Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Sep 5, 2020, 03:37 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
>
> On 9/4/2020 6:24 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  via Tagging wrote:
>
>> Sep 4, 2020, 18:19 by >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> :
>>
>>> node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag,  but the 
>>> map in
>>> question didn't render it any differently. Revisiting the  site in 
>>> fair
>>> weather, I found a tiny crack under a ledge that *might*  have kept 
>>> a
>>> child dry. It was very satisfying to delete that node.
>>>
>> This seems to be a clear case of incorrect tagging ofsomething that\
>> has not actually existed.
>>
>> natural=rock_shelter and any other tagging of rock shelterwould be 
>> equally
>> incorrect
>>
>
> Assuming that I located the correct crack, it was undoubtedly a  case of 
> overzealous tagging. The problem I see is that the  definition of rock 
> shelter is subjective enough that this sort of  tagging will happen from 
> time to time. Some mappers will stretch  the definition because they just 
> love adding features. And since  rock shelters are currently a subtag of 
> amenity=shelter, people  looking for amenity=shelter -- with the possibly 
> live-saving  properties that implies -- will be misled.
>
>
> Tagging a rock shelter any other way -- natural=rock_shelter,  
> amenity=rock_shelter, whatever -- and we're no longer bound to  
> fulfilling the existing expectations of the parent tag.
>
>
> Jason
>
>
The problem is that I want to have way to find rock shelters usable as shelter 
for humans.

If natural=rock_shelter is not bound to  fulfilling the existing 
expectations of the shelter tag,
then  want new tag that is bound to fulfilling the existing expectations of the 
shelter tag
and can be applied to rock shelters.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Andrew Harvey]

All good feedback so far, it's pleasing to see I'm not the only one
interested in tagging these features.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 11:38, Jmapb via Tagging 
wrote:

> Assuming that I located the correct crack, it was undoubtedly a case of
> overzealous tagging. The problem I see is that the definition of rock
> shelter is subjective enough that this sort of tagging will happen from
> time to time. Some mappers will stretch the definition because they just
> love adding features. And since rock shelters are currently a subtag of
> amenity=shelter, people looking for amenity=shelter -- with the possibly
> live-saving properties that implies -- will be misled.
>
> Tagging a rock shelter any other way -- natural=rock_shelter,
> amenity=rock_shelter, whatever -- and we're no longer bound to fulfilling
> the existing expectations of the parent tag.
>
That's why it's a good idea to use the shelter_type sub tag, to provide
further detail on the type of shelter here and provide further information.

amenity=shelter alone shouldn't have an expectation that it's anything more
than a place to escape a storm to provide some protection. Plenty of bus
shelters in a big storm you'll still get soaked if it's windy as well.

Not all rock shelters / overhangs / endogene caves are the same size, I
guess you could try to tag in meters how far it goes into the rock as an
indication of size.

Overzealous tagging can happen regardless of what the tag is though, even
natural=rock_shelter can be abused for even the most minor feature, same
goes for waterfalls, cliffs, peaks and most natural features.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 9/4/2020 6:24 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

Sep 4, 2020, 18:19 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag, but the
map in
question didn't render it any differently. Revisiting the site in fair
weather, I found a tiny crack under a ledge that *might* have kept a
child dry. It was very satisfying to delete that node.

This seems to be a clear case of incorrect tagging of something that\
has not actually existed.

natural=rock_shelter and any other tagging of rock shelter would be
equally
incorrect


Assuming that I located the correct crack, it was undoubtedly a case of
overzealous tagging. The problem I see is that the definition of rock
shelter is subjective enough that this sort of tagging will happen from
time to time. Some mappers will stretch the definition because they just
love adding features. And since rock shelters are currently a subtag of
amenity=shelter, people looking for amenity=shelter -- with the possibly
live-saving properties that implies -- will be misled.

Tagging a rock shelter any other way -- natural=rock_shelter,
amenity=rock_shelter, whatever -- and we're no longer bound to
fulfilling the existing expectations of the parent tag.

Jason

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 01:23, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> "A cave you might need a torch to explore" - note that caves may be
> smaller.
>
> In fact, some cave classifications have separate categories for caves
> small enough/open enough to be fully lit by sun and at least some consider
> rock shelters to be a type of cave.
>

According to wikipedia, "The word cave can also refer to much smaller
openings such as sea caves, rock shelters, and grottos, though strictly
speaking a cave is exogene, meaning it is deeper than its opening is wide,
and a rock shelter is endogene." which makes sense as I mentioned in the
proposal, many of these rock shelters/rock overhangs are named as caves.

Regardless I was going by the description at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cave_entrance and that
seems to imply it's for the exogene type not the endogene type, further an
"entrance" to the cave only really holds meaning for the exogene type.

If we can come up with a way to tag the endogene type like rock shelters,
then that free natural=cave_entrance would naturally then just be for
the endogene type where there is a large underground and enclosed cavity.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 02:19, Jmapb  wrote:

> I agree that a shallow rock overhang that can be used for ad hoc shelter
> is not the same as a cave. But I'm strongly in favor of
> discouraging/deprecating shelter_type=rock_shelter.
>

I have no strong ties to that particular tag, all I want is a clear way to
distinguish these rock shelter endogene type caves from the exogene caves
which you could walk or crawl through. The shelter_type=rock_shelter tag
already has use and meets the description of these real word objects well,
so seemed the path of least resistance.


> I'm a bit strident about this because I've been personally "betrayed"
> using an OSM-derived hiking map, expecting to arrive at a shelter in
> poor weather and finding nothing. Back in civilization, I examined the
> node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag, but the map in
> question didn't render it any differently. Revisiting the site in fair
> weather, I found a tiny crack under a ledge that *might* have kept a
> child dry. It was very satisfying to delete that node.
>

All the ones I'm familiar with are certainly big enough to provide shelter
in poor weather. A "tiny crack under a ledge that *might* have kept a child
dry" I don't think is significant enough to be tagged as a rock shelter,
but that doesn't mean that none of these kinds of larger features which are
commonly used for shelter should be.

Obviously the map rendering can be improved, but it's against the
> general anti-troll-tagging practices to have a subtag that undoes the
> essential properties of the main tag. Because of the ambiguity as to
> what constitutes a viable rock shelter, I think
> shelter_type=rock_shelter falls into this category.
>

I don't see how this subtag undoes any essential properties of the main
tag, after all amenity=shelter is described on the wiki as "A small place
to protect against bad weather conditions", which a rock shelter is
exactly. Nothing on the amenity=shelter wiki page says that it's only for
man-made features.


>
> I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag.
>

I'm not tied to any one particular tag, but just looking to further
formalise a tag that already has some documentation on the wiki and already
has extensive use in OSM.

If that tag was used, unless the wiki definitions are changed for
amenity=shelter to be strictly man-made it would not be wrong for someone
to tag amenity=shelter + natural=rock_shelter, which I guess is fine, as
one is mapping the actual natural feature and the other is saying how it
can be/is used.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 06:21, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> +1 for going into the natural key
> My expectations to amenity=shelter would be something purpose-built,
> which is true for all subtypes except that rock_shelter
>

Nothing on amenity=shelter wiki page says that it must be purpose-built and
not naturally occuring.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 08:47, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> amenity=shelter is not about being purpose-built but about something being
> used for a purpose.
> I would not use the natural key with a value like "shelter" or
> "rock_shelter", as this is about the purpose, a specific use of the
> situation, and not a description of the physical situation.
> From the point of view of shelter tagging, shelter_type=rock_shelter seems
> a valid approach and I would go for it.
>
> You could still double tag it with natural=cliff_overhang (or whatever
> describes the feature) if you like.
>

Agreed.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 09:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> amenity=shelter is not about being purpose-built but about something being
> used for a purpose.
>
> +1 - I am 100% fine with amenity=shelter with rocks acting as a shelter
> (as long as usefulness
> is as good as purpose made shelter, not li

Re: [Tagging] Biker’s rests

[Joseph Eisenberg]

In US English we seem to call these “leaning rails”, but they are fairly
new. I’m not sure what term is correct in British English.

Since they are distinctive features, they can be mapped, perhaps using the
man_made= key.

-Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 10:46 AM Grzegorz Szymaszek 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> At some bicycle crossings in some cities there are “biker’s rests”
>
> installed that cyclists can support on while waiting for the green
>
> light. They look like [1], [2], or [3].
>
>
>
> I could not find any existing tag for this furniture. Do you know of any
>
> way of tagging them? Do you consider them worth adding to OSM?
>
>
>
> Links:
>
> [1]: https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4271442334_95e966f057.jpg
>
> [2]:
> https://www.rybnik.eu/fileadmin/_processed_/a/2/csm_skrzyzowania_rowery_dagmara_kubik_2_7046439b78.jpg
>
> [3]: https://nola.se/wp-content/uploads/BIKERS_REST_slussen_web.jpg
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
>
> Grzegorz
>
> ___
>
> 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] Biker’s rests

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Sep 4, 2020, 19:45 by gszymas...@short.pl:

> Hi,
>
> At some bicycle crossings in some cities there are “biker’s rests”
> installed that cyclists can support on while waiting for the green
> light. They look like [1], [2], or [3].
>
> I could not find any existing tag for this furniture. Do you know of any
> way of tagging them? 
>
no

Though note that “biker’s rests” sounded to me (not a native speaker!)
like a dedicated stop place withing a cycling route (with a picnic table and so 
on)

> Do you consider them worth adding to OSM?
>
yes, though so far I have not been adding them

> Links:
> [1]: https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4271442334_95e966f057.jpg
> [2]: 
> https://www.rybnik.eu/fileadmin/_processed_/a/2/csm_skrzyzowania_rowery_dagmara_kubik_2_7046439b78.jpg
> [3]: https://nola.se/wp-content/uploads/BIKERS_REST_slussen_web.jpg
>
> Thanks
>
> -- 
> Grzegorz
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Sep 5, 2020, 00:45 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 22:21 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer <> 
> t.pfei...@computer.org> >:
>
>> On 04.09.2020 18:19, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
>>  >> >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter
>>  >>
>>  > 
>>  > I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag.
>>  
>>  +1 for going into the natural key
>>  My expectations to amenity=shelter would be something purpose-built,
>>  which is true for all subtypes except that rock_shelter
>>
>
>
> amenity=shelter is not about being purpose-built but about something being 
> used for a purpose.
>
+1 - I am 100% fine with amenity=shelter with rocks acting as a shelter (as 
long as usefulness
is as good as purpose made shelter, not like with this children-sized tiny 
overhang that was mentioned)

> I would not use the natural key with a value like "shelter" or 
> "rock_shelter", as this is about the purpose, a specific use of the 
> situation, and not a description of the physical situation.
> From the point of view of shelter tagging, shelter_type=rock_shelter seems a 
> valid approach and I would go for it.
>
> You could still double tag it with natural=cliff_overhang (or whatever 
> describes the feature) if you like.
>
or natural=cave_entrance if applicable

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 22:21 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer <
t.pfei...@computer.org>:

> On 04.09.2020 18:19, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter
> >>
> >
> > I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag.
>
> +1 for going into the natural key
> My expectations to amenity=shelter would be something purpose-built,
> which is true for all subtypes except that rock_shelter



amenity=shelter is not about being purpose-built but about something being
used for a purpose.
I would not use the natural key with a value like "shelter" or
"rock_shelter", as this is about the purpose, a specific use of the
situation, and not a description of the physical situation.
>From the point of view of shelter tagging, shelter_type=rock_shelter seems
a valid approach and I would go for it.

You could still double tag it with natural=cliff_overhang (or whatever
describes the feature) if you like.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Sep 4, 2020, 18:19 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag, but the map in
> question didn't render it any differently. Revisiting the site in fair
> weather, I found a tiny crack under a ledge that *might* have kept a
> child dry. It was very satisfying to delete that node.
>
This seems to be a clear case of incorrect tagging of something that\
has not actually existed.

natural=rock_shelter and any other tagging of rock shelter would be equally
incorrect

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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Allroads]

It is important to mention the website with the embedded stream.
But also the stream itself for direct use.   
url:m3u8=*
Sometimes multiple different extension streams are available for different kind 
off devices.
Such as radio stations with a webcam stream.
Live streams.
Image streams with from time to time a update.

From: Jmapb via Tagging 
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 11:16 PM
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
Cc: Jmapb 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

What's wrong with just url=*? To quote the url=* wiki page, "it is advised not 
to use this tag when more specific alternatives are available." Like website=*, 
it doesn't specify that it's a camera feed, so it might be used for other 
purposes. And in fact I happened to see a couple of nodes using url=* for 
picture *of* the camera, rather than pictures taken by the camera.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4163745929
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5979627352


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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 9/4/2020 3:45 PM, Paul Allen wrote:

A surveillance cam isn't a "contact" and contact:* is STILL a stupid
idea.

Oh, and what's wrong with url=*?  Especially as the wiki page endorses it.


Nb, the link to the "Surveillance under Surveillance" project that you
quoted doesn't mention the url=* tag.


https://sunders.uber.space/ (with info pop ups, even with a live image
if URL provided  in
the data)


The "URL provided" link points at the contact:* page, so presumably
whoever wrote that was assuming that the live image URLs should be
tagged  under the contact namespace. I agree that it's bizarre tagging
practice, but I understand how it happened, since that's where almost
all URLs more specific than "url" or "website" have found a home, and
many of those are predominately used to publish info rather than to
receive communication.

Taginfo doesn't break down the common tag combinations for
surveillance:type=camera, but here's my attempted tally using overpass:
 website 1485
 contact:webcam 1146
 url 204
 contact:website 115
 url:webcam 29
 webcam 17

Note that there's some overlap as some cameras have more than one of
these tags (sometimes with different values.) And there may be some
variations that I missed.

Simple website=* is the most popular, but often it points to things
other than a camera feed, most commonly the site of the person or
institution that runs the camera. Often it holds the URL of a top-level
view of many cameras while contact:webcam holds the direct URL to the
camera in question.

My favorite of these is url:webcam. But contact:webcam is hundreds of
times more popular.

What's wrong with just url=*? To quote the url=* wiki page, "/it is
advised not to use this tag when more specific alternatives are
available./" Like website=*, it doesn't specify that it's a camera feed,
so it might be used for other purposes. And in fact I happened to see a
couple of nodes using url=* for picture *of* the camera, rather than
pictures taken by the camera.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4163745929
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5979627352

Jason

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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[bkil]

The problem with url=* is (as per my talk page comment) that you can tag
the camera as contact:webcam (or whatever, as said I don't like it either,
I'm just using it), while you may tag the operator's website as
contact:website without causing any confusion. If you only had a single
link in url=*, how would you know whether it is for the operator or for the
camera stream?

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:47 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:40, bkil  wrote:
>
>> "contact" can mean one-way contact, as in "on what channel does this POI
>> broadcast information for us?" Note that except contact:email, most
>> other links are also used oneway in 99% of the time.
>>
>
> In my dialect of English there is an expectation that there is at least a
> possibility
> of a conversation.  At the very least, the possibility that a human might
> become
> aware of some issue I'd raised.
>
> A surveillance cam isn't a "contact" and contact:* is STILL a stupid idea.
>
> Oh, and what's wrong with url=*?  Especially as the wiki page endorses it.
>
> --
> 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 - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 04.09.2020 18:19, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter



I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag.


+1 for going into the natural key
My expectations to amenity=shelter would be something purpose-built,
which is true for all subtypes except that rock_shelter

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:40, bkil  wrote:

> "contact" can mean one-way contact, as in "on what channel does this POI
> broadcast information for us?" Note that except contact:email, most
> other links are also used oneway in 99% of the time.
>

In my dialect of English there is an expectation that there is at least a
possibility
of a conversation.  At the very least, the possibility that a human might
become
aware of some issue I'd raised.

A surveillance cam isn't a "contact" and contact:* is STILL a stupid idea.

Oh, and what's wrong with url=*?  Especially as the wiki page endorses it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[bkil]

"contact" can mean one-way contact, as in "on what channel does this POI
broadcast information for us?" Note that except contact:email, most
other links are also used oneway in 99% of the time.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:34 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:13, bkil  wrote:
>
>> I also raised this question some years ago on the talk page but went with
>> the flow and continued to tag webcams with contact:webcam=*. I think it
>> makes more sense if you see a static gallery of a venue specified under
>> contact:flickr=*, prerecorded videos under contact:youtube=* and you can
>> also check out the traffic in real time under contact:webcam=* (for example
>> on a beach or a pub to decide whether it would be a suitable time to give a
>> visit).
>>
>
> None of those come under what I would consider "contact"  Some youtube
> channels permit comments on videos but they may be ignored by the
> creator.
>
> I think the contact namespace is entirely without justification in the
> first place.  Adding things that aren't mechanisms for contacting
> somebody merely compounds the stupidity.
>
> There are reasons for having the addr: namespace.  It groups together
> elements which may not be meaningful unless considered as a group.
> Knowing the house number is not much good without knowing the
> street and town (in the UK the postcode and house number suffice,
> but you need both).
>
> Are you unable to look at somebody's facebook page unless you also
> know the twitter account?  Do you need the instagram as well?  No,
> because they're independent.
>
> I've yet to see any valid reason for having a contact: namespace and
> using it for surveillance cams is the least valid reason I've seen
> yet.
>
> --
> 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] Link to stream of webcam

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:13, bkil  wrote:

> I also raised this question some years ago on the talk page but went with
> the flow and continued to tag webcams with contact:webcam=*. I think it
> makes more sense if you see a static gallery of a venue specified under
> contact:flickr=*, prerecorded videos under contact:youtube=* and you can
> also check out the traffic in real time under contact:webcam=* (for example
> on a beach or a pub to decide whether it would be a suitable time to give a
> visit).
>

None of those come under what I would consider "contact"  Some youtube
channels permit comments on videos but they may be ignored by the
creator.

I think the contact namespace is entirely without justification in the
first place.  Adding things that aren't mechanisms for contacting
somebody merely compounds the stupidity.

There are reasons for having the addr: namespace.  It groups together
elements which may not be meaningful unless considered as a group.
Knowing the house number is not much good without knowing the
street and town (in the UK the postcode and house number suffice,
but you need both).

Are you unable to look at somebody's facebook page unless you also
know the twitter account?  Do you need the instagram as well?  No,
because they're independent.

I've yet to see any valid reason for having a contact: namespace and
using it for surveillance cams is the least valid reason I've seen
yet.

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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[bkil]

I also raised this question some years ago on the talk page but went with
the flow and continued to tag webcams with contact:webcam=*. I think it
makes more sense if you see a static gallery of a venue specified under
contact:flickr=*, prerecorded videos under contact:youtube=* and you can
also check out the traffic in real time under contact:webcam=* (for example
on a beach or a pub to decide whether it would be a suitable time to give a
visit).

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:42 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 4. Sep 2020, at 20:29, Jmapb  wrote:
> >
> > If I were proposing a tag, I'd probably say `camera:url` or
> `webcam:url`. But `contact:webcam` is documented and in popular use all
> over the world.
>
>
> I am not saying a webcam is never a means to contact someone, but it isn’t
> a suitable tag for the cam itself/a surveillance camera
>
> It is used 1800 times currently, that’s significant but not sure it is
> also „popular“.
>
> 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] Link to stream of webcam

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Sep 2020, at 20:29, Jmapb  wrote:
> 
> If I were proposing a tag, I'd probably say `camera:url` or `webcam:url`. But 
> `contact:webcam` is documented and in popular use all over the world.


I am not saying a webcam is never a means to contact someone, but it isn’t a 
suitable tag for the cam itself/a surveillance camera 

It is used 1800 times currently, that’s significant but not sure it is also 
„popular“.

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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 9/4/2020 2:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Jmapb via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>:

On 9/4/2020 11:34 AM, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the
undocumented
> tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose.

(Mea culpa, contact:webcam is indeed documented on the contact page.)



according to the "contact" webpage it is a tag for tagging "contacts".
Is a live stream of a camera a "contact"?


In a loose sense, perhaps, you are "contacting" the webcam by requesting
that URL... but it's a stretch.

If I were proposing a tag, I'd probably say `camera:url` or
`webcam:url`. But `contact:webcam` is documented and in popular use all
over the world.

J


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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Jmapb via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> On 9/4/2020 11:34 AM, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> > The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the undocumented
> > tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose.
>
> (Mea culpa, contact:webcam is indeed documented on the contact page.)



according to the "contact" webpage it is a tag for tagging "contacts". Is a
live stream of a camera a "contact"?

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

[Tagging] Biker’s rests

[Grzegorz Szymaszek]

Hi,

At some bicycle crossings in some cities there are “biker’s rests”
installed that cyclists can support on while waiting for the green
light. They look like [1], [2], or [3].

I could not find any existing tag for this furniture. Do you know of any
way of tagging them? Do you consider them worth adding to OSM?

Links:
[1]: https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4271442334_95e966f057.jpg
[2]: 
https://www.rybnik.eu/fileadmin/_processed_/a/2/csm_skrzyzowania_rowery_dagmara_kubik_2_7046439b78.jpg
[3]: https://nola.se/wp-content/uploads/BIKERS_REST_slussen_web.jpg

Thanks

-- 
Grzegorz


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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 9/4/2020 11:34 AM, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:

The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the undocumented
tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose.


(Mea culpa, contact:webcam is indeed documented on the contact page.)


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 9/3/2020 11:51 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:

I've created a proposal to formalise shelter_type=rock_shelter, while
currently in-use, there is disagreement within the community on if
this tag should be used and features are commonly mis-tagged.

So I'm hoping with this proposal and voting we can come to some
consensus around it's use.

I'll leave it open for two weeks for comments then move to voting.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter


Thanks for your work on this Andrew.

I agree that a shallow rock overhang that can be used for ad hoc shelter
is not the same as a cave. But I'm strongly in favor of
discouraging/deprecating shelter_type=rock_shelter.

I'm a bit strident about this because I've been personally "betrayed"
using an OSM-derived hiking map, expecting to arrive at a shelter in
poor weather and finding nothing. Back in civilization, I examined the
node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag, but the map in
question didn't render it any differently. Revisiting the site in fair
weather, I found a tiny crack under a ledge that *might* have kept a
child dry. It was very satisfying to delete that node.

Obviously the map rendering can be improved, but it's against the
general anti-troll-tagging practices to have a subtag that undoes the
essential properties of the main tag. Because of the ambiguity as to
what constitutes a viable rock shelter, I think
shelter_type=rock_shelter falls into this category.

I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag.

(For that matter, I think shelter_type=sun_shelter is a troll tag as
well. I'd suggest man_made=sun_shade.)

Jason

PS - I'll be hiking in two weeks so feel free to vote in my name by proxy!



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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 9/4/2020 11:08 AM, dktue wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to tag the link to the (current) JPEG-image of a webcam, but
the wiki doesn't state how to do so [1].

Any suggestions how to tag this?

Cheers,
dktue

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance


The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the undocumented
tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose. (This should probably be moved to
"Tags to use in combination".) It's in pretty wide use according to
Taginfo (1817 uses.)

Here are some in the wild:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/305956624
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2989816818
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5852641220

The second one links directly to a .mjpg stream. I did find some linking
directly to .jpg urls but none that were currently functional.

Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Sep 2020, at 17:10, dktue  wrote:
> 
> Any suggestions how to tag this?


maybe „url“ or „surveillance:url“?

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

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 16:10, dktue  wrote:

>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance
>
> From that wikie page, under "Rendering"

Surveillance is rendered on:

   - https://sunders.uber.space/ (with info pop ups, even with a live image
   if URL provided  in the
   data)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

"A cave you might need a torch to explore" - note that caves may be smaller.

In fact, some cave classifications have separate categories for caves
small enough/open enough to be fully lit by sun and at least some consider
rock shelters to be a type of cave.


Sep 4, 2020, 05:51 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> I've created a proposal to formalise shelter_type=rock_shelter, while 
> currently in-use, there is disagreement within the community on if this tag 
> should be used and features are commonly mis-tagged.
>
> So I'm hoping with this proposal and voting we can come to some consensus 
> around it's use.
>
> I'll leave it open for two weeks for comments then move to voting.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter
>

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

[Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

[dktue]

Hi,

I'd like to tag the link to the (current) JPEG-image of a webcam, but 
the wiki doesn't state how to do so [1].


Any suggestions how to tag this?

Cheers,
dktue

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

[德泉 談 via Tagging]

Hi All,
In the previous mail I post a proposal which was copied and pasted from my 
older bubble tea proposal, and I found that there were couple of mistakes. So I 
edited it and add some additional contents.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Takeaway_drink_shops

This tag is not designated for only bubble tea shops, so the cuisine=* tag is 
recommend for us to make more diverse presets for example we can call a 
amenity=drink+cuisine=bubble_tea is "Bubble tea shop" and cuisine=juice is 
"Juice bar".

Besides after the previous discussions it seems to me that amenity key is 
better since we have many smoothie shops which was tagged as amenity=fast_food 
now, it's weird that if we design a new tag then it should be changed from 
amenity to shop. I know that someone would say that a bakery is a shop but not 
a amenity, I think there is something odd either. Anyway, I suppose that the 
tag should be an amenity.

It's a hard decision if the tag should use the amenity or the shop key, but I 
hope that I could start the vote by the end of September. If anyone have more 
ideas please help me to complete the proposal and if there is enough people 
decide that the shop key is better maybe we can have more detail voting to 
figure out which tag most people think better. Thanks.

By the way I think it's weird that many juice bar truly selling smoothie 
because I assume that juice bar selling juice and smoothie shop selling 
smoothie.

- Tan

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