Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - migration to use belarusian as default language in Belarus for tagging

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 21:56 2022-10-15, bkil đã viết:

Why did I get a private message about this?


I think they've been reaching out to everyone who's edited any of the 
relevant keys (name, destination, etc.) in Belarus to make sure there 
are no surprises. They must've cast a very thorough net.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - migration to use belarusian as default language in Belarus for tagging

[bkil]

Why did I get a private message about this?

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 11:19 PM Paveł Tyślacki
 wrote:
>
> Hey
>
> Proposal to use belarusian as default language in Belarus for tagging were 
> approved by majority: (belarusian) 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Be:Belarus_language_issues/Migration_proposal
>
> next steps regarding proposal:
> - update documentation
> - notify major users about new rules
> - in month make migration
> - for 3-6 month actively support users to use new rules
>
> ___
> 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] Proposal - RFC - Use model to describe fountains

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

I have changed my proposal.

Rather than using model=* I now propose to use fountain:design=*


Please provide your opinion in the wiki talk page or here.

I will let at least two weeks pass from today before initiating a vote.

On 11/10/22 15:17, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:

Use model=* to describe fountains

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Use_Model_To_Describe_fountains_proposal 



Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.


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

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 05:45 2022-10-15, Greg Troxel đã viết:


Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:


OSM does not map illegal activity.


Taken to the extreme, perhaps, but we are talking about things that are
done in the open and clearly visible to all.  Landuse, by its nature,
occurs on timescales of months or longer.  It is obvious that the
authorities are just as aware of landuse as a local mapper.

Applied to this discussion, the concept of declining to map landuses
that are contrary to zoning is totally ridiculous.  Just in case you
aren't trolling, I'll substantively reply.

Landuse issues in the US are civil not criminal, and I suspect that's
similar in many places.  The edges of what is permissible under zoning,
or under contractual land use rules, is fuzzy, and difficult to figure
out, even for people that understand the zoning rules.


To demonstrate that this isn't merely a consequence of U.S. law or the 
federal system, consider that OSM is a key source of information about 
informal settlements -- favelas in Brazil, Kibera in Kenya, colonias 
along the Mexico-U.S. border, and countless other examples -- that might 
be described as "illegal" from a certain point of view but which clearly 
meet this project's verifiability standard. This information belongs on 
the map.


There's also the issue of desire paths and informal trails, which in 
some cases represent an accumulation of unauthorized activity. Yet we 
have a well-used informal=* key, and there's even discussion among the 
U.S. community about affirmatively indicating non-informal trails to 
better clarify this distinction.


The actual reason we don't "map zoning" is that we don't aim to copy any 
planning or zoning map verbatim. OSM aims to map the present as opposed 
to (sometimes aspirational) plans about the future. A zoning map by its 
nature describes what kind of construction project will be approved 
going forward, while acknowledging that existing landuse may differ. We 
don't have a tag to say "residential landuse but all these retail 
buildings got grandfathered in". Unfortunately, people regularly come to 
OSM and naïvely copy their local zoning map without regard for this 
distinction, because it's often the only readily accessible landuse-like 
map available from the local authorities.


Another reason, possibly specific to the U.S., is that typical zoning 
terminology doesn't line up with OSM landuse terminology. For example, a 
"commercial" zone might consist of retail storefronts, and a "light 
industrial" zone might consist of warehouses, parking lots, and tire 
stores. An inexperienced mapper copying off the zoning map would tag 
these areas as landuse=commercial and landuse=industrial, respectively. 
On the other hand, if a landuse=residential area happens to line up with 
an area labeled "heavy industrial" on a zoning map, it's worth 
double-checking whether our data is erroneous or outdated.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




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

Re: [Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 15, 2022, 20:00 by marc_m...@mailo.com:

> for OpenHisctoricMap or other, why not ?
> so let's "archive" it on OHM before deleting it from osm
>
Archiving it in OHM is completely independent from cleaning
it from OSM.

No longer existing objects can be deleted, and waiting for OHM 
contributors to map it is not necessary at all.

>> It is certainly not something that can be represented   by a bicycle route 
>> relation.
>>
>
> witch issue did you see ?
>
I assume that it is not signposted anymore

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

Re: [Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?

[Marc_marc]

Hello,

Le 15.10.22 à 18:55, Volker Schmidt a écrit :

(using Google's English translation of the Danish text)

In addition a bicycle route has to be signposted.


it was signposted when it happend :)

I doubt that the the fact that the TdF in a given year ran over a 
certain set of roads is something that is to be inserted in a 
geographical database


why not ? for osm of course it's not the goal to keep (and maybe to 
create) event when it's finish.

for OpenHisctoricMap or other, why not ?
so let's "archive" it on OHM before deleting it from osm

It is certainly not something that can be represented   
by a bicycle route relation.


witch issue did you see ?

Regards,
Marc



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

Re: [Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Volker Schmidt:

(using Google's English translation of the Danish text)



Yes, sorry, I meant to send it to the Danish list.


In addition a bicycle route has to be signposted.

I doubt that the the fact that the TdF in a given year ran over a certain set of 
roads is something that is to be inserted in a geographical database, as is OSM.

It is certainly not something that can be represented by a bicycle route 
relation.


I tend to agree. I just did not want to delete it without discussing it with the 
Danish mappers.


You are right. It is not signposted. And it is not maintained in any way. If roads 
are changed, I.e, an intersection changed to a roundabout, how would that affect the 
"route"?.


If you want to document the 2022 route, which could be useful, a GPX file would be 
the solution.




Il giorno sab 15 ott 2022 alle ore 18:13 Niels Elgaard Larsen > ha scritto:


Fx
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13488959/

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14315474


Enten skal de slettes.

Eller hvis der er cyklister, der synes at det er sjovt at cykle på 
historiske ruter,
så skal de ændres så de bruger cykelstier i stedet for vejstykker hvor man 
ikke må
cykle.

Eller route tagget skal ændres til noget andet end "bicycle", fx 
"historic:bicycle"
og kalde ruten "Tour de France 2022 inspireret".

For vejene var jo kun afspærret til brug for cyklister en enkelt dag.

Vi kan ikke have cykelruter, der bruger veje tagget med bicycle=no




-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen


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



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


--
Niels Elgaard Larsen


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

Re: [Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?

[Volker Schmidt]

(using Google's English translation of the Danish text)

In addition a bicycle route has to be signposted.

I doubt that the the fact that the TdF in a given year ran over a certain
set of roads is something that is to be inserted in a geographical
database, as is OSM.
It is certainly not something that can be represented by a bicycle route
relation.




Il giorno sab 15 ott 2022 alle ore 18:13 Niels Elgaard Larsen <
elga...@agol.dk> ha scritto:

> Fx
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13488959/
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14315474
>
> Enten skal de slettes.
>
> Eller hvis der er cyklister, der synes at det er sjovt at cykle på
> historiske ruter,
> så skal de ændres så de bruger cykelstier i stedet for vejstykker hvor man
> ikke må
> cykle.
>
> Eller route tagget skal ændres til noget andet end "bicycle", fx
> "historic:bicycle"
> og kalde ruten "Tour de France 2022 inspireret".
>
> For vejene var jo kun afspærret til brug for cyklister en enkelt dag.
>
> Vi kan ikke have cykelruter, der bruger veje tagget med bicycle=no
>
>
>
>
> --
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>
> ___
> 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 - pickup

[Volker Schmidt]

The parcel locker that I use is both for picking up goods and for returning
goods.
I presume that this is the standard functionality for parcel lockers.

Il giorno sab 15 ott 2022 alle ore 17:46 Illia Marchenko <
illiamarchenk...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

>
>
> сб, 15 окт. 2022 г., 18:36 Volker Schmidt :
>
>> amenity=parcel_locker is used 26k times.
>> amenity=vending_machine + vending_machine=pickup is use 16 k times and
>> deprecated
>> So why should we abandon  amenity=parcel_locker and create a new key with
>> duplicate meaning .
>>
> I agree. amenity=parcel_locker & parcel_pickup=* is perfectly suitable for
> self-service pickup points.
>
>> ___
> 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] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Fx
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13488959/
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14315474

Enten skal de slettes.

Eller hvis der er cyklister, der synes at det er sjovt at cykle på historiske ruter, 
så skal de ændres så de bruger cykelstier i stedet for vejstykker hvor man ikke må 
cykle.


Eller route tagget skal ændres til noget andet end "bicycle", fx "historic:bicycle" 
og kalde ruten "Tour de France 2022 inspireret".


For vejene var jo kun afspærret til brug for cyklister en enkelt dag.

Vi kan ikke have cykelruter, der bruger veje tagget med bicycle=no




--
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15 Oct 2022, at 10:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink from without an 
> aid e.g. a cup.


while it may be true, you have to acknowledge that there are many places in the 
world that are providing drinking fountains for a long time, sometimes for a 
very long time, and many of them have downward flow, so this should not be a 
criterion. 

For some examples have a look at the drinking water article in wp.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pickup

[Illia Marchenko]

сб, 15 окт. 2022 г., 18:36 Volker Schmidt :

> amenity=parcel_locker is used 26k times.
> amenity=vending_machine + vending_machine=pickup is use 16 k times and
> deprecated
> So why should we abandon  amenity=parcel_locker and create a new key with
> duplicate meaning .
>
I agree. amenity=parcel_locker & parcel_pickup=* is perfectly suitable for
self-service pickup points.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pickup

[Volker Schmidt]

amenity=parcel_locker is used 26k times.
amenity=vending_machine + vending_machine=pickup is use 16 k times and
deprecated
So why should we abandon  amenity=parcel_locker and create a new key with
duplicate meaning .


Il giorno sab 15 ott 2022 alle ore 14:48 Illia Marchenko <
illiamarchenk...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

>
>
> сб, 15 окт. 2022 г., 11:41 Volker Schmidt :
>
>> Around here we have many instances of self-service parcel-locker inside a
>> shop that is inside a building. The shop does not occupy the entire
>> building, the locker is only accessible during shop opening times.
>>
>> There are also pick-up points in shops where a human being handles the
>> operation (I know of a prinhong shop and a petrol station). So there is a
>> case for distinguishing between self-service and human-handled pick-up
>> points.
>>
> I suggest office=pickup for human-handled and amenity=pickup_locker for
> self-service points.
>
>> ___
> 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 - pickup

[Illia Marchenko]

сб, 15 окт. 2022 г., 11:41 Volker Schmidt :

> Around here we have many instances of self-service parcel-locker inside a
> shop that is inside a building. The shop does not occupy the entire
> building, the locker is only accessible during shop opening times.
>
> There are also pick-up points in shops where a human being handles the
> operation (I know of a prinhong shop and a petrol station). So there is a
> case for distinguishing between self-service and human-handled pick-up
> points.
>
I suggest office=pickup for human-handled and amenity=pickup_locker for
self-service points.

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

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

[Greg Troxel]

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 14/10/22 23:40, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:
>>> In some places the local authorities have lots to do with landuse and
>>> everything to do with zoning. To the extent of taking people to court
>>> and forcing them to stop their present landuse.
>> Of course they do.  But you are blurring two things:
>>
>>OSM maps actual land use.  OSM does not map zoning.
>>
>>Governments use zoning to control landuse.  So after they have
>>controlled there is an actual landuse to map.
>>
>> So the government using force to control landuse is not something we
>> map.  Given that, I don't see what point you are trying to make.
>
> OSM does not map illegal activity.

Taken to the extreme, perhaps, but we are talking about things that are
done in the open and clearly visible to all.  Landuse, by its nature,
occurs on timescales of months or longer.  It is obvious that the
authorities are just as aware of landuse as a local mapper.

Applied to this discussion, the concept of declining to map landuses
that are contrary to zoning is totally ridiculous.  Just in case you
aren't trolling, I'll substantively reply.

Landuse issues in the US are civil not criminal, and I suspect that's
similar in many places.  The edges of what is permissible under zoning,
or under contractual land use rules, is fuzzy, and difficult to figure
out, even for people that understand the zoning rules.

I'm simply stating the obvious: if there is a shop selling things,
clearly visible to anyone, it's entirely appropriate to put
landuse=retail on the parcel that contains the shop (and not much else
non-shop-related), regardless of zoning, and without even trying to
understand zoning.  Similarly for other landuses.

If the government later shuts down the shop because of zoning, and it's
torn down and a house built, then certainly change the landuse.

But an OSM person looking up zoning and deciding that a shop shouldn't
be there and not mapping it -- is crazy.  An OSM person being
*obligated* to do that is beyond crazy.

Related to "illegal activity", there's another common case in the US
which is shops selling marijanuna (cannibis; not sure of the
international usage), some for medical use, and some for recreational
use.  In many states, the state government issues licenses and taxes
these stores.  People say -- and they are either confused or being
intellectually dishonest, hard to tell -- that such stores are "legal in
Massachustts".  But Federal law entirely prohibits anything to do with
marijanuna, so the activity is not legal -- it is merely not contrary to
state law.  It is thus in a class with export control violations and
evasion of Federal taxes, which are also not specifically prohibited in
state law, but nobody would say those are "legal in Massachustts".  This
week, as for the last several years, Federal drug laws that prohibit
marijanuna aren't being enforced against these stores.  But other
federal laws, even though those acts are *not* contrary to state law,
are still being enforced.  This is all a strange situation, but that's
how it is.  I expect other places have different strange situations.

As far as "illegal" goes, pot shops are vastly more illegal than a use
which is pushing the edge of zoning, but might be found by the Zoning
Board of Appeals to be a preexisting nonconforming use, and thus allowed
to continue, were there to be a complaint.  My area has such tussles,
and nobody can guess how the Board is going to rule, and whether that
ruling, either way, would survive ruling by the courts.  An example is a
used car sales place that later rents out space to store school buses
overnight.  A pot shop is blatantly and clearly a violation of Federal
law, and that is a criminal issue with severe penalties, vs a business
being told "no you can't store buses any more".

So, does OSM have a policy against putting marijauna stores on the map?
A quick check shows a number of them.  Obviously there is no enforced
policy of declining to map stores whose business is unlawful.


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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Warin]

On 15/10/22 19:57, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 15, 2022, 10:05 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:


On 14/10/22 22:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we'
need a solution first before even thinking of depreciation.

I described what I found/considered at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain/alternatives
but nothing seems viable and superior.

Have I missed something?


To me, fundamentally, the objects presently shown on that proposal
page are taps .. not drinking fountains.

The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink from
without an aid e.g. a cup.

Does it mean you want to deprecate tagging them as "generic drinking 
water fountain"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Ddrinking ?



I would never map those as a drinking fountain. I would map them as 
water taps.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 15, 2022, 09:51 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

>
> On 14/10/22 23:40, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:
>>>
> There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities,
>
 residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial
 mixes because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.
 Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning.

>>> In some places the local authorities have lots to do with landuse and
>>> everything to do with zoning. To the extent of taking people to court
>>> and forcing them to stop their present landuse.
>>>
>> Of course they do.  But you are blurring two things:
>>
>>  OSM maps actual land use.  OSM does not map zoning.
>>
>>  Governments use zoning to control landuse.  So after they have
>>  controlled there is an actual landuse to map.
>>
>> So the government using force to control landuse is not something we
>> map.  Given that, I don't see what point you are trying to make.
>>
>
>
> OSM does not map illegal activity.
>
OSM does map effects of illegal activity (and OSM can be likely used to find
some cases of illegal activity)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 15, 2022, 10:05 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
> On 14/10/22 22:53, Mateusz Konieczny  via Tagging wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>>> I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment ..  'we' need 
>>> a solution first before even thinking of  depreciation.
>>>
>> I described what I found/considered at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain/alternatives
>> but nothing seems viable and superior.
>>
>> Have I missed something?
>>
>
> To me, fundamentally, the objects presently shown on that  proposal page 
> are taps .. not drinking fountains. 
>
>
> The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink  from 
> without an aid e.g. a cup.
>
>
Does it mean you want to deprecate tagging them as "generic drinking water 
fountain"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Ddrinking ?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pickup

[Volker Schmidt]

Around here we have many instances of self-service parcel-locker inside a
shop that is inside a building. The shop does not occupy the entire
building, the locker is only accessible during shop opening times.

There are also pick-up points in shops where a human being handles the
operation (I know of a prinhong shop and a petrol station). So there is a
case for distinguishing between self-service and human-handled pick-up
points.



On Sat, 15 Oct 2022, 06:28 Evan Carroll,  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 4:20 PM Marc_marc  wrote:
>
>> Le 11.10.22 à 21:33, Evan Carroll a écrit :
>> > We could map these onto the building polygon explicitly
>>
>> please : one element = one object
>> building <> the user of the building.
>> so imho it's best to have one object for the buildinng,
>> another for the shop or the pickup or whatever.
>> ex of issue : name on a object building+shop : it's the name
>> of the building or the name of the shop ?
>>
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say.
>
> 
> Evan Carroll - m...@evancarroll.com
> System Lord of the Internets
> web: http://www.evancarroll.com
> ph: 281.901.0011 <+1-281-901-0011>
>
>
> ___
> 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 - pickup

[Marc_marc]

Le 15.10.22 à 06:24, Evan Carroll a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 4:20 PM Marc_marc > wrote:


Le 11.10.22 à 21:33, Evan Carroll a écrit :
 > We could map these onto the building polygon explicitly

please : one element = one object
building <> the user of the building.
so imho it's best to have one object for the buildinng,
another for the shop or the pickup or whatever.
ex of issue : name on a object building+shop : it's the name
of the building or the name of the shop ?


I don't understand what you're trying to say.


if you create an osm object with several main tags (e.g. building+shop), 
there is no way of knowing what the secondary tags relate to.

e.g. building + shop : 2 main tags put on one object
you add name : is it the one of the shop or the building ?
operator ?
height ?

the best practice is to create a building object and a shop object



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

[Warin]

On 14/10/22 22:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need
a solution first before even thinking of depreciation.

I described what I found/considered at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain/alternatives
but nothing seems viable and superior.

Have I missed something?

To me, fundamentally, the objects presently shown on that proposal page 
are taps .. not drinking fountains.


The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink from 
without an aid e.g. a cup.



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

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

[Warin]

On 14/10/22 23:40, Greg Troxel wrote:

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:


On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:

There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities,

residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial
mixes because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.
Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning.

In some places the local authorities have lots to do with landuse and
everything to do with zoning. To the extent of taking people to court
and forcing them to stop their present landuse.

Of course they do.  But you are blurring two things:

   OSM maps actual land use.  OSM does not map zoning.

   Governments use zoning to control landuse.  So after they have
   controlled there is an actual landuse to map.

So the government using force to control landuse is not something we
map.  Given that, I don't see what point you are trying to make.



OSM does not map illegal activity.



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