Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Could you please give us an example photo, Jorge?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:18, Jorge Aguirre  wrote:

> Throughout the entire Latin American region and some other parts of the
> world, it is quite common to find the kilometer (Km.) information, as may
> be found on the “highway:milestone”, as part of the actual addresses.
> Mostly used in suburban and rural areas, which may usually not even have
> any visible references or even house numbers, the use of the milestone is
> widely utilized to find an address in these regions.
>
> The highway milestone information may also be found in addresses within
> urban areas, even with the existence of house numbers, as these numbers
> frequently repeat themselves and the only difference between them is the
> exact location on a specific highway - based on and easily identified with
> these milestones.
>
> We want to create a tag to enter this commonly-used data in a logical way
> and therefore propose that it be “addr:milestone=* / (* - Km. ##)”, which
> does seem to meet the criteria and can be easily interpreted and used
> accordingly by any editor.
>
>
> Jorge - JAAS
>
>
> Jorge Aguirre  | Kaart  |  +502.4191.1999  |  jorge.agui...@kaart.com
>
>
> KAART CONFIDENTIAL
> This message (including any attachments) is for the private use of the
> addressee only and may contain confidential or privileged information. If
> you have received this message by mistake please notify the sender by
> return e-mail and delete this message and any attachments from your system.
> Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message, and any attachments
> in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.
>
>
> ___
> 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] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

[Jorge Aguirre]

Throughout the entire Latin American region and some other parts of the world, 
it is quite common to find the kilometer (Km.) information, as may be found on 
the “highway:milestone”, as part of the actual addresses. Mostly used in 
suburban and rural areas, which may usually not even have any visible 
references or even house numbers, the use of the milestone is widely utilized 
to find an address in these regions. 

The highway milestone information may also be found in addresses within urban 
areas, even with the existence of house numbers, as these numbers frequently 
repeat themselves and the only difference between them is the exact location on 
a specific highway - based on and easily identified with these milestones.

We want to create a tag to enter this commonly-used data in a logical way and 
therefore propose that it be “addr:milestone=* / (* - Km. ##)”, which does seem 
to meet the criteria and can be easily interpreted and used accordingly by any 
editor.


Jorge - JAAS


Jorge Aguirre  | Kaart  |  +502.4191.1999  |  jorge.agui...@kaart.com


KAART CONFIDENTIAL
This message (including any attachments) is for the private use of the 
addressee only and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you 
have received this message by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail 
and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Any unauthorized 
use or dissemination of this message, and any attachments in whole or in part 
is strictly prohibited.


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

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/9/19 22:42, Philip Barnes wrote:


Which is how we end up with River Avon, avon (afon in welsh) meaning river 
hence River River.



At least they asked. In Australia it was a bunch of white guys traveling 
around saying: that's Botany Bay, that's Cape Howe, that's Mount 
Upstart, that'sthat's...what day is it?...Thursday Island.


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

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/9/19 22:15, Paul Allen wrote:

That wasn't the one I saw, but it did remind me that the one I saw was
somewhere on the NLS site.  Close enough to make the same point, though. 



I've read the same thing in a number of different places but they're all 
referring to Colby's instructions.


> Ultimately, the official names derive from going around and asking 
locals.


Only the "right sort" of locals. This caused a problem in Ireland 
because the "right sort" of local was usually the local priest...who was 
often Protestant and from England.


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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 21:26, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> For local place names they quizzed local people "What do
> you call that?" and that's the name they used on their maps.
>

Quite a number of Australian place- & natural feature (mountain, river etc)
names use Aboriginal words, but, there is no such thing as an Aboriginal
alphabet, as none of the languages (approx 300 - 350) were ever written
down, they were only verbal.

Spelling of these names is now being based on somebody translating what
they think is the correct pronunciation of the appropriate Aboriginal word
into English characters (&, in some cases, using a word that wasn't from
the local language)

Sometimes spelled incorrectly.
>

I have some official maps of our area dating only from the 1960's that show
suburb names spelt differently to what they are today! Which is correct? My
Mum lived in this area most of her life & always pronounced one suburb with
a "p" in the middle of the name, despite no p being in the spelling now,
but it is shown with one on those 1960's maps. Officially, that suburb was
only named (without the p) in 1982, but she knew it since the 1920's.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:42:38 +
Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Monday, 30 September 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Andrew Davidson 
> > wrote: 
> > > On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for
> > > > that led me there.  
> > >
> > > It in many places but this one will do:
> > >
> > > https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch/os_info3.html  
> > 
> > 
> > That wasn't the one I saw, but it did remind me that the one I saw
> > was somewhere on the
> > NLS site.  Close enough to make the same point, though.
> > Ultimately, the official names
> > derive from going around and asking locals.
> >   
> Which is how we end up with River Avon, avon (afon in welsh) meaning
> river hence River River.

Could be worse: the mythical Torpenhow Hill could have made it onto the
map.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30 Sep 2019, 09:33 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 03:41 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <> 
> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com > >:
>
>>
>>
>>  know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even
>>  challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the
>>  names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a
>>  topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
>>  while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
>>  I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
>>  that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)
>>
>
>
> IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so. 
> Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area and 
> ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.
>
Allowing solely signed names is ridiculously extreme, it sounds like a 
misunderstanding.

Maybe it was intended as "locally signed name is more important than desires of
an individual/organization/government".

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Kevin Kenny]

On 30. Sep 2019, at 14:02, Paul Allen  wrote:
> And then there are basilicas, both major and minor, which
> rank higher than cathedrals.

A basilica is a church that is formally designated as a place of
pilgrimage. It doesn't rank 'higher' than a cathedral, although many
basilicas are also cathedrals. It does rank higher than parish
churches in its diocese, but that ranking is mostly a matter of the
ceremonial trappings that attach. The conopæum and tintinnabulum are
carried in processions, the chapter members wear the cappa magna as
part of formal choir dress, and so on.

Examples: In Rome, St Peter's, St Mary Major, and St Paul's Without
the Walls are all basilicas, but none of these is a cathedral. The
Papal throne is not at St Peter's Basilica, but rather the Cathedral
of St. John Lateran (which is also a basilica - Rome has four major
basilicas). Also, "it's complicated", because the major basilicas
(plus St Lawrence) are also traditionally associated with the
patriarchs of the oriental churches - St Peter's with Constantinople,
St Paul's with Alexandria, St Mary Major with Antioch and St Lawrence
with Jerusalem, so they contain (unused) thrones for those patriarchs.

In Paris, the Sacré-Coeur is a basilica, but is in the episcopal see
of Paris, and is therefore subordinate to Notre-Dame de Paris, which
is a cathedral and (if memory serves) not a basilica.

In New York, the Basilica of St Patrick's Old Cathedral is a basilica
and a parish church. It was formerly the cathedral of the Archdiocese
of New York, but the episcopal throne moved to a much larger worship
space in 1879, and Old St Patricks was a mere parish church until Pope
Benedict XVI designated it a minor basilica in 2010. It doesn't look
too different from any other big urban church. It was the largest
church in the city when it opened in 1815, but was soon surpassed.

The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception is
the largest Catholic church in North America, and is (as the name
suggests) a [minor] basilica. It is likewise not a cathedral, but is
subordinate to the Archdiocese of Washington. It is, in fact, not even
a parish church, having no local community of its own. The throne of
the Archbishop of Washington is at St Matthew's Cathedral in downtown
Washington.

You can't tell a cathedral from any other big church by appearance
from the outside. (Inside, it's distinguished by the presence of the
episcopal throne.)

'Chapel' is a problematic word outside the UK. For what it's worth,
there are no fewer than 81 chapels inside the Basilica of the National
Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. 'Chapel' in this sense denotes a
worship space inside a larger building. (Around me, there are chapels
in airport terminals, university buildings, and even shopping malls.)
'Chapel' when applied to a stand-alone church also usually carries the
meaning that the church does not have its own parish. In UK English,
'chapel' can mean any church that is not affiliated with the
Established Church - for many years, these communities could not
lawfully use the word, 'church' and so called themselves 'chapels'
instead. Since a great many of these were from Wesleyan and Calvinist
denominations that eschewed ornamentation (and especially graven
images), they tend to have a distinct architecture. This is not true
in many other parts of the world. Without the context of the graveyard
behind it, I'd be hard put to say whether
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steveguttman/2814490383 is a church, a
one-room schoolhouse, a Masonic temple, Grange hall or other social
space, or even a former village hall. All public buildings of that
period in that area tended to be plain and boxy, and many had bells to
summon people, and hence had steeples to house them.

> yes, this is one meaning of the word basilica, especially in catholicism, 
> there is also another, art historic one, which describes a building of 3 
> naves in a specific configuration (lower lateral naves and windows below the 
> roof between the central nave and those lateral naves)

Right, and a basilica in ancient times was where a major dignitary
would hold court - the focus was the throne rather than the altar.

> Additionally, I believe (not completely sure), that cathedrals might keep 
> their title after a reorganization of the administrative district (so there 
> could be 2 cathedrals for one bishop in some cases). And there are lower 
> titles of churches, like collegiate churches, parish churches, etc, which are 
> still more important than “ordinary” churches.

C of E and the Catholics have different organizational structure
there, and both denominations have complicated sets of exceptions as
well. A metropolitan cathedral is superior to the suffragan cathedrals
in its province, certain abbeys report directly to Rome rather than
the local Ordinary (and certain abbots are even Ordinaries without
being bishops!), and various other things like that.  Do we really
want to go there?

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> I have proposed a long time ago a tag religious_rank which was thought for
> example as a modifier for places of worship and monsteries. It’s not
> particularly popular, but it could be suitable for finer distinctions:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/religious_rank
>

Some denominations have strict ranks.  Others are far more egalitarian.
And what rank is
the only place of worship of a very small denomination?

(It’s currently not very likely we will map religious divisions/districts
> and represent the whole hierarchy of the catholic church (or others, but
> they are the biggest and likely most organized/differentiated) so that we
> could add churches as seat of a bishop to a relation).
>

A diocesan relation might be useful to some people.  But is it necessary to
have a rank
tag on the places of worship to achieve it?  A role would do the same thing.


> Additionally, I believe (not completely sure), that cathedrals might keep
> their title after a reorganization of the administrative district (so there
> could be 2 cathedrals for one bishop in some cases).
>

Nope.  The cathedral follows the bishop (in Catholicism, not sure about
other denominations
that have cathedrals).  If a bishop moves out of a large, ornate building
with gothic arches
and flying buttresses (what most of us think of when we hear the word
"cathedral") then it
ceases to be a cathedral.  If that bishop moves into a small, crude chapel
then it becomes
the cathedral.  In practise that rarely happens and bishops get the biggest
and best
buildings.

Nevertheless, most people who see a certain type of building immediately
think "cathedral"
whether it has a bishop or not.


> And there are lower titles of churches, like collegiate churches, parish
> churches, etc, which are still more important than “ordinary” churches.
>

Few of those distinctions are obvious from the outside, though.  And we
both forgot about
minsters.  But I think this is taking us into the realms of how many angels
can dance on the
head of an OSM node.  I wonder if any light can be shed upon this
discussion by
No'-as-big-as-Medium-Sized-Jock-but-bigger-than-Wee-Jock-Jock.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Sep 2019, at 14:02, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> And then there are basilicas, both major and minor, which
> rank higher than cathedrals. 


yes, this is one meaning of the word basilica, especially in catholicism, there 
is also another, art historic one, which describes a building of 3 naves in a 
specific configuration (lower lateral naves and windows below the roof between 
the central nave and those lateral naves).

I have proposed a long time ago a tag religious_rank which was thought for 
example as a modifier for places of worship and monsteries. It’s not 
particularly popular, but it could be suitable for finer distinctions:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/religious_rank
(It’s currently not very likely we will map religious divisions/districts and 
represent the whole hierarchy of the catholic church (or others, but they are 
the biggest and likely most organized/differentiated) so that we could add 
churches as seat of a bishop to a relation). Additionally, I believe (not 
completely sure), that cathedrals might keep their title after a reorganization 
of the administrative district (so there could be 2 cathedrals for one bishop 
in some cases). And there are lower titles of churches, like collegiate 
churches, parish churches, etc, which are still more important than “ordinary” 
churches.

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 30 September 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> > On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led
> > > me there.
> >
> > It in many places but this one will do:
> >
> > https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch/os_info3.html
> 
> 
> That wasn't the one I saw, but it did remind me that the one I saw was
> somewhere on the
> NLS site.  Close enough to make the same point, though.  Ultimately, the
> official names
> derive from going around and asking locals.
> 
Which is how we end up with River Avon, avon (afon in welsh) meaning river 
hence River River.

Phil (trigpoint) 

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

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led
> > me there.
>
> It in many places but this one will do:
>
> https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch/os_info3.html


That wasn't the one I saw, but it did remind me that the one I saw was
somewhere on the
NLS site.  Close enough to make the same point, though.  Ultimately, the
official names
derive from going around and asking locals.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 08:10, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Another counter-argument: we don't have any tag indicating residential
> usage other
> > than building=house
>
> we do, there are terrace, duplex, villa, apartments, caravan, detached and
> probably more. They are implying residential purpose just the same as does
> „house“.
>

And they are all building=*.  We can have building=industrial +
amenity=place_of_worship +
religion=christian for a church in a unit on an industrial estate.  We
don't have that
orthogonality for residential uses.  Yes, there's building:use (which
didn't go through an
approval process) but it's not orthogonal to tags like amenity=*.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 07:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> the point of tagging amenity and building independently is to distinguish
> between structure and use/service
>

Some of us think that.  Others think that building=yes|no are the only
options.

>
> > Counter-argument: Christian
> > places of worship can be chapels, churches, cathedrals with distinctive
> architectures,
>
> I think cathedrals are also churches (of a high rank) while chapels aren’t
> (lower rank).
>

The terms have several meanings.  They're all churches, in one sense, but
cathedrals are
also the seat of a bishop.  A church can have one or more chapels inside
it.  In another
sense, they're all churches (Christian places of worship).  Chapels (at
least not those
embedded in a church) do not have a permanent parish.  As you said, in one
sense the
terms are a designation of rank.  But, as a practical matter, the
higher-ranking ones
usually had more funds allotted to their construction and were larger and
more elaborate
than the lower-ranking ones.  And then there are basilicas, both major and
minor, which
rank higher than cathedrals.

>From a purely theological perspective, the terms basilica, cathedral,
church and chapel
say nothing about size or style.  But, as one article put it when
describing the differences
and why cathedrals tend to be larger and more ornate than churches: "Where
the bishops
go, the big money follows."  Nevertheless, if you look at the ones that
designate themselves
churches, chapels and cathedrals you'll see certain features that apply to
the majority
of buildings within a particular group.

Oh, and the meanings of the terms also vary by denomination.  Catholicism
has very
precise definitions which other denominations don't follow.  Mainly the
other denominations
call their meeting places chapels because at the time those denominations
arose they
weren't allowed to call their meeting places churches.  They also tended to
eschew
some architectural features common to Catholic and Anglican churches.

As with many things we tag, it's messy.

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

[Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote:


I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led 
me there.


It in many places but this one will do:

https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch/os_info3.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary,


That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the
wikipedia
page.  Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought that
was
a semi-official designation.  I now realize these things are arbitrary
lists and
that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls.  Even if no more
lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and
pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world.


> If asked to come up with something, I'd probably put the 46 summits in a
> grou
>
relation and hang the name  'Adirondack 46' off that.


Just to prevent tag proliferation (and possible future collisions with other
types of object) they ought to be namespaced rather than bare tags.
hillbagging:munro=yes, etc.  But I think relations are probably cleaner
(assuming they don't grow large enough to cause problems for the db).

As it is, I use information external to OSM for rendering this area so
> that the list memberships can be shown - they are quite important to
> the local hikers, many of whom are chasing their Adirondack 46'er or
> Catskill 3500 Club badges. Peak-bagging is a serious sport around
> here!
>

I figure it's as important to hillbaggers as cycling routes are to cyclists
and walking routes are to ramblers.

Since there are communities, in many parts of the world, that are
> interested in the local peak-bagging lists, and many references are
> available to verify what peaks are members of what lists, I'd be
> exceedingly reluctant to say, "no, you may not have that information
> in OSM."
>

If we were to restrict OSM to only those items of interest to me, it would
be a very
sparse map.  I, too, am reluctant to discriminate against hillbaggers whilst
catering to cyclists and walkers.

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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> A couple of weeks ago, while following links in the hope of getting
> information
> about something, I stumbled across a page about the Ordnance Survey in the
> UK
> and its early history.  For local place names they quizzed local people
> "What do
> you call that?" and that's the name they used on their maps.  Sometimes
> spelled
> incorrectly.  So the official names (in the UK, at least) were originally
> derived by
> asking the locals.
>
> I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led
> me there.
> I just tried a quick google search and got lots of hits that weren't it.
> So you'll
> have to trust my lousy memory about it.
>


That's generally how names come onto maps (before they get copied from one
edition to the next). And it is why an open database is not always
sufficient for verifiability, the name in the db could be a name, but it
could also be an error or an old name (a name that was used but is not
anymore).

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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2019-09-30, pr, 10:35 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
>


> > IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so.
> > Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area
> > and ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.
>
>   If there is an official open freely accessible dataset, you (and
> anybody else) can use it to verify.
>

A couple of weeks ago, while following links in the hope of getting
information
about something, I stumbled across a page about the Ordnance Survey in the
UK
and its early history.  For local place names they quizzed local people
"What do
you call that?" and that's the name they used on their maps.  Sometimes
spelled
incorrectly.  So the official names (in the UK, at least) were originally
derived by
asking the locals.

I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led me
there.
I just tried a quick google search and got lots of hits that weren't it.
So you'll
have to trust my lousy memory about it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Many buildings that have distinctive styles have other tags indicating
> their function, so the reasoning is that  you don't need building=church if 
> you have
> amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian.


there’s a difference between style and type. Style is influenced by the period, 
 preference and status of the principal, context, construction type, etc. It 
could be something like (examples) gothic, art deco, modern, post_modern, 
victorian, ...
Or also just by naming the purpose and period like “19th century working class 
house” or 1980ies apartment block, etc.  (which would probably still imply a 
lot of different more specific styles according to the region and context).


Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-09-30, pr, 10:35 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
>> topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
>> while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
>> I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
>> that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)
>
> IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so.
> Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area
> and ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.

  If there is an official open freely accessible dataset, you (and
anybody else) can use it to verify.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map a homeless encampment/colony?

[Michal Fabík]

On 9/30/19 12:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

how big are these areas, are these spots for a handful or a few dozens (or even 
hundreds or thousands) of people?




In my area it's up to a few dozens of people, at most. However, the 
physical size can vary according to the surroundings, independently of 
the number of inhabitants - a colony under a bridge would be limited by 
the bridge's size even if densely populated whereas a colony in a wooded 
area can be a lot bigger with fewer inhabitants and the shelters 
distributed a lot more sparsely. IOW, I think there should be a 
possibility to map this with both a node and a polygon.


--
Michal Fabík


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

Re: [Tagging] How to map a homeless encampment/colony?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 02:22 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> > how big are these areas, are these spots for a handful or a few dozens
> (or even hundreds or thousands) of people?
> >
> The larger ones local to me may be a dozen? Not something I look for or
> map. They tend to want to 'hide' to reduce the possibility of harassment.
> However I expect that these could be refuges in other parts of the world
> and may then go into the hundreds. I see no point in placing some limit in
> either direction on a suitable tag.
> There is no limit on the size of a building nor the length of a road so
> why raise the issue of the size of the area?



it is not about placing arbitrary limits, but different size can mean
different feature. When there are hundreds or thousands of people living
close to each other it may become kind of a settlement.

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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 03:41 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <
kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>:

> I've not tried to add the information because I eschew controversy.



that's fine, I probably wouldn't have either



> I
> know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even
> challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the
> names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a
> topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
> while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
> I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
> that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)



IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so.
Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area and
ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.

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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Another counter-argument: we don't have any tag indicating residential usage 
> other
> than building=house


we do, there are terrace, duplex, villa, apartments, caravan, detached and 
probably more. They are implying residential purpose just the same as does 
„house“.


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

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Many buildings that have distinctive styles have other tags indicating
> their function, so the reasoning is that  you don't need building=church if 
> you have
> amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian. 



the point of tagging amenity and building independently is to distinguish 
between structure and use/service 


> Counter-argument: Christian
> places of worship can be chapels, churches, cathedrals with distinctive 
> architectures,


I think cathedrals are also churches (of a high rank) while chapels aren’t 
(lower rank).

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