Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 14:36, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The tag emergency=ses_station is only used in one country, so it would
> be better to pick a name that will make sense internationally.
>

Yes, I agree entirely! That was the suggestion made previously that I
mentioned & why I then suggested combining everything into "rescue station"
& splitting further from there


> >  So the land_rescue here means a rescue service where the main mode of
> transport of the responders involved is a motor vehicle, bicycle or on foot.
>
> Don't they sometimes use helicopters too?
>

At least from the Aussie side of things, they can sometimes be moved by
choppers (Police or military) but SES don't own any choppers of their own.
They do however have boats as they are also used for flood rescue, which I
guess already makes the nice clean land / water split a bit murky


> > emergency=rescue_station, broken down into what type of rescue that
> station carries out.
>
> That seems sensible, but it needs to be clearly defined what qualifies
> as one of these places.
>

  Yes it will need a bit of work! The breakdown I suggested before was very
much off teh top of the head, without any really detailed thought!


>
> Is a "Search and Rescue" center one of these?
>

Yes it would be. At the moment I'm mapping NSW Fire Station locations &
updating their details, & I've found a number of places where the Rural
Fire Service & the SES share a shed - ones an amenity=fire_station, but the
other is currently just a building - how do we put 2 tags on the one
building, when they are both equally important?


>
> What about a place that dispatches ambulances?
>

Ambulance stations are a different thing again, which are tagged as
emergency=ambulance_station, but which, for some reason I've never
understood, don't render at all, while Police & Fire do?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency=ambulance%20station?uselang=en-AU
& why the mixture between amenity= & emergency=?


> The wiki page for emergency=water_rescue_station suggests that
> emergency=lifeguard_base should be used instead, so that needs to be
> cleared up.
>

& I believe I saw somewhere that they both refer to each other!

  Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 14:21, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The difference between emergency=lifeguard_tower and
> emergency=lifeguard_platform is not very clear.
>

No, I tried to clarify that when I brought up about tidying up the various
Lifeguard listings a while back, but never got very far :-(

Basically, a tower is taller than a platform, usually an enclosed structure
rather than just an elevated seat, & may well be a permanent structure.

  Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> In general it might make sense to have the complete list on the key page of
> emergency, and a
> selection on map features.

I've made this change. In generally, now that we have taglists for
most parts of Map Features, it would be good to have a longer list at
each Key: page (e.g Key:emergency, Key:route, Key:amenity) and a more
consise list in the Map Features templates.

>> 2) =fire_water_pond " A man made or natural pond with water for a fire
>> department." 2785 uses
>> - Remove: This tag isn't verifiable, or else it could be added to any
>> pond or small lake. It's not much used outside of Germany.
>
> Why is that not verifiable? Such ponds typically have a red-framed sign
> "Löschwasserteich".
> Ground-verifiable, not necessarily Bing-verifiable.

I see how that's verifiable in Germany, but isn't it actually an
emergency=suction_point in that case? The sign is the place where you
suction water into the fire engine, right?

In other countries we are not so picky about what water sources we use
for fighting fires. ;-)

>> 3) =access_point "A sign number which can be used to define your
>> current position in case of an emergency" -  uses
>> - Remove: the similar tag 'highway=access_point" is much more common
>> and was approved.
>
> This is a good approach to improve tagging of emergency features by
> aggregating them under the
> emergency key, in particular those that are not highway features.

That may be, but would required an approved proposal to deprecated the
more common tag.

> there should be a template
> separate from the Map features template that can be included in each of
> them. Do you know how to
> handle translation of the subheadings in such case?

Since the page is just several taglists, I'm not sure if it's still
necessary to have a separate template. Probably it's easier to just
copy and past the taglists, then add the language and translate the
headings?

I will try this out for the Indonesian page and see if it works easily.

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Thank you for the help, Greg.

>> 2) =fire_water_pond " A man made or natural pond with water for a fire
>> department." 2785 uses
>> - Remove: This tag isn't verifiable, or else it could be added to any
>> pond or small lake. It's not much used outside of Germany.
>
> Around me, there are things that meet this definition, and have
> standpipes installed.  So it's quite verifable.  However, if the pipe is
> tagged as some kind of hydrant, and the water is tagged, that seems
> sufficient.

That tag is probably emergency=suction_point - seems much better to
tag that rather than identifying the whole pond.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dsuction_point

>> 3) =access_point "A sign number which can be used to define your
>> current position in case of an emergency" -  uses
>> - Remove: the similar tag 'highway=access_point" is much more common
>> and was approved.
>
> I have seen, in company parking lots "evacuation assembly point #6" or
> signed for some floor/building.  These are for people, not  a highway
> thing.   I think it makes sense to map them.  Do you think this usage is
> what the tag is about?

That's probably emergency=assembly_point -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency=assembly_point

>> ) =landing_site "Preselected flat area for a helicopter to land in an
>> emergency" 2543 uses
>> - Uncertain: the tag aeroway=helipad is more common, and the
>> distinction  is unclear
>
> There is a difference between a helipad and a place for an emergency.
> Around me helipads are fenced and have lights, and landing there is
> within normal practice.
>
> There are also pre-planned sites for medical helicopters to land, and
> these are definitely not helipads.  They are merely places that are hard
> enough surface and open enough (no poles or wires) that a Medflight or
> police helicopter pilot can safely land and take off from.   Almost
> always some fire department equipement/people are sent to secure the
> landing site and provide lighting / denote the center with headlights.

Ok, that makes sense. I actually know of a number of these which I
could map (I sometimes fly along with the local helicopter medevac
service).

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The tag emergency=ses_station is only used in one country, so it would
be better to pick a name that will make sense internationally.

>  So the land_rescue here means a rescue service where the main mode of 
> transport of the responders involved is a motor vehicle, bicycle or on foot.

Don't they sometimes use helicopters too?

> emergency=rescue_station, broken down into what type of rescue that station 
> carries out.

That seems sensible, but it needs to be clearly defined what qualifies
as one of these places.

Is a "Search and Rescue" center one of these?

What about a place that dispatches ambulances?

The wiki page for emergency=water_rescue_station suggests that
emergency=lifeguard_base should be used instead, so that needs to be
cleared up.


- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/19/20, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> As others have said, emergency=landing_sites are different to helipads, as
> per the ongoing discussion re airstrip / airfield / aerodrome. In
> Australia, we have just finished mapping ~700 of then throughout New South
> Wales in connection with the current bushfires (which I'm sure you've all
> heard about :-(), & are looking at doing the same for other states, to show
> spots that choppers can land if needed.
>
> With regard to =mountain_rescue. As was mentioned earlier, there may only
> be a few of them mapped, but in those areas they are vital! I know there
> also used to be a listing for emergency=ses_station for the Australian
> State Emergency Service bases, but that appears to have been removed at
> some stage?
>
> On the discussion page for it
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dses_station, it
> was thought that the name was too country specific, & the suggestion was
> made to possibly rename these to =land_rescue_station, similar to the
> existing =water_rescue_station
> " There is an existing tag for emergency
> =water_rescue_station
> 
> and
> given the diverse nature of at least the Australian SES, I'd suggest a
> renaming to emergency =
> land_rescue_station
> 
> as
> it would be easy to verify on the ground. It would also resolve confusion
> in mapping marine SES units to the water_rescue_station rather than
> SES_station which spans both. So the land_rescue here means a rescue
> service where the main mode of transport of the responders involved is a
> motor vehicle, bicycle or on foot. Alex Sims
>  (talk
> ) 04:46, 20 May
> 2019 (UTC)"
>
> There would seem to be possible grounds for a new tag of
> emergency=rescue_station, broken down into what type of rescue that station
> carries out:
> eg type (that word that everybody loves!) / field / area / rescue=water
> (swimmers) / land / mountain / marine (boats) / etc
>
> emergency=rescue_station + rescue=marine + operator=Marine Rescue
> Queensland + name=Marine Rescue Currumbin
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.12854/153.48487
>
> Lifeguards could then come under the same classification using water rescue
>
> emergency=rescue_station + rescue=water + operator=Surf Life Saving
> Queensland + name=Palm Beach SLSC
>
> emergency=rescue_station + rescue=water + operator=Gold Coast City Council
> Lifeguard Service + name=Lifeguard Tower 14
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.11867/153.47239
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The difference between emergency=lifeguard_tower and
emergency=lifeguard_platform is not very clear.

Recall that the original question is about what tags should be
included in Map Features, the introductory page, translated into may
languages, which represents the most commonly used, "de facto" and
"approved" tags.

That list is curated through the proposal process and discussion on
this mailing list and the wiki, generally tags should not be added
unless there is wide consensus that the tag has been accepted by the
global mapping community as the "de facto" way to map a particular
feature.

I am not questioning the use of any of the tags.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/19/20, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> There would seem to be possible grounds for a new tag of
>> emergency=rescue_station, broken down into what type of rescue that
>> station
>> carries out:
>> eg type (that word that everybody loves!) / field / area / rescue=water
>> (swimmers) / land / mountain / marine (boats) / etc
>>
>
> I like the distinction between marine and water, since lifeguards mostly
> just deal with swimmers near shore and water police, marine rescue go
> further out and respond to incidents with water craft.
>
> At least for now the three lifeguard tags, emergency=lifeguard_base,
> emergency=lifeguard_tower and emergency=lifeguard_platform are all well
> defined, so at least in the near term we should keep using them.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 10:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> There would seem to be possible grounds for a new tag of
> emergency=rescue_station, broken down into what type of rescue that station
> carries out:
> eg type (that word that everybody loves!) / field / area / rescue=water
> (swimmers) / land / mountain / marine (boats) / etc
>

I like the distinction between marine and water, since lifeguards mostly
just deal with swimmers near shore and water police, marine rescue go
further out and respond to incidents with water craft.

At least for now the three lifeguard tags, emergency=lifeguard_base,
emergency=lifeguard_tower and emergency=lifeguard_platform are all well
defined, so at least in the near term we should keep using them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 00:20, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Should we remove some of the rare values of "emergency=" which have
> got into Map Features?
>

No just because it's may have a low tag count doesn't mean it's not a good
tag.


> Like some other key pages, the Key:emergency page is a big list of
> features generated from a template, and the same template goes
> straight to the main list of Map Features.
>
> This is probably why the Map Features page section for "Emergency" has
> 24 values, even though half of them are rarely used and very few were
> every approved.
>

Being visible on Map Features makes these tags easier to find for
newcomers. Even less common features should be there otherwise we'll just
end up the more popular tags getting used even more and the less common
tags won't and so OSM misses out on valuable data not being entered since
newcomers don't realise they can map it in OSM.


>
> These are the ones that seem questionable and maybe should not be
> shown on this page for new users:
>
> 1) emergency=fire_flapper "A wildland firefighting tool also called a
> swatter or a beater. It is designed for extinguishing minor fires in
> rural areas such as heaths." - 46 uses
> - I plan to remove this from Map Features
>
> ) =mountain_rescue - "A mountain rescue base for a team providing
> search and rescue services in mountainous environments" - 185 uses
> - Remove: rare tag, only relevant in some regions.
>

This seems okay, do you have a suggestion on how else one should tag a
mountain rescue base?


>
> 3) =drinking_water - "A facility that provides drinking water in
> emergency situations" 1155
> - Remove: it was just added, and definition is confusing
>
> 2) =fire_water_pond " A man made or natural pond with water for a fire
> department." 2785 uses
> - Remove: This tag isn't verifiable, or else it could be added to any
> pond or small lake. It's not much used outside of Germany.
>
> 3) =access_point "A sign number which can be used to define your
> current position in case of an emergency" -  uses
> - Remove: the similar tag 'highway=access_point" is much more common
> and was approved.
>

I disagree, this tag is well defined and documented, I agree it seems to be
defined exactly the same as highway=emergency_access_point. I think under
the emergency key is better since it may not be nearby or related to roads
at all.


> These 3 I don't know how to handle:
>
> ) =fire_hose "A high-pressure hose used to carry water or other fire
> retardant (such as foam) to a fire to extinguish it." - 1115 uses
> - Uncertain: rather rare tag, though it does not seem to have any problems
>

I disagree, this it's well documented and very useful in case of fire and
fire preparedness to know where the fire hose is.

>
> ) =landing_site "Preselected flat area for a helicopter to land in an
> emergency" 2543 uses
> - Uncertain: the tag aeroway=helipad is more common, and the
> distinction  is unclear
>

I disagree, others in this thread have already pointed out the difference.


> ) =lifeguard, lifeguard_base, lifeguard_tower, lifeguard_platform -
> none is over 700 uses, total is under 1500 combined.
> - Not clear how to distinguish these - should any be on Map Features?
> Just "emergency=lifeguard", the most common?
>

I disagree. I believe the iD preset is just emergency=lifeguard but that's
like highway=road just a placeholder until you can choose the more specific
lifeguard_base, lifeguard_town, lifeguard_platform.

The wiki does an excellent job at highlighting the differences.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

As others have said, emergency=landing_sites are different to helipads, as
per the ongoing discussion re airstrip / airfield / aerodrome. In
Australia, we have just finished mapping ~700 of then throughout New South
Wales in connection with the current bushfires (which I'm sure you've all
heard about :-(), & are looking at doing the same for other states, to show
spots that choppers can land if needed.

With regard to =mountain_rescue. As was mentioned earlier, there may only
be a few of them mapped, but in those areas they are vital! I know there
also used to be a listing for emergency=ses_station for the Australian
State Emergency Service bases, but that appears to have been removed at
some stage?

On the discussion page for it
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dses_station, it
was thought that the name was too country specific, & the suggestion was
made to possibly rename these to =land_rescue_station, similar to the
existing =water_rescue_station
" There is an existing tag for emergency
=water_rescue_station
 and
given the diverse nature of at least the Australian SES, I'd suggest a
renaming to emergency =
land_rescue_station

as
it would be easy to verify on the ground. It would also resolve confusion
in mapping marine SES units to the water_rescue_station rather than
SES_station which spans both. So the land_rescue here means a rescue
service where the main mode of transport of the responders involved is a
motor vehicle, bicycle or on foot. Alex Sims
 (talk
) 04:46, 20 May
2019 (UTC)"

There would seem to be possible grounds for a new tag of
emergency=rescue_station, broken down into what type of rescue that station
carries out:
eg type (that word that everybody loves!) / field / area / rescue=water
(swimmers) / land / mountain / marine (boats) / etc

emergency=rescue_station + rescue=marine + operator=Marine Rescue
Queensland + name=Marine Rescue Currumbin
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.12854/153.48487

Lifeguards could then come under the same classification using water rescue

emergency=rescue_station + rescue=water + operator=Surf Life Saving
Queensland + name=Palm Beach SLSC

emergency=rescue_station + rescue=water + operator=Gold Coast City Council
Lifeguard Service + name=Lifeguard Tower 14

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.11867/153.47239

Thoughts?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 22:18:10 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> Should we remove some of the rare values of "emergency=" which have
> got into Map Features?

> ) =fire_hose "A high-pressure hose used to carry water or other fire
> retardant (such as foam) to a fire to extinguish it." - 1115 uses
> - Uncertain: rather rare tag, though it does not seem to have any
> problems

Keep it.  Fixed hoses are quite common in large buildings.  However,
like most indoor features, they're not mapped very often.

> ) =landing_site "Preselected flat area for a helicopter to land in an
> emergency" 2543 uses
> - Uncertain: the tag aeroway=helipad is more common, and the
> distinction  is unclear

This is an emergency=landing_site: it's a section of parking lot that's
been surveyed as having sufficient clearance for a medivac helicopter
to land.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7487547,-117.5297687,75m/data=!3m1!1e3

This is an aeroway=helipad: it's a dedicated helicopter landing area,
designed and marked as such.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6518063,-117.4240817,61m/data=!3m1!1e3

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

Hello Florimond,

drinking_water:bottle = yes/no
seems quite good because it's pretty obvious that it would be your own
bottle if it is free water. I am happy to use this nomenclature if it is
more consistent and others are in agreement.

drinking_water:fee=yes/no
drinking_water:fee:conditional="no @ customers" alternavite:
drinking_water:fee:customers=no
I can see how this works from a logic point of view, but still seems a bit
convoluted

I still prefer this because in one tag, we get almost everything.  I do
realize there is some inconsistency with this tag name.
drinking_water:free=

I even think that drinking_water:free = yes might be a sufficient tag for
all cafes, bars, clubs and restaurants willing to participate in the refill
revolution. And that the bottle precision might only be necessary for those
refusing bottles and insisting on serving a glass of water.

Best regards,

Stuart



On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 18:08, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, I added my proposal:
>
> drinking_water:fee=yes/no
> drinking_water:fee:conditional="no @ customers" alternavite:
> drinking_water:fee:customers=no
> drinking_water:bottle=yes/no
>
> I think that the key bottle=* can fit your needs to know if you can refill
> you bottle easily or not. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bottle
> I suffix it by drinking_water because bottle alone would look like a lost
> tag in a cafe/restaurant tag table.
>
> Regards.
>
> Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 07:50, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>2. Re: RFC free_water (Joseph Eisenberg)
> >
> > >>> Joseph, I have just turned off the digest feature ... so hopefully
> this will be the last of this wacky system which has been driving me crazy.
> >
> > I have just added a top section to  the discussion page for :
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Free_Water
> >
> > I propose that everyone contribute in this section without verbage or
> rationale an elegant and complete solution which solves the below.
> > 1. Is there free drinking water available ?
> > 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
> available
> > 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
>  (bottle)
> >
> > My current preferred solution which is now on the top of the discussion
> page is :
> > drinking_water:free = 
> > drinking_water:free:container = 
> >
> > After making a proposal, it would seem to make sense to explain why they
> believe their set of tags is the best.
> >
> > I hope this can help expedite the process.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Stuart
>
> --
> Florimond Berthoux
> ___
> 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] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Greg Troxel]

Joseph Eisenberg  writes:

> 2) =fire_water_pond " A man made or natural pond with water for a fire
> department." 2785 uses
> - Remove: This tag isn't verifiable, or else it could be added to any
> pond or small lake. It's not much used outside of Germany.

Around me, there are things that meet this definition, and have
standpipes installed.  So it's quite verifable.  However, if the pipe is
tagged as some kind of hydrant, and the water is tagged, that seems
sufficient.

> 3) =access_point "A sign number which can be used to define your
> current position in case of an emergency" -  uses
> - Remove: the similar tag 'highway=access_point" is much more common
> and was approved.

I have seen, in company parking lots "evacuation assembly point #6" or
signed for some floor/building.  These are for people, not  a highway
thing.   I think it makes sense to map them.  Do you think this usage is
what the tag is about?

> These 3 I don't know how to handle:
>
> ) =landing_site "Preselected flat area for a helicopter to land in an
> emergency" 2543 uses
> - Uncertain: the tag aeroway=helipad is more common, and the
> distinction  is unclear

There is a difference between a helipad and a place for an emergency.
Around me helipads are fenced and have lights, and landing there is
within normal practice.

There are also pre-planned sites for medical helicopters to land, and
these are definitely not helipads.  They are merely places that are hard
enough surface and open enough (no poles or wires) that a Medflight or
police helicopter pilot can safely land and take off from.   Almost
always some fire department equipement/people are sent to secure the
landing site and provide lighting / denote the center with headlights.

These are verifiable, by talking to the fire department people or
observing them being used.

Perhaps there should be some other tag, but the concept is entirely valid.


(I am unclear on map features vs key values.)

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi, I added my proposal:

drinking_water:fee=yes/no
drinking_water:fee:conditional="no @ customers" alternavite:
drinking_water:fee:customers=no
drinking_water:bottle=yes/no

I think that the key bottle=* can fit your needs to know if you can refill
you bottle easily or not. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bottle
I suffix it by drinking_water because bottle alone would look like a lost
tag in a cafe/restaurant tag table.

Regards.

Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 07:50, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>
>>2. Re: RFC free_water (Joseph Eisenberg)
>
> >>> Joseph, I have just turned off the digest feature ... so hopefully
this will be the last of this wacky system which has been driving me crazy.
>
> I have just added a top section to  the discussion page for :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Free_Water
>
> I propose that everyone contribute in this section without verbage or
rationale an elegant and complete solution which solves the below.
> 1. Is there free drinking water available ?
> 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
available
> 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
 (bottle)
>
> My current preferred solution which is now on the top of the discussion
page is :
> drinking_water:free = 
> drinking_water:free:container = 
>
> After making a proposal, it would seem to make sense to explain why they
believe their set of tags is the best.
>
> I hope this can help expedite the process.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart

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

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Lionel Giard]

Allesandro,

I wasn't speaking about disabled only here, even if it must exist countries
where disabled are marked but not enforced by law, but i don't know any
example. But for other dedicated parking space like "parent" or "electric
charging", there are not many country enforcing them by law, even if they
still are dedicated to these kind of people or users. Thus
capacity:charging=1 for a parking_space dedicated to electric charging is
the only correct way of mapping it (especially since an access tag doesn't
exist for that) and in most country, nothing enforce you legally to not
park there if you want (it is only asked to not park there if you are not
the target group and you don't risk a fine for doing it anyway). Same for
special parking for parent near a supermarket entrance. These are designed
as a large parking space to ease the entry and exit of the car for parents
with small children (and toddler). You can always park there, even it may
be seen as selfish if you don't have any children... ;-)

Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 09:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 17. Jan 2020, at 19:57, Alessandro Sarretta <
> alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and
> only accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy)
>
>
> btw, in Italy disabled parking spaces are accessible by everyone, but only
> disabled people may park there (everybody may halt there, but you may not
> go away and leave your vehicle there)
>
> 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] EV charging stations questions and proposals

[Lionel Giard]

For motorcar vs car, it seems logical to update it to motorcar as it is the
recommended way of tagging car access, as it is probably just an old wiki
information on the amenity=charging_station. At the same time, should we
use another tag than scouter=* for them ? Because it is not an existing tag
on the access wiki page. Maybe using moped=* + motorcycle=* would be better
and more in line with the access wiki page ?! Same for truck=* which
doesn't exist, but i'm not sure if hgv=* would be the correct one ? How do
we tag a fuel station dedicated to truck ? Because we could use the same
tagging for electric charging that will be available for truck only. I
don't know if any exist yet, but they are coming this year or next year at
least with the new electric truck that start to appear.

To my understanding it is both a device and a place which is confusing.
Maybe we should use the current tagging for the place (similar to
amenity=fuel) and another for the device if needed. Because historically,
there weren't many real "station" like we would have "fuel station". It was
mostly simple charging socket on a place in a parking lot. This is not a
station to me, but a device alone. At the moment, we use
amenity=charging_station both for such socket/device in a parking lot and
for larger station like Fastned station

in the Netherlands, Ionity station or Tesla supercharger. It seems quite
different and maybe we should refine it with one tag for a place looking
like a station (with multiple charging devices) and a tag for just the
device (especially for place like the airport where you can have many
charging socket in a parking that are there to park your car and leave it
charging when you take the plane) - i don't think these place are a
"station".

Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny 
a écrit :

> 18 Jan 2020, 13:37 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As we plan to start a new "Project of the month" in France to improve EV
> charging facilities mapping, a few questions raise regarding tagging of
> those amenities.
>
> We want to encourage people to use the established tagging and want to be
> sure we won't do it in the wrong way as well.
>
> Thanks for reviewing tagging and tagging docs as part of that!
>
> amenity=charging_station recommends to use car=* to state the feature is
> accessible by car.
> According to more general highway tagging, motorcar=* is preferred to
> describe such access rules. Should this recommendation evolve to replace
> car=* by motorcar=* for charging stations ?
> Open question on Talk :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Vehicles
>
> So charging station for bicycles and charging station for cars is supposed
> to be have the same top tag?
>
> According to official terminology, a station sounds to be a device in a
> pool which refers to the place where you find several devices to charge
> your EV. amenity=charging_station then should refers to individual devices
> and not to whole facilities.
> Can someone confirm this point please?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Is_this_a_device_or_a_place_.3F
>
> I really hope that it is for a place.
> If it is equivalent of tagging every pump separately then we need a new
> tag
> for the entire equivalent of amenity=fuel
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”

[Markus Peloso]

Hello Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

Maybe amenity=coworking_space combined with operator:type=private_non_profit
fits for a place like that?

Best regards,

Markus

Von: Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Januar 2020 00:13
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”

On 21.9.2019 12.52, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> I'd see that very suitable. You can define the subtype by tagging
> community_centre=*, and I would not see a requirement that the facility
> needs to be open to everybody, it can be for a specific user group,
> which can be tagged with community_centre:for=* .

This is the one that seems most suitable from the current tags, but I'm
still a bit stuck on the idea that a community centre should also have
some communal functions. These course centres I'm referring to don't
really belong to the community, but basically just provide space for
rent for users, which are usually non-profit because of the low-end
facilities.

When I look at the definition of a community centre in Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_centre#Uses_and_activities),
the only one that matches IMO is the one about renting a space. Is it
thus really a community centre?

Best regards,
--
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

___
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] EV charging stations questions and proposals

[Mateusz Konieczny]

18 Jan 2020, 13:37 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> As we plan to start a new "Project of the month" in France to improve EV 
> charging facilities mapping, a few questions raise regarding tagging of those 
> amenities.
>
> We want to encourage people to use the established tagging and want to be 
> sure we won't do it in the wrong way as well.
>
Thanks for reviewing tagging and tagging docs as part of that!

> amenity=charging_station recommends to use car=* to state the feature is 
> accessible by car.
> According to more general highway tagging, motorcar=* is preferred to 
> describe such access rules. Should this recommendation evolve to replace 
> car=* by motorcar=* for charging stations ?
> Open question on Talk : > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Vehicles
>
So charging station for bicycles and charging station for cars is supposed 
to be have the same top tag?

> According to official terminology, a station sounds to be a device in a pool 
> which refers to the place where you find several devices to charge your EV. 
> amenity=charging_station then should refers to individual devices and not to 
> whole facilities.
> Can someone confirm this point please?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Is_this_a_device_or_a_place_.3F
>
I really hope that it is for a place.
If it is equivalent of tagging every pump separately then we need a new tag 
for the entire equivalent of amenity=fuel

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

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 18.01.2020 14:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Should we remove some of the rare values of "emergency=" which have
got into Map Features?


In general it might make sense to have the complete list on the key page of emergency, and a 
selection on map features.



Like some other key pages, the Key:emergency page is a big list of
features generated from a template, and the same template goes
straight to the main list of Map Features.

This is probably why the Map Features page section for "Emergency" has
24 values, even though half of them are rarely used and very few were
every approved.


Be careful not to look into lower absolute numbers for features that exist in reality only in low 
numbers.


Discussing some of your reasonings below:


) =mountain_rescue - "A mountain rescue base for a team providing
search and rescue services in mountainous environments" - 185 uses
- Remove: rare tag, only relevant in some regions.


Quite important in those regions!


2) =fire_water_pond " A man made or natural pond with water for a fire
department." 2785 uses
- Remove: This tag isn't verifiable, or else it could be added to any
pond or small lake. It's not much used outside of Germany.


Why is that not verifiable? Such ponds typically have a red-framed sign 
"Löschwasserteich".
Ground-verifiable, not necessarily Bing-verifiable.


3) =access_point "A sign number which can be used to define your
current position in case of an emergency" -  uses
- Remove: the similar tag 'highway=access_point" is much more common
and was approved.


This is a good approach to improve tagging of emergency features by aggregating them under the 
emergency key, in particular those that are not highway features.



) =landing_site "Preselected flat area for a helicopter to land in an
emergency" 2543 uses
- Uncertain: the tag aeroway=helipad is more common, and the
distinction  is unclear


The distinction is that aeroway=helipad is a purpose-built infrastructure,
while emergency=landing_site is a predefined spot that is only used if there is 
an emergency nearby.
This could be a meadow, and there might be an agreement with the farmer to cut 
the grass regularly.


(I think it will help to use a separate list at Key:emergency, which
can be longer than the "official" list of Map Features.)


Yes. I noted that the language-translations of the Key:emergency page are quite 
heterogeneous,
some having their own list, some used the Map features list. Probably there should be a template 
separate from the Map features template that can be included in each of them. Do you know how to 
handle translation of the subheadings in such case?


tom

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

[Tagging] EV charging stations questions and proposals

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

As we plan to start a new "Project of the month" in France to improve EV
charging facilities mapping, a few questions raise regarding tagging of
those amenities.

We want to encourage people to use the established tagging and want to be
sure we won't do it in the wrong way as well.

amenity=charging_station recommends to use car=* to state the feature is
accessible by car.
According to more general highway tagging, motorcar=* is preferred to
describe such access rules. Should this recommendation evolve to replace
car=* by motorcar=* for charging stations ?
Open question on Talk :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Vehicles

According to official terminology, a station sounds to be a device in a
pool which refers to the place where you find several devices to charge
your EV. amenity=charging_station then should refers to individual devices
and not to whole facilities.
Can someone confirm this point please?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Is_this_a_device_or_a_place_.3F

In Europe, eMI3 standard describes how such pools and EVSE should be
identifies with unique references.
I propose https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:EU:EVSE as a
framework for those references with sourced documentation. Feel free to
suggest any improvement or concern you may have regarding this.

Best regards

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

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Jan 2020, at 19:57, Alessandro Sarretta 
>  wrote:
> 
> If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and only 
> accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy)


btw, in Italy disabled parking spaces are accessible by everyone, but only 
disabled people may park there (everybody may halt there, but you may not go 
away and leave your vehicle there)

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

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Jan 2020, at 10:40, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to
> double-counting


yes, on the other hand I would see parking_space as parallel to parking, so if 
one is inside the other it would seem logical that the capacities are counted 
independently (double)


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