Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[stevea]

On Nov 20, 2022, at 3:47 PM, François Lacombe  wrote:
> utility=* key is already widely used and expect one single value, in every 
> situation.

While I regret not doing simple wiki research that would have revealed a 
collision with my “out loud imagining” clearly-stated to be just that (an 
IMAGINED tagging scheme for utility=*), I do stand by my post as an exercise in 
potential (not necessarily actual, again, clearly stated) key=value pairs.

I also agree that semicolon-separated values can be problematic for some 
parsers / routers / renderers / use-cases, although they are indeed used in our 
map.

Thanks to Warin for supporting that “further evolution” of the key space may 
continue to take place, as the specific key has already seen a fair bit of 
modification and growth since its inception.  Apologies if there was any 
confusion:  my intent was to encourage the imagining and potential development 
of a tagging scheme that might combine the semantics of “utility” and “office,” 
as it is a potentially very rich combination of syntax.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wheel baths for disinfection

[Warin]

On 21/11/22 12:54, Matija Nalis wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:58:29 +0800, Timeo Gut  wrote:

Wheel baths for disinfection are used to prevent the spread of diseases
in agricultural areas. They're most often found at roads and tracks that
go through plantations or farms but sometimes also at administrative
boundaries along major highways.

I'm thinking that highway=wheel_bath might be better suited. Any
thoughts on this?

Perhaps.

There were related discussion recently about similar decontaminations used for 
pedestrains
(i.e. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=footwear_decontamination) and 
other
cleaning facilities that might be accompanied by bigger tag:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-key-should-be-tagged-for-these-amenities/5598/5

so you may want to look there.



Some building sites (large) have wheel cleaning done on exit to stop the 
access roads getting dirty - nothing to do with disinfection.



Possibly these 2 should be combined into one main tag with a secondary 
tag for disinfection/cleaning/*???



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Warin]

On 21/11/22 10:47, François Lacombe wrote:

Good evening,

Le dim. 20 nov. 2022 à 17:36, stevea  a écrit :

In fact, I can imagine a variety of tags that describe much
(approaching or even achieving?) all of this:
office=utility
utility=water;sewer;garbage
utility=accepts_payment

utility=cable_tv
utility=allows_equipment_exchange
utility=furnishes_service_equipment
utility:payment=in_person_only
utility:payment=kiosk
utility:payment=cash_only
utility:payment=accepts_checks

Those aren’t necessarily the exact tags OSM might eventually
settle upon, but they do indicate what’s possible.  Again, it’s a
pretty big universe, as “utilities” encompass more than power /
energy, and there are a vast number of ways to “deal with
customers at an office.”  (There’s the office itself, what sort of
services are available, when/whether it is staffed (it may be
simply a drop-box for payment), what sort of services and payments
are exchanged…).


utility=* key is already widely used and expect one single value, in 
every situation.

Please don't introduce utility=power;gas;waste.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility

I've also answered here about its usage in this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_utility_office#Use_sub-key_instead

I'm not sure tagging offices with utility=* is really suitable for the 
current definition: offices aren't involved in production, 
transmission, distribution or delivery of power, telecommunications, 
gas, whatever.



Some offices are involved in the sale and administration of the utility.

Buried utilities here were legally required  to be in separate trenches, 
that has changed so that one trench can be used for multiple utilities, 
so it may be required for the key 'utility' to accept multiple values.


Many of the present values for the key 'utility' look to be what is 
being discuses for these offices.


The key 'utility' has evolved over time from only  the key 'marker' to 
also accepting the tags 'man_made=utility_pole' and 'building=service'. 
Further evolution might take place.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wheel baths for disinfection

[Matija Nalis]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:58:29 +0800, Timeo Gut  wrote:
> Wheel baths for disinfection are used to prevent the spread of diseases 
> in agricultural areas. They're most often found at roads and tracks that 
> go through plantations or farms but sometimes also at administrative 
> boundaries along major highways.
>
> I'm thinking that highway=wheel_bath might be better suited. Any 
> thoughts on this?

Perhaps.

There were related discussion recently about similar decontaminations used for 
pedestrains
(i.e. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=footwear_decontamination) and 
other 
cleaning facilities that might be accompanied by bigger tag:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-key-should-be-tagged-for-these-amenities/5598/5

so you may want to look there.

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.


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

[Tagging] wheel baths for disinfection

[Timeo Gut]

Wheel baths for disinfection are used to prevent the spread of diseases 
in agricultural areas. They're most often found at roads and tracks that 
go through plantations or farms but sometimes also at administrative 
boundaries along major highways.


Example 1: Tertiary road 
through 
plantation 

Example 2: Trunk road at provincial boundary 



There's currently one instance 
 of amenity=wheel_bath 
but amenity probably isn't a very good choice here.


I'm thinking that highway=wheel_bath might be better suited. Any 
thoughts on this?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[François Lacombe]

Good evening,

Le dim. 20 nov. 2022 à 17:36, stevea  a écrit :

> In fact, I can imagine a variety of tags that describe much (approaching
> or even achieving?) all of this:
> office=utility
> utility=water;sewer;garbage
> utility=accepts_payment
>
> utility=cable_tv
> utility=allows_equipment_exchange
> utility=furnishes_service_equipment
> utility:payment=in_person_only
> utility:payment=kiosk
> utility:payment=cash_only
> utility:payment=accepts_checks
>
> Those aren’t necessarily the exact tags OSM might eventually settle upon,
> but they do indicate what’s possible.  Again, it’s a pretty big universe,
> as “utilities” encompass more than power / energy, and there are a vast
> number of ways to “deal with customers at an office.”  (There’s the office
> itself, what sort of services are available, when/whether it is staffed (it
> may be simply a drop-box for payment), what sort of services and payments
> are exchanged…).
>

utility=* key is already widely used and expect one single value, in every
situation.
Please don't introduce utility=power;gas;waste.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility

I've also answered here about its usage in this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_utility_office#Use_sub-key_instead

I'm not sure tagging offices with utility=* is really suitable for the
current definition: offices aren't involved in production, transmission,
distribution or delivery of power, telecommunications, gas, whatever.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 02:36, stevea  wrote:

> this missive attempts to sketch the outline of a possible tagging scheme
> for “utilities” in general.  This would be a fairly rich (complex) scheme
> if/as it were to encompass all of the sorts of “utility offices” there are
> around the world.  It would logically be sensible to broaden from simply
> “utility office” to encompass both the “office” component, the “utility”
> component and perhaps more.  But those two are rich enough to provide both
> a good start and much food for thought of a big tagging scheme.
>

Interesting possibilities for sure!

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 19:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> office=government???
>

It could be, but not always?

Consider AGL (Australian Gas & Light for those overseas - a private company
providing electricity, gas, & now also internet & mobile phone services).

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

20 lis 2022, 17:06 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 20 Nov 2022, at 02:27, Matija Nalis  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make 
>> sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would
>> be proposal author (expecting that EVERYBODY will do that SAME task is both 
>> extremely wasteful, hugely unrealistic,
>> and likely to lead to few participating members willing to do that becoming 
>> burned out prematurely).
>>
>
>
> the first and foremost reason for the tagging mailing list to exist was the 
> desire to offload tagging discussions on a central place, off the other 
> channels, because people there felt overwhelmed with the discussions needed 
> to agree on tags to describe the whole world, and it seemed helpful to reduce 
> the volume on the talk list to a size that can be followed with significantly 
> less dedication of time. Moving back to discussing tagging everywhere will 
> make these other channels less useful for some people, I guess. Maybe this is 
> unfounded because it came out, tagging is relevant all over OpenStreetMap 
> (i.e. tagging discussions already happen on all channels, lately even on 
> osmf-talk) and you can hardly ignore it, and because the structure of the 
> contributors has changed, or something like this.
>
The new forum may be also more capable of handling large volume of posts - you 
can
easily mute threads and entire categories.

As result massive posting in one thread is easier to ignore in its entirety.

This is in theory achievable with filtering and so on, but much harder to apply 
in
practice, with mailing lists.

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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility facilities

[François Lacombe]

Dear all,

The ongoing RFC on utility facilities got further developments recently.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_facilities

It sounds interesting to replace several values from industrial=* key:
* industrial=gas => utility=gas
* industrial=oil => utility=oil

As industrial=* is more likely used to describe the facility nature
(refineries, storage…).
It could then be possible to use landuse=industrial + utility=oil +
industrial=refinery for instance.

Comments are still open for a few days/week until voting.
Discussion also started on community forum
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-utility-facilities/5723

Best regards

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

[stevea]

On Nov 20, 2022, at 1:22 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Technically energy = power x time, so related things but not the same.

Thank you; that’s the simple answer to clear up any potentially remaining 
confusion.  Whether it does or not...

> Utilities would not only be energy/power (electric, gas, oil, coal and wood) 
> providers but also garbage collection, sewage, water, phone, cable TV and 
> internet.

Yes, this is well-stated.  And this varies a great deal around the world.  Some 
municipalities / jurisdictions offer zero, one, multiple or “all available” 
such utilities, others allow a competitive marketplace that allows a choice of 
things for, say, Internet (or wired telephone), but there may or may not be a 
choice of water, sewage or garbage.  A municipality may offer one or some 
services via a “franchise” agreement (with a cable TV operator, for example),  
There is a big universe of possibilities, and it is folly for OSM to try to 
cram all of these into a “one size fits all” tagging scheme.  This is true even 
for the “office” where, say, payments are taken, service is established, 
equipment is furnished / exchanged (e.g. a cable TV box), etc.

> So a second tag of 
> utility=electric/gas/oil/coal/wood/garbage_collection/sewage/water/phone/cable_tv/internet/*
>  semi colin delimited for multiple values... ???

In fact, I can imagine a variety of tags that describe much (approaching or 
even achieving?) all of this:
office=utility
utility=water;sewer;garbage
utility=accepts_payment

utility=cable_tv
utility=allows_equipment_exchange
utility=furnishes_service_equipment
utility:payment=in_person_only
utility:payment=kiosk
utility:payment=cash_only
utility:payment=accepts_checks

Those aren’t necessarily the exact tags OSM might eventually settle upon, but 
they do indicate what’s possible.  Again, it’s a pretty big universe, as 
“utilities” encompass more than power / energy, and there are a vast number of 
ways to “deal with customers at an office.”  (There’s the office itself, what 
sort of services are available, when/whether it is staffed (it may be simply a 
drop-box for payment), what sort of services and payments are exchanged…).

> On 20/11/22 10:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:35, Mike Thompson  wrote:
>>> In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides 
>>> electricity, water, sewer, and internet.
>> 
>> yes, it is also common in areas I know to have a single provider for water, 
>> sewer, waste disposal and even local public transport. Maybe we should have 
>> a generic term for these kinds of offices and specify with additional tags 
>> the kind of services?
> 
> office=government???

Sometimes it is a government office (often at a municipal level, or, say 
admin_level=6,7,8), sometimes not.  These might be “monopoly” providers, and 
there doesn’t seem anything wrong with that:  I mean, how many different 
companies/jurisdictions are really needed to manage sewage in a given area?  
Sometimes it is a private company (like one mobile phone service vs. another).  
Without going too broad and beyond “power” (energy), this missive attempts to 
sketch the outline of a possible tagging scheme for “utilities” in general.  
This would be a fairly rich (complex) scheme if/as it were to encompass all of 
the sorts of “utility offices” there are around the world.  It would logically 
be sensible to broaden from simply “utility office” to encompass both the 
“office” component, the “utility” component and perhaps more.  But those two 
are rich enough to provide both a good start and much food for thought of a big 
tagging scheme.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20 Nov 2022, at 02:27, Matija Nalis  
> wrote:
> 
> Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make 
> sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would
> be proposal author (expecting that EVERYBODY will do that SAME task is both 
> extremely wasteful, hugely unrealistic,
> and likely to lead to few participating members willing to do that becoming 
> burned out prematurely).


the first and foremost reason for the tagging mailing list to exist was the 
desire to offload tagging discussions on a central place, off the other 
channels, because people there felt overwhelmed with the discussions needed to 
agree on tags to describe the whole world, and it seemed helpful to reduce the 
volume on the talk list to a size that can be followed with significantly less 
dedication of time. Moving back to discussing tagging everywhere will make 
these other channels less useful for some people, I guess. Maybe this is 
unfounded because it came out, tagging is relevant all over OpenStreetMap (i.e. 
tagging discussions already happen on all channels, lately even on osmf-talk) 
and you can hardly ignore it, and because the structure of the contributors has 
changed, or something like this.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:fountain:design

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

Hello, since I made some edits to my original proposal I have waited 
some extra time before starting a vote to wait for further comment, I 
received no such comments in the meanwhile and thus I'm now starting a 
voting for the key fountain:design. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Use_Model_To_Describe_fountains_proposal



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

Re: [Tagging] care services

[Georges Dutreix via Tagging]

Thanks everybody for the feedback and suggestions.
As noted by Minh Nguyen, personal services can include any professional 
practice, including school assistance, accounting, law or going with 
grand'ma to the market.


In order to go ahead, I am going back to my friends on the local 
community to propose office=personal_service with personal_service=*


Thanks again.


Le 19/11/2022 à 23:26, stevea a écrit :

Once again, we bump up against the reality of a worldwide project, with many different 
cultures, attempting to squeeze particular meaning into a single tag.  Look at Minh's 
"around here" clarification (true, I'm near him).  And once again, we find that 
English can distinctly lack in its ability to convey to all what is sometimes only 
adequate for some.

I agree with Graeme that craft=* is good for specific craft artists / 
professionals, but its overlap with what attempts to be tagged in this thread 
is poor.  It might work to clarify in some edge cases (I might imagine 
something like craft=tailor_on_call if you need such personal services), but in 
general it seems an unhelpful overlapping tag.

Phil is correct that personal services and care are not the same thing.

For the purpose that Georges asks about, I agree that amenity=personal_service is likely better "migrated" to 
something like office=personal_service, as amenity is a heavily-loaded, perhaps even over-loaded tag.  You could 
supplement office=personal_service with a craft=* tag, like craft=tailor or craft=gardening, though this does seem a 
bit odd to me, as these seem more "established for the longer term" rather than the "once for today 
only" that such a "personal_service" office might provide.  But what do I know?  In your culture, it may 
be that people only want a gardener or a tailor for a day, and then are done.  On the other hand, perhaps the office 
establishes long(er)-term professional relationships with craftspeople and their clients who need professional services 
(whether short-term or long-term), and that is the purpose of the personal service office.

I hope the replies in this thread are helpful, Georges.
___
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 - Power utility office

[Warin]

On 20/11/22 10:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:35, Mike Thompson  wrote:

In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides electricity, 
water, sewer, and internet.


yes, it is also common in areas I know to have a single provider for water, 
sewer, waste disposal and even local public transport. Maybe we should have a 
generic term for these kinds of offices and specify with additional tags the 
kind of services?



office=government???




Technically energy = power x time, so related things but not the same.


In Australia homes are charged for the energy they use. They are limited 
to a maximum power by a hidden fuse behind the meter.


Industries are also charged for the energy they use .. and the maximum 
power drawn. Most industries have a set start up procedure to limit the 
maximum power drawn.



Utilities would not only be energy/power (electric, gas, oil, coal and 
wood) providers but also garbage collection, sewage, water, phone, cable 
TV and internet.



So a second tag of 
utility=electric/gas/oil/coal/wood/garbage_collection/sewage/water/phone/cable_tv/internet/* 
semi colin delimited for multiple values... ???



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Cartographer10 via Tagging]

> Question is: did you then collect all the points those extra communities made 
> (both those you agreed with, and those
> that you didn't agree with), and summarized them on wiki /talk page, for 
> extra period of RFC? Because if you didn't
> (especially if you didn't include things you _disagreed_ with) then you 
> abused that input to promote your personal view,
> and disregarded the best parts that such other views could provide.
>
The proposal has a section "external discussion". There the largest external 
discussions are listed. These are all publicly accessible sources so people can 
read what has been discussed there. I have also send updates when I changed 
major things in the proposal. I can image if you announce it on a closed 
platform like Discord, that a summary on the talk page can be useful. 


> I can imagine quite bad things, but to be fair, here is a most realistic one 
> instead: On each changing of status quo,
> some people will leave the process for good, as that will be the straw that 
> broke the camel's back. If you need to
> learn from history, see the debate when OSM changed license from CC-BY-SA to 
> ODbL. And then, if another proposal
> changes situation back to what it was before, that will NOT cause (majority 
> of) people that left to come back.
> It will instead cause some MORE people to leave for good (in revolt).
>
There are always people who don't agree with a change. EVERY proposal or 
changes has that. If more then 75% of the people agree you can assume that 
enough people support it. And of course, taking the status quo into account is 
important. However, if you can't change the status quo, you never move forward.


20 nov. 2022 02:24 van 
mnalis-openstreetmaplist_at_voyager_hr_prfkut...@simplelogin.co:

> This email failed anti-phishing checks when it was received by SimpleLogin, 
> be careful with its content.
> More info on https://simplelogin.io/docs/getting-started/anti-phishing/
>  
> --
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 12:12:22 +0100 (CET), Cartographer10 via Tagging 
>  wrote:
>
>> I always had good discussion on several platforms for my proposal. Each 
>> community or person has another view
>> which I collect this way.
>>
>
> Nobody (at least I hope) questions that extra communities (or extra persons 
> is same community) have extra input to
> provide!
>
> Question is: did you then collect all the points those extra communities made 
> (both those you agreed with, and those
> that you didn't agree with), and summarized them on wiki /talk page, for 
> extra period of RFC? Because if you didn't
> (especially if you didn't include things you _disagreed_ with) then you 
> abused that input to promote your personal view,
> and disregarded the best parts that such other views could provide.
>
> And if you did exactly that - I salute you. Could you link to that proposal 
> where that was done?
>
>> This proposal makes sure there are 2 required platforms where people have to 
>> announce it. That way people have the
>> choice to follow one of the two channels of their choice to get updated on 
>> proposals. It is up to the proposal author
>> to announce it on other channels to increase the reach.
>>
>
> I'd at least put in a requirement that if proposal author announces the 
> discussion in X extra channels (i.e. anywhere
> more than Tagging ML), that they must follow ALL that X extra channels and 
> summarize in Wiki Talk page all points that
> have been risen (including those that they think don't matter or disagree 
> with. Especially those!) and THEN have extra
> RFC period after all those X channels have been summarized, before proceeding 
> to the Voting. 
>
> Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make 
> sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would
> be proposal author (expecting that EVERYBODY will do that SAME task is both 
> extremely wasteful, hugely unrealistic,
> and likely to lead to few participating members willing to do that becoming 
> burned out prematurely).
>
>> And btw, if this proposal really turns out bad (which I doubt), it can 
>> always be reverted by someone creating a
>> proposal for it. Sometimes you also have to try something. What is the worst 
>> thing that can happen?
>>
>
> I can imagine quite bad things, but to be fair, here is a most realistic one 
> instead: On each changing of status quo,
> some people will leave the process for good, as that will be the straw that 
> broke the camel's back. If you need to
> learn from history, see the debate when OSM changed license from CC-BY-SA to 
> ODbL. And then, if another proposal
> changes situation back to what it was before, that will NOT cause (majority 
> of) people that left to come back.
> It will instead cause some MORE people to leave for good (in revolt).
>
> So it not like in math, when you end with what you started, e.g. "(X + Y) - Y 
> = X". It is more like Microsoft windows
> (you can tell I'm Debian GNU/Linux user,