>>
>>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
>>
>>- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>>___
>>Tagging mailing list
>>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. I have
> used an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield to fly from the
> UK to France. The airfield had no commercial or regular flights, it was used
> by private pilots for fun (usually termed 'general aviation') and for a few
> ad-hoc commercial flights: specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base
> for filming flights etc. Private pilots make international flights from all
> kinds of airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful
> distinction. People generally want to know if they can get a scheduled or
> charter flight to or from an airport.
> --
> Chris Hill
> ( OSM: chillly)

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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Chris Hill]

On 10 September 2019 08:35:42 BST, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:
>I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>
>See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>
>This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>
>It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>
>Values to be approved:
>* aerodrome=international - already common
>* aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
>* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>* aerodrome=private  - already common
>* aerodrome=airstrip
>
>Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
>with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>
>It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
>and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
>times.
>
>aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>
>aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>adding access=*
>
>Comments? I still need to add some examples.
>
>- Joseph Eisenberg
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Any airfield, no matter how small, can make international flights. I have used 
an air taxi service from a small, registered airfield to fly from the UK to 
France. The airfield had no commercial or regular flights, it was used by 
private pilots for fun (usually termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc 
commercial flights: specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming 
flights etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of 
airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful distinction. People 
generally want to know if they can get a scheduled or charter flight to or from 
an airport.
-- 
Chris Hill
( OSM: chillly)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 10 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

The problem with this kind of tag is that while it can be in principle a 
verifiable tag - provided that the suggested values are clearly defined 
this way it is still an aggregate score designed for usefulness for 
certain data users rather than for good mappability.

An example:

In Germany civil airfields are classified by law 
into "Verkehrslandeplätze", "Sonderlandeplätze" 
and "Segelfluggelände".  "Verkehrslandeplätze" is pretty much the same 
as aerodrome=general_aviation - i.e. can be used by pilots without 
prior permission by the operator.  However "Sonderlandeplätze" is not 
the same as aerodrome=private - there are SLP that qualify as 
aerodrome=commercial because they have regular commercial flights.

In short:  Many of your suggested values are based on properties that 
are independent of each other.  It would be more useful for the data 
user and easier to map for the mapper to document these separately.

Specifically i see:

* presence and nature of regular passenger flight service
* openness to public from the air
* access restrictions on the ground
* presence of services for airplanes
* surface and length of the runway

And not in the proposal but a useful property:

* restrictions to certain types of planes (like non-motorized gliders)

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

[Bob Kerr via Tagging]

Hi,

Apologies if I started this conversation on the HOT list instead of here. I 
have been away for a while and my protocol is rusty.

I believe that Watsan will stand for Water/Sanitation. It was probably an 
experiment by someone new. 

I also stated that 850 million people open defecate, but they are likely to use 
10 different places a year. This was an unclear guesstimate. Apologies

Proper Details here

https://www.unicef.org/wash/files/UNICEF_Game_plan_to_end_open_defecation_2018.pdf

For UN Sustainable development goal 6

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6

There is a community of people that are interested in hygiene: they are 
inspired by the famous broad street pump that was the first time cholera was 
spread by dirty water

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak

This was made possible because they had a map.

My inspiration is that if there is a map of Open Defication Areas(ODA) then it 
will inspire communities to do something about it.

My personal favourite is using solar power to dry the faeces reducing the 
pathogen load, then burning it in a low oxygen environment to kill the last 
pathogens at 600C, this makes biochar/charcol. This makes a great soil 
additive, it has a large surface area, absorbs water and doesn’t degrade. This 
is carbon sequestration. Urine which is sterile makes an excellent fertiliser.

Before this I need Open Defecation = yes for an area and a point rendered on 
the humanitarian Openstreetmap tile set. I know that people will be inspired to 
make this map and therefore add to the rest of the important features of the 
map.

I am happy to make the proposal but I wanted to check if it is acceptable to 
the community first.

shall I go ahead with the proposal?

Cheers

Bob


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

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> re we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in the wiki discussion 
> page, or both, or what?

"Both" is probably the realistic option.

We can't require anyone to login to wiki.openstreetmap.org to comment
on this idea, though I do think the discussion there would be easier
to follow.

> aeroway=airstrip

This feature is not currently rendered by any maps that I am aware of.

> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an [aerodrome] with more uses and also 
> usually provides refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.

This would probably be aerodrome=private, since it's not open to
anyone else other than the ranch / station owners and their invited
guests, I imagine? Adding access=private would be recommended.

- Joseph

On 9/10/19, Colin Smale  wrote:
> Point of order, also with half an eye on the "tagging governance"
> discussion Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in
> the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a
> single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform
> directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean.
>
> On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>>> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>>>
>>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>>>
>>> This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>>> aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>>> airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>>>
>>> It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>>>
>>> Values to be approved:
>>> * aerodrome=international - already common
>>> * aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
>>> * aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>>> * aerodrome=private  - already common
>>> * aerodrome=airstrip
>>>
>>> Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>>> airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
>>> with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>>>
>>> It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
>>> and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
>>> times.
>>>
>>> aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>>> airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>>>
>>> aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>>> adding access=*
>>
>> Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic'
>> might be better than 'commercial'???
>>
>> I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include
>> airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on
>> the proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better
>> term. There are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land
>> sailplanes. The launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be
>> open to the public for joy flights in tandem sailplanes.
>>
>> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This
>> use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm
>> duties and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled
>> aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides
>> refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.
>> I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not
>> render until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by 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] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 9 September 2019, marc marc wrote:
> Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com:
> > 
> > Imho:the real problem, why we have multiple objects for
> > "name:*"   tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )
> > 
> > Label is an  attempt to manually
> > specify optimal place for placement of a label.
> 
> the label doesn't need any tag
> exept that some of them duplicate a country with a node place=country
> 

The label node is also used for navigation and is used to indicate the city 
centre.

If I tell OSMand I want to go to Liverpool today, I don't expect it to direct 
me to a residential street at the geographical centre.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - appointment

[Warin]

The key 'opening_hours' has a free from text entry facility.

I have used this where a museum is open by appointment only thus

'opening_hours="By appointment, phone "' (the ### is the phone number that 
I don't recall of the top of my head.


I think this is more versatile than yet another value as it allows an 
individual response in the local language.



On 09/09/19 06:11, Simon Poole wrote:

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



___
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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Colin Smale]

Point of order, also with half an eye on the "tagging governance"
discussion Are we going to discuss this on the mailing list, or in
the wiki discussion page, or both, or what? I suggest focussing on a
single platform, and placing a notification on the other platform
directing readers to the other platform, if you see what I mean.

On 2019-09-10 10:32, Warin wrote:

> On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: 
> 
>> I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.
>> 
>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome
>> 
>> This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
>> aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
>> airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.
>> 
>> It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*
>> 
>> Values to be approved:
>> * aerodrome=international - already common
>> * aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
>> * aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
>> * aerodrome=private  - already common
>> * aerodrome=airstrip
>> 
>> Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
>> airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
>> with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.
>> 
>> It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
>> and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
>> times.
>> 
>> aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
>> airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.
>> 
>> aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
>> adding access=*
> 
> Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic' 
> might be better than 'commercial'???
> 
> I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include 
> airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on the 
> proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better term. There 
> are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land sailplanes. The 
> launching may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be open to the public for 
> joy flights in tandem sailplanes.
> 
> Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This 
> use can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm duties 
> and for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled 
> aerodrome=airstrip, in that it has more uses and also usually provides 
> refuelling and basic primitive aircraft services.
> I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not render 
> until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by 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] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Warin]

On 10/09/19 17:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

Values to be approved:
* aerodrome=international - already common
* aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
* aerodrome=private  - already common
* aerodrome=airstrip

Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.

It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
times.

aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.

aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
adding access=*


Here there are 'international' and 'domestic' airports. I think 'domestic' 
might be better than 'commercial'???

I have no idea what a 'aerodrome=private' is. I think this could include 
airports used for skydiving .. so open to the public. Arr it is also on the 
proposal page sorry. It is a confusing value, no idea of a better term. There 
are also sailplane airstrips used to launch and land sailplanes. The launching 
may be done by a 'tug' aircraft. They can be open to the public for joy flights 
in tandem sailplanes.

Many outback homesteads (ranches) have an airstrip for their own use. This use 
can be to get to the shops, the neighbours, mail deliveries, farm duties and 
for the flying doctor. This goes beyond the proposaled aerodrome=airstrip, in 
that it has more uses and also usually provides refuelling and basic primitive 
aircraft services.
I think the reason why aeroway=airstrip is use is so that it does not render 
until zoomed in. Yes, a rendering issue taken care of by tagging.


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

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

[Philip Barnes]

Have not stayed at a campsite that charges for showers for sometime now but 
many require a token, rather than coins.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >shower:fee=yes
> 
> I believe "yes/no" is better for fee, since the value may change frequently.
> 
>  If you are mapping detailed information about the showers, it would
> be best to map these as a separate node with amenity=shower, if you
> know it's correct location.
> 
> In that case you could use hot_water=yes and fee=yes etc. instead of
> having to use namespacing. See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshower
> 
> The proposal only approves shower=yes/no and amenity=shower but that
> doesn't stop you from using shower=hot and shower:fee=* if you want
> to.
> 
> > capacity:powered / power_supply=30 ?
> 
> While you could do that, if you are getting into that much detail it
> might be better to map each tourism=camp_pitch, if you have time for
> it. Then you can tag each camp_pitch with power_supply individually.
> 
> - Joseph
> 
> On 9/10/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 11:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Another question :-)
> >>
> >
> > & again!
> >
> > There are powered pitches available, but there are only 30 of them (mixture
> > of tent & caravan), while there are virtually unlimited numbers of
> > unpowered pitches.
> >
> > capacity:powered / power_supply=30 ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >>
> >
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Governance

[Jez Nicholson]

Hi Roland,

I guess this is for your upcoming SotM session "New processes to agree on
tagging suggestions and their interaction with the editing software
available on openstreetmap.org"
https://2019.stateofthemap.org/sessions/PPTHFQ/

If I were tackling this as a consultancy project I might map out the
current processes, highlight good and bad points, then identify places
where the process could be improved.

I looked recently at how UK shop names/types defaults get into iD and how
the UK community can influence it. This led me to the (pleasant) discovery
of a) the Name Suggestion Index (NSI)
https://osmlab.github.io/name-suggestion-index/index.html b) the OSMUS
Slack channel, c) the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom wiki
page.

Good points were: the vocabulary is editable by anyone capable of using
JSON and github; the NSI is used by multiple apps (e.g. Vespucci and iD);
the iD Developers are open to discussion; individuals updating the NSI with
UK shops looked at the osmwiki 'UK retail chains' page.

Bad points were: not everyone can/wants to use github; the NSI may be
receiving too many trivial additions; there is a great will to advance.
Sometimes this means that arbitrary choices are made; the osmwiki page is
edited by a small number of people.

To improve this process we might: run an OSMUK Quarterly Project to collect
and publish current photos of shopfronts (as proof of the brand name used);
ask app developers to include new features that collect metadata; get
grants from OSMF to pay developers to add these new features; insist that
the NSI site evidence for additions; document and publicise the process;
etc.

However, you could argue that evolution of the process is not strong enough
and that revolutionary change is needed.

See you at your session.

Regards,
  Jez

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 5:57 AM Roland Olbricht 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have got into the duty to talk about tagging governance on the SotM
> and I would like to develop that opportunity towards something that is
> rather helpful in the long term.
> To ensure that I am on the right track and not unintentionally after a
> personal agenda I would like to ask you to comment on the findings so
> far listed below.
>
> This is a copy of the message to talk@. As a courtesy to your fellow
> mappers I suggest to keep the discussion in one thread and reply there.
>
>
> Imperfect Flow of Information
>
> Although many parts of the OpenStreetMap project are well translated,
> the tagging documentation has substantial deficiencies.
> Over a random sample of 10 tags the number of declared languages varies
> between 2 and 18,
> but only few are complete and up to date (sample: 2 of 10 for German, 3
> of 10 for French).
>
> Another kind of imperfect information flow is that tag definitions can
> be changed on the wiki page long after the tag is in widespread use.
>
> The converse case that a tag is introduced without any documentation is
> also happening. While this happens by ordinary users usually slow enough
> to make sense of the added data, an import or organized edit might be
> able to substantially skew the de facto meaning of a tag, regardless
> whether it is in widespread use, documented, both, or none.
>
>
> More Structure needed
>
> The translation issues have been conflated with a different problem:
> Different features may look very different between regions. E.g.
> highway=primary and highway=unclassfied versus highway=track
> need different sets of examples in Germany and the urban US on the one
> hand and Iceland or rural Africa on the other. It is easy to mix this
> with the translation into the predominant language in the area,
> but the tagging challenges in Belgium, Canada, and Niger are
> substantially different, although all three countries happen to have
> French as official language. Conversely, there is no sane reason to
> change tagging rules every block of houses in Brussels.
>
> Additionally, people often have different search terms than the British
> English tag names or their translations, and the wiki search engine is
> infamous for its bad performance. Having explicit keywords to direct the
> attention of a mapper to the list of possibly fitting tags might help.
>
> A substantial problem source of the concept of proposals is
> that it interacts with lots of tags in a nontrivial way and is
> practically never properly applied to all affected tag definitions.
> A proposal currently is an extra page although it should have much more
> an impact like a Git commit, grouping changes across various tag
> definition pages in a single changeset.
>
>
> Legitimacy and Governance
>
> What legitimation has a process if only a handful of people have that
> have the time to write mails on a mailing list and to write wiki pages
> are involved? In particular, if the proposals end up as being full of
> contradictions or vague terms and leave necessary answers undefined.
> Yet these still 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - appointment

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Sep 2019, at 22:11, Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
> 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")?


it may be the same for apps, it isn’t for mappers, “unknown” is an imperative 
for surveying it. It may also make a difference for some searching for such 
features, because unknown means you might be lucky and they’ll serve you, by 
appointment means you must not even try if they might be open.

I welcome documenting this value, as it is already used with varying syntax 
more than 500 times, so it is clear mappers want it: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/opening_hours#values

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

[Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I've started a new proposal for Key:aerodrome.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:aerodrome

This proposal uses aerodrome=* for classification of an
aeroway=aerodrome as an international airport, other commercial
airport, general aviation aerodrome, private aerodrome, or airstrip.

It would deprecate aeroway=airstrip and aerodrome:type=*

Values to be approved:
* aerodrome=international - already common
* aerodrome=commercial  - new tag
* aerodrome=general_aviation  - new tag (default type)
* aerodrome=private  - already common
* aerodrome=airstrip

Currently the IATA code is quite helpful for finding commercial
airports which offer scheduled passenger flights, but a few aerodromes
with an IATA code do not have commercial flights.

It would be helpful to know which airports have international flights,
and the tag aerodrome=international has already been used over 1000
times.

aerodrome=airstrip is better than aeroway=airstrip, because an
airstrip is still a type of aerodrome.

aerodrome=private is already widely used, but I'm also recommending
adding access=*

Comments? I still need to add some examples.

- Joseph Eisenberg

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