Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Valor Naram]

> let’s us all save a lot of typing and let’s bury the contact: - prefix.The time will come at least I will try to accomplish this.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: sent from a phone> On 7. Oct 2019, at 22:40, Kevin Kenny  wrote:> > I think that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. Certainly, the> complexity of the contact:* schema and the variety of both editors and> data consumers has proven to be a barrier to widespread acceptance.frankly I am an old fashioned contributor and do not like presets. When I am going to add tags, I type them, the beginning, and usually tag completion will have the correct tag after 1-4 key strokes. I am sure there are more people like me, maybe we‘re a minority, but if we are I bet it’s significant. Now for this kind of workflow, namespaces are problematic. I already dislike farmyard and farmland for the 5 characters required, not to speak about addr:housenumber and addr:housename (the latter is mostly useless but as a is before u, this often forces me to type 12 characters before I can hit return). I have made peace with these tags as they are around for a long time, but they clearly aren’t the direction I would want the project to go more to. let’s us all save a lot of typing and let’s bury the contact: - prefix.Cheers Martin ___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2019, at 21:52, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> Not sure if this word is common in English, I just looked up the translation 
> of the German word for that.


I am not sure what you have translated, but I would re-translate this back as 
Pförtnerloge, which is not exactly the same thing (it is similar), to me this 
implies typically a space within the building, near the entrance.

What I am trying to tag would be called Pförtnerhäuschen in German (gatehouse), 
and is a freestanding or leaning small building, not a room inside another 
building. 

Maybe we’ll have to invent different tags according to the situation (guard of 
a parking or gate of a site, porter/doorman in a residential complex, reception 
of an office, etc.)?

examples for the freestanding structures
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pfoertnerhaeuschen.JPG
http://www.eucont.de/Bilder%20Gebrauchte%20Container/102-1.JPG
etc. (they can be big or small, just for one person or for a team even with 
several rooms, solid brick and mortar buildings, or metal/glass booths, etc.

Cheers Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2019, at 22:40, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> I think that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. Certainly, the
> complexity of the contact:* schema and the variety of both editors and
> data consumers has proven to be a barrier to widespread acceptance.


frankly I am an old fashioned contributor and do not like presets. When I am 
going to add tags, I type them, the beginning, and usually tag completion will 
have the correct tag after 1-4 key strokes. I am sure there are more people 
like me, maybe we‘re a minority, but if we are I bet it’s significant. Now for 
this kind of workflow, namespaces are problematic. I already dislike farmyard 
and farmland for the 5 characters required, not to speak about addr:housenumber 
and addr:housename (the latter is mostly useless but as a is before u, this 
often forces me to type 12 characters before I can hit return). I have made 
peace with these tags as they are around for a long time, but they clearly 
aren’t the direction I would want the project to go more to. let’s us all save 
a lot of typing and let’s bury the contact: - prefix.

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:13 PM Michael Patrick  wrote:

> rarely are doers and users exposed to the full complexity, just the simple 
> subset of what is needed for a particular use case.

I think that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. Certainly, the
complexity of the contact:* schema and the variety of both editors and
data consumers has proven to be a barrier to widespread acceptance.

> '... many on both sides who insist that their way is the one true way' is 
> essentially a manifestation of of the 'Blind men and an elephant' ( 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_parable ) 
> situation. While all the blind men will never agree, if the blind men with 
> the ear, the trunk, and the tusk ask questions of someone that can see the 
> whole elephant, they can come up with a functional meaning that covers the at 
> least the head. There's probably no 'tagging' situation in OSM that wasn't 
> solved by the resolution of Electronic data interchange (EDI) issues in the 
> period between 1970 to 1998.

Reconciling an EDI standard with a 'folksonomy' rather boggles the
mind. It would perhaps have been better had OSM started with more
structure than a bucket of 'keyword=value' tags, but it didn't.
(Moreover, since the space of feature types being mapped is still
expanding, the space of available tags needs to expand with it; a
fixed schema isn't quite going to work.)

Of course, pursuing tagging uniformity within reason is a worthy goal,
and I'm convinced you're on the side of the angels, but it's likely to
be a long uphill road to get from where we are to where you want to
be.

Also, obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 20:55, Tobias Zwick  wrote:

> How about porters_lodge, it's more general. It would cover the small
> building at the entrance of outdoor pools where you buy the tickets, same
> for other outdoor venues, the booth at the entrance of company/factory
> grounds, the guard booth at the entrance of gated communities etc.
>
> Not sure if this word is common in English, I just looked up the
> translation of the German word for that.
>

"Porter's lodge" exists in English.  But is mostly used with reference to
university accommodation
because, a long time ago, part of a porter's duty was to help carry the
students' baggage.

A more generic term would be gatehouse.

I would not generally expect to buy tickets at either a gatehouse or a
porter's lodge.  That would
more likely be called a ticket booth, even if it's more of a cabin than a
booth.

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

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Tobias Zwick]

How about porters_lodge, it's more general. It would cover the small building 
at the entrance of outdoor pools where you buy the tickets, same for other 
outdoor venues, the booth at the entrance of company/factory grounds, the guard 
booth at the entrance of gated communities etc.

Not sure if this word is common in English, I just looked up the translation of 
the German word for that.

Tobias 

On October 7, 2019 3:38:17 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:
>Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 09:09 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
>matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>
>> What would be the best tagging for guard booth minibuildings?
>>
>> I think that building=guard_booth would be the best one for objects
>> constructed
>> as guard booth.
>>
>
>
>I agree on the selection of building for the key, but the word "guard"
>may
>be too restrictive or misleading. There are many similar structures
>used
>for similar purposes, e.g. staffed by a "porter" or "gate keeper" or
>"janitor" (?) (someone who opens for example a lift gate), which would
>not
>be covered by this term. In my area there are also many similar
>structures
>placed mainly at big crossings, which are sometimes staffed by
>policemen
>(I'm not completely sure if they can control the traffic lights, but I
>guess not, because when chaotic situations occur they step out of the
>enclosement, put the whistle and in the mouth and regulate the traffic
>in
>person). The latter have a writing on them "municipal police", I would
>not
>consider them guard houses (although they look the same), these are
>typically airconditioned and will be locked when they leave.
>
>There's also a not so well known key (but still has more than 1000 uses
>as
>of now) to be added as a property to barriers:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier:personnel
>(it is physically a different feature, but functionally very similar).
>
>And there's a proposal for extending surveillance which has a
>(functionally) similar property:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance#Guard
>
>Looking at taginfo, I also found security_guard=no/yes (no is by far
>more
>used)
>https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/security_guard
>
>and guarded=yes/nighttime/yes/daytime/...
>https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guarded
>
>both of these are currently around 250 uses globally, and far from
>reaching
>"supervised=*" (200K uses)
>
>I wonder if the tag would also be suitable for "temporary" structures
>like
>tents, which may not always be as temporary as they look. For example
>there
>are such tents set up in Rome since the government decided to put armed
>forces in front of embassies, and this is a situation that goes on for
>many
>years, one example can be seen here in the background on the right:
>https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.87225687537841=12.496776313017108=17=2L3AoKjXelz-CEG5Z4JBQg=photo=0.5120040767123977=0.5725924352245725=0
>
>Cheers,
>Martin

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Michael Patrick]

>  There are too many on both sides who insist that their way is the one
true way.

Actually, there is something pretty close to 'one TRUE way'. There are some
things in the Dataverse that are used by everybody, and everybody uses
everybody else's stuff. And when the Internet arrived they set up common
meanings for the very most common concepts. Like phone numbers.

Schema.org  is a collaborative, community activity
with a mission to create, maintain, and promote schemas for structured data
on the Internet, on web pages, in email messages, and beyond Founded by
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Yandex, Schema.org vocabularies are developed
by an open community  process,
using the public-schema...@w3.org
 mailing list and
through GitHub .

See click the ' JSON-LD ' tab on Example 2 at
https://schema.org/ContactPoint#HearingImpairedSupported-gen-208 ( on
https://schema.org/ContactPoint ) which shows how phone numbers play out
for even small businesses in the world.

Yea, yeah, it's complicated, or at least the specification is, but rarely
are doers and users exposed to the full complexity, just the simple subset
of what is needed for a particular use case. Something like a phone number
looks like a discrete 'thing', but it's not. It's a relationship between
other things.

'... many on both sides who insist that their way is the one true way' is
essentially a manifestation of of the 'Blind men and an elephant' (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_parable )
situation. While all the blind men will never agree, if the blind men with
the ear, the trunk, and the tusk ask questions of someone that can see the
whole elephant, they can come up with a functional meaning that covers the
at least the head. There's probably no 'tagging' situation in OSM that
wasn't solved by the resolution of *Electronic data interchange* (*EDI*)
issues in the period between 1970 to 1998.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features landuse=open_defecation RFC Proposed under way 2019-10-07

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

>From what I have read (few personal experience) I find it difficult to use
the landuse-key for this, because it implies to me that the area is mainly
used for open defecation (and has significant extent). If this is what you
want to describe, the tag is fine. In many other cases I believe we would
rather need a property like open_defecation=yes which can be added to other
objects, e.g. landuse=residential.

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

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 09:09 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> What would be the best tagging for guard booth minibuildings?
>
> I think that building=guard_booth would be the best one for objects
> constructed
> as guard booth.
>


I agree on the selection of building for the key, but the word "guard" may
be too restrictive or misleading. There are many similar structures used
for similar purposes, e.g. staffed by a "porter" or "gate keeper" or
"janitor" (?) (someone who opens for example a lift gate), which would not
be covered by this term. In my area there are also many similar structures
placed mainly at big crossings, which are sometimes staffed by policemen
(I'm not completely sure if they can control the traffic lights, but I
guess not, because when chaotic situations occur they step out of the
enclosement, put the whistle and in the mouth and regulate the traffic in
person). The latter have a writing on them "municipal police", I would not
consider them guard houses (although they look the same), these are
typically airconditioned and will be locked when they leave.

There's also a not so well known key (but still has more than 1000 uses as
of now) to be added as a property to barriers:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier:personnel
(it is physically a different feature, but functionally very similar).

And there's a proposal for extending surveillance which has a
(functionally) similar property:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance#Guard

Looking at taginfo, I also found security_guard=no/yes (no is by far more
used)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/security_guard

and guarded=yes/nighttime/yes/daytime/...
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guarded

both of these are currently around 250 uses globally, and far from reaching
"supervised=*" (200K uses)

I wonder if the tag would also be suitable for "temporary" structures like
tents, which may not always be as temporary as they look. For example there
are such tents set up in Rome since the government decided to put armed
forces in front of embassies, and this is a situation that goes on for many
years, one example can be seen here in the background on the right:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.87225687537841=12.496776313017108=17=2L3AoKjXelz-CEG5Z4JBQg=photo=0.5120040767123977=0.5725924352245725=0

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

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:59 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> “Booth” implies that one wall is missing (open).
>

I thought that was an adirondack?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Warin]

On 07/10/19 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
“Booth” implies that one wall is missing (open).   A guardhouse would 
be more completely enclosed, I think. So either could work, depending 
on the building design.


Would be preferable to have a tag that has no implied restrictions. 
Possibly guard_post ??


These could be misused for fee collectors .. there should be reference 
to toll both so as to try and avoid this.
I note that some toll boths are in the middle of the road and are open 
to both sides.


On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:14 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Guardhouse / guard post / sentry box?

Thanks

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



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



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Valor Naram]

> One problem with enforcing a single tag by mappers or preprocessing> data before putting it in the database is that if there are subtle distinctions they are> forever lost.Sven gave us a list of tags which have exact meaning. So no distinctions. No differences, just another names.e.g. `phone` is the same like `contact:phone`. You could just find one difference: The name. And to have just the names different is a bad thing. In such cases we can make life a lot easier by just using one tag AND NOT two tags for the same purpose!~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Paul Allen To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 20:35, Sven Geggus  wrote:
I fully agree with this.  In opencampingmap POI database I currently do a
replacement of the following tags during database import:

booking -> reservation
contact:phone -> phone
contact:fax -> fax
contact:website -> website
contact:email -> email 

Would be nice to get rid of stuff like this.Maybe, maybe not (I'm on the fence).  I doubt you'll manage to.  There are too manyon both sides who insist that their way is the one true way.  It's possible that yourkluge is actually the best way of handling things like this.  Data consumers can translatecontact:phone to phone or phone to contact:phone or leave both untouched as theychoose.  One problem with enforcing a single tag by mappers or preprocessingdata before putting it in the database is that if there are subtle distinctions they areforever lost.  You can always scramble an egg but you can't unscramble one.-- Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Joseph Eisenberg]

“Booth” implies that one wall is missing (open).   A guardhouse would be
more completely enclosed, I think. So either could work, depending on the
building design.

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:14 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Guardhouse / guard post / sentry box?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Guardhouse / guard post / sentry box?

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Guard booth building type

[Mateusz Konieczny]

What would be the best tagging for guard booth minibuildings?

I think that building=guard_booth would be the best one for objects constructed
as guard booth.

Such objects are housing guard, usually at entrance to parking lot, industrial 
complex,
closed private residential complex, military base etc.

Is there better name than "guard_booth"? "guard_shed" was a previous version 
that I had
but it seems worse.

For examples see
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guard_booth_20190426_135110.jpg 

(mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301939906 
 )

or

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guard_booth_CUHK.JPG 


or 

https://www.gaport.com/guard_houses.htm 
 (commercial site)

Seems faintly distinct from sentry boxes
see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sentry_boxes 

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