Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

2020-06-22 Thread Yves 
I think the local access restrictions are probably more accurate that we are, 
do you have an example?
Yves 

Le 23 juin 2020 06:37:18 GMT+02:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
a écrit :
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 14:31, Joseph Eisenberg
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key
>> canoe=yes/no/designated, or are they under boat=yes/no/designated -
>or
>> something else?
>>
>
>As a boatie, I would say that rowboats should be a boat, while canoes &
>kayaks (& surfskis should also be mentioned under that category) would
>be
>canoe
>
>Thanks
>
>Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

2020-06-22 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 14:31, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key
> canoe=yes/no/designated, or are they under boat=yes/no/designated - or
> something else?
>

As a boatie, I would say that rowboats should be a boat, while canoes &
kayaks (& surfskis should also be mentioned under that category) would be
canoe

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

2020-06-22 Thread Joseph Eisenberg 
The wiki page Key:boat  says
that tag is to specify

"Legal access restriction for boats. In the sense of OSM these are small
boats and pleasure crafts, including yachts."

The picture shows a "no rowboats" sign: File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg


But there is also a key canoe=* - the page Key:canoe
 says:

"Legal access restriction for boats without a motor or a sail like canoes,
kajaks or rowboats."

I can see how canoes and kayaks are basically the same, since both are
narrow boats that usually carry 1 or 2 people and are propelled by paddles.

But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key
canoe=yes/no/designated, or are they under boat=yes/no/designated - or
something else?

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

[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - Voting - 3rd and 4th rail

2020-06-22 Thread Garry Keenor 
Thank you for all of your feedback on this proposal; it has been amended in
line with feedback and electrified=rail is now retained and its meaning
made specific to 3rd rail.

Proposal is here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail

best regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] historic memorial (was Re: "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat")

2020-06-22 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 06:21, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> What about a plate that remembers a police officer that was killed in 2002?
>

I would have no problem tagging it as historic=memorial.

It is indisputably a memorial.  Looking backwards in time, history
began 1E-43 seconds ago.  "Historic" is not a synonym for "old" but
(loosely) for "recorded event."

If you disagree with that, then how else can we tag a recent memorial?
We don't have any other means of tagging it as a memorial (that I can find).

But if you do find an alternative tag for it, or create one, at which point
do we retag a POI from "not a historic memorial" to "historic memorial"
since
you would also have to define a cut-off.  Is it 2 years, 20 years, 200
years?

So I'm fine with using historic=memorial for a plaque that was put in place
20 years ago.  Or yesterday.  Or an hour ago.  Or 1E-43 seconds ago.

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

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-22 Thread Joseph Guillaume 
I suppose the reason I haven't provided an example is that historically
significant qanats are the exception in my opinion - in most cases I can't
think of a reason why it should be listed as historic other than being old.
So here's a random one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=554179257#map=17/33.44256/50.80580



On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:24 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Jun 2020, at 00:07, Joseph Guillaume 
> wrote:
> >
> > only some qanats are of historic value
>
>
> while I don’t think these must be absolutely tagged with historic=*, you
> still could show an example of a qanat that “isn’t of historic value” so
> that it becomes more convincing (or a description of one of these)
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 22. Jun 2020, at 00:07, Joseph Guillaume  wrote:
> 
> only some qanats are of historic value


while I don’t think these must be absolutely tagged with historic=*, you still 
could show an example of a qanat that “isn’t of historic value” so that it 
becomes more convincing (or a description of one of these)

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