Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Tomorrow is the last day of voting.  The proposal has positive support ..
10 + and 2 Abs

There are two comments which are worth noting :

1 . It seems there is a strong preference for semicolon delimited scheme
names as a preferred alternative to refill_scheme = multiple. Untess there
are voiced objections, I will amend the proposal after the final vote to
take this into consideration.

2. Kovposch

suggested
making refill a namespace and changing refill_scheme to refill:network.
Intutitvely, this suggestion seems to be a good one, because of its more
generic nature. I also prefer the word "network" to "scheme" ...

For 2) What is the best way to proceed ? It wouldn't be right to just
change the tag to something people haven't actually voted on.

Best regards,

Stuart



On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:47, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> If it is clear that there is drinking water available for refill for
> everyone there is no need to be part of a scheme.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:40, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I think they do need a sign or it is impossible to objectively map
>>> whether a bar will refill a bottle of water for free for anyone (ie paying
>>> or non-paying customer).
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think if they provide a water tap in the customer area with a "drinking
>> water" sign, it is perfectly ok and does not need more explanation.
>> Like in the linked photo above:
>> https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1023845-i49797540-Palazzo_del_Freddo_Giovanni_Fassi-Rome_Lazio.html
>>
>> 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] Horse yards / corrals

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

What do we call fenced off yards that are used to hold horses (or other
stock, for that matter) temporarily?

This was one that I spotted the other day
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?relation=6007743#map=19/-36.41691/148.61436


They are the yards at the local show grounds where horses are kept waiting
for their event.

At the time, I marked them as stables, which I know is wrong, as there is
no roof of any sort, so I've since deleted it.

There doesn't seem to be any tag that really suits?

It's not farm_auxiliary, because it's not part of a farm
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfarm_auxiliary

Could be animal_keeping, but again, that seems more involved with raising
stock, rather than temporarily holding them in a yard?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Danimal_keeping

The other spot that this would apply to is yards at meatworks, sale yards &
similar.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Warin]

A fair few people die in these places;
hospitals
private homes
'retirement villages'

If I knew where I was going to die.. i would not go there.


On 17/2/20 9:15 am, Florimond Berthoux wrote:

So I guess you'll be against mapping roads also ?
1.35 millions deaths, that something to consider 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate



Le dim. 16 févr. 2020 à 22:52, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> a écrit :




Umm...

Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I
would think identifying which bollards could be easily driven
through on a public map/data base would be a bad idea.


So I would be firmly against the idea of the subtag value
'=breakable'.




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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Warin]

On 17/2/20 10:26 am, Hauke Stieler wrote:

Hi,


I too prefer 'fixed'.

Foldable, is also in some sense irremovable/unremovable (spell check objects) 
where as I think 'fixed' is a better description as it implies not foldable, 
removeable nor lowerable.

I was starting to write a whole page why I don't like "fixed" instead of
"unremovable" but the more I think about this, the more I like the value
"fixed".

One thing I worried about were flexible/soft bollards [0]. I would not
describe them as "fixed" regarding their ability to
move/bend/rotate/..., but they still remain on their location on the
ground, even though they are flexible. Therefore this would make sense
to call them "fixed".


Or call them what they are 'flexible'. No reason not to say what they are.



I currently don't know that a "lowerable" bollard looks like and how it
works. Do you have an example?


Can be found in my area .. though I cannot recall mapping them. They look the 
same as fixed ones ... The ones here are a simple tube shape , with an annulus 
at the base. Someone presses a button some wher and they slowly lower into the 
ground. And then I suppose another button is pressed and they slowly raise up.

Arr here is a supplier.

http://www.bollards.com.au/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3IjQ0bDX5wIVWK6WCh2PdQhvEAAYBCAAEgLyifD_BwE

They call them 'retractable' - various ones - air operated, key or padlock.

I am certain there will be other suppliers.





I would love to hear some feedback on these two values:

"fixed":
A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least
cause severe damage to it. If a bollard has some sort of lock to remove
it, it's *not* fixed.

"foldable":
A bollard which can be rotated so it lays on the ground so that e.g.
vehicles can pass it [1]. Some kind of key or wrench might be needed.
This bollard can easily be moved back to it's previous position with no
damage left.



Hauke

[0] https://www.postguard.com/image/catalog/flexbol3.jpg
[1]
https://www.ledasecurity.com.au/lda/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/510da3693ad569fe75e5fdbeab5e8aaa.jpg


___
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] Unremovable bollards

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi,

> I too prefer 'fixed'.
> 
> Foldable, is also in some sense irremovable/unremovable (spell check objects) 
> where as I think 'fixed' is a better description as it implies not foldable, 
> removeable nor lowerable. 

I was starting to write a whole page why I don't like "fixed" instead of
"unremovable" but the more I think about this, the more I like the value
"fixed".

One thing I worried about were flexible/soft bollards [0]. I would not
describe them as "fixed" regarding their ability to
move/bend/rotate/..., but they still remain on their location on the
ground, even though they are flexible. Therefore this would make sense
to call them "fixed".

I currently don't know that a "lowerable" bollard looks like and how it
works. Do you have an example?



I would love to hear some feedback on these two values:

"fixed":
A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least
cause severe damage to it. If a bollard has some sort of lock to remove
it, it's *not* fixed.

"foldable":
A bollard which can be rotated so it lays on the ground so that e.g.
vehicles can pass it [1]. Some kind of key or wrench might be needed.
This bollard can easily be moved back to it's previous position with no
damage left.



Hauke

[0] https://www.postguard.com/image/catalog/flexbol3.jpg
[1]
https://www.ledasecurity.com.au/lda/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/510da3693ad569fe75e5fdbeab5e8aaa.jpg



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Volker Schmidt]

These things may just damage cars, but they definitely hurt cyclists and
pedestrians when they hit them. They are often badly visible and their only
purpose, at least here in Italy, to discourage car owners from entering
cycle or foot paths. I know personally of cyclists who ended up in
hospital.

The "breakable" tag should only be used if the "breakability" is clearly
marked and hence no secret to people with bad intentions.

As far as the "irremovability" is concerned, we do have some massive
trachite bollards which need heavy equipment to remove them, but most of
the others can be temporarily removed for road maintenance ecc., but  for
the normal road users they are irremovable.


On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 23:07, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 16:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Umm...
> >
> > Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I would
> think identifying which bollards could be easily driven through on a public
> map/data base would be a bad idea.
> >
> >
> > So I would be firmly against the idea of the subtag value '=breakable'.
>
> I'm not really sure
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bollard_in_residential_area.jpg
> does much protecting against any determined actor.
>
> That kind of bollard is there as guidance where to drive (more or less
> effective depending on how much attention the driver is paying). Shall
> we not map these at all?
>
> IMO the more serious pedestrian protection is more likely to be
> barrier=block (some heavy-duty bollards notwithstanding)
>
> --Jarek
>
> ___
> 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] Unremovable bollards

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

What I've been wondering with regard to this whole topic is whether you
would also need to add an entry for who can remove the bollard?

Would that be covered by  access=xxx ?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 08:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17/2/20 8:52 am, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 15:53, ET Commands  
>  wrote:
>
> bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.
>
> My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests
> "irremovable."  However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are
> ultimately removable, so maybe more appropriate values would be
> "retractable" and "non-retractable."
>
> Around here, many removable bollards are removed by unlocking a lock
> near the ground and lifting them out manually - I'm not sure if I
> would describe that as "retractable".
>
> Others are unlocked and then can be put flat against the ground,
> that's covered by "hinged" I guess but only 3 uses worldwide...
> perhaps covered by "foldable" with 62 uses.
>
> "Fixed" does sound to me more straightforward than "unremovable" though.
>
>
> I too prefer 'fixed'.
>
> Foldable, is also in some sense irremovable/unremovable (spell check objects) 
> where as I think 'fixed' is a better description as it implies not foldable, 
> removeable nor lowerable.
>
> So I would have 4 things to describe bollard status of permanency;
>
> fixed
>
> foldable
>
> removable
>
> lowerable
>
> I note there are at lest 3 keys used;
>
> bollard:type ... looks like it is used to describe the structure ... and also 
> the permanency
>
> bollard_type similar to bollard:type
>
> bollard_crossing ... I have no idea.
>
> None of these have a wiki!
>
> Suggest that a descriptive key name be used!!! The word 'type' has no 
> information.
>
> bollard_permanency=*???
>
> And make a wiki entry for it please.
>
>
>
>
> If you want, then another key so the above does not get polluted?
>
> bollard_structure=block/post/*
>
>
> ___
> 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] Unremovable bollards

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want, then another key so the above does not get polluted?
>
> bollard_structure=block/post/*

bollard_structure=block would surely be better off as a barrier=block?
That's already well established.

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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Florimond Berthoux]

So I guess you'll be against mapping roads also ?
1.35 millions deaths, that something to consider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate


Le dim. 16 févr. 2020 à 22:52, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> On 16/2/20 10:29 pm, Florimond Berthoux wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Checking https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bollard#values
> unremovable is already used a lot, though irremovable is used also but
> four times less. So I guess you can document the value.
> (And no tag doesn't mean unremovable of course.)
>
> I would like to add that there's a common type in Paris "Potelet sécable"
> breakable bollard which are designed to break in two piece if pushed too
> much. [1] 
> Only a small piece break, so they can be repaired quickly and for not much
> money.
> They are used a lot when firemen should be able to go with their trucks on
> an pedestrian area.
>
> No sure if those breakable bollards should be tag as bollard=unremovable
> with subtag (unremovable=breakable) or directly bollard=breakable.
>
>
> Umm...
>
> Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I would
> think identifying which bollards could be easily driven through on a public
> map/data base would be a bad idea.
>
>
> So I would be firmly against the idea of the subtag value '=breakable'.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Warin]

On 17/2/20 8:52 am, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 15:53, ET Commands  wrote:

bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.

My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests
"irremovable."  However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are
ultimately removable, so maybe more appropriate values would be
"retractable" and "non-retractable."

Around here, many removable bollards are removed by unlocking a lock
near the ground and lifting them out manually - I'm not sure if I
would describe that as "retractable".

Others are unlocked and then can be put flat against the ground,
that's covered by "hinged" I guess but only 3 uses worldwide...
perhaps covered by "foldable" with 62 uses.

"Fixed" does sound to me more straightforward than "unremovable" though.



I too prefer 'fixed'.

Foldable, is also in some sense irremovable/unremovable (spell check objects) 
where as I think 'fixed' is a better description as it implies not foldable, 
removeable nor lowerable.

So I would have 4 things to describe bollard status of permanency;

fixed

foldable

removable

lowerable

I note there are at lest 3 keys used;

bollard:type ... looks like it is used to describe the structure ... and also 
the permanency

bollard_type similar to bollard:type

bollard_crossing ... I have no idea.

None of these have a wiki!

Suggest that a descriptive key name be used!!! The word 'type' has no 
information.

bollard_permanency=*???

And make a wiki entry for it please.



If you want, then another key so the above does not get polluted?

bollard_structure=block/post/*


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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 16:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm...
>
> Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I would think 
> identifying which bollards could be easily driven through on a public 
> map/data base would be a bad idea.
>
>
> So I would be firmly against the idea of the subtag value '=breakable'.

I'm not really sure
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bollard_in_residential_area.jpg
does much protecting against any determined actor.

That kind of bollard is there as guidance where to drive (more or less
effective depending on how much attention the driver is paying). Shall
we not map these at all?

IMO the more serious pedestrian protection is more likely to be
barrier=block (some heavy-duty bollards notwithstanding)

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 15:53, ET Commands  wrote:
> > bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.
>
> My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests
> "irremovable."  However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are
> ultimately removable, so maybe more appropriate values would be
> "retractable" and "non-retractable."

Around here, many removable bollards are removed by unlocking a lock
near the ground and lifting them out manually - I'm not sure if I
would describe that as "retractable".

Others are unlocked and then can be put flat against the ground,
that's covered by "hinged" I guess but only 3 uses worldwide...
perhaps covered by "foldable" with 62 uses.

"Fixed" does sound to me more straightforward than "unremovable" though.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Warin]

On 16/2/20 10:29 pm, Florimond Berthoux wrote:

Hi,

Checking https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bollard#values
unremovable is already used a lot, though irremovable is used also but 
four times less. So I guess you can document the value.

(And no tag doesn't mean unremovable of course.)

I would like to add that there's a common type in Paris "Potelet 
sécable" breakable bollard which are designed to break in two piece if 
pushed too much. [1] 
Only a small piece break, so they can be repaired quickly and for not 
much money.
They are used a lot when firemen should be able to go with their 
trucks on an pedestrian area.


No sure if those breakable bollards should be tag as 
bollard=unremovable with subtag (unremovable=breakable) or directly 
bollard=breakable.



Umm...

Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I would 
think identifying which bollards could be easily driven through on a 
public map/data base would be a bad idea.



So I would be firmly against the idea of the subtag value '=breakable'.






[1] http://urbaco.be/pdf/fprod/FP-BOBSEC(V1-FR).pdf 



Le sam. 15 févr. 2020 à 19:54, Hauke Stieler > a écrit :


Hi all,

there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and
"removable"
[0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed
easily.
I would love to see the "unremovable" value in the documentation.
Should
I open a proposal page for this one value? That sounds a bit of an
overkill to me.

My suggestion is the value "unremovable":
A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least
cause severe damage to it. A bollard which can only be removed by
authorized people with some sort of key is still "removable".

I would not use the value "fixed" or "irremovable" for two
reasons: The
"unremovable" value is used more often [1] and would be a good
counter-value for "removable".

Hauke

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bollard
[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=bollard#values

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



--
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] Unremovable bollards

[Alan Mackie]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 20:54, ET Commands  wrote:

>
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 11:22:11 +0100
> > From: François Lacombe 
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >   
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > My 2 cts : key actuator and especially actuator=hydraulic_cyclinder or
> > pneumatic_cylinder values are suitable for movable bollards (pchtt
> > noise when bollards go up and down means actuator=pneumatic_cylinder for
> > instance)
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:actuator
> >
> > bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > François
>
>
> My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests
> "irremovable."  However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are
> ultimately removable, so maybe more appropriate values would be
> "retractable" and "non-retractable."
>
> Mark
>

Which brings us back to "fixed" as a nice simple description? Not easily
removable, not folding, not lifting. Fixed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[ET Commands]

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 11:22:11 +0100
From: François Lacombe 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards


Hi all,

My 2 cts : key actuator and especially actuator=hydraulic_cyclinder or
pneumatic_cylinder values are suitable for movable bollards (pchtt
noise when bollards go up and down means actuator=pneumatic_cylinder for
instance)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:actuator

bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.

All the best

François



My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests 
"irremovable."  However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are 
ultimately removable, so maybe more appropriate values would be 
"retractable" and "non-retractable."


Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 16 feb 2020, alle ore 19:07, Jmapb via Tagging 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> It's similar to recycling but implies that the goods are reused rather than 
> used as raw materials. Personally I feel this is a bit of a continuum and I 
> don't see a problem with tagging in-kind donation sites as a type of 
> recycling.



IMHO the terms are clear, and this would be reuse rather than recycling (or 
people would assume that the materials are reused and not the goods)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 2/16/2020 8:21 AM, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 15/02/2020 16:56, Markus Peloso wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/in-kind_donation

For a place that takes in-kind donations.



My immediate reaction is that this sounds like a very similar concept
to 'give box', which was the subject of a recent RFC. Do we need two
ways of tagging such similar things?


The defining feature of the give box is that the public can freely
access it for both giving and taking. With this feature (in-kind
donation) the public can give goods but wouldn't expect to freely take
things that others have given.

It's similar to recycling but implies that the goods are reused rather
than used as raw materials. Personally I feel this is a bit of a
continuum and I don't see a problem with tagging in-kind donation sites
as a type of recycling.


On 2/16/2020 8:28 AM, Steve Doerr wrote:


Anyway, it's a quirk of the English language that a phrase that
normally consists of separate words is generally hyphenated when it is
used 'attributively', i.e. as a quasi-adjective before a noun. So I
might write, 'He made a donation in kind' but 'He made an in-kind
donation'.


A well-put description! The phrase is hyphenated when it functions as an
adjective. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_modifiers
for some other examples and exceptions.

J

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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable Bollards

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

I sympathise with you in your existential crisis.
I found 2 instances of "bollard=no" in te UK and found that they are next to 
each other and part of a set of 3 bollards.  The third is tagged 
"bollard=fixed".  So perhaps the 2 "bollard=no" are meant to be "bollard 
=not_fixed", or perhaps "bollard=removable", or possibly "bollard=unremovable"; 
who knows?  I might try a changeset comment and ask (politely) what the mapper 
meant.
My curiosity sparked by this, I also had a look at taginfo and found 181 
instances of "bollard=yes"  (Yes, this REALLY IS a bollard?)
Regards,Peter
 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 16:04:25 +
From: Jez Nicholson 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
    
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards
Message-ID:
    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Looking at Taginfo I'm now in an existential crisis over the 124 bollards
that are simultaneously not bollards "bollard":"no".  C'eci n'est pas
un bollard?



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 13:21 +, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 15/02/2020 16:56, Markus Peloso
>   wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/in-kind_donation
> >  
> > For
> > a place that takes in-kind donations.
> >  
> > Hi
> >  
> > I describe a tag for shop and amenity that
> >   takes in-kind donations. I'm interested in your opinions.
> >   
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> My immediate reaction is that this sounds like a very similar
> concept to 'give box', which was the subject of a recent RFC. Do
> we
> need two ways of tagging such similar things?

As a native speaker, it sounds a lot like a charity shop to me.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Volker Schmidt]

I found 106 of these in France, but it looks that that 104 of these are
indications that "there is no bollard" on highway=crossing. None of them is
tagged barrier=bollard and bollard=no.

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 17:05, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Looking at Taginfo I'm now in an existential crisis over the 124 bollards
> that are simultaneously not bollards "bollard":"no".  C'eci n'est pas
> un bollard?
>
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 11:31 Florimond Berthoux, <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Checking https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bollard#values
>> unremovable is already used a lot, though irremovable is used also but
>> four times less. So I guess you can document the value.
>> (And no tag doesn't mean unremovable of course.)
>>
>> I would like to add that there's a common type in Paris "Potelet sécable"
>> breakable bollard which are designed to break in two piece if pushed too
>> much. [1] 
>> Only a small piece break, so they can be repaired quickly and for not
>> much money.
>> They are used a lot when firemen should be able to go with their trucks
>> on an pedestrian area.
>>
>> No sure if those breakable bollards should be tag as bollard=unremovable
>> with subtag (unremovable=breakable) or directly bollard=breakable.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://urbaco.be/pdf/fprod/FP-BOBSEC(V1-FR).pdf
>> 
>>
>> Le sam. 15 févr. 2020 à 19:54, Hauke Stieler  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable"
>>> [0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily.
>>> I would love to see the "unremovable" value in the documentation. Should
>>> I open a proposal page for this one value? That sounds a bit of an
>>> overkill to me.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is the value "unremovable":
>>> A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least
>>> cause severe damage to it. A bollard which can only be removed by
>>> authorized people with some sort of key is still "removable".
>>>
>>> I would not use the value "fixed" or "irremovable" for two reasons: The
>>> "unremovable" value is used more often [1] and would be a good
>>> counter-value for "removable".
>>>
>>> Hauke
>>>
>>> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bollard
>>> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=bollard#values
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Jez Nicholson]

Looking at Taginfo I'm now in an existential crisis over the 124 bollards
that are simultaneously not bollards "bollard":"no".  C'eci n'est pas
un bollard?

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020, 11:31 Florimond Berthoux, 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Checking https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bollard#values
> unremovable is already used a lot, though irremovable is used also but
> four times less. So I guess you can document the value.
> (And no tag doesn't mean unremovable of course.)
>
> I would like to add that there's a common type in Paris "Potelet sécable"
> breakable bollard which are designed to break in two piece if pushed too
> much. [1] 
> Only a small piece break, so they can be repaired quickly and for not much
> money.
> They are used a lot when firemen should be able to go with their trucks on
> an pedestrian area.
>
> No sure if those breakable bollards should be tag as bollard=unremovable
> with subtag (unremovable=breakable) or directly bollard=breakable.
>
>
> [1] http://urbaco.be/pdf/fprod/FP-BOBSEC(V1-FR).pdf
> 
>
> Le sam. 15 févr. 2020 à 19:54, Hauke Stieler  a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable"
>> [0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily.
>> I would love to see the "unremovable" value in the documentation. Should
>> I open a proposal page for this one value? That sounds a bit of an
>> overkill to me.
>>
>> My suggestion is the value "unremovable":
>> A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least
>> cause severe damage to it. A bollard which can only be removed by
>> authorized people with some sort of key is still "removable".
>>
>> I would not use the value "fixed" or "irremovable" for two reasons: The
>> "unremovable" value is used more often [1] and would be a good
>> counter-value for "removable".
>>
>> Hauke
>>
>> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bollard
>> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=bollard#values
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 16 feb 2020, alle ore 14:23, Steve Doerr  
> ha scritto:
> 
> My immediate reaction is that this sounds like a very similar concept to 
> 'give box', which was the subject of a recent RFC. Do we need two ways of 
> tagging such similar things?



likely yes, because one is a shop (probably inside, opening hours, probably 
stand-alone), the other is an unattended place, possibly outside, or maybe 
inside another feature

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Tax free shopping

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 16 feb 2020, alle ore 13:42, Hauke Stieler  
> ha scritto:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> thanks for all the feedback and voting. The proposal for tax free
> shopping and the "duty_free" tag has been approved: 13 votes, 2 against,
> 1 abstain.
> 
> Currently there's a discussion ongoing about the calculation when there
> are "abstain" votes. So here are some approval calculations all leading
> to an approval of the proposal:
> 
> * Support with "abstain" counted as "oppose": 10/13 = 77%
> * Support with "abstain" counted as "approve": 11/13 = 85%
> * Support without "abstain" in the vote count: 10/12 = 83%



there never was a question whether abstentions could count as approval, the 
question was whether they count as “votes”, e.g. to determine if the quorum was 
reached:

“ A rule of thumb for "enough support" is 8 unanimous approval votes or at 
least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval, ”

According to how we usually counted, it would be 10 approvals out of 13 votes.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Steve Doerr]

On 15/02/2020 17:44, Hauke Stieler wrote:

1.)
I'm not a native English spearker and personally never heard of "in-kind
donations" before, so maybe a short description/definition might be
needed/helpful.


'In kind' in relation to payments or similar means 'consisting of goods or 
services, not money'.



2.)
According to [0] the convention for separation word in a key is the
underscore. So I would change the key to "in_place_donations".


You presumably mean "in_kind_donations"? Anyway, it's a quirk of the 
English language that a phrase that normally consists of separate words 
is generally hyphenated when it is used 'attributively', i.e. as a 
quasi-adjective before a noun. So I might write, 'He made a donation in 
kind' but 'He made an in-kind donation'.


--
Steve

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Steve Doerr]

On 15/02/2020 16:56, Markus Peloso wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/in-kind_donation

For a place that takes in-kind donations.

Hi

I describe a tag for shop and amenity that takes in-kind donations. 
I'm interested in your opinions.




My immediate reaction is that this sounds like a very similar concept to 
'give box', which was the subject of a recent RFC. Do we need two ways 
of tagging such similar things?


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Tax free shopping

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi all,

thanks for all the feedback and voting. The proposal for tax free
shopping and the "duty_free" tag has been approved: 13 votes, 2 against,
1 abstain.

Currently there's a discussion ongoing about the calculation when there
are "abstain" votes. So here are some approval calculations all leading
to an approval of the proposal:

* Support with "abstain" counted as "oppose": 10/13 = 77%
* Support with "abstain" counted as "approve": 11/13 = 85%
* Support without "abstain" in the vote count: 10/12 = 83%

I'll set up according tag pages as soon as possible.

Hauke



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

Checking https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bollard#values
unremovable is already used a lot, though irremovable is used also but four
times less. So I guess you can document the value.
(And no tag doesn't mean unremovable of course.)

I would like to add that there's a common type in Paris "Potelet sécable"
breakable bollard which are designed to break in two piece if pushed too
much. [1] 
Only a small piece break, so they can be repaired quickly and for not much
money.
They are used a lot when firemen should be able to go with their trucks on
an pedestrian area.

No sure if those breakable bollards should be tag as bollard=unremovable
with subtag (unremovable=breakable) or directly bollard=breakable.


[1] http://urbaco.be/pdf/fprod/FP-BOBSEC(V1-FR).pdf


Le sam. 15 févr. 2020 à 19:54, Hauke Stieler  a
écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable"
> [0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily.
> I would love to see the "unremovable" value in the documentation. Should
> I open a proposal page for this one value? That sounds a bit of an
> overkill to me.
>
> My suggestion is the value "unremovable":
> A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least
> cause severe damage to it. A bollard which can only be removed by
> authorized people with some sort of key is still "removable".
>
> I would not use the value "fixed" or "irremovable" for two reasons: The
> "unremovable" value is used more often [1] and would be a good
> counter-value for "removable".
>
> Hauke
>
> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bollard
> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=bollard#values
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

My 2 cts : key actuator and especially actuator=hydraulic_cyclinder or
pneumatic_cylinder values are suitable for movable bollards (pchtt
noise when bollards go up and down means actuator=pneumatic_cylinder for
instance)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:actuator

bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.

All the best

François

Le sam. 15 févr. 2020 à 22:34, Volker Schmidt  a écrit :

> I have tagged around 1k bollards without "removable" or "raising", because
> they looked reasonably difficult to remove, even thought most likely nearly
> all of them are in one way or the other removable and not really fixed.
> My interpretation of the the absence of these tags has been that the
> object in question is not supposed to be removed by the normal road (or in
> my case cycle-parth) user.
> If you want to tag this fact, be aware that there are a large number of
> bollards already on the map which all would need remapping (and I certainly
> would not like to revisiting "my" bollards)
> Volker
>
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 21:33, ael  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 08:15:32PM +, John Sturdy wrote:
>> > I think that by default bollards are not removable, and that if a
>> bollard
>> > is not tagged as removable, it is reasonable to assume it's not
>> removable.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> ael
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 - in-kind_donation

[Markus Peloso]

Hi Hauke,

Thank you for your support and contributions. Clarity and transparency are 
important to me.

1.) I'm also not a native English speaker. I have translated the German word 
"Sachspende". I improve the definition, add a link to a wikipedia article and 
add a section for translations and synonyms.

2.) Maybe the native English speakers could help with a good British English 
tag name. As a Swiss person from the German speaking part I can say that it is 
helpful to have “donation” as part of the tag. Because that is something we 
understand and if I search for a tag that describes what I’m looking for I will 
search for “donation”.

3.) I add a section with tagging examples.

Best regards,

Markus


Von: Hauke Stieler
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 18:45
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

Hi,

I have some feedback for you:

1.)
I'm not a native English spearker and personally never heard of "in-kind
donations" before, so maybe a short description/definition might be
needed/helpful.

2.)
According to [0] the convention for separation word in a key is the
underscore. So I would change the key to "in_place_donations".

3.)
Maybe give some examples for tagging. Something like: "A shop accepting
X in-kind donation for organization Y would be tagged like this: ..."

Hauke

[0]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_tags

On 15.02.20 17:56, Markus Peloso wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/in-kind_donation
>
>
>
> For a place that takes in-kind donations.
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> I describe a tag for shop and amenity that takes in-kind donations. I'm
> interested in your opinions.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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