Re: [Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:37, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first
> option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though
> "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option.
>

  Shop=phone_accessories could also mean accessories for a fixed, land-line
phone though (yes, they do still exist! :-)), so =mobile_phone_accessories
would probably be the best option

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

[Peter Elderson]

The page describes a common role set  and comes with a tagging instruction,
for all types of recreational routes, except where a more specific role
set  has been approved.

It is *not* for other types of routes, such as PT routes, road routes, and
what have you, even though some role values may be used in e.g. functional
bicycle routes (bicycle speedways/preferred cycle routes).

I think it's not practical to repeat all of it on the pages of all the
route types within scope. Currently these pages refer to the proposal page
from a brief paragraph in the "how to tag" sections.

For example:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations#Roles


Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 26 jun. 2020 om 17:22 schreef Tobias Knerr :

> On 25.06.20 19:46, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > Should individual pages for these roles be located at something like
> > Role:main and Role:alternative?
>
> So far, I believe roles are typically documented on the wiki page for
> the relation type, rather than their own pages. I don't think there's an
> established convention for wiki pages about individual roles yet.
>
> ___
> 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] Mobile phone accessories

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 20:37, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first 
> option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though 
> "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option.


I agree with Joseph, the shop=mobile_phone tag should be for shops that sell 
phones, if they only sell accessories a different tag should be used, and the 
more descriptive the better 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[德泉 談 via Tagging]

I believe many mappers are confused a lot for choosing the right tag just like 
me.

So if we have a normal coffee house providing coffee and have seat we use
* amenity=cafe + cuisine=coffee_shop (but the cuisine tag is not included in iD 
preset so many users do not add them)
and if it is only a roadside store or a peddler we should use
* amenity=cafe + cuisine=coffee_shop along with takeout=only

And a teahouse have seats use
* amenity=cafe + cuisine=tea ? (not mentioned in OSM wiki)
* shop=tea ? (might be confused with shop selling tea equipments and tea leaves)
* amenity=teahouse (which was a draft proposal but few discussion)
but like a bubble tea shop use
* amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea + takeout=only ?
* shop=bubble_tea or shop=beverages (causing confused with beverages market)

Furthermore we still have ice cream store use
* amenity=ice_cream
and I've noticed that shaved ice store sometimes use amenity=ice_cream, 
sometimes use amenity=cafe, and sometimes use amenity=fast_food, nevertheless 
donut shop and bagel shop still use amenity=cafe + cuisine=donut/begal

I'm not sure if we should solved all these problem at one time or just clarify 
how to map the bubble tea shop only for takeaway. But I think if we use 
cuisine=* to distinguish coffee shop, tea house, bubble tea shop, donut shop, 
bagel shop and shaved ice shop, it's better to have own icon and wiki pages for 
each of them

- Tan

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 26, 2020, 18:41 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> > 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen <>> pla16...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>  > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging <>> 
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very 
>> common in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages
>>  >>
>>  >> >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Looking at your proposal, I fail to see how these are not shop=beverages.
>>  
>>  Have you seen a bubble tea shop?
>>
>
> Nope. :) 
>
>>
>> It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've
>>  seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea
>>
>
> As described in the proposal, most lack seating.  Which makes those
> without seating shops rather than cafes.
>
Places selling kebab/roasted potatoes are often without seating,
tagged amenity=fast_food and no one ever proposed shop=fast_food
for ones without seating.

amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea seems OK to me,
amenity=bubble_tea also seems fine (though it will have trouble 
with support among data consumers), shop=bubble_tea
seems OK but I would not care at all about seating
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Hello Joseph,

it's exactly what I was thinking...
Even if I'm not completely against a "sub-tag".
Cheers
Francesco

Il giorno ven 26 giu 2020 alle ore 20:37 Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first
> option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though
> "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option.
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:30 AM Francesco Ansanelli 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear List,
> >
> > I'd like to discuss the shop category in subject...
> > In my town, there are already 3 shops that sell covers and accessories
> for mobile phones and not phones itself. I think the most clear tag is the
> first in taginfo:
> >
> > 7
> > shop
> > mobile_phone_accessories
> > 4
> > shop
> > phone_accessories
> > 2
> > shop
> > accessories;mobile_phone
> > 2
> > shop
> > phone accessories;mobile_phone
> > 1
> > shop
> > Electrics and Phone Accessories
> > 1
> > shop
> > mobile_phone;phone_accessories
> >
> > But I think we could also convert them into shop=mobile_phone in
> conjunction with:
> >
> > 3
> > mobile_phone:accessories
> >
> > That could be: "yes"/"no"/"only"
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Best regards
> > Francesco
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Mobile phone accessories

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first
option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though
"shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:30 AM Francesco Ansanelli 
wrote:
>
> Dear List,
>
> I'd like to discuss the shop category in subject...
> In my town, there are already 3 shops that sell covers and accessories
for mobile phones and not phones itself. I think the most clear tag is the
first in taginfo:
>
> 7
> shop
> mobile_phone_accessories
> 4
> shop
> phone_accessories
> 2
> shop
> accessories;mobile_phone
> 2
> shop
> phone accessories;mobile_phone
> 1
> shop
> Electrics and Phone Accessories
> 1
> shop
> mobile_phone;phone_accessories
>
> But I think we could also convert them into shop=mobile_phone in
conjunction with:
>
> 3
> mobile_phone:accessories
>
> That could be: "yes"/"no"/"only"
> What do you think?
>
> Many thanks
> Best regards
> Francesco
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mobile phone accessories

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Dear List,

I'd like to discuss the shop category in subject...
In my town, there are already 3 shops that sell covers and accessories for
mobile phones and not phones itself. I think the most clear tag is the
first in taginfo:

7
*shop* 
mobile_*phone_accessories*

4
*shop* 
*phone_accessories*

2
*shop* 
accessories;mobile_phone

2
*shop* 
phone accessories;mobile_phone

1
*shop* 
Electrics and Phone Accessories

1
*shop* 
mobile_phone;*phone_accessories*


But I think we could also convert them into shop=mobile_phone in
conjunction with:

3
*mobile_phone:*accessories


That could be: "yes"/"no"/"only"
What do you think?

Many thanks
Best regards
Francesco
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Mark Wagner]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:41:31 +0100
Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since
> > it's much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store.
> >  
> 
> I can see that it's more like fast food since the stuff has to be
> prepared. But then I think "Starbucks."  Have we already standardized
> on a way of tagging somewhere without seats that sells takeaway
> coffee?

The ubiquitous American coffee stands, which may or may not have
seating, are "amenity=cafe" + "cuisine=coffee_shop".

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Joseph Eisenberg]

There is a tag shop=tea

According to the wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ashop%3Dtea) this
is supposed to be used for shops which sell tea leaves and bags of tea
leaves for consumption at home or elsewhere.

However, in practice many shop=tea features are "tea houses" which sell
brewed tea. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Vvi

Here in Oregon we have a Boba tea place which is tagged shop=tea -
http://bobahead.com - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7058798286

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 19:47 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen  >:
>
>> In British English we have tea shops - they also sell coffee and food.
>> We have
>> coffee shops - they also sell tea and food.  Functionally, they are
>> cafes, as
>> OSM tags define that term.
>>
>
>
> I believe it is an omission of the early days that we do not distinguish
> between tea shops and coffee shops, they are quite different. In my home
> town there is a tea shop, (mostly) ladies meet there, they do not sell any
> coffee but have a wide variety of tea, which you can consume on the
> premises but also take home (they have lots of containers and will weigh
> and fill the tea you ask in paper bags, they have fine qualities of tea,
> they do not sell any food AFAIK but there may be some cookies, etc.) while
> in most cafes you will not get very good tea, at most some better quality
> tea bag tea.
>
>
>
>> As these things have been described by later posts, they're closer to
>> fast food places than cafes, but for drinks rather than food.
>>
>
>
> +1 (bubble tea)
>
>
> Whatever
>> main tag we settle on, I think beverages is better than bubble_tea since
>> the proposal already included drink:bubble_tea=yes.
>>
>
>
> no, shop=beverages as I have only seen it applied, is about a kind of
> "supermarket" or "convenience store" for beverages, it is not a kind of
> cafe, fast food or whatever category of food and drink amenity we come up
> with.
>
>
>> Then we can deal
>> with a shop that has no seats and sells only hot coffee to take away.  Or
>> iced tea.  Or fresh juices made from whole fruit on the spot.  Or
>> whatever.
>>
>
>
> all these are not a kind of "supermarket" "convenience shop" ...
>
> 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] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

[Tobias Knerr]

On 25.06.20 19:57, pangoSE wrote:
> I recently started discussing the problems related to urls and
> File:filename.* that links to wikimedia_commons using the tag. See
> Talk:Key:image#Discourage_linking_to_commons_files_and_migrate_all_File:filename..2A_values_and_direct_urls_to_wikimedia_commons

By your own numbers, there are over 8 image=* tags containing links
to Commons. That makes it the most popular key for images on Commons at
the moment. I don't think there's an established consensus for
deprecating this tagging style.

Because I haven't seen convincing arguments to replace image=* with one
key per hosting platform, I would instead favour doing the opposite:

* Deprecate wikimedia_commons=* (because it unhelpfully mixes links to
categories, images, and other media types – I agree that's an issue)
* Move category links to commons_category=*
* Move image links to image=*

In summary: We first need a consensus how links to Commons should be
tagged. Then we can use an automated edit to standardize the tagging.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 19:47 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> In British English we have tea shops - they also sell coffee and food.  We
> have
> coffee shops - they also sell tea and food.  Functionally, they are cafes,
> as
> OSM tags define that term.
>


I believe it is an omission of the early days that we do not distinguish
between tea shops and coffee shops, they are quite different. In my home
town there is a tea shop, (mostly) ladies meet there, they do not sell any
coffee but have a wide variety of tea, which you can consume on the
premises but also take home (they have lots of containers and will weigh
and fill the tea you ask in paper bags, they have fine qualities of tea,
they do not sell any food AFAIK but there may be some cookies, etc.) while
in most cafes you will not get very good tea, at most some better quality
tea bag tea.



> As these things have been described by later posts, they're closer to
> fast food places than cafes, but for drinks rather than food.
>


+1 (bubble tea)


Whatever
> main tag we settle on, I think beverages is better than bubble_tea since
> the proposal already included drink:bubble_tea=yes.
>


no, shop=beverages as I have only seen it applied, is about a kind of
"supermarket" or "convenience store" for beverages, it is not a kind of
cafe, fast food or whatever category of food and drink amenity we come up
with.


> Then we can deal
> with a shop that has no seats and sells only hot coffee to take away.  Or
> iced tea.  Or fresh juices made from whole fruit on the spot.  Or whatever.
>


all these are not a kind of "supermarket" "convenience shop" ...

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

FWIW, I also believe these are very different from shop=beverages, as they
are selling drinks ready to consume, while shop=beverages is a kind of shop
that sells beverages to take home (while nothing prevents you from buying a
single drink and consume it as soon as you leave the shop, this is not what
typically is done and not how they are set up.

Just compare these two images to get an understanding what they might look
like and what kind of "style" it is:
https://curiocity.com/toronto/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/screen-shot-2019-01-22-at-10.32.55-am.png
https://www.getraenkefachhandel-meyer.de/file/8ae67d834b563d71014b6df0d7233baf.de.0/content-ueber-uns-anfahrt-getraenkemarkt-waldstetten-alkoholfrei.jpg?derivate=usage%3Dposter%2Cwidth~805

It is also about quantity. You will usually buy large quantities in a
beverage shop like a weeks ration, while the bubble tea shop is more like a
coffee to go or an ice cream parlour.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:56, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I also think amenity=bubble_tea is more appropriate, but shop=bubble_tea
> is fine.
>

I still thing they sell beverages and bubble_tea happens to be one of those
beverages.  That's why we have drink:*=yes.

>
> Using amenity=cafe seems wrong. An amenity=cafe has "sit-down facilities"
> according to the wiki.
>

And according to me, as a British English speaker.

>
> Also the word "cafe" is from "coffee"
>

Yes, but a cafe sells some sort of food, too, no matter the etymology.

- at least in the USA and Indonesia these places always sell coffee, unlike
> a Bubble Tea shop.
>

In British English we have tea shops - they also sell coffee and food.  We
have
coffee shops - they also sell tea and food.  Functionally, they are cafes,
as
OSM tags define that term.

As these things have been described by later posts, they're closer to
fast food places than cafes, but for drinks rather than food.  Whatever
main tag we settle on, I think beverages is better than bubble_tea since
the proposal already included drink:bubble_tea=yes.  Then we can deal
with a shop that has no seats and sells only hot coffee to take away.  Or
iced tea.  Or fresh juices made from whole fruit on the spot.  Or whatever.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:50, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

Still not sure why we can't just use cafe. Is "cafe" exclusively for
> sit-down, dine-in places in British English?
>

British English usage is always slippery (because of marketers) but
I'd say that a cafe offers some sort of food somewhere to sit.  As in
meaning 1 of https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caf%C3%A9

Sometimes we have tea shops (but they sell other beverages) and
coffee shops (but they sell other beverages) and those sell some
sort of food (cakes, or sandwiches, or fry-ups, or whatever).  They
get mapped as amenity=cafe. :)

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

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

[Walker Bradley]

I fully support it as outlined by Joseph.

> On Jun 26, 2020, at 12:59, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
> > qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
> > > Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
> > tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.
> 
> Yes, that is the plan. You can also add usage=irrigation or another 
> appropriate value of usage=*, and width=*
> 
> – Joseph Eisenberg
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:12 AM Walker Bradley  
>> wrote:
>> I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.
>> 
>> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
>> qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
>> Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
>> tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.  Thoughts?
>> 
 On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen  wrote:
 
>>> 
 On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley  
 wrote:
>>> 
 So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate 
 sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, 
 tunnel=yes.
>>> 
>>> That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.  
>>> So
>>> if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
>>> qanats by adding historic=yes.
 
 I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what 
 criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
>>> 
>>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it 
>>> needs
>>> modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
>>> man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.
>>> 
>>> If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's 
>>> historic.
>>> If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
>>> isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
>>> shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
>>> over historic=qanat).
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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
> ___
> 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] RFC Start - extend telephone covers

[Lukas-458]

Hi all,

 

I want to show you my proposal about extending the values of the key covered=* for detailed mapping how a telephone is covered, again. The proposal's page is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/extend_telephone_covers

 

I'm looking forward to your comments.

 

Thank you!

--Lukas

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[德泉 談 via Tagging]

 On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:49, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very
>> common in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages
>> >>
>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea
>> >
>> >
>> > Looking at your proposal, I fail to see how these are not shop=beverages.
>>
>> Have you seen a bubble tea shop?
>>
>
> Nope. :)
>
>>
>> It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've
>> seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea
>>
>
> As described in the proposal, most lack seating.  Which makes those
> without seating shops rather than cafes.
>
>>
>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Acuisine%3Dbubble_tea -
>> per https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cuisine=bubble_tea it's not
>> very common but for example iD presets have amenity=cafe +
>> cuisine=bubble_tea for Chatime
>>
>> https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/c0b65aacf04be6753f6e7e82007399bee1e65fdc/brands/amenity/cafe.json#L314-L329
>> as well as Gong Cha, Sharetea, and a few others.
>>
>
> Seems reasonable, if they have seats and they also serve food.
>
>>
>> I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since it's
>> much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store.
>>
>
> I can see that it's more like fast food since the stuff has to be prepared.
> But then I think "Starbucks."  Have we already standardized on a way
> of tagging somewhere without seats that sells takeaway coffee?
>
>>
>> In a bubble tea place you place an order and it is prepared and served to
>> you.
>>
>
> So like a place that sells takeaway coffee but the list of beverages
> is different.  If we have a way of mapping coffee takeaways then
> use that with drink:bubble_tea=yes.  If we don't have a way of mapping
> coffee takeaways then we probably need one that can,deal with coffee,
> bubble tea and whatever else with appropriate drink:*=*.

Thanks Paul and thanks Jerek. Sorry for didn't described clearly in the 
proposal.

The reason that I made this proposal is because after I sent a pull request to 
add a bubble tea shop in the name-suggestion-index on Github 
(https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/3998), an user reminded 
me that some of the bubble tea shops are tagged with amenity=cafe + 
cuisine=bubble_tea, instead, shop=beverages is more for the place selling cans 
or bottles of beer and other beverages. It confused me because most of the 
users in Taiwan have used shop=beverages a lot and it had been some brands such 
as 50嵐, CoCo都可, 大苑子DaYuans, 清心福全ChingShin and 茶湯會TP-TEA in the 
name-suggestion-index/shop=beverages already.

In my opinion, amenity=cafe is not suitable for bubble tea shop even if takeout 
coffee shop is common nowadays. Bubble tea shops usually don't serve coffee and 
snacks and mostly don't have seats. I'd also checked the original 
shop=beverages proposal page 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Beverages) which was 
drafted in 2008 and never been voted. It's widely used in Germany

Before drafted this proposal, I'd done some research and found some interesting 
point.

This is shop=beverages in NYC
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Vvc
Most of them are beer seller, and some bubble tea shop, some are coffee shop 
(mismapped).

and shop=beverages in Dusseldorf
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Vvd
most of them are beer and wines market.

I believe that currently most of the shop=beverages are located in Germany and 
Taiwan, but the form are very different between two places.

I think amenity=bubble_tea may be an option but really not sure wether use 
amenity or shop is better.

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out
that qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and
distribution.  > Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal,
canal=qanat, tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.

Yes, that is the plan. You can also add usage=irrigation or another
appropriate value of usage=*, and width=*

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:12 AM Walker Bradley 
wrote:

> I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.
>
> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that
> qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.
> Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat,
> tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead.  Thoughts?
>
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> 
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley 
> wrote:
>
>> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate
>> sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat,
>> tunnel=yes.
>>
>
> That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.
> So
> if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
> qanats by adding historic=yes.
>
>>
>> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what
>> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
>>
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it
> needs
> modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
> man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.
>
> If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's
> historic.
> If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
> isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
> shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
> over historic=qanat).
>
> --
> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 20:24, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> There are currently 28k objects with wikimedia_commons in the database.
> Your edit would treble that. I'm not convinced that automatic edits that
> massively boost a niche tag are a good idea.

"niche"?

> I am not comfortable with inventing new tags to better match Wikimedia
> Commons' namespace model.

It does not. It better matches the Mediawiki namespace model, which is
used, among many others by wiki.openstreetmap.org

> Remember, Wikimedia commons is, for us, just one of many potential image 
> providers.

Iti is not. It is the one we ask people to use:

   "Before uploading a file to OpenStreetMap wiki, please consider if
it would be more
useful to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons file repository instead."

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Upload

> Would we want to introduce various extra tags for each?

That invokes a slippery-slope fallacy; but consider:

   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mapillary

   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flickr

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I also think amenity=bubble_tea is more appropriate, but shop=bubble_tea is
fine.

Using amenity=cafe seems wrong. An amenity=cafe has "sit-down facilities"
according to the wiki.

Also the word "cafe" is from "coffee" - at least in the USA and Indonesia
these places always sell coffee, unlike a Bubble Tea shop.

I find it quite strange that amenity=cafe is being suggested for tea shops,
bagel shops and donut shops on the wiki.

This seems to be based on some cultural assumptions about what is a "cafe"
in European contexts, but this does not match usage in Asia and North
America.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:43 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski 
wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very
common in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages
>> >>
>> >>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea
>> >
>> >
>> > Looking at your proposal, I fail to see how these are not
shop=beverages.
>>
>> Have you seen a bubble tea shop?
>
>
> Nope. :)
>>
>>
>> It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've
>> seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea
>
>
> As described in the proposal, most lack seating.  Which makes those
> without seating shops rather than cafes.
>>
>>
>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Acuisine%3Dbubble_tea -
>> per https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cuisine=bubble_tea it's not
>> very common but for example iD presets have amenity=cafe +
>> cuisine=bubble_tea for Chatime
>>
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/c0b65aacf04be6753f6e7e82007399bee1e65fdc/brands/amenity/cafe.json#L314-L329
>> as well as Gong Cha, Sharetea, and a few others.
>
>
> Seems reasonable, if they have seats and they also serve food.
>>
>>
>> I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since it's
>> much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store.
>
>
> I can see that it's more like fast food since the stuff has to be
prepared.
> But then I think "Starbucks."  Have we already standardized on a way
> of tagging somewhere without seats that sells takeaway coffee?
>>
>>
>> In a bubble tea place you place an order and it is prepared and served
to you.
>
>
> So like a place that sells takeaway coffee but the list of beverages
> is different.  If we have a way of mapping coffee takeaways then
> use that with drink:bubble_tea=yes.  If we don't have a way of mapping
> coffee takeaways then we probably need one that can,deal with coffee,
> bubble tea and whatever else with appropriate drink:*=*.
>
> --
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 12:42, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've
>> seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea
>
> As described in the proposal, most lack seating.  Which makes those
> without seating shops rather than cafes.

This is the first time I'm hearing about an OSM distinction between
shop and cafe based on seating or not.

If there's an espresso counter that does takeaway only does that
become no longer an amenity=cafe + cuisine=coffee_shop? I can think of
several coffee shops in Toronto that only do takeaway - e.g. in office
areas, or near parks.

Would it not be better to tag dine_in=no or something?

>> I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since it's
>> much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store.
>
> I can see that it's more like fast food since the stuff has to be prepared.
> But then I think "Starbucks."  Have we already standardized on a way
> of tagging somewhere without seats that sells takeaway coffee?

I'd use amenity=cafe + cuisine=coffee_shop, I guess could add
takeaway=only ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> If we don't have a way of mapping
> coffee takeaways then we probably need one that can,deal with coffee,
> bubble tea and whatever else with appropriate drink:*=*.

Still not sure why we can't just use cafe. Is "cafe" exclusively for
sit-down, dine-in places in British English?

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very
> common in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea
> >
> >
> > Looking at your proposal, I fail to see how these are not shop=beverages.
>
> Have you seen a bubble tea shop?
>

Nope. :)

>
> It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've
> seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea
>

As described in the proposal, most lack seating.  Which makes those
without seating shops rather than cafes.

>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Acuisine%3Dbubble_tea -
> per https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cuisine=bubble_tea it's not
> very common but for example iD presets have amenity=cafe +
> cuisine=bubble_tea for Chatime
>
> https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/c0b65aacf04be6753f6e7e82007399bee1e65fdc/brands/amenity/cafe.json#L314-L329
> as well as Gong Cha, Sharetea, and a few others.
>

Seems reasonable, if they have seats and they also serve food.

>
> I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since it's
> much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store.
>

I can see that it's more like fast food since the stuff has to be prepared.
But then I think "Starbucks."  Have we already standardized on a way
of tagging somewhere without seats that sells takeaway coffee?

>
> In a bubble tea place you place an order and it is prepared and served to
> you.
>

So like a place that sells takeaway coffee but the list of beverages
is different.  If we have a way of mapping coffee takeaways then
use that with drink:bubble_tea=yes.  If we don't have a way of mapping
coffee takeaways then we probably need one that can,deal with coffee,
bubble tea and whatever else with appropriate drink:*=*.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging  
> wrote:
>>
>> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very common 
>> in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea
>
>
> Looking at your proposal, I fail to see how these are not shop=beverages.

Have you seen a bubble tea shop?

It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've
seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Acuisine%3Dbubble_tea -
per https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cuisine=bubble_tea it's not
very common but for example iD presets have amenity=cafe +
cuisine=bubble_tea for Chatime
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/c0b65aacf04be6753f6e7e82007399bee1e65fdc/brands/amenity/cafe.json#L314-L329
as well as Gong Cha, Sharetea, and a few others.

I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since it's
much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store.

> Your proposal mentions several features that I do not see as being
> unique to bubble tea shops or excluding beverage shops.  Beverage
> shops may supply fresh tea and juice.

But usually they do not. Example picture on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dbeverages looks exactly
what I would consider a German "beverage shop" (Getränkemarkt) - it
sells already prepared and packaged drinks in bottles, cans, or jugs,
in a supermarket style where customers pick up their selection and
bring it to a cashier.

In a bubble tea place you place an order and it is prepared and served to you.

If a pharmacy is not a shop in OSM, neither should a bubble tea place.

--Jarek

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

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

[Walker Bradley]

I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags.

Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that 
qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution.  
Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes 
to waterway=canal instead.  Thoughts?

>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley  
>> wrote:
> 
>> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate sub-tags 
>> for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes.
> 
> That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.  So
> if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
> qanats by adding historic=yes.
>> 
>> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what 
>> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
> 
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it needs
> modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
> man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.
> 
> If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's historic.
> If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
> isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
> shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
> over historic=qanat).
> 
> -- 
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging 
wrote:

> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very
> common in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea


Looking at your proposal, I fail to see how these are not shop=beverages.

>From your proposal: "The tag shop
=bubble_tea

describe shops providing freshly
made bubble tea, juice, milk tea or other beverages." So it sells beverages.
Bubble tea, juice, and milk tea are beverages.  "Other beverages" are,
somewhat obviously, beverages.  It is a shop selling beverages.  One
of those beverages is bubble tea, but it is a shop selling beverages.

Your proposal mentions several features that I do not see as being
unique to bubble tea shops or excluding beverage shops.  Beverage
shops may supply fresh tea and juice.  Beverage shops may be,
and usually are, takeaway only.  Delivery service is not common
for beverage shops in general but, unless all bubble tea shops
deliver then it is better handled with delivery=yes|no (actually,
it's better handled with delivery=yes|no anyway).

The example in your proposal explicitly lists the beverages sold,
and explicitly has takeaway=only.  I fail to see how making this
shop=bubble_tea rather than shop=beverage accomplishes
anything.

About the only thing I see useful in your proposal is that having
shop=bubble_tea allows a way of searching for shops that
sell bubble tea.  But your example has drink:bubble_tea=yes
which provides a way of searching for shops that sell bubble
tea.  Having shop=bubble_tea seems unnecessary.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any point to this.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[德泉 談 via Tagging]

I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very common in 
Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea

Please visit and comment for this proposal, thanks.

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley 
wrote:

> So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate
> sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat,
> tunnel=yes.
>

That's how I see it.  Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong.
So
if we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic
qanats by adding historic=yes.

>
> I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what
> criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.
>

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it
needs
modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for
man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats.

If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's
historic.
If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic.  Which
isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag
shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat)
over historic=qanat).

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

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 25.06.20 19:46, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Should individual pages for these roles be located at something like
> Role:main and Role:alternative?

So far, I believe roles are typically documented on the wiki page for
the relation type, rather than their own pages. I don't think there's an
established convention for wiki pages about individual roles yet.

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

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

[Peter Elderson]

What would be a proper example page for this? The
after-proposal-cleanup-procedure suggests the key:highway page, but that
does not seem appropriate for a role set.

Best,  Peter Elderson


Op vr 26 jun. 2020 om 13:25 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Both versions seems fine to me.
>
> Jun 25, 2020, 19:46 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
>
> Since the proposal
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
> was approved, there needs to be a new documentation page for the roles
> "main", "alternative", etc.
>
> Should individual pages for these roles be located at something like
> Role:main and Role:alternative?
>
> Or is it best to make up a new general page to describe them all, like "Roles
> for route relations
> 
> "?
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Qanat"

[Walker Bradley]

So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate sub-tags 
for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes.

I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what 
criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat.

> On Jun 26, 2020, at 10:42, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:47, Walker Bradley  
>> wrote:
> 
>> Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in 
>> guidebooks.
> 
> Those may merit a historic=yes.  Depends on the guidebook, to some extent.
> 
>>  There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed 
>> (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1506/)
> 
> That certainly merits heritage tagging because it is listed by a heritage 
> organization. 
>> 
>> “Modern” Qanats/Karez are still often hand dug, not with modern tunneling 
>> equipment. The World Bank funded the refurbishment of many in Afghanistan, 
>> usually these were done with traditional methods, and they are the main 
>> source of water in many areas.
> 
> Modern ones are definitely not historic=yes.  Not all of the old ones are
> historic=yes but are just everyday water supply of no special interest
> except to the thirsty.
> 
> -- 
> 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] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Rob Savoye]

On 6/26/20 8:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> it’s up to your judgement, in my area if blocked with a mound this
> would not be a track anymore. You can decide whether keeping it for
> hikers (if legally and physically possible, i.e. highway=path) or

 A week or so ago I fixed a bunch of residential roads that map data
claimed continued out of the small developments and into national forest
land. They now have a dirt berm, (some have a gate) and the remaining
part of "road" is now closed for cars. Most were used as ATV trails by
locals, so I assumed a track. A few were obviously foot traffic only, so
now a path. Most of these were closed in only the last few years, I
talked to some of the locals. Access is still public, although the
neighbors wish otherwise...

- rob -

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:47, Walker Bradley 
wrote:

> Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in
> guidebooks.
>

Those may merit a historic=yes.  Depends on the guidebook, to some extent.

 There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed (
> https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1506/)
>

That certainly merits heritage tagging because it is listed by a heritage
organization.

>
> “Modern” Qanats/Karez are still often hand dug, not with modern tunneling
> equipment. The World Bank funded the refurbishment of many in Afghanistan,
> usually these were done with traditional methods, and they are the main
> source of water in many areas.
>

Modern ones are definitely not historic=yes.  Not all of the old ones are
historic=yes but are just everyday water supply of no special interest
except to the thirsty.

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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Kevin Broderick]

Are they natural deadfall or human-cut?

I've seen photos of places where the USFS has felled a substantial number
of trees across a road that's being decommissioned (or just razed, as it
was never properly part of the forest road system to begin with). I believe
the intent is to both eliminate illicit motorized use and to discourage
environmental impacts that might occur if the road remained in place.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:59 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Thanks for all of the great suggestions. I have used many of them.
>
> This is the way in question: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819638979
>
> Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to
> be cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its
> only junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they will
> not be removing the trees.  Way seems to get little traffic, even foot
> traffic.
>
>
> Mike
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water
> and
> has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
> sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.
>
>
> according to WP the London sewer system was developed from the late 19th
> century on. This is not “old” in a historic sense, looking at a city that
> has thousands of years of history. I don’t know about the rest of the
> country but I would suspect that it wasn’t ahead of London.
>

AFAIK, London's sewerage system was the first such public system in the UK
that wasn't simply dumping the stuff in the nearest river.  As such, the
first
elements of that system are of historical interest not because of their age
but because they were the first.


> Historic is of course relative, as is old.
>

Erm, no.  Due to recent events, civil rights and equality in the US are
very likely to change drastically (hopefully for the better but there is a
small chance of things changing for the worse).  If the right side wins,
I foresee a memorial of some sort being erected to George Floyd.
What distinguishes that particular bit of street from any other bit of the
same street is not the age (both bits were constructed at the same time)
or the age of the street relative to the rest of the city, but that an event
of historical interest took place there.

Historic is not a synonym for old or for relatively old.

All this becomes even more relative if you look at actual usage of the
> historic key in OpenStreetMap :
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values
>

Sadly, not all mappers bother to read the wiki page and assume that historic
is a synonym for old or for disused or for repurposed.

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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Mike Thompson]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:15 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone

> > On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> >
> > Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to
> be cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its
> only junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they will
> not be removing the trees.  Way seems to get little traffic, even foot
> traffic.
>
>
> it’s up to your judgement, in my area if blocked with a mound this would
> not be a track anymore. You can decide whether keeping it for hikers (if
> legally and physically possible, i.e. highway=path) or putting it in decay
> state is more appropriate (e.g. abandoned:highway=track which will
> effectively  remove it from most maps). I would not completely delete it if
> it is still “mostly there”. Maybe an additional  “note” with some
> explanations for your fellow mappers could also be helpful
>
I think this is what I have basically done.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be 
> cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only 
> junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they will not be 
> removing the trees.  Way seems to get little traffic, even foot traffic.


it’s up to your judgement, in my area if blocked with a mound this would not be 
a track anymore. You can decide whether keeping it for hikers (if legally and 
physically possible, i.e. highway=path) or putting it in decay state is more 
appropriate (e.g. abandoned:highway=track which will effectively  remove it 
from most maps). I would not completely delete it if it is still “mostly 
there”. Maybe an additional  “note” with some explanations for your fellow 
mappers could also be helpful 


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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Mike Thompson]

Thanks for all of the great suggestions. I have used many of them.

This is the way in question: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819638979

Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be
cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only
junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they will not
be removing the trees.  Way seems to get little traffic, even foot traffic.


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

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

[Walker Bradley]

Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in 
guidebooks.  There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed 
(https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1506/)

“Modern” Qanats/Karez are still often hand dug, not with modern tunneling 
equipment. The World Bank funded the refurbishment of many in Afghanistan, 
usually these were done with traditional methods, and they are the main source 
of water in many areas.

Walker


> On Jun 26, 2020, at 06:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
> 
> That's how I read it.
>  
>> it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is "old", 
>> has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance as 
>> testimony of former times.
> 
> Now define "old."  The past began 1E-43 seconds ago.  How far back into
> the past qualifies as "old" to you?  A year?  Ten years?  A hundred years?
> A thousand years?  Or just a few seconds?
>  
>> Any archaeological site is "historic"
> 
> Most archaeological sites in the UK, of any significance, are 
> scheduled monuments giving them legal protection against modification.
> They qualify for heritage=* by virtue of their protected status.
> 
> Other things are historic.  Not just old, but of cultural significance.  Not
> necessarily tourism=attraction but things that are of interest to some
> tourists by virtue of their history.
> 
> Most things are just old.  Even for very large values of "old."
> 
> A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water and
> has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
> sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.
> 
> Historic is not a synonym for old.  Historic means noteworthy.  Worthy of
> being part of recorded history.  Or, in the case of memorials, a record
> of history.  The sort of thing you find mentioned in a guidebook because
> it is associated with some significant event or personage.  The sort of
> thing that gets an article by the local historical society because it is
> more than just old.
> 
> -- 
> 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] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water and
> has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
> sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.


according to WP the London sewer system was developed from the late 19th 
century on. This is not “old” in a historic sense, looking at a city that has 
thousands of years of history. I don’t know about the rest of the country but I 
would suspect that it wasn’t ahead of London. Historic is of course relative, 
as is old. A 2 years old car is still quite new, 3 months old milk is quite old 
;-)
A car from the 1920ies could likely be considered historic in any state, even 
as a wrack. Any water supplying infrastructure that is older than 100-200 years 
is likely historic anywhere in the world. Show me some ruins that are older 
than a few hundred years and are not “historic” but “just old”. It depends on 
the thing.

All this becomes even more relative if you look at actual usage of the historic 
key in OpenStreetMap :
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values

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

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

[Cj Malone]

On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 22:14 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Btw, there are also a few images tagged with a “flickr” key (~1200)
> 
> While it could eventually make sense to make an exception for
> wikimedia commons, I do not believe we should create a new key for
> every image hosting service.

+1

I don't think `flickr` should be separate, if images in OSM are going
to be in multiple tags I think it should be based on the fetching
method. `flickr` is a standard URL, that the UserAgent sends a standard
HTTP request and gets a standard HTML response. That should be the
`image` tag. I think I'd argue the same for `mapillary` even though
they aren't currently stored as standard URLs, the rest is the same.

UserAgents that support it could then decide based on the URL if there
is an alternate way to fetch the images, like the Mapillary API and
easily fallback to a link when it doesn't.

There is another issue with `image` and that's that the UserAgent
doesn't know if it's going to receive a single raw image (eg image/png,
image/jpg), or a single image wrapped in HTML, or multiple images
wrapped in HTML. I've got an idea on how to solve this, using
the Accept HTTP header, but that relies on the image servers so I doubt
it'd get much traction.

Cj



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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 02:58, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=log says it should only be 
> used on a node, but if you don't know exactly where then I'd say using it on 
> the way would be fine


when you add a barrier=log to something you say: this is a log. If you added 
barrier=log to the whole highway=track it means the whole track is also a log.

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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Kevin Broderick]

As you've described it, I generally agree with Andrew's suggestions.

I do also think that expected local conditions matter; I've mapped some old
woods roads that are primarily used by Jeep and ATV traffic at this point.
Generally speaking, folks traveling those types of roads expect to find
varying conditions, including the possibility of deadfall. Many, if not
most, carry at least a hand saw. On those types of roads, I don't generally
try to keep track of deadfall, as it tends to be there until someone
happens to come through with a saw; if I see evidence of somewhat-recent
(i.e. last 12 months) cutting, I tend to ignore deadfall that happened to
land since then.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 8:58 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> It's a tricky one, but whatever is done I would need re-checking
> frequently to know when it was cleared.
>
> You could just add a single barrier=log somewhere as a rough
> approximation, or add barrier=log to the way segment which is affected.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=log says it should only
> be used on a node, but if you don't know exactly where then I'd say using
> it on the way would be fine.
>
> You could also consider using one of the stages of decay lifecycle prefix
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay eg
> disused:highway=track, where disused is "Not currently available for use,
> but could be reinstated easily".
>
> For a path my rule of thumb is sac_scale=demandig_mountain_hiking means
> you need to use your hands and arms to get over something, so if that's the
> case because of logs, then I'd tag it that way.
>
> Lastly you can add a description so users could be presented with a text
> notice about the way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 09:46, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen
>> trees across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged
>> barrier=log.  Foot travel is legal, but physically difficult.  Horse and
>> bicycle travel are legal but probably physically impossible.  Motorized
>> travel is prohibited, and would probably be physically impossible anyway.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your input.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 26, 2020, 08:51 by pang...@riseup.net:

> Is there anything preventing us from running bots (with simple
> algorithms) on the database?
>
Nothing?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

See for example 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account
that includes list of my approved bot tasks - some were for a single run,
some are active forever until revoked.

For example
"add highway=bus_stop tag 
where only public_transport=platform bus=yes is present
 in Poland"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/add_highway%3Dbus_stop_tag_where_only_public_transport%3Dplatform_bus%3Dyes_is_present_in_Poland

Though OSM is far more bot-sceptical than Wikipedia or Wikidata
(*cough* mindless duplicates from bot-generated Cebuano "Wikipedia"
duplicating real entries *cough*)

See 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What's_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Both versions seems fine to me.

Jun 25, 2020, 19:46 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> Since the proposal > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles>
>   was approved, there needs to be a new documentation page for the roles 
> "main", "alternative", etc.
>
> Should individual pages for these roles be located at something like 
> Role:main and Role:alternative?
>
> Or is it best to make up a new general page to describe them all, like "> 
> Roles for route relations 
> >
>  "? 
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
>

That's how I read it.


> it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is
> "old", has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance
> as testimony of former times.
>

Now define "old."  The past began 1E-43 seconds ago.  How far back into
the past qualifies as "old" to you?  A year?  Ten years?  A hundred years?
A thousand years?  Or just a few seconds?


> Any archaeological site is "historic"
>

Most archaeological sites in the UK, of any significance, are
scheduled monuments giving them legal protection against modification.
They qualify for heritage=* by virtue of their protected status.

Other things are historic.  Not just old, but of cultural significance.  Not
necessarily tourism=attraction but things that are of interest to some
tourists by virtue of their history.

Most things are just old.  Even for very large values of "old."

A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water and
has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.

Historic is not a synonym for old.  Historic means noteworthy.  Worthy of
being part of recorded history.  Or, in the case of memorials, a record
of history.  The sort of thing you find mentioned in a guidebook because
it is associated with some significant event or personage.  The sort of
thing that gets an article by the local historical society because it is
more than just old.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 22. Juni 2020 um 09:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Guillaume <
josephguilla...@gmail.com>:

> 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&way=554179257#map=17/33.44256/50.80580
>
>


This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is
"old", has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance
as testimony of former times. Any archaeological site is "historic" (any
"old" wall from hundreds of years ago). Imagine how much dedication and
effort is needed to only manually dig underground channels (even with
mechanized tools it is a great effort) even leaving aside the work to
secure them in order to prevent them from collapsing. E.g. any roman road
that is still perceivable is of historical value, but of course someone
could also dismiss it as just a bunch of stones someone amassed a few
thousand years ago ;-) Things do not have to be the pyramids of Gizeh or
the colossus of Rhodes or the hanging gardens of Babylon in order to
"merit" the "historic" tag, IMHO.

On the other hand, if there are also recent kanats that are built in a
different way (e.g. from the 60ies, built with modern tunnel driving and
constructed in reinforced concrete), I agree that "historic" would seem a
less intuitive tag for them. I do not insist in using historic=aqueduct
plus subtag for kanat, it just seems suitable from what is already
established.

Cheers
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 12:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Jun 26, 2020, 09:29 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road.
>
> Yes, but how we should tag it?
>


sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

I would tag a few obstacle=fallen_tree where there are. You could also
interrupt the highway=track and make it a footway/path where you can only
walk.
There is also barrier=log but I would see this as a tag for intentionally
placed logs, not for fallen trees.

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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 26, 2020, 09:29 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 26. Jun 2020, at 01:45, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>
>> How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees 
>> across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log.
>>
>
>
> to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road.
>
Yes, but how we should tag it?

highway=track is for "track road" part, but
how to tag "unmaintained" is tricky

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

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE  wrote:
> 
> For me there are 2 categories: sites hosting free images like
> Flickr, Mapillary and Commons and all the rest.


Flickr is only at 1200 tag occurrences in total and we should stop this 
fragmentation IMHO. They are not free either (only 1000 pictures). 



> All the rest can be in
> the image tags. The 3 before mentioned should be kept in their tag if
> not for other reasons for statistical purposes.


it shouldn’t be too difficult to identify flickr or mapillary URLs for 
statistical purposes even if they are all in the same box.

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

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE  wrote:
> 
> Is there anything preventing us from running bots (with simple
> algorithms) on the database? Wikimedia projects do that all the time. I
> rarely see this in OSM (besides the http/https bot)


We should be really reluctant, I see it all the time in wikidata: rubbish 
objects with lots of versions, mostly edited by bots, where the rubbish gets 
solidified until it seems even to a human that it might be somehow correct ;-)

iD edits with the name suggestion index also come very close to automatic  bot 
edits, because even if there is a mapper between iD and the db, in practice it 
doesn’t often seem to imply they are actually looking at it. 
E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7090473329/history version2

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jun 2020, at 01:45, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees 
> across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log. 


to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road.

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