Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> We use two tags for rivers: `waterway=riverbank` (or natural=water +
> water=river) for the area and waterway=river for the central line of
> the river.



Thanks so much for all of the clear and thoughtful replies. 

I sometimes mess up tagging schemes or tag names during discussions, and it 
leads to confusion, but this was a total misunderstanding of embankments. 

It seems I was (very) confused, possibly by misreading it several different 
times. I have mapped 40km of levees wrong, with an improper lower bounds line. 
I’ll have to fix it. 

I now understand that my embankment lines at the top are the (only) proper way 
to map the edge of the embankment.

I am interested in mapping the extent of the levee/embankments with some kind 
of outer/lower line, either as a single area or as 2 related ways for a levee. 

it is interesting to me that a levee is a way that marks the “centerline", 
while the embankment maps the top edge of the slope - yet there is no 
documented way to map the *area* of the levees nor embankments. my “lower” 
embankment line (which is apparently very bad mapping) makes the extent of the 
embankments that make up a levee. while they sound simple, our levees are 
*covered with* parallel and intersecting roads. some levees will have 5 
parallel ways on them for different kinds of traffic. similar to 
man_made=bridge, showing the area used by a bridge is very useful. 

to me, both man_made=embankment and man_made=dyke need a way to express the 
area they take up, because mapping via a width value varies too much to be 
mappable, especially when they are in very complicated shapes - and very easily 
mapped via imagery.

to me, these levees are not only a major feature worth mapping, but 
considerably helpful to understand the mapping in an area. They are very large 
artificial barriers which greatly restrict access, as well as one of the few 
safe places during a typhoon.

I will think about how area:man_made=embankment & area:man_made:levee would be 
useful compliments to the existing tagging without requiring any changes to the 
existing tags.

There is a big discussion on the tag discussion page ( 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dembankment ) about 
mapping embankments by area using the existing man_made=embankment on a closed 
way (only generating an area when paired with area=yes), but in that case there 
is no way to tell which side of the area is the “top” of the embankment, which 
is the intended data the line is meant to represent.


Your comments have been extremely useful/helpful, thanks. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I really love the top-lines of the embankments, as these embankment tops are 
> not uniform in shape - but I will delete them if it is bad tagging.

It's not bad tagging, you should keep these. (make sure that the lower
side is on the right hand of way direction)

> would there be some advantage to putting it [man_made=dyke line] and the 
> embankments into a relation

It isn't necessary OSM relations for things that can be determined by
the database users just by looking at the spacial relationship between
two features. In this case, database users could look for
man_made=dyke ways which are roughly parallel and close to a
man_made=embankment way.

> man_made=dyke way shows the path, and man_made=dyke on a polygon shows the 
> extent ... similar to how natural=river is used

We use two tags for rivers: `waterway=riverbank` (or natural=water +
water=river) for the area and waterway=river for the central line of
the river.

If you want to do this, you need a different tag for the area. My
suggestion was area:man_made=dyke, in analogy to area:highway, but
man_made=dyke_area or =embankment_area would work, or any other new
tag with a clear meaning.

On 11/11/19, John Willis  wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Joseph Eisenberg
>>  wrote:
>>
>> "it should be tagged on a way drawn with the lower side on right side
>> of way direction" - Tag:man_made=embankment
>
> for some reason, I remember reading documentation about using a pair of
> embankment lines to denote the extent of the embankment, using the direction
> of their ways as an indicator. I didn’t come up with that on my own. this
> was during the embankment=yes => man_made=embankment change.
>
>  - I really love the top-lines of the embankments, as these embankment tops
> are not uniform in shape - but I will delete them if it is bad tagging.
>
> - if I delete the “top” lines of the embankments, and use the man_made=dyke
> as the center of the summit of the levee, would there be some advantage to
> putting it and the embankments into a relation for possible better rendering
> of their extent (shading, hashes, etc)?.
>
> - Because the levees vary wildly in shape on the top, sometimes widening for
> a short area to 50-100m wide, would repurposing the top-line embankment ways
> as mapped to tagged with some kind-of “riverbank-style” tag, where the
> man_made=dyke way shows the path, and man_made=dyke on a polygon shows the
> extent, similar to how natural=river is used now? for smaller levees, this
> detail is unnecessary, but for such large features used by so many people,
> the detail would be nice. it is very easy to map their extents, especially
> since I am doing the mapping via ground survey on a bike 70-100km at a
> time.
>
> examples of the levee top widening for a short space, usually for levee
> break emergency repair stations (large caches of breakwater blocks with
> helicopter/crane hooks, stationed above the flood zone on top of the levee).
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.30063/139.51192
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.26097/139.63921
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.97705/139.89813
> 
>
> I really want to map the levees in as much detail as I can, as detail often
> helps with map interpretation (at high zoom levels) while travelling along
> the levees by car or bike, but few people seem to be interested in them.
>
>
> Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> "it should be tagged on a way drawn with the lower side on right side
> of way direction" - Tag:man_made=embankment

for some reason, I remember reading documentation about using a pair of 
embankment lines to denote the extent of the embankment, using the direction of 
their ways as an indicator. I didn’t come up with that on my own. this was 
during the embankment=yes => man_made=embankment change. 

 - I really love the top-lines of the embankments, as these embankment tops are 
not uniform in shape - but I will delete them if it is bad tagging. 

- if I delete the “top” lines of the embankments, and use the man_made=dyke as 
the center of the summit of the levee, would there be some advantage to putting 
it and the embankments into a relation for possible better rendering of their 
extent (shading, hashes, etc)?.

- Because the levees vary wildly in shape on the top, sometimes widening for a 
short area to 50-100m wide, would repurposing the top-line embankment ways as 
mapped to tagged with some kind-of “riverbank-style” tag, where the 
man_made=dyke way shows the path, and man_made=dyke on a polygon shows the 
extent, similar to how natural=river is used now? for smaller levees, this 
detail is unnecessary, but for such large features used by so many people, the 
detail would be nice. it is very easy to map their extents, especially since I 
am doing the mapping via ground survey on a bike 70-100km at a time.

examples of the levee top widening for a short space, usually for levee break 
emergency repair stations (large caches of breakwater blocks with 
helicopter/crane hooks, stationed above the flood zone on top of the levee). 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.30063/139.51192 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.26097/139.63921 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/35.97705/139.89813 


I really want to map the levees in as much detail as I can, as detail often 
helps with map interpretation (at high zoom levels) while travelling along the 
levees by car or bike, but few people seem to be interested in them. 


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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Joseph Eisenberg]

If this is about Openstreetmap-carto, there is now an open issue:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3968 - note
that rendering area features in the "emergency=" key, like this, would
require reloading the database on the openstreetmap.org servers.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 11/11/19, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>
>
> 10 Nov 2019, 22:23 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>> Though I have often wondered why amenity=police & amenity=fire_station
>> both render, but emergency=ambulance_station doesn't?
>>
> It is offtopic for tagging mailing list, especially as it depends on map.
>
> The best that you can do is to check issue tracker of map style/app/???
> (if public) or contact maintainers of this project in other ways.
>
> Hard to say more without information about specific project where this
> happens.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Since this discussion is about documented tags which are currently in
use, rather than discussing a proposal for a new way of tagging, It
would be helpful to focus on the way things are in reality. As Mateusz
Konieczny asked:

[is there a] "consistent difference between shop=ice_cream and
amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers", or not?

It does not appear that these tags are consistently used in a
different way, but rather than some users have typed in "shop="
instead of the more common key "amenity=".

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 11/11/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 10. Nov 2019, at 18:33, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Are you claiming that there is some consistent difference between
>> shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers?
>
>
> I have no idea about consistent use of these tags, but I am claiming they
> are not identical in meaning. And if you believe they are, I don’t
> understand why you take issue, you could just treat them the same.
> When we speak about ice cream to take home, small ice cream booths may not
> be equipped to satisfy your request. They may not have suitable
> containers/packaging and very likely they will not have liquid air for
> longer transportation. Ice cream is sold in many different ways, by piece
> (cone/cup, sandwich) or by weight, and besides the ice cream there are
> similar products which are in between ice cream and pastry (semi freddo /
> half frozen etc.). Of course a cone is meant for instant consumption, but
> many other forms of ice cream are intended to be eaten as dessert of a meal
> or as a cake. You typically can’t buy a piece of cake (in an Italian
> pasticceria or gelateria), and nobody (almost) would eat a whole cake or
> semifreddo, it would be both, too expensive, and too much sugar and fat.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> They usually have a 2-10m wide “top” on the levee

The tag man_made=embankment should always be placed at the top of the
embankment, so your two lines will only be 2 to 10 meters apart. This
tag is not meant to show the size of the embankment or levee, but the
location of the top of the steep slope. In this usage it is similar to
natural=cliff and barrier=retaining_wall

"it should be tagged on a way drawn with the lower side on right side
of way direction" - Tag:man_made=embankment

If you map the levee as man_made=dyke you can add width=* to each
segment to show how wide it is; this is much faster for mapping, and a
well-designed renderer should be able to show these nicely.

If anyone really wants to map the whole area of the levee, I would
suggest a new tag like area:man_made=dyke - but I think this is not a
good use of mapper time.

If the levee ("dyke") is very large, it should be visible clearly in a
DEM (digital elevation model), like natural hills, slopes and cliffs.
We do not map elevation contours or data in OSM, because a
high-resolution DEM works very well of this, but a vector database
does not.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 11/11/19, John Willis via Tagging  wrote:
> As related to my other posts, I am mapping large water containment
> features.
>
> When I began mapping, I often mapped embankments & retaining walls used for
> roads and infrastructure, and during that time, the embankment tag evolved
> to support two embankment lines that would denote the top and bottom of the
> extent of the embankments. This was perfect for me, as there are many
> tollways that sit on a large man-made embankments as they cut trough the
> countryside. Most tollways in Japan are elevated on fill to make crossings
> (via tunnels) much easier, as they cross so many existing small roads.
> mapping the extent of the embankments clearly shows the footprint of the
> tollways through the countryside - much greater than any trunk road.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.33635/139.40197
>  - Kita-Kanto
> expressway near Ota-Kiryu IC & Watarase River
>
>
> As I mapped the embankments, I started mapping the levee embankments as
> well, as they are not uniform in shape, with natural and man-made features
> making their shape highly irregular on both the top and bottom, the two sets
> of embankments easily outlining these huge features (usually between 6-12m
> tall and 20-60m wide). They usually have a 2-10m wide “top” on the levee.
> They similarly have a huge footprint compared to other features.
>
> Recently, I realized there is a man_made=dyke tag that is supposed to map
> the “top” of the levee, but there is no documented way to map the *extent*
> of these large flood control features, which feels incorrect.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.23909/139.68483
>  - the extent of
> these levees is much greater than the cycling roads on top.
>
> I am going to continue to map the extent of these large man-made levee
> embankments as 2 pairs of embankment lines, and I'll now go back and map the
> levee top with a man_made=dyke line, denoting the “levee route”. I’m
> guessing there are 500km of these large levees in the greater Tokyo area
> alone, with more than a thousand km of somewhat smaller ones.
>
> The levees follow the river through open plains, but their route often is
> constrained occasionally by natural features, where the outer-side of the
> levee is a natural rise for a short distance, but the inner-side is still a
> continuous man-made embankment. being able to separate the almost always
> continuous levee from the extent of it’s two embankments (which merge,
> separate, appear, and disappear) is very useful.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.23164/139.31544
>  - levees meet and
> end as one river joins another. Their size varies greatly, denoted by the
> embankment lines.
>
> I feel this should be accepted mapping for extremely large levees, such as
> the ones I am dealing with, where the =dyke way cannot properly express the
> extent of the levee’s breadth and complexity, and the “Top” of the levee is
> not always the center of the structure.
>
> Is it useful to turn this into a relation? with levee embankment members
> being inner-bottom, inner-top, outer-bottom, outer-top and the man_made=dyke
> member  being the “route" of the levee? Maybe it isn’t important to relate
> them. I don’t know.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Javbw
>
>

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

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

[François Lacombe]

Hi Michael,

This is a good point and sorry for this time of answer.
I didn't mention position=* in the proposal but as a reviewed and
established practice for pipeline, easily extendable to other fields of
knowledge, it's ok to keep it on the marker.

I'll update the wiki shortly with it.

All the best

François

Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 20:14, Michael Brandtner via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> should position=* be kept when retagging pipeline markers to the new
> scheme? If yes, then this tag should be added to the wiki documentation.
>
> Michael
>
> Am So., Okt. 27, 2019 at 18:35 schrieb François Lacombe
> :
> Hi all,
>
> Voting of Utility markers proposal is now over and it was approved with 46
> yes out of 47 votes.
> This is a great participation level for such kind of topic.
> Thank you to anyone who spent time to improve this proposal and finally
> gives his vote.
>
> Cleanup has already began, wiki will be up to date in a couple of days.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:marker
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility
>
> Feel free to add examples or raise concerns about particular situations in
> appropriate Talk pages
> Hope this will also help further milestone, highway/railway markers
> mapping and development.
>
> All the best
>
> François Lacombe
> ___
> 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 - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Nov 2019, at 22:10, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> The first vehicle type that comes in mind as "scooters" are Vespa scooters 
> that come with different motorizations and therefore can fall in different 
> categories  from mofa to motorcycle.


I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out that 
there aren’t any scooters in the “mofa”-class (AFAIK, not limited to Piaggio 
Vespas), (motorized) scooters begin in the moped class.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 23:51, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 10. Nov 2019, at 21:57, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > I also see a clear parallel between amenity=bar and amenity=ice_cream:
> go in, sit down
> > and consume (there may be an option to purchase to take out).
>
> I would not see sitting as a requirement for any of these two. It is for a
> cafe, but for a bar?
>

In the UK we have pubs/bars.  They are places where you sit, buy drinks,
and consume them.
We also have off-licences, where you buy alcoholic drinks and take them off
the premises
to consume them.  I see parallels to ice cream sales.  A place with tables
and seats serving
only (or mainly) ice cream is amenity=ice_cream in the same way a pub is
amenity=pub.
A place selling only (or mainly) ice cream to be consumed off the premises
is
shop=ice_cream in the same way that an off-licence is shop=alcohol.  Pubs
are usually
licenced for off sales (take out) too and many ice cream parlours will do
takeaways of
some sort: we have a key for that.

Yes, the analogy is not exact.  You can't legally drink in an off-licence
because it is licensed
only for consumption off the premises, and these days you can't drink in
many public places,
but the parallels are still there.  Most shops will eject you if you try to
consume edibles you
bought there on the premises.  Sit-down versus take-away.  Shops sell
goods, not services.
Amenities offer a service which may include goods with the service.

I don't think amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream is a good fit unless there
are other
cuisines, so that you can have a light meal, in which case it's a cafe not
an ice cream
parlour.  However well it might fit OSM syntax and semantics, mentally I
don't class
an ice cream parlour in the same category as a cafe.  I'd be upset if I
went to
something represented by a cafe icon on a map only to find it was an ice
cream
parlour and didn't serve bacon sandwiches.  YMMV.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Nov 2019, at 21:57, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> I also see a clear parallel between amenity=bar and amenity=ice_cream: go in, 
> sit down
> and consume (there may be an option to purchase to take out).


I would not see sitting as a requirement for any of these two. It is for a 
cafe, but for a bar?

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Nov 2019, at 18:33, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Are you claiming that there is some consistent difference between
> shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers?


I have no idea about consistent use of these tags, but I am claiming they are 
not identical in meaning. And if you believe they are, I don’t understand why 
you take issue, you could just treat them the same.
When we speak about ice cream to take home, small ice cream booths may not be 
equipped to satisfy your request. They may not have suitable 
containers/packaging and very likely they will not have liquid air for longer 
transportation. Ice cream is sold in many different ways, by piece (cone/cup, 
sandwich) or by weight, and besides the ice cream there are similar products 
which are in between ice cream and pastry (semi freddo / half frozen etc.). Of 
course a cone is meant for instant consumption, but many other forms of ice 
cream are intended to be eaten as dessert of a meal or as a cake. You typically 
can’t buy a piece of cake (in an Italian pasticceria or gelateria), and nobody 
(almost) would eat a whole cake or semifreddo, it would be both, too expensive, 
and too much sugar and fat.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Nov 2019, at 15:57, Markus  wrote:
> 
> Are there really shops that only or mainly sell packaged ice cream for
> taking home?


it doesn’t say anything about “packaged” and I would rather expect an ice cream 
shop not to sell packaged ice cream. Ice cream (in Italy) is seen as part of 
“sweet bakery” (pasticceria, Konditorei in German), and like you can buy a 
“Torte” to take it home in a Konditorei, or often may be able to eat it on the 
premises, you can do the same with ice cream. And as you can buy a frozen 
“Torte” in a supermarket you can also buy ice cream there, with the exact same 
implications on price, quality and kind of production.

The difference I would see with these two tags: a shop does IMHO imply a 
permanent structure (building), while amenity=ice cream is not necessarily a 
business selling out of a building, it could also be just a booth. For ice 
cream parlors with table service I would suggest to always use amenity=cafe 
with cuisine=ice_cream , because it removes the ambiguity of amenity=ice_cream

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Nov 2019, 22:44 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> What is the benefit of having this information in OpenStreetMap? There is 
> nothing the crowd could contribute to improve this data, we would be a mere 
> distribution service of government data, and we would be at least as out of 
> date as they are (because the process of verifying and inserting the data 
> takes so time, as does the insertion in OpenStreetMap). 
>
+1this seems to be read-only data, what is pointless at best

 Maybe instead add id / ref in this external database? Or wikidata tag and 
import ids/refs
into Wikidata?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Nov 2019, 22:23 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> Though I have often wondered why amenity=police & amenity=fire_station both 
> render, but emergency=ambulance_station doesn't?
>
It is offtopic for tagging mailing list, especially as it depends on map.

The best that you can do is to check issue tracker of map style/app/???
(if public) or contact maintainers of this project in other ways.

Hard to say more without information about specific project where this happens.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

While I first was assuming this would comprise inactive but contaminated sites, 
I now see this is for operational sites only, which are dealing with chemical 
substances of which release into the environment could potentially pose a 
hazard to the people living nearby. Right?

How would we survey this? There is not much that can be surveyed worse ;-)
You would have to ask the operator of the site which are the substances they 
are dealing with (and they would not have to answer you, nor would it seem that 
if they answered their reply would be very reliable), then you would have to 
have the knowledge to understand their reply and to evaluate it, probably very 
few of us are in this position. So the only “reliable” source would be 
information collected, assessed and  released by the government. High risk 
could mean the substances are very dangerous, or a potential accident could 
release a lot of them, or it could mean the operations are executed in a way 
that an accident is more likely than it ideally should be, for example, if 
there wasn’t sufficient maintenance for a longer period of time, if the safety 
measurements aren’t the best/most recent available, problems in critical safety 
components have already been found, etc.

Am I guessing correctly that this is about kind and quantity of substances that 
are dealt with? 
The other possibly relevant information (for risk assessment) is likely not 
publicly available.

What is the benefit of having this information in OpenStreetMap? There is 
nothing the crowd could contribute to improve this data, we would be a mere 
distribution service of government data, and we would be at least as out of 
date as they are (because the process of verifying and inserting the data takes 
so time, as does the insertion in OpenStreetMap). 

If we still would decide to import this kind of assessment results, I would 
suggest to use keys which make it clear which criterion/system has been used 
(i.e. use specific keys for each source). While it may look similar on paper to 
a layman, it may be very different systems, or different practice of assigning 
risks even with the exact same system (but there’s no doubt that the actual 
systems/schemes are different).

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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 02:54, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> > On 10.11.19 13:51, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
>
> >> Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially
> >> synonymous entities?
>
> So I agree these tags should be kept separate.


 I don't think Dave was suggesting that they be merged?

 As for emergency= and amenity=, that's a historical artifact and doesn't
> matter.
>

Though I have often wondered why amenity=police & amenity=fire_station both
render, but emergency=ambulance_station doesn't?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Volker Schmidt]

Looked at the proposal.

It's a spiny set of issues.

I would discourage electrical_bicycle as this is form the start ambiguous
in many jurisdictions: both pedelecs and S-pedelecs are electric bicycles
and in many jurisdictions these two are treated very differently.

In most EEU counties I believe pedelecs are treated like bicycles and
S-pedelecs as mofas or light motorcycles. So for these two vehicles we do
not need new access tags. They are covered by existing tags.

"scooter" is problematic as it has many different types of uses.

   - The first vehicle type that comes in mind as "scooters" are Vespa
   scooters that come with different motorizations and therefore can fall in
   different categories  from mofa to motorcycle.
   - Then here motor-less "kick-scooters"
   - And then there are "electrical scooters", for which I believe many
   countries have not yet developed rules.

Hence the keys "scooter" and "electric_scooter" are out for me.

The above argumentation is about the legal access use.
However it could be argued that for tag classifiers the story is different:
e.g. "service:electric_bicycle=" seems to be a perfect description for
places that service electrical-bicycle-like vehicles, i.e. pedelecs and S
pedelecs and electrical scooters.






On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 18:06, Jan Michel  wrote:

> Hi,
> up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles like
> bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and
> amenities become more and more common.
>
> These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also intended
> for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service,
> charging...
>
> I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles.
> Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!
>
>
> Jan
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters
>
>
> ___
> 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] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 19:42, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

I agree here that there is difference between ice cream kiosk and ice cream
> parlour.
>

We agree on that, then.  Even though it's possible that in US usage an ice
cream
parlour may also include a kiosk (Wikipedia says it does, but Wikipedia can
be wrong).
British English usage of "parlour" implies a room where people sit.

I would not be claiming that shop=ice_cream_kiosk and
> amenity=ice_cream_parlour
> have no clear differences,
>

Again we agree.  These are functionally different.  On a hot, rainy day I
might contemplate
visiting an ice cream parlour but not an ice cream kiosk.

but we have shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream
>

I don't expect to be able to go into a supermarket, buy a pack of pork pies
and eat them
inside the store.  Nor would I expect that to be true of shop=ice_cream,
with or without
building=kiosk.  I don't see any need to invent shop=ice_cream_kiosk when
we already
have shop=ice_cream.

I also see a clear parallel between amenity=bar and amenity=ice_cream: go
in, sit down
and consume (there may be an option to purchase to take out).

Shops sell things that you normally take outside of the shop to make use
of.  Amenities are
places you go to do things, which may involve purchasing and using a
product.  I don't
think shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream are intrinsically wrong or
misleading.

So we have shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream that may not always have
been used
consistently and are currently documented in a way that encourages
inconsistent usage.
Do we fix the documentation, or invent new tags, or have a single tag that
could mean either
type of faciiity?  I'd go with fixing the documentation.

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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Nov 2019, at 14:16, Jan Michel  wrote:
> 
> 
> E.g. in Germany they are mostly combined in the larger cities, but usually 
> separated in smaller towns. That's related to having professional fire 
> fighters and stations that are always manned compared to volunteers who have 
> to gather first.


ambulance / rescue services in Germany are (often?) assigned through a call for 
tenders competition every x years, while fire stations are not in competition 
(AFAIK) but organized by the government. 

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Nov 2019, 18:50 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:33, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>
>> Are you claiming that there is some consistent difference between
>> shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers?
>>
>
> I would hesitate to claim that mappers tag anything consistently. 
>
I am thinking about like amenity=restaurant vs amenity=fast_food
Exact border differs and on edge there is no strict consistency but
there is useful distinction between amenity=restaurant and amenity=fast_food

>From what I know that there is no such useful difference between
amenity=ice_cream and shop=ice_cream (or phone=* / contact:phone=* or 
some other pairs of tags)

> What I am claiming
> is that there are places where you go inside, sit down, and order an ice 
> cream to
> eat whilst seated.  I am claiming that there are other places which have no 
> facilities
> for sitting, where you buy an ice cream that you take outside and consume 
> elsewhere.
> These differences exist in reality. 
>
I fully agree with this.

>  How they have been mapped, especially when the
> wiki page is misleading, is another matter.
>
I am unaware about any tagging scheme used to distinguish between them,
I am aware about claims that it was supposed to be covered by
amenity=ice_cream and shop=ice_cream but for me it seems that in real
use there is no difference between this two tags.

>> Are you sure that mappers are consistently using this two tags in this ways?
>>
>
> I am not sure about mappers doing anything consistently.
>
Well, places where you can buy ice cream are not tagged amenity=prison,
there is some level where you can say "consensus among mappers is that".

>> Because I am not noticing this effect at all, but maybe it is a local 
>> anomaly.
>>
>
> Maybe it is mappers in countries which do not have both types of facility and
> erroneously conclude the tags are synonyms, aided by misleading wiki pages.
>
In Poland we have both types of places.

>> But given that shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream do not have
>> any clear difference based on tags I would be highly surprised that there
>> is any real difference in meaning.
>>
>
> I think it unlikely that anyone who has encountered both types of 
> establishment would
> conclude that the same tag equally describes both.
>
See my reply to quotation above, as what you noticed below about Wikipedia. 

>   I'll grant you that the Wikipedia
> page for ice cream parlours includes establishments that are takeaway only, 
> but I'm
> not sure if that truly reflects US usage.
>


> Here is an image search > 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+cream+kiosk+seaside=isch=univ=X=2ahUKEwj7qvnPmeDlAhUEQhUIHXcGAoEQsAR6BAgJEAE
>  
> 
> which shows mosly ice cream kiosks which are takeaway only.  I would not 
> refer to those
> as ice cream parlours.
>
I agree here that there is difference between ice cream kiosk and ice cream 
parlour.
I would not be claiming that shop=ice_cream_kiosk and amenity=ice_cream_parlour
have no clear differences, but we have shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Markus]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 18:21, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away.
>
>
> Then the wiki is unclear and misleading.  And it looks like somebody has 
> taken an
> alread-misleading page, decided it was a synonym of amenity=ice_cream and then
> made it even more misleading.

Regardless of what the wiki says, i wouldn't call a takeaway a shop.

> "Take home" and "take away" share an important property: "not for consumption 
> on
> the premises."  Whether you take the stuff home or take it off the premises 
> and
> consume it nearby, you are not consuming it on the premises.
>
> Try a related situation: a chip shop near me.  Some chip shops are takeaway
> only.  This one happens to have seats and tables, so it gets tagged as a
> cafe with take_away=yes.  Some people who buy fish and chips to take away
> go across the road, sit on one of the two benches there, and eat them.  Others
> take their fish and chips all the way home.  Taking the fish and chips home
> is one of the subsets of things you can do if you take the fish and chips 
> away.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems that fast food restaurants or
takeaways are currently both tagged amenity=fast_food and that the
distinction whether they have seats and tables or not is made with
takeaway=no/yes/only. (At least this seems to be the case in middle
and southern Europe.)

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:33, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

Are you claiming that there is some consistent difference between
> shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers?
>

I would hesitate to claim that mappers tag anything consistently.  What I
am claiming
is that there are places where you go inside, sit down, and order an ice
cream to
eat whilst seated.  I am claiming that there are other places which have no
facilities
for sitting, where you buy an ice cream that you take outside and consume
elsewhere.
These differences exist in reality.  How they have been mapped, especially
when the
wiki page is misleading, is another matter.

Are you sure that mappers are consistently using this two tags in this ways?
>

I am not sure about mappers doing anything consistently.

Because I am not noticing this effect at all, but maybe it is a local
> anomaly.
>

Maybe it is mappers in countries which do not have both types of facility
and
erroneously conclude the tags are synonyms, aided by misleading wiki pages.

But given that shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream do not have
> any clear difference based on tags I would be highly surprised that there
> is any real difference in meaning.
>

I think it unlikely that anyone who has encountered both types of
establishment would
conclude that the same tag equally describes both.  I'll grant you that the
Wikipedia
page for ice cream parlours includes establishments that are takeaway only,
but I'm
not sure if that truly reflects US usage.

Here is an image search
https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+cream+kiosk+seaside=isch=univ=X=2ahUKEwj7qvnPmeDlAhUEQhUIHXcGAoEQsAR6BAgJEAE
which shows mosly ice cream kiosks which are takeaway only.  I would not
refer to those
as ice cream parlours.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 17:20 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> "Take home" and "take away" share an important property: "not for
> consumption on
> the premises."  Whether you take the stuff home or take it off the
> premises and
> consume it nearby, you are not consuming it on the premises.
> 
> Try a related situation: a chip shop near me.  Some chip shops are
> takeaway
> only.  This one happens to have seats and tables, so it gets tagged
> as a
> cafe with take_away=yes.  Some people who buy fish and chips to take
> away
> go across the road, sit on one of the two benches there, and eat
> them.  Others
> take their fish and chips all the way home.  Taking the fish and
> chips home
> is one of the subsets of things you can do if you take the fish and
> chips away.

The big difference between the take away and take home is the packaging
quantities.

A fish and chip shop, as do most other takeaways) sells a meal that is
ready to eat (1).

A take away ice-cream is again ready to eat, it is a cornet/tub/or a
single lolly.

Ice cream to take home, as sold in supermarkets, is in large packs,
intended to be dispensed from your home freezer.

Whilst a group could split a pack of lollys or cornetos and sit on the
bench over the road, they are unlikely to do that with a 5 litre tub of
ice-cream.

Phil (trigpoint)

1. I doubt many Indian takeaways are eaten on the bench outside.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Nov 2019, 18:20 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 16:45, Markus <> selfishseaho...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away.
>>
>
> Then the wiki is unclear and misleading.  And it looks like somebody has 
> taken an
> alread-misleading page, decided it was a synonym of amenity=ice_cream and then
> made it even more misleading.
>
It was me, see earlier messages in this thread including one  that started as I 
wanted to
confirm that my edits match reality.

Are you claiming that there is some consistent difference between
shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers?
 

>> Besides, it's probably very rare that an ice cream parlour doesn't allow ice
>>  cream to be taken away. And if so, this can be take_away=no. No need
>>  to use a different tag for this situation, in my opinion.
>>
>
> The different tag is for a shop (usually a kiosk) selling only ice cream and 
> which has
> no facilities for consumption on the premises.
>
Are you sure that mappers are consistently using this two tags in this ways?
Because I am not noticing this effect at all, but maybe it is a local anomaly.

But given that shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream do not have
any clear difference based on tags I would be highly surprised that there
is any real difference in meaning.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 16:45, Markus  wrote:

>
> However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away.


Then the wiki is unclear and misleading.  And it looks like somebody has
taken an
alread-misleading page, decided it was a synonym of amenity=ice_cream and
then
made it even more misleading.

"Take home" and "take away" share an important property: "not for
consumption on
the premises."  Whether you take the stuff home or take it off the premises
and
consume it nearby, you are not consuming it on the premises.

Try a related situation: a chip shop near me.  Some chip shops are takeaway
only.  This one happens to have seats and tables, so it gets tagged as a
cafe with take_away=yes.  Some people who buy fish and chips to take away
go across the road, sit on one of the two benches there, and eat them.
Others
take their fish and chips all the way home.  Taking the fish and chips home
is one of the subsets of things you can do if you take the fish and chips
away.


> Besides, it's probably very rare that an ice cream parlour doesn't allow
> ice
> cream to be taken away. And if so, this can be take_away=no. No need
> to use a different tag for this situation, in my opinion.
>

The different tag is for a shop (usually a kiosk) selling only ice cream
and which has
no facilities for consumption on the premises.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Markus]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:56, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> nitpick: tag is without underscore 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:takeaway

Sorry and thanks for correcting me!

Markus

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Jan Michel]

Hi,
up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles like 
bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and 
amenities become more and more common.


These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also intended 
for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service, 
charging...


I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles.
Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!


Jan


[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters



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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Nov 2019, 17:44 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:00, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> Me neither.  But that's a bit of a false dichotomy.  It isn't just eat on 
>> premises or take home.
>> There's also take away.  As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch.  Rather 
>> common at the
>> seaside.  Or a kiosk selling only, or mainly,. ice cream.  You buy the ice 
>> cream to eat on
>> the beach.
>>
>
> However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away. Besides,
> it's probably very rare that an ice cream parlour doesn't allow ice
> cream to be taken away. And if so, this can be take_away=no. No need
> to use a different tag for this situation, in my opinion.
>
I fully agree here and just removed this claim from wiki as mismatching real 
tagging

nitpick: tag is without underscore 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:takeaway 


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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Greg Troxel]

Jan Michel  writes:

> On 10.11.19 13:51, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Simple question (which I presume has been previously discussed) :
>>
>> Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially
>> synonymous entities?
>
> One of them takes care to put out fires, the other transports you to
> hospital. There are regions where the two are mostly combined, but in
> other places these are completly separate organizations.
>
> E.g. in Germany they are mostly combined in the larger cities, but
> usually separated in smaller towns. That's related to having
> professional fire fighters and stations that are always manned
> compared to volunteers who have to gather first.

The sometimes-together sometimes-separate notion is also true in the US.

Typically, a Fire Department (sometimes called Fire Rescue) will also
operate ambulances.  Often these are painted like fire trucks, and the
staff are qualified as both firefighters and EMTs, employed as
firefighers, and in the IAFF/etc.  Almost always the station that houses
an ambulance has other fire equipment and thus these are "fire
stations".  These ambulances operate on the FD radio frequencies and are
dispatched as fire units.

Sometimes, these ambulances are Advanced Life Support (ALS), also called
paramedics.  When operated by fire departments, staff are typically both
firefighers and EMT-P.

Fairly typically, there are separate non-transporting paramedic units,
basically 2 EMT-Ps with gear in an SUV.  These are often not operated by
fire departments, and the people are EMT-P but usually not trained as
firefighters (unless they have one job with a FD and one with an
ambulance company, not so unusual).

In some towns, the fire department does fire fighting and "heavy
rescue"/"technical rescue" but not ambulances and they arrange with
ambulance companies for ambulance and paramedic services.

Not that you brought this up, but there are also fire department units
called "Rescue" that are big trucks with specialized equipment for
jacking up cars to get people out from under them, cutting them out of
cars, ropes for high places, confined space rescue, etc.




In some places, and in my experience this is in larger cities only (e.g,
Boston), there is a separate "Emergency Medical Services" department
which staffs ambulances and paramedic units.  In NYC, it's a separate
part of the fire department.  The staff are not firefighters and wear
different uniforms.  In Worcester, it's run by a university-associated
hospital and acts like a city EMS department but technically is
contracted.  The place where those ambulances are staged would not be
called "fire station".


So I agree these tags should be kept separate.  As for emergency= and
amenity=, that's a historical artifact and doesn't matter.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 16:31, Philip Barnes  wrote:

>
> I was covering both take away kiosks and ice cream parlours in probably
> too few words.
>
> Take away is far more common in my experience.
>

I've never encountered an ice cream parlour in real life, but I've seen
them in US TV shows.
So there's a case for amenity=ice_cream where the product is consumed on
the premises.

I've encountered ice cream kiosks and static ice cream vans in real life.
So there's a case
for shop=ice_cream where the product is not consumed on the premises but is
consumed
a distance (usually a short distance) from the shop.  You generally don't
buy an ice cream
cone to take home and put it in the freezer.

I've never encountered a shop selling only ice cream with the intention is
that most
customers would take the product home.  Ice cream sections in supermarkets,
yes.
Dedicated ice cream shop for taking the product home, no.  But I wouldn't
guarantee there
isn't such a place somewhere in the world.  Even so, it would just be
shop=ice_cream.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Markus]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:00, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> Me neither.  But that's a bit of a false dichotomy.  It isn't just eat on 
> premises or take home.
> There's also take away.  As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch.  Rather 
> common at the
> seaside.  Or a kiosk selling only, or mainly,. ice cream.  You buy the ice 
> cream to eat on
> the beach.

However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away. Besides,
it's probably very rare that an ice cream parlour doesn't allow ice
cream to be taken away. And if so, this can be take_away=no. No need
to use a different tag for this situation, in my opinion.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 15:57 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 15:30, Philip Barnes 
> wrote:
> 
> > I have never come across somewhere only selling Ice-cream to take
> > home.
> 
> Me neither.  But that's a bit of a false dichotomy.  It isn't just
> eat on premises or take home.
> There's also take away.  As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch. 
> Rather common at the
> seaside.  Or a kiosk selling only, or mainly,. ice cream.  You buy
> the ice cream to eat on
> the beach.
> 
> 
I was covering both take away kiosks and ice cream parlours in probably
too few words.

Take away is far more common in my experience.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 15:30, Philip Barnes  wrote:

I have never come across somewhere only selling Ice-cream to take home.
>

Me neither.  But that's a bit of a false dichotomy.  It isn't just eat on
premises or take home.
There's also take away.  As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch.  Rather
common at the
seaside.  Or a kiosk selling only, or mainly,. ice cream.  You buy the ice
cream to eat on
the beach.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 15:56 +0100, Markus wrote:
> Strangely enough, the page
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dice_cream
> 
> says that shop=ice_cream is "for places selling ice cream to take
> home", but shows an image of an ice cream parlour.
> 
> Are there really shops that only or mainly sell packaged ice cream
> for
> taking home?
> 
> Otherwise, it seems to make sense to deprecate shop=ice_cream in
> favour of the more used amenity=ice_cream.
> 
I have never come across somewhere only selling Ice-cream to take home.

As you say, it is either sold to eat now or to take home it is
alongside other frozen foods in more general food shops.

The only reason I can imagine for somewhere only selling ice cream, not
to be consumed straight away is a manufacturer/wholesaler who sells to
smaller shops and those operating amenity=ice cream. Shop implies
retail so this wouldn't fit.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Markus]

Strangely enough, the page

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dice_cream

says that shop=ice_cream is "for places selling ice cream to take
home", but shows an image of an ice cream parlour.

Are there really shops that only or mainly sell packaged ice cream for
taking home?

Otherwise, it seems to make sense to deprecate shop=ice_cream in
favour of the more used amenity=ice_cream.

Regards

Markus

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

[Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dice_cream 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dice_cream 


There are some claimed differences that AFAIK do not exist and 
should be made clear that difference is at most theoretical.

For now I added

"Very often used for places selling ice cream to be eaten on the spot, 
it is dubious whatever there is some consistent difference in real tagging. 
Consider using 
takeaway=only/takeaway=yes/takeaway=no to record this kind of info."

at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dice_cream 


I plan to remove 
"the difference being amenity=ice_cream for some reason 
may be used for frozen yogurts too"
claim from 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dice_cream 

as the next step
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 14:14 +0100, Jan Michel wrote:
> On 10.11.19 13:51, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Simple question (which I presume has been previously discussed) :
> > 
> > Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially
> > synonymous 
> > entities?
> 
> One of them takes care to put out fires, the other transports you to 
> hospital. There are regions where the two are mostly combined, but
> in 
> other places these are completly separate organizations.
> 
> E.g. in Germany they are mostly combined in the larger cities, but 
> usually separated in smaller towns. That's related to having 
> professional fire fighters and stations that are always manned
> compared 
> to volunteers who have to gather first.
> 
In the UK there area many more Fire Stations, so likely mapped much
earlier before the emergency tag happened.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Jan Michel]

On 10.11.19 13:51, Dave F via Tagging wrote:

Hi

Simple question (which I presume has been previously discussed) :

Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially synonymous 
entities?


One of them takes care to put out fires, the other transports you to 
hospital. There are regions where the two are mostly combined, but in 
other places these are completly separate organizations.


E.g. in Germany they are mostly combined in the larger cities, but 
usually separated in smaller towns. That's related to having 
professional fire fighters and stations that are always manned compared 
to volunteers who have to gather first.



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

[Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

[Dave F via Tagging]

Hi

Simple question (which I presume has been previously discussed) :

Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially synonymous 
entities?


DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/11/2019 09:53, Jan Michel wrote:
This seems like there are varying definitions in different countries, 
but all aim at basically the same thing - potential hazards to the 
environment. How about this scheme?


hazard_class = comah:XYZ
hazard_class = seveso:XYZ

For completeness the UK appears to have to classes - "upper tier" and 
"lower tier" - see http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/comah-establishments.htm 
, and that's determined based "on the quantity of dangerous substances 
they hold" (already noted elsewhere in the thread as relevant).


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[Jan Michel]

On 08.11.19 11:15, Lionel Giard wrote:
> Seveso sites are all sites identified as source for a "potential major
> industrial hazard"

On 08/11/2019 09:44, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> My first guess is it's at least roughly analogous to a Superfund site 
> in the US.


On 08.11.19 12:11, Andy Townsend wrote:

The local regulations in the UK for that are known as COMAH (see  > 
https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/ ).


This seems like there are varying definitions in different countries, 
but all aim at basically the same thing - potential hazards to the 
environment. How about this scheme?


hazard_class = comah:XYZ
hazard_class = seveso:XYZ


It establishes a common top-level tag and country specific / system 
specific values. This is analogous to e.g. zone:traffic and 
zone:maxspeed used on roads. The 'XYZ' values depend on the 
classification given by the respective scheme.


We could think about adding the country code to the key (like 
hazard_class:US, hazard_class=UK) to separate countries from each other, 
but this doesn't seem necessary.


I wouldn't recommend to add the scheme to the key (as in 
hazard_class:soveso), because this tends to create quite messy tags that 
are difficult to use.



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

Re: [Tagging] Supermarket pick-up service

[Warin]

On 09/11/19 03:30, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 08.11.2019 13:40, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Its not a shop, you don't buy anything there.

In my local case, the payment is done at collection time with any 
method the main marked uses,

i.e. cash and card. Thus I'd call it a shop

> Maybe supermarket=customer_collect or customer_pickup. Collect fits 
my British English ears better than pickup, that means something a bit 
different.


Indeed having 'collect' in the value sounds better than pick-up.

> They are covered, so the customer can drive in, so maybe borrow the 
drive_through tag from fast food outlets.
> Not all are attached to the supermarket, others are a separate 
building in the car park.


That layout sounds more like a loading point?


Not all of them are supermarkets, some hardware stores and other 
retailers offer a similar service.


? order_collection=yes?



On 08.11.2019 16:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I encountered shop=outpost used for that
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Doutpost

May be poor name - AFAIK it never went through a proposal process and 
appeared in non-english

countries first, but is fairly popular.


I find "outpost" completely misleading (usage <500). An outpost is a 
small military position at some distance from the main army, a remote 
part of a country, or an isolated branch of something (Oxford dict). 
It has nothing to do with the collection of pre-ordered goods.


Agree - outpost is a very misleading in this instance.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

[Warin]

On 09/11/19 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 8. Nov 2019, at 23:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

hazard=chemical
"risk_level"=low/medium/high


what kind of risk is the risk_level addressing? “chemical” is very generic, may 
be fine for the first level but should get a more detailed subtag aside. Also 
we should maybe distinguish between sites with supposed contamination and those 
where certain substances have already been detected.


These sites pose a potential to pollute .. air, water or ground.
This particular value is not indicating present contamination, or possible 
present contamination.



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