Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[John Willis via Tagging]

I am familiar with all of those materials. I agree that they are all different 
(landscaping paper, farming plastic, weedblocker, tyvek house moisture 
barrier). I use all of them at my house. 

This is something different. Something very very thick (2-3mm!) , made with tar 
or other marital that is fairly stiff yet rollable, and has a opaque, coated, 
impermeable surface - very similar to the tarpaper I use as a moisture 
barrier/underlay on roofing - yet is commonly used as a kind of functional 
landscaping cover in industrial / transportation places (traffic islands, etc) 
where weeds would be bothersome. 

And as far as I can tell, it is manufactured for this exact purpose (with 
accessories and standardized installation techniques) for it, not simply 
repurposed roofing tarpaper used in a different manner - so it must have a 
unique name of some kind. 

Javbw

> On Jan 17, 2020, at 5:23 AM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> These materials are typically not paper, nor plastic film, but rather
> some sort of woven or felted material


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

Re: [Tagging] wikimedia_commons= and image= cleanup

[Yuri Astrakhan]

I second - those keys should be cleaned up to be more consistent. My only
concern is that we overload the meaning of wikimedia_commons to mean both a
single image and a category, using namespace prefix as part of the value.

IMO it should be just the name of the file, without the namespace prefix.
Categories would then go into a separate key, e.g.
`wikimedia_commons_category` (or could shorten it to `commons_category` and
`commons_image` for simplicity?).

With the way it is done now, someone could use a different namespace or no
namespace at all -- `wikimedia_commons=List of famous grave images on this
cemetery` or even `=Template:famous pictures of Notre Dame`, and the data
consumer wouldn't know if this is an accidental omission of the `File:`
prefix needs to be handled in a special way, etc.

Regardless - as long as the usage is consistent, I'm all for it.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 4:01 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 20:45, pangoSE  wrote:
>
>> I recently stumbled upon the tag wikimedia_commons see
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
>>
>> Its definition is: "links to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the
>> feature "
>>
> Yep.  That's correct, apart from the word "links."  They're not really
> links.  Not in
> the HTML meaning of the word.
>
>> But, the only 2 examples contain no links (as in URL-links but instead
>> file- and category names):
>>
>>wikimedia_commons=File:Bicycle crossing, Poland, Kraków, Josepha
>>Conrada.JPG
>>wikimedia_commons=Category:St Paul, Birmingham
>>
>> Yep. That's correct.
>
>>
>>
>> I see in the database that a lot of image= tags contains direct urls to
>> Wikimedia Commons.
>>
> You CAN do that, if you want.  But the image tag is a bit of a mess,
> because
> more than one format has been used for the value (URLs and wikimedia
> references, as well as others).  So best to use wikimedia_commons=* for
> wikimedia commons images.
>
>> I suggest we discuss changing the definition to: "File- or category name
>> to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the feature "
>>
> Sounds sensible.  Actually, I hadn't considered using the category name
> and didn't
> know it worked with any carto that handles File (such as
> gk.historic.place).
>
>> Furthermore I would like to hear if anyone have any problems with mass
>> re-tagging of all commons URLs in image and wikimedia_commons tags to the
>> above format. I will keep the changesets per country or smaller.
>>
> See guidelines on bulk/automated edits.  There are likely to be many
> objections, even
> if your proposal is sensible and there aren't many to change.
>
>> PPS: I also suggested that we start rendering images on feature pages on
>> openstreetmap.org,
>>
> Also seems sensible.  Sorta like what gk.historic.place does on
> historic/heritage
> POIs with images if you click on them for details.  Or, if ever we move to
> vector
> maps, maybe details would appear in a pop-up if you hover over a POI.  I
> think
> this is a good idea, but others may have different opinions.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wikimedia_commons= and image= cleanup

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 20:45, pangoSE  wrote:

> I recently stumbled upon the tag wikimedia_commons see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
>
> Its definition is: "links to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the
> feature "
>
Yep.  That's correct, apart from the word "links."  They're not really
links.  Not in
the HTML meaning of the word.

> But, the only 2 examples contain no links (as in URL-links but instead
> file- and category names):
>
>wikimedia_commons=File:Bicycle crossing, Poland, Kraków, Josepha
>Conrada.JPG
>wikimedia_commons=Category:St Paul, Birmingham
>
> Yep. That's correct.

>
>
> I see in the database that a lot of image= tags contains direct urls to
> Wikimedia Commons.
>
You CAN do that, if you want.  But the image tag is a bit of a mess, because
more than one format has been used for the value (URLs and wikimedia
references, as well as others).  So best to use wikimedia_commons=* for
wikimedia commons images.

> I suggest we discuss changing the definition to: "File- or category name
> to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the feature "
>
Sounds sensible.  Actually, I hadn't considered using the category name and
didn't
know it worked with any carto that handles File (such as gk.historic.place).

> Furthermore I would like to hear if anyone have any problems with mass
> re-tagging of all commons URLs in image and wikimedia_commons tags to the
> above format. I will keep the changesets per country or smaller.
>
See guidelines on bulk/automated edits.  There are likely to be many
objections, even
if your proposal is sensible and there aren't many to change.

> PPS: I also suggested that we start rendering images on feature pages on
> openstreetmap.org,
>
Also seems sensible.  Sorta like what gk.historic.place does on
historic/heritage
POIs with images if you click on them for details.  Or, if ever we move to
vector
maps, maybe details would appear in a pop-up if you hover over a POI.  I
think
this is a good idea, but others may have different opinions.

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

[Tagging] wikimedia_commons= and image= cleanup

[pangoSE]

I recently stumbled upon the tag wikimedia_commons see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons


Its definition is: "links to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the 
feature "


But, the only 2 examples contain no links (as in URL-links but instead 
file- and category names):


   wikimedia_commons=File:Bicycle crossing, Poland, Kraków, Josepha
   Conrada.JPG
   wikimedia_commons=Category:St Paul, Birmingham 

I see in the database that a lot of image= tags contains direct urls to 
Wikimedia Commons.


I suggest we discuss changing the definition to:"File- or category name 
to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the feature "


Furthermore I would like to hear if anyone have any problems with mass 
re-tagging of all commons URLs in image and wikimedia_commons tags to 
the above format. I will keep the changesets per country or smaller.


There are currently ~58062 image= tags containing "wikimedia": 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PWp


There are currently 37 wikimedia_commons tags that start with "http". 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PWq


See also the discussion of introducing these formatting restraints in 
the JOSM validator:

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/18579

Regards

pangoSE

PS: IMO it is a good idea to clean this up to get an idea of how many of 
our features have some kind (and what kind) of image linked to them. I 
would like to see statistics about this that also tells me whether the 
wikidata item of some OSM feature has an image P18 property.
PPS: I also suggested that we start rendering images on feature pages on 
openstreetmap.org, see 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2515


___
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?

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/20/20 5:00 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

> Sounds basically reasonable to me.  The page does not make it clear
> if this is just a place you can put a hose in, or if the piping is
> pre-installed.  What I'm talking about is a red 3 or 4" pipe that
> runs from under the middle to the edge with "FD Water Source #6" sign
> or some such.   Maybe that's what

  Some of our raw water sources do have a 3" fitting we use to draft
water. What's more common though in my fire district is "suction_point"
is where I park a fire truck and just drop a 3" hardline into the pond
or creek. Since these locations must be flat, and less than 10ft above
the water source (hard to find in the Rockies), we tag these so newer
responders can find them.

  A water pond or cistern with a 3" connection I'd consider a dry
hydrant, which just means there is no pressure behind it.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Jan 2020, at 16:34, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> but to switch to disused: if there's no water on the day of the survey,
> I think that's excessive.


for the drinking fountains in my area seeing there is no water does indeed 
justify to put it on disused, while it’s in theory just a tap that is closed it 
isn’t something that is done on a frequent basis and from experience it is 
likely it will remain like this for months and maybe years or forever.
For decorative fountains the situation is different here because they are 
usually only turned off for maintenance/damages and not for no apparent reason 
(this depends on the context, in Berlin for example they turned fountains off 
to save money, at least this was the situation 10years ago and outside the 
highlight tourist areas). Unless a decorative fountain is visibly and seriously 
damaged I wouldn’t set it to disused here, even if I saw it without water.

I also encourage everybody to use the fountain subtag, by the way.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 15:05, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:


> I agree that earthwork reinforcement may be out of scope here, but the
> term "surface" as you read it seems to comprise the first feet of earth,
> while I would read it as the surface in contact with air (no thickness,
> just a surface), or in other words, if the sheets are the topmost thing
> before the air of the atmosphere, surface would be fine, if there is a thin
> layer of soil and plants are growing above, it would not be.
>

As I understood the original post, it described sheets between the ground
and
the air.  Sub-surface erosion sheets will allow sand above them to be blown
away and soil above them to be washed away, so won't stay sub-surface
for long (so wouldn't be put sub-surface in the first place).  Sub-surface
weed prevention sheets will allow weed seeds to establish in the soil
above them and weed roots will penetrate through them, so they won't
be very effective.

Others may have, but I don't think I wrote anything stating that I
considered the proposed tag to apply to anything that wasn't strictly,
visibly, a surface feature.

>
> Also the in the earth layers of erosion reduction may be observable (e.g.
> during construction, after completion punctually, when damaged or when
> digging, etc.)
>

If there are multiple sub-surface layers they're mechanical stabilization,
not
erosion control (these are two VERY different things).  They may potentially
be verifiable (from records) and they may potentially be mapable (under
some circumstances, perhaps, maybe) but they're NOT surface features unless
they're on the surface.

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

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[European Water Project]

Dear Marc/Martin,

Would it be possible to prepare a "best practice" proposal for how
fountains which are temporarily not working should be tagged ?

If so, how can I create the wiki template to be filled in - I am happy to
work on the first draft.

I am quite agnostic about which solution is chosen, but see more logic
using "status" or "operating status" than "disused".


Best regards,

Stuart

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:34, marc marc  wrote:

> I'm using operation_status when I see a such one.
> and I'm trying to survey again later to see if it was a temporary
> problem or if it's disused:
> but to switch to disused: if there's no water on the day of the survey,
> I think that's excessive.
>
> Le 20.01.20 à 15:59, European Water Project a écrit :
> > Dear Martin,
> >
> > Wouldn't it make more sense for mappers to tag status=broken or
> > status=out_of_order instead of deleting ?
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 15:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
> > mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 03:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
> > mailto:ja...@piorkowski.ca>>:
> >
> > Ah, good point! So I guess for a drinking fountain seasonal=yes
> > is the
> > most reasonable when I don't know the months when it's active
> > (I'm in
> > a climate that freezes, so they get shut down sometime before
> that).
> > That's decently human-readable and I'd guess most people will
> guess
> > right when informed that the fountain is "seasonal".
> >
> > Unfortunately I've just now started noticing that these are shut
> off
> > and while I guess they were actually shut down closer to
> November...
> >
> >
> >
> > it is complicated. Last time when most drinking fountains in Rome
> > were shut down was about 2 years ago in a dry period in the summer
> > (as a side note and very unfortunately, some mappers have deleted
> > the whole thing in this time just because the (internal) tap was
> > closed for some weeks). So the reason for seasonal availability
> > could be various, from shutting them in winter for frost protection
> > to shutting them in the summer for saving resources in a drought.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> ___
> 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] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[marc marc]

I'm using operation_status when I see a such one.
and I'm trying to survey again later to see if it was a temporary
problem or if it's disused:
but to switch to disused: if there's no water on the day of the survey,
I think that's excessive.

Le 20.01.20 à 15:59, European Water Project a écrit :
> Dear Martin,
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense for mappers to tag status=broken or
> status=out_of_order instead of deleting ?
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Stuart 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 15:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 03:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
> mailto:ja...@piorkowski.ca>>:
> 
> Ah, good point! So I guess for a drinking fountain seasonal=yes
> is the
> most reasonable when I don't know the months when it's active
> (I'm in
> a climate that freezes, so they get shut down sometime before that).
> That's decently human-readable and I'd guess most people will guess
> right when informed that the fountain is "seasonal".
> 
> Unfortunately I've just now started noticing that these are shut off
> and while I guess they were actually shut down closer to November...
> 
> 
> 
> it is complicated. Last time when most drinking fountains in Rome
> were shut down was about 2 years ago in a dry period in the summer
> (as a side note and very unfortunately, some mappers have deleted
> the whole thing in this time just because the (internal) tap was
> closed for some weeks). So the reason for seasonal availability
> could be various, from shutting them in winter for frost protection
> to shutting them in the summer for saving resources in a drought.
> 
> 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
> 

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

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[European Water Project]

Hi Martin,

disused:amenity=drinking_water is very good.

Is this documented as best practice for drinking fountains which are not
running without explanation?

How do you document an out of ourder tagged fountain which was
"amenity=fountain && drinking_water=yes" ? disused:drinking_water=yes ?

Best regards,

Stuart

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 16:10, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mo., 20. Jan. 2020 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense for mappers to tag status=broken or status=
>> out_of_order instead of deleting ?
>>
>
>
> personally I have changed them to "disused:amenity=drinking_water" (and
> back then).
> The problem with additional status qualifiers is that dataconsumers must
> be aware of them (usually none is aware and all continue to show drinking
> water where the currently isn't).
>
> Certainly, deleting isn't a good option, and we discourage it for cases
> like this (I guess it IS indeed discouraged).
>
> 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] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

Dear Florimond,

What seems preferable about  drinking_water:free=  is
that it is a tag that offers a complete response .

drinking_water:fee, necessitates a follow up qualification. If no, then for
whom if not for everyone ? If yes, then how much and is it the same fee for
customers and non-customers alike?

Best regards,

Stuart



On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 15:28, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 18:37, European Water Project
>  a écrit :
> > 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=
>
> Ok, I understand, if we look at
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee#values other values exist
> like unknown, donation or even time table.
> There also some tags meaning "free for customers" but different
> syntax, it's little messy, so maybe we should normalize that with
> drinking_water:fee=free_for_customers ?
>
> (There is also drinking_water:fee=customers but I don't understand
> what it can means, only customers have to pay ? that's weird.)
>
> The problem I have with drinking_water:free is that free is not a tag
> currently, and it would be an alias for drinking_water:fee with
> opposite value.
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree.
>
> --
> 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] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 20. Jan. 2020 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> Wouldn't it make more sense for mappers to tag status=broken or status=out
> _of_order instead of deleting ?
>


personally I have changed them to "disused:amenity=drinking_water" (and
back then).
The problem with additional status qualifiers is that dataconsumers must be
aware of them (usually none is aware and all continue to show drinking
water where the currently isn't).

Certainly, deleting isn't a good option, and we discourage it for cases
like this (I guess it IS indeed discouraged).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 20. Jan. 2020 um 15:09 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> If they're sub-surface, a mapper won't see them on a survey or aerial
> imagery.  The
> OP appeared to be talking specifically of surface features for preventing
> weeds
> and/or erosion control, not reinforcement.  Visible, therefore mappable.
> Surface
> type, therefore surface=*.
>
>

I agree that earthwork reinforcement may be out of scope here, but the term
"surface" as you read it seems to comprise the first feet of earth, while I
would read it as the surface in contact with air (no thickness, just a
surface), or in other words, if the sheets are the topmost thing before the
air of the atmosphere, surface would be fine, if there is a thin layer of
soil and plants are growing above, it would not be.

Also the in the earth layers of erosion reduction may be observable (e.g.
during construction, after completion punctually, when damaged or when
digging, etc.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[European Water Project]

Dear Martin,

Wouldn't it make more sense for mappers to tag status=broken or status=out_
of_order instead of deleting ?

best regards,

Stuart

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 15:53, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 03:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <
> ja...@piorkowski.ca>:
>
>> Ah, good point! So I guess for a drinking fountain seasonal=yes is the
>> most reasonable when I don't know the months when it's active (I'm in
>> a climate that freezes, so they get shut down sometime before that).
>> That's decently human-readable and I'd guess most people will guess
>> right when informed that the fountain is "seasonal".
>>
>> Unfortunately I've just now started noticing that these are shut off
>> and while I guess they were actually shut down closer to November...
>
>
>
> it is complicated. Last time when most drinking fountains in Rome were
> shut down was about 2 years ago in a dry period in the summer (as a side
> note and very unfortunately, some mappers have deleted the whole thing in
> this time just because the (internal) tap was closed for some weeks). So
> the reason for seasonal availability could be various, from shutting them
> in winter for frost protection to shutting them in the summer for saving
> resources in a drought.
>
> 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] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 03:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <
ja...@piorkowski.ca>:

> Ah, good point! So I guess for a drinking fountain seasonal=yes is the
> most reasonable when I don't know the months when it's active (I'm in
> a climate that freezes, so they get shut down sometime before that).
> That's decently human-readable and I'd guess most people will guess
> right when informed that the fountain is "seasonal".
>
> Unfortunately I've just now started noticing that these are shut off
> and while I guess they were actually shut down closer to November...



it is complicated. Last time when most drinking fountains in Rome were shut
down was about 2 years ago in a dry period in the summer (as a side note
and very unfortunately, some mappers have deleted the whole thing in this
time just because the (internal) tap was closed for some weeks). So the
reason for seasonal availability could be various, from shutting them in
winter for frost protection to shutting them in the summer for saving
resources in a drought.

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

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 02:53 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> > seasonal=summer
>
> Well, this is the problem with the tag "seasonal" - it's not 100%
> clear if "seasonal=summer" means "this feature is only available in
> the summer" or "this feature is NOT available in the summer".
>


I believe tags are referring to the object they describe. seasonal=* means
the feature is available only part of the year, and a value of "summer"
makes it more concrete (only in summer).



> As mentioned on the wiki page "Note these values can be ambiguous for
> features that that vary between different states since it can be
> unclear which state occurs at which time of the year."
>


maybe it is for natural features like waterways, although I find it
generally hard to follow this reasoning.





>
> And here in the tropics it is every more confusing to interpret
> "seasonal=wet_season" and "seasonal=dry_season" - one expects
> "seasonal=dry_season" for roads and "seasonal=wet_season" for rivers,
> but this is not always used properly.
>


just use seasonal=yes ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 13:52, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

I don't find the surface tag compelling for this, because around here, most
> of them are below the surface (although not very deep). I would either see
> them as erosing control features or maybe ground reenforcement? (in any
> case these would be area properties and not features in OSM)
>

If they're sub-surface, a mapper won't see them on a survey or aerial
imagery.  The
OP appeared to be talking specifically of surface features for preventing
weeds
and/or erosion control, not reinforcement.  Visible, therefore mappable.
Surface
type, therefore surface=*.

Sheets used to mechanically-stabilize earth are not only not visible, they
go deep.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0olpSN6_TCc for a fuller explanation.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

even more related wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotextile

Cheers
Martin


PS: just another example of the plurality of articles (and connected
wikidata objects) for (partially) "the same things"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 23:11 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> maybe surface=landscaping_fabric or =landscape_fabric ?
>
> Wikipedia has stub under the second title
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_fabric
> not sure which name is better
>



here's an article about reinforced earthwork:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanically_stabilized_earth

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 23:11 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> maybe surface=landscaping_fabric or =landscape_fabric ?
>


I don't find the surface tag compelling for this, because around here, most
of them are below the surface (although not very deep). I would either see
them as erosing control features or maybe ground reenforcement? (in any
case these would be area properties and not features in OSM)

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

Re: [Tagging] EV charging stations questions and proposals

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 13:05, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> I am not completely sure, but maybe "car" was chosen purposefully because
> this is not the same as a legal access restriction?
>

Possibly chosen to make a distinction between vehicles propelled by petrol
or
diesel and electric vehicles.  Which would be rather amusing, as
petrol/diesel
vehicles have an engine, not a motor (so are really enginecars) whilst
electric
vehicles have a motor, not an engine (so really are motorcars).
Non-technical
usage doesn't make the distinction, so both are motorcars.  But maybe that's
a reason that "car" was chosen rather than "motorcar."

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

Re: [Tagging] Cooker or Stove in the kitchen?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 12:40, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> are these 2 things both called "stove" in British English?
>
> Some would call both of those a stove.  Some would call only one of those a
stove.  Some would call neither of them a stove (one is a cooker, the other
a
wood burner).

Usage changes.  Fifty years ago it was fairly common to hear older people
refer to a gas cooker as a gas stove, or even just a stove: they'd grown up
with wood/coal-burning cookers called stoves, so the new gas cooker was a
gas stove.

Usage changes.  People call things what the marketers call them.  If it's
advertised as a stove they call it a stove; if it's advertised as a cooker
they call it a cooker.

OTOH, if you ask people for a generic term for something with an oven
and hob, they'll probably say cooker rather than stove.  If you ask them
a generic term for something that burns wood or coal to heat a room they'll
probably say fire, unless you specify that it's in a closed container in
which
case they'll probably say stove.  But that may depend upon where in the
UK you ask.

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

Re: [Tagging] EV charging stations questions and proposals

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 18. Jan. 2020 um 17:26 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard <
lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:

> 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.
>


I am not completely sure, but maybe "car" was chosen purposefully because
this is not the same as a legal access restriction?

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

Re: [Tagging] Cooker or Stove in the kitchen?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 01:38 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:26, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> British English speakers:
>>
>> If you are mapping a device which burns fuel or uses electricity to
>> cook food in a pot or pan, is this a "cooker" or a "stove" or
>> something else?
>>
>> What if it has an oven included, or doesn't?
>>
>
> With oven, and using electricity or gas, a cooker.  Without an oven, using
> electricity or gas, a hot plate or hob (US English means something
> completely
> different by "hob").
>
> Wood or coal-burning, a stove.  Which used to be use for the electric and
> gas variants too, but it seems to have dropped out of British English
> (well,
> my idiolect) except for wood/coal burners.  And even then, the wood/coal
> burner might be called a cooker anyway.  Or an Aga or other brand name.
>



are these 2 things both called "stove" in British English?

for cooking with wood / coal fire:
https://www.gartinex.de/images/produkte/i72/72526-kuechenofen-6-5-kw-sovrana-easy_2.jpg

just or mostly for heating:
https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/302234070808_/Ofen-Gusseisen-antik.jpg

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 18. Jan. 2020 um 17:36 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard <
lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:

> 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.
>


I guess you have to distinguish the kind of "dedicated to", some are legal
parking restrictions, others are just asking for courtesy (=cannot be
enforced because it is not against the law to park there anyway, just not
polite or social).

for reference e.g.
https://taz.de/Frauenparkplaetze-vor-Gericht/!5565328/  a German court
deciding in a "famous" case that "only women" parking signs has to be
reworded and that the signs are just polite questions, not prescriptions
(would be discriminating against men and other non-women people).

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