Re: [Tagging] Snowmobile routes
Here is a Swedish version of that NY snowmobile map that uses OSM data: http://skoterleder.org/#!map/7/62.4692/17.6440 transaltes to: "snowmobile routes.org" https://github.com/skoterleder/skoterleder.org On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Yes, exactly. People tag the ways, but nobody's been working on creating the > relations for the long, nearly continuous routes. (Qualifiers: In this > country. As far as I can tell. I'd be delighted to be wrong.) > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Brad Neuhauser > wrote: >> >> Minnesota has a bunch too. >> http://dnr.state.mn.us/snowmobiling/interactive_map/index.html I'm sure >> it's the same for other states. I personally don't snowmobile but have just >> noticed many ways tagged in OSM since they sometimes follow bike routes. :) >> >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Kevin Kenny >> wrote: >>> >>> I agree that route=snowmobile makes more sense. Since there were exactly >>> zero uses of the tag in the US, I missed it entirely. (Then again, I don't >>> know how many jurisdictions have numbered snowmobile routes overlaid on the >>> highway and trail networks!) >>> >>> Are we agreed, then, on the following? >>> >>> roles should be the same as for route=road >>> name, network and ref should be filled in where available. In general, >>> either a name or a network/ref pair is expected. >>> US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary are reasonable >>> choices for the network >>> >>> If I don't hear cries and screams, expect a proposal on the Wiki at some >>> point. (I also haven't abandoned access=permit, just gotten sidetracked on >>> some actual mapping and haven't got back to it yet.) >>> >>> Incidentally, US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary >>> form an extensive network of about 15000 km. There's a route map at >>> http://www.nysnowmobilewebmap.com/webmap/ The numbered routes are in red >>> (corridor) and orange (secondary). Blue are un-numbered routes belonging to >>> local clubs. The underlying GIS data that were used for that map are free >>> for us to use, but I do NOT propose an import because they don't meet my >>> standards of data quality. Just to begin with, they are digitized at an >>> inappropriately small scale. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Brad Neuhauser >>> wrote: It may not be "officially recognized" but route=snowmobile is used some [0], and IMHO makes a lot more sense than route=road! [0] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=snowmobile On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I thought sure that I had raised this question before, but a quick > troll through the archives doesn't seem to show it. > > New York State has an extensive network of designated snowmobile > routes, intended to be long-distance continuous paths. In some cases, they > follow highways, or logging roads on state land. In other cases, the state > offers grants to private landowners to maintain the route, funded out of > snowmobile registration fees. (At least that's my understanding of how the > system works. I'm not a snowmobilist). Except where the route is groomed > alongside a highway (or sometimes on the highway - not all our roads are > open to motor vehicles in winter), other motor vehicles are ordinarily > forbidden. > > These routes are marked with a highway shield, with reassurance markers > at intervals. There are even two tiers of routes: 'corridor' and > 'secondary'. Both are long-distance routes, so they are not appropriate > for > the name=* field on a track or path. (Example: Haul Road No. 1 in the > Dutch > Settlement State Forest is blazed for both the New York Long Path > (route=hiking) and Snowmobile Corridor Route 7B. A highway shield on a > snowmobile route looks like https://flic.kr/p/nPeMwe. > > We don't (yet?) have a 'route=snowmobile' officially recognized. What I > used recently when a hike (gathering map data for something else) took me > for a while on a snowmobile corridor was 'route=road > network=US:NY:snowmobile:corridor ref=7B'. (If it had been a secondary > route, it would of course have been US:NY:snowmobile:secondary.) I feel a > little uncomfortable about route=road, which seems to be tailored for > motor > vehicles, but the tagging would be in all ways the same - type, network, > route, ref are all there, and even most of the roles are possible (there > are > link trails, for instance, providing access to nearby highways, or places > where a route splits into a one-way pair). > > Does this sound plausible? > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___
Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station
amenity=diy_tool_station bicycle=yes iceskates=yes locked=yes opening_hours=during games. I only know of one for iceskates though, can I can't remember why it wasn't made a generic tag, the current tag is a bit like subway_entrance vs entrance. On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > amenity=bicycle_repair_station has a problem: it's attracting lots of active > tagging > of shops offering bicycle repair. For example: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3772809894 > and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337421757 > > > That was not the intent. amenity=bicycle_repair_station was meant for > unattended > tool stands, often outdoors, often 24/7, generally public. > > I'm seeking support for a mechanical edit to a new tag name. > There are known automated clients of this tag, and I am in contact with > both. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: >> amenity=pub -> pub=yes >> shop=travel_agent -> travel_agent=yes >> office=travel_agent -> travel_agent=yes > > > So you want to replace shop=bakery by bakery=yes, shop=butcher with > butcher=yes, etc. ? > This means that you cannot write a query that retrieves all shops in a town. > You would need a list of things for which the value is "yes". But you cannot > summarize the things, because there is no "category" to which they belong > and the list is open-ended. > Don't know whether that is a good idea. There are no categorizes in the OSM data, believing that will not be helpfull to you when you try to use OSM data. The current way of sometime using the key as an category isn't working that well. Or I might be wrong I don't write that many stylesheets, and they are the biggest consumers of our data, so take a look at how they handle it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wood+Coastline conflict
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø wrote: > Hi, > > Some island are covered completely with wood. For these island I get a tag > conflict. Since the natural tag is used for both. I have two solutions: > 1. make a combined tag like natural=coastline;wood > 2. make a 1-way relation for the wood tag and tag the way with > natural=coastline > > which one is prefered? To keep my blood pressure low I do not map trees on islands at least in the current OSM datamodel. There are two cases the whole islands is filled with trees, and the islands is partially filled with trees. So are the tree trunks growing right at the coastline, or is there a 1m-5m zone where there are no tree trunks and you are really mapping "landcover=tree_canopy? So I've never really figured it out exactly what it means when the coastline and the treeline shares the same way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas
Then I like kids_area when you are mapping a private playground that is closed off without direct public access, mainly because I wouldn't map them as a leisure=playground. About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would have in a mall. On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:32:05 GMT+ (GMT), Никита wrote: >> Probably we should define kids_area as: >> leisure=playground >> playground:indoor=yes >> playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else" >> > And access tags, such as access=customers. > > Phil (trigpoint ) > > > -- > Sent from my Jolla > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas
Hi Dmitry I did a quick sruvey of some fast food restuarants the local Ikea, I know they all have "leisure=playground" outside and inside, non of these were mapped. So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground? On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote: > > Hi > > We have > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth > for kids areas mappings. > > But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be > nice to have amenity to map such features. > > So here is mine proposal for that > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area > > Looking forward for any comments and suggestions. > > -- > dkiselev > Dmitry Kiselev > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Various alt_name values?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Brian Quinion < openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk> wrote: > On 25 November 2014 at 13:30, althio forum wrote: > > I don't even know which keys are currently under use by Nominatim and > other > > data consumers and how that could evolve in the future. > > At the moment nominatim supports > > alt_name_[0-9]+:= > > for alt names > > I've added this to the wiki > +1 This is also how I have done it when I've worked with names. I do not like semicolons at all. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: >> Maybe they are sometimes tagged in another way as shop=bicycle + >> service:bicycle:repair=yes and service:bicycle:retail=no >> (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=bicycle?uselang=en-US) >> or is this incorrect ? > > Similar to "amenity=drinking_water;potable=no", > it's problematic to tag something and then try to reverse the meaning > with another tag. > For example non-bicycle data consumers won't interpret the subtags, > and will think there's a shop > at the location. > > Note: > A similar concept exists for skis. Ski repair stations have > screwdrivers, a table, > sometimes a wax removal device, and other tools for fixing skis and > snowboards. > > In each case the "operator" is normally the property owner or manager > of the property. > > --- > If you want to "bikeshed" the tagging, perhaps seek > "amenity=repair_station;repair_station:type=[bicycle/ski/auto]". > Or just be happy and find some repair stations to map. Maybe amenity=bicycle_diy_station repair=yes (I'm sure you can name space this if you want*) cleaning=yes truing=yes What I'm saying is that I've actually not seen a diy bicycle repair station, but I've seen the other two and tagged one of them. It would be in the best interest of everybody to be as inclusive as possible in the basic tag so also including other sports might be usefull (I don't know depends on what people are tagging at this moment). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
These are more than 90% of values for surface, categorize them as paved/unpaved the rest as unpaved. surface= asphalt unpaved paved gravel ground dirt grass concrete paving_stones sand cobblestone compacted paved=yes will remove then need for parsing those last % of surface=* values, not sure it's worth it. To think that there is only one definition of paved=yes, is a big mistake. There are few tags in OSM that are specific enough to mean the same thing all over the world. On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:42 AM, David Bannon wrote: > On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 00:23 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: > ..A good suggestion ... > > So it seems that yet again, we are going to reject this attempt to solve > a real problem. Looking at the neg replies, because its not useful for > bike riders; not useful for a number of undefined edge cases; is a > duplicate of surface=. > > Thats just plain not true ! There is no suggestion that paved= should be > used instead of surface=. I use surface= on all unsealed roads I map and > would continue to do so if I also used paved=no. > > But there are 34 official values for surface= and 3581 values used. It > is very plain that the mapping community want surface= as a fine > grained, very detailed key. And thats great, people making specialised > maps or engines can use those values, display them in a meaningful way > to people they understand. My data will help them. > > But the vast majority of people just want to know that the road may not > be what they are used to. Thats all. And paved= does that easily. > > In places like Australia, that information can be a life or death thing. > People die here because they are inexperienced or ill equipped for roads > they tackle. Generally visitors from Europe or North America. > > Please folks, think of the big picture, not the edge cases. > > David > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] wikidata instead of wikipedia
Yeah it's pretty "easy" to get wikidata data. Warning though; the data
in Wikidata is not all CC0 licensed. You never know where the data
came from they are not as strict about these things as OSM is.
lang=en;
title=OpenStreetMap;
bad_title=gracefully_handle_bad_input
curl
"www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetentities&sites=${lang}wiki&titles=$title|$bad_title&props=labels&props=info&format=json"|
perl -lpe 's/([{},])/$1\n/g'
#curl
"$lang.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=$title&prop=langlinks&format=json&lllimit=500"|
# sed 's/}/}\n/g'
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, bulwersator wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 06:31:18 -0800 Martin
> Koppenhoefer wrote
>
> +1, it would be premature to switch completely to wikidata at this point,
> and the human readable titles in the wikipedia tag have generally this
> advantage over machine only cryptic ids
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> Maybe there is a simple way to obtain wikidata id of article X on wikipedia
> Y? This would make unnecessary to introduce cryptic tags.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
--
/emj
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a public works facility ?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-02-21 14:22 GMT+01:00 Erik Johansson : > >> I have now tagged such an area with >> >> landuse=depot >> barrier=fence >> depot=public_works >> (access=private maybe?) >> >> ok? (atm all on the same way) >> >> > > > > I believe using the same geometry as line and as polygon at the same time on > the same object is a little bit problematic. Barrier=fence is supposed to be > a linear feature, while landuse and depot are probably areas. I'd rather use > a multipolygon for the latter and leave just the linear tags on the way. I've thought about it a bit, and now I know I see it more as a fence=yes tag on the main tag, I won't draw the geometry for the fence, it's not worth it. But I got some flak from Dee on this as well. So obviously there are lots of people who think it's bad doing this. So I guess the final say is how this is handled by the tools that use the . If they can handle stuff like this with ease, then I see no reason to duplicate a way just to add a fence, or making it over complicated by letting two ways share nodes or a multipolygon from multipleways.. I consider over zealous use of multipolygons and node sharing harmfull for OSM. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a public works facility ?
I have now tagged such an area with landuse=depot barrier=fence depot=public_works (access=private maybe?) ok? (atm all on the same way) On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-02-19 22:18 GMT+01:00 sabas88 : > >> Why use landuse=industrial? Because it's rendered? > > > > > I don't advocate it to be used exclusively, but it fits the current > definition (production and/or storage). > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag man_made=campanile to be replaced with man_made=belfry?
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Here in Thailand we're having an extended discussion about towers that are > associated with temples. I would suggest using man_made=tower in > conjunction with tower:type=bell_tower for your situation. Our discussion > is stuck on whether such structures are really towers and not monuments but > in recent times we have used tower:type=stupa to describe the particular > man_made towers that are associated with Buddhist temples or wats. > > It would be nice to gain some consistency in the description of these > common structures. > > > This seems to be the best direction, I want to hear more. I know the lure of finding proper name for everything instead of being general, but remember we use "highway" to name roads. I've tagged man_made=campaniles, and did so after deciding that there was no real difference between a klockstapel and a campanile. Things are so different between cultures and languages so unless you have someone with a good theory on how to calssify these towers I would say that the more general the better. See discussion about man_made=pier For me man_made=campanile is a free standing tower adjacent to a building that might be religous, and probably contains a clock. Does that cover all use cases? /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway
I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this tagging is. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee wrote: > @ Martin > > I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not expect we > had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been > some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST way > has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing is a > difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be mapped as > a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better routing > is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from "bicycle > access" as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) ) it is easier to > explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with explicit > ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that it still is > difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a > try. > > Cheers > PeeWee32 > > > 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer >> >> >> 2013/12/13 Pee Wee >>> >>> Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended. Voting results: >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes: 10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal) >>> >>> No: 11 >>> >>> Abstain: 3 >>> >>> >>> >>> This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject >>> the current one. >> >> >> >> if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast >> majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be tagged, >> either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible btw., if >> there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they >> existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or >> destination on the road, what is not working and has already been >> discussed). >> >> As these are the reasons for opposing this, a "better proposal" very >> likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no >> solution will be agreed on). >> >> cheers, >> Martin >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > > -- > Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmap. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag babycare?
I use ramp=yes on highway=steps so you can route for strollers, but I there is not support in renderers or router for that.. :-) All those other tags are pretty universally available in Sweden, but I guess it's a good thing to map in those large amusements parks/malls. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Satoshi IIDA wrote: > > Hi list, > > I'm a bit wondering how to tag following babycare amenities. > Possibly those are additional feature for childcare 2.0 schema, but usable > with other POIs. > (e.g. w/ amenity=cafe, toilet, or so.) > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0 > > * where to replace baby's diaper. > ** according to Taginfo, "diaper=[yes|no|room]" ? > > * where to access with stroller/pushchair > ** according to Taginfo, "stroller=[yes|no|limited]"? > ** very similar schema as "wheelchair=*". > > * where to feed milk to baby. > ** Maybe "feed=*" or "feeding=*"? > *** According to Taginfo, those tags are to feed domestic animals. > ** Maybe "nursery=*"? > *** But this definition is conflict with childcare 2.0 definition. > ** possible values are [yes|no]. or others? > > cheers. > > > -- > Satoshi IIDA > mail: nyamp...@gmail.com > twitter: @nyampire > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies
No, when I looked at the code last year there was no indication that you could do that in any easy way. The taginfo import is reported to take 10 minutes for Sweden so I guess if the box isn't that big you can always try to extract it and import it to your own taginfo db. Now when we have taginfo on osm.org maybe we can put all of the local variants there. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified > geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do > this for geographies other than those listed here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Sites > > Mike > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway
Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse. But if you are saying that there are roads marked with bicycle=no which really do not have such a sign, then that's different. On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pee Wee wrote: > Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve > bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a > few words about this new tag. > > > The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not > supposed to ride your bike. > > > The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that > makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no) > > The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not > have the bicycle forbidden sign. On this type of road you’re not supposed > to ride your bike but there are exeptions. > > > Legally these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheel > bicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of > road. In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason > we propose this new tag. > > > Cheers > > > PeeWee32 > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres
It has occured to me that this seems to be more of something simliar to tourism=theme_park, yet smaller. I don't know if there is such a tag that is widespread or if it's better to use your own tag. I think it's not such a good idea to use leisure=playground + fee=yes, since it most certainly is not a playground, but sure playgrounds really do span a very big range from a sandbox to extremely large contraptions . I have now tagged two soft play centes with leisure=play_land which is a direct translation from Swedish. Feel free to adopt or change my tags. It would be interesting to tag "place where kids can play", many museums/science centers have that as well. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, nounours wrote: > Hi Dom, > > I don't know about voting ... > > But I read your interesting proposal. > I completely agree that indoor-playgrounds should be mapped. > > In Switzerland, it seems that they are normally mapped as leisure=playground > and indoor=yes, see example: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1687169329 > > I personally think that keeping things together is better, so why not stay > with playground? There are managed playgrounds, and there are indoor_play > which are free. There are outdoor playgrounds with opening-hours > > > So, why not use: > > Leisure=playground > Indoor=yes|no > Fee=yes|no > Managed=yes|no > Opening-hours=* > Operatortype=public|private > Operator=* > > etc. > > Maybe a template would help more than a new tag? > > Greetings, nounours > > > > Am 04.11.2013 um 14:07 schrieb Dominic Hosler: > >> Hi everyone, >> It has been almost two weeks and the discussion seems to have died down. >> How long should it be left, before initiating a vote, and how long >> should a vote last on the proposal? >> This is the relevant wiki page: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Indoor_play >> Thanks, >> Dom >> >> On 24 October 2013 14:23, Jonathan wrote: >>> That's definitely better but I would make the description more generic, such >>> as "An indoor area for children to play" and then make the padded aspects, >>> cafe etc sub tags that can be added. The indoor_play tag should be able to >>> be used by those in other countries who have similar facilities but minus >>> the padding or cafe. The tage of indoor_play needs to be the umbrella tag. >>> >>> Jonathan >>> >>> http://bigfatfrog67.me >>> >>> >>> On 24/10/2013 12:13, Dominic Hosler wrote: Thanks, I feel a bit silly now, I didn't look hard enough. New page is at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Indoor_play for anyone wanting another look. Thanks, Dom On 24 October 2013 12:04, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > > Use the arrow down button on the upper right (next to the Search box) > and choose 'Move'. > > -- Matthijs > > On 24 October 2013 12:59, Dominic Hosler wrote: >> >> I have updated the page to indoor play, but I don't know how to >> actually change the title of the page? >> >> Do I need to just delete that one and create a new proposal called >> Indoor play? >> Putting a note in the discussion that it has been migrated from the >> previous soft play proposal? >> >> Thanks, >> Dom >> >> On 23 October 2013 20:51, Dominic Hosler >> wrote: >>> >>> I agree we should move away from the trademarked title 'soft_play'. >>> Perhaps >>> if we keep the proposal and change the name of the tag to indoor_play, >>> to >>> include other types as well, as per brad's suggestion. We should also >>> include sub tag qualifiers to specify if it's soft play and for what >>> ages >>> it's designed. I think it would be most appropriate to use indoor play >>> considering its catch all nature and the fact that it is already used >>> by a >>> couple of websites. >>> >>> I will update the proposal and fill in the definition area, I must have >>> just >>> missed it. However, I won't update it till tomorrow because I only have >>> my >>> phone until then. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dom >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan wrote: I agree, we need to choose a term that is more generic, maybe leisure=childrens_adventure or kids_play or kids_amusement. There can always be a sub tag defining soft_play? Especially considering that a lot of softplay areas are now included among other internal children's play features? Softplay is just one bit. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 23/10/2013 17:47, Brad Neuhauser wrote: Instead of "soft play", what about "indoor play" (or indoor play area/centre)? 1) it seems to be used as a catch all sometimes, even in the UK (ie - http://www.timeout.com/london/events/indoor-play-centres-
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
I think this discussion seems a lot like the one on "apartment numbers" we had a while back. I couldn't find it though. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM, fly wrote: > On 18.06.2013 05:27, Paul Johnson wrote: >> I'm thinking it might be time to revive this proposal: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site > > Interesting proposal > >> In which, the space my 5th Wheel has been for the last half a year would >> be part of a site relation. The node or closed way representing my spot >> would be tagged... >> >> addr:housenumber=801 >> addr:street=North Mingo Road >> ... >> lot:number=252 >> caravan=designated >> tent=no > > lot:street and lot:number are analog to addr:* but if you tag each lot > ref=* seems to me the right tag for the number. > > Please do not use addr:street and addr:housenumber but use a new tag if > you need to use addr:* tags. > > Cheers > fly > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging cannons
BTW is there a tag for cannon that still go BANG now and then; historic=cannon+bang=yes? I guess fixed artillery hasn't much room in the defense of today, so it's still a historic thing. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 6/3/13 3:49 PM, René Kirchhoff wrote: >> >> Hello, why do not you use 8 nodes? No Mapper previously used a area for >> cannons. >> Many OSM Mapper like more details. I also :) >> > i could probably develop a fairly extensive taxonomy for cannons from > the American Civil War. Napoleans, Parrot Rifles, Columbiads, Rodmans, > you name it... > > richard > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
I don't know, they seems to be in pretty bad shape a lot worse than the ones depicted in the wiki. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > Am 29/mar/2013 um 09:37 schrieb Erik Johansson : > >> I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an >> attraction nor a shelter, > > > From what the op wrote it seems these are shelters. > > > Cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote: >> This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though > > If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I > said). > > But don't tag it for this reason: "to increase the chance that the historic=* > actually renders as something...". We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is pointless. I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an attraction nor a shelter, and also it is in the intersection between macro and micromapping.. Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this: node: building=hut tourism=attraction name="Smith Hut (ruins)" note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" node: tourism=camp_site backcountry=yes impromptu=yes So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one could also call it disused:amenity=shelter shelter_type=wather_shelter tourism=attraction name="Smith hut (ruins)" note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I went to find a hut. Increased chance to render is a great reason to tag something. /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote: >> tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually >> renders as something...) > > Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as > a > tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction. This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though, i.e. tagging it as a hut will probably confuse things. But there is a clear interest in knowing that it's there. I would say use : camp_site, backcountry=yes, building=hut/shack and name="Smith Hut (ruins)", perhaps some special tag documenting it on the wiki with pictures/urls. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: > maybe add the key "informal"=yes to the path? I do this for "spontaneous" > ways and it is also documented in the wiki: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal > > And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing them all. > I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my particular > problem. > > A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel > comfortable with it. > It's sort of a "secret [winding] little passage" that one must follow on > demand. You mean a shortcut? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shortcut > So, more than "informal=yes" (which I don't understand well), it would be a > straight "exists=no". > How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human understands > that he may follow a route for which there's no path under the conditions > otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)? This is like the landcover/landuse debate So basically we have: 1. existing roads that are official 2. existing, but non-official paths 3. routes that exists without paths (for hiking, buses, tour jeeps, beachbumming etc) 4. shortcuts that exists with and with out paths. I think if there is something that you are ment to walk on, then you can add a way, I don't think you should use a relation just because highway=footway is a bad fit. I've added a highway=footway where there was only grass, because the only other way was to take a ~5km detour, but as I said I was feeling very dirty when I did this (surface=mud). So to restate, I don't want to use a "relation" instead of a "way" to draw a way where people are supposed to walk, even if it's a short cut. /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2013/2/22 Janko Mihelić >> >> I'm not entirely sure I understood your question, but you shouldn't map >> non-ways. Routers could be developed that route through non-ways, if there >> is no cliff or something else in the way. A router could route along the >> contour lines, to make the hike through forest easier. But if there is no >> path, don't map it. > > > > I'm also not sure if I got you right, but in the example (hiking route, > presumably sign posted, crossing a parking with no explicit footway) I'd > connect the footway to the road network and won't interrupt the route. > I feel dirty every time I do that, they are usually tagged as surface=mud.. :-) Basically I map them if there really is a path there and it seems usefull, even though it's clearly not a designated path. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using key:operator to contain building management organization
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:58 AM, wrote: > In particular for business properties, the property or building manager name > and contact information is often available on a sign on the building's > exterior. In this case I've used the _operator_ key to contain this > information. Wondering what your opinion is on the suitability of this. > Thanks. --ceyockey > I've done the same for apartment buildings, both for rental and self-owned appartments. Basically for me operator= is the company that service the building, and usually own at least a part of it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 23:25 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: >> > I have had a quick look around Melbourne's motorway entrances on >> > streetview and all I have looked at have a sign like this >> > http://goo.gl/maps/0hC6c. >> > >> > Please can you point out one that does allow cyclists? >> >> Western Freeway: >> http://goo.gl/maps/XUWBF >> >> Hume Freeway: >> http://goo.gl/maps/Ze3qc >> > On first glance I am not sure I would consider those motorways, they > look more like expressways to me. There are similar signs on Grade > Separated trunk roads in the UK. Any attempt at understanding the tag names in OSM only leads to madness (I repeat this to myself all the time). People love simple names instead of complex schemes. But remember the name you choose for a thing in your country means nothing in OSM, because some non-native speaker might already have defined that name to be something different. I can just +1 what Steve Bennet says: > IMHO, the approach "the wiki says that in country X, Y is the default, > therefore I don't need to tag it" is excessively optimistic. /Erik Johansson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Kids use a sled downhill
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > No word for it in English (en-gb), to my knowledge. Locally we'd refer to > "the slope by the bridge" or "going up to Rayleigh Park". As some of us were > doing yesterday :o) Thanks all for the wonderfull anecdotes, since I only know how to use a sled here it's really usefull. What do you think about: piste:type=sled_slope or leisure=sled_slope which would mean an informal route for pulka/sled/luge, piste:type seems some what sterile and professional I would rather use leisure=sled_slope since I'm really talking about those small 30 meter informal slopes, in leisure=parks or on highway=footway. So some different scenarios: 1. in my leisure=park there is a 100m slope. 2. there are sled parks, where you can go sled on a prepared track, which I'm guessing is mostly for kids/familys(?) 3. The sled parks might be open in the summer 4. in the Alps you have 2km long slopes made up of ordinary highway=* ways, and other shortcuts. [1] I'm thinking 1 and 4 are informal and might be leisure=* and 2, 3 might still be piste:type=sled. [1] I'm imagining a network on normal roads consisting of ~1000kms of sled routes, allowing you to go from eastern Austria to Nice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Kids use a sled downhill
I've spent every winter since ~2008 wondering what you call a Pulka hill in english, so basically a hill that kids use to go fast with a sled. People have been using: piste:type=sled So a pulka is something like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rodeln_01.jpg And a Pulka hill is something like this (and that's a big one) http://www.bagisbloggen.se/2010/01/27/bagarmossens-basta-pulkabackar-del-2-laxabacken/ I've used leisure=pulkabacke, swedish for sled hill, which I think is better than piste:type=sled, but it's not very international. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tagging best practice
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > We have an xapi that lets you selectively pull data for just what you're > interested in. This is not a discussion for tagging, sorry for brining it up. Interesting; about disused:*, I use this for big things that seems to be one thing but really are disused, e.g: 1. airfield strips 2. big stores with logos up but not really in service. I guess someday someone will render what used to be there, but that's another really hard subject. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tagging best practice
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:17 AM, wrote: > There is a fast food franchise site which is closed for renovation in my > vicinity. Two questions: > * Would you support or recommend tagging a transient state like 'closed for > renovation'? > * If one were to indicate temporary closure, how would one do this? In the > case of renovation, would one use a construction-related tag? For short periods I don't bother and for long periods I remove them. I've used end_date=2013 and then removed things when I see that they are really gone. Removing things is not such a good idea when you have people downloading offline data and use data that is 6 months to a year of of date, and as Martin metions it also requires someone adding it again. Time related stuff is hard, this is similar to the question about how to manage and warn routing applications when you know the road will be shutoff at 6pm on 2015-01-27. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Markus Lindholm wrote: > On 14 December 2012 18:41, Erik Johansson wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Markus Lindholm >> wrote: >>> Created a page on the wiki for this proposal >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature >> >> What purpose does the role=entrance have when the node/way is going to >> be tagged building=entrance or entrance=main anyways? > > You mean that the role description could be left empty because it > could always be deduced from tags on the member? I guess it could be > possible, but I think it is much much better to have an explicit role > descriptions, foremost for the benefit of the next mapper who comes > along and wants to improve and edit the relation. So that he can > clearly see what the intention is with the different members. The redundancy is what got me wondering what else the role could be used for, but I guess there are two parts of that. One is that it doesn't really need to be more complex and that it's probably fine if I leave the role part out. Should I use it on railways stations with subway_entrance and parkings? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote: > Created a page on the wiki for this proposal > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature What purpose does the role=entrance have when the node/way is going to be tagged building=entrance or entrance=main anyways? -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > Hi! > > After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't > really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a > "cleanup" of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two) Or remove all routes from the main database, it might even be easier to edit bus routes if you try not to use OSM relations for those things. But then maybe the "no-right-turn" relation is too complicated as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bicycle room in a hotel
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Any established way to tag a hotel that has a lockable bicycle room for > guests? > Would > service:bicycle:parking=yes > be appropriate? > This would be in line with other bicycle services the hotel may provide, > like > service:bicycle:rental=yes > service:bicycle:repair=yes How about adding the entrance to the bike room on the map and tag that with something useful? Maybe something similar to disused:amenity=bicycle_parking And then just reuse existing tagging: private:amenity=bicycle_parking private:amenity=bicycle_rental ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/10/16 Janko Mihelić : >> You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road, >> ad you should put a restriction where those roads meet that restricts >> U-turns. What is the answer to that? > > > I find it strange that we are still discussion whether roads that are > only legally divided should/could be split into 2 parallel ways, a > solution that we did - since ever - reserve for physically divided > roads. It's basically "Tagging for the renderer". As long as the divider tag is not supported by routers, people will continue to use this solution, and these discussion will only make the situation worse for the divider tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace wrote: > On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote: >> >> Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The >> divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated >> not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the >> line. > > > Where has it been demonstrated not to work? What do you mean by "routing > decision are made on the node and not on the line"? > Yes, the divider tag is probably not supported by any current routing > software. But it would not be too hard to modify the software to allow for > it. This is an area which has two ways instead of one: http://osm.org/go/0bCzT1kfr-- Here is an route example: http://map.project-osrm.org/1cL Without two ways you would be routed directly to the end point, but with two ways you will be routed with the needed detour. It's especially interesting if you go by bike but then it's more of a psychological divider than a physical (which is another story). I don't like mapping like this, but I'm pragmatic and it does solve a real problem, so I decided no to fight Markus on this. So what is the recommendation for mapping this. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 13:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: >> > So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly to >> > call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center of the >> > existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree: >> > >> > http://g.co/maps/e2gsv >> > >> > What about this one? Also a full on roundabout? >> > >> > http://g.co/maps/d6n74 >> > >> > This looks more like a roundabout to me: >> > >> > http://g.co/maps/hnbp9 >> >> All three are roundabouts, yes. > All 3 are roundabouts, none of them a mini-roundabouts. > > The point of a mini-roundabout is that they can be driven over, hence > whilst cars are supposed to go around them and many are 'speed-hump > raised' to encourage this behaviour. Trucks can pass over them as many > are in places where a truck cannot get around otherwise. > > The first 2 should be mini-roundabouts, as a truck is likely to have > serious issues with them. I cannot imagine that tree will last too long. > > This is a mini-roundabout, which you can see is raised slightly > http://g.co/maps/hm49m > Actually its part of the magic roundabout, which is a roundabout you can > go around in either direction, and at each intersection there is a > mini-roundabout. On osm its here, http://osm.org/go/eumbs5ZIw-- > > Phil But Nathan does have a point, mini-roundabouts are not a specifically good name, and the current docs will only make more people tag small roundabouts as highway=mini_roundabouts.. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
2012/3/27 Johan Jönsson : > I will make my point clearer. > It isn´t the houses with adresses that will be tagged, it is the > Reference_point itself. Indeed in the current scheme of things, addr:reference_point=* should be part of the node where the adress is, in the same way that the very similar addr:postcode=* tag. I understand if Felix doesn't want to do this since it's micromapping. You would need to tag lots of: addr:managua="Donde fue el pequeño árbol, un bloque de casas hacia el Lago, y 25 pas hacia arriba" addr:reference_point="Donde fue el pequeño árbol" addr:managua_1="un bloque de casas hacia el Lago" addr:managua_2="25 pas hacia arriba" Where: hacia el Lago=North hacia arriba=East hacia abajo= West hacia el Sur=South In the same way we tag: addr:housenumber=42 addr:street=Lake Street addr:postcode=118 52 I see why you would want to tag addr:reference_point=yes instead. Felix do you have any examples from real life? I think you should start collecting them, and please use Spanish since that is what the addresses are written in... Regards Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe
2012/3/11 Johan Jönsson : > I made a try to do go through some examples to see how it worked. They are at: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Johan_J%C3%B6nsson/Workspace > > what I can see, it looks like it is only the open-air public nature bath > locations that really lack tags, swimming_pools and indoor bath locations > could easily be tagged with current more specialized tags or similar. (e.g. > amenity=turkish_bath /tourism=spa/leisure=sports_centre) I would probably use leisure=bath to map outdoor bathing places, but I'm not sure the word is that much better than a direct translation of the Swedish word, which would be; amenity=place_of_bathing So maybe just use the Swedish word http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badplats leisure=badplats + sport=swiming Or if there is another language which has a word for (outdoor) places where you take baths? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] gym as an amenity value
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:04, Erik Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 18:16, Craig Wallace wrote: >> On 08/03/2012 16:54, Clifford Snow wrote: >>> >>> I do not see gym listed as a value for the tag amenity. I would like to >>> see it as a recognized key value for amenity. Taginfo, >>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity >>> shows 644 gym, 8 Gym and some forms of health_club. >>> >>> Gym is defined as "A membership organization that provides a range of >>> facilities designed to improve and maintain physical fitness and >>> health." In my town of Seattle, neighborhoods have numerous gyms that >>> fit the definition. >>> >>> What is the correct process to get gym approved. I'd also like to see >>> it added to potlatch2. I have found a public domain icon that could be >>> used. >>> >>> Any suggestions on how to proceed would be appreciated. >> >> >> The term "gym" is ambiguous, as it can also mean gymnasium. ie a place at a >> school for sports, or a place for doing gymnastics etc. >> I think its best to avoid the term for tagging. >> >> I would suggest a tag of something like "fitness_centre" or "fitness_club", >> which are clearer what they mean. Also, it should probably be under the key >> for leisure, not amenity. >> >> So a tag of leisure=fitness_centre or leisure=fitness_club > > You mean: leisure=sport_centre > > Serisouly if you want to map gyms please try to make the documentation > better, it's currently a mess. I've undeleted amentiy=gym, so this FAQ > doesn't come up again. I added a picture to the wikipage to show the problem: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgym -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] gym as an amenity value
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 18:16, Craig Wallace wrote: > On 08/03/2012 16:54, Clifford Snow wrote: >> >> I do not see gym listed as a value for the tag amenity. I would like to >> see it as a recognized key value for amenity. Taginfo, >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity >> shows 644 gym, 8 Gym and some forms of health_club. >> >> Gym is defined as "A membership organization that provides a range of >> facilities designed to improve and maintain physical fitness and >> health." In my town of Seattle, neighborhoods have numerous gyms that >> fit the definition. >> >> What is the correct process to get gym approved. I'd also like to see >> it added to potlatch2. I have found a public domain icon that could be >> used. >> >> Any suggestions on how to proceed would be appreciated. > > > The term "gym" is ambiguous, as it can also mean gymnasium. ie a place at a > school for sports, or a place for doing gymnastics etc. > I think its best to avoid the term for tagging. > > I would suggest a tag of something like "fitness_centre" or "fitness_club", > which are clearer what they mean. Also, it should probably be under the key > for leisure, not amenity. > > So a tag of leisure=fitness_centre or leisure=fitness_club You mean: leisure=sport_centre Serisouly if you want to map gyms please try to make the documentation better, it's currently a mess. I've undeleted amentiy=gym, so this FAQ doesn't come up again. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping as two ways or one, u-turns
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 13:03, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Markus Lindholm > wrote: >> There was a proposal like that >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider >> that has been abandoned. Not sure of the reason. > > I also created one: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Divided_road > > In my case, the reason for abandoning it was, well, proposing *any* > feature is an exercise in frustration and futility. Ultimately, the > way to get any feature adopted is through the use of force: implement > a style, do a mass import, add support to an editor. Getting any kind > of sensible discussion about a possible change like this is next to > impossible. Maybe mapping them as separate ways is ok, it certainly seems a lot simpler than the divider=* tagging page. This is a big step from current guidelines, and why shouldn't I map lanes as separate ways then? -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 08:04, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I've run into the same argument with people tagging construction sites for > various kinds of buildings. I always maintained that the object in question > is primarily a construction site, and the fact that a hotel or museum is > being built is at most worth a note; whereas others were of the opinion that > the object in question is primarily a hotel or museum, and the fact that it > is under construction is of secondary nature. If it's not taking prisoners it's not a prison, though I've seen historic prisons marked as real ones. If the museum is being renovated is it still a museum? When there is a big construction work around here I remove all streets inside that landuse=construction. These are all temporary things, a year or two after the tagging is obvious. And old failed railway cutting through the landscape is pretty permanent, I'm not sure if Russ maps planned railways as well. I'm all for including them as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Mapping as two ways or one, u-turns
There is nothing separating this road yet it is mapped as two ways: http://osm.org/go/0bCzcBhNM--?m http://goo.gl/KLTpu (Streetview) This is done for routers. Imagine you want to go from the marker to number 117, as it is mapped today the router will know that you can't go back on the same street directly. How can this be mapped with out mapping this as two ways, as it's said in the Editing standards: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways -- /emj PS. I feel that OSM suffers from too many mailinglists. PPS. http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/4572/when-to-use-two-parallel-ways-for-roads ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:56, Simone Saviolo wrote: > > 2012/1/11 Ben Johnson : > > For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a > > private operator who's main business is the swimming pool) usually charge > > an entry fee and have opening hours, so i'd use [access=permissive] - > > likewise for tennis clubs with public access for a fee, with set operating > > hours. > > Is permissive what we're looking for? I don't think so. > access=permissive means "you shouldn't go there, but I'll turn the > other way and pretend I don't see you". No it means you are free to go here but this is not public land. >From wiki: "Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the future." And that's how I've seen it used. /erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:51, Simone Saviolo wrote: > 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : > >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does > >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that > >> you can't park there. > > > > > > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that > > the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current > > tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in > > Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you > > can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there. > > Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is > needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is > phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact > that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking, > it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good > example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it) > This is IMHO. To be clear I'm talking about huge parking lots in suburbs which for all practical reasons are public land if you ask the people living around it. There is a big problem with adding PRIVATE PROPERTY to something like that just because you can't park your car there without a parking permit. access seems to mean that access is private or permissive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 21:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> it says "A default amenity=parking means a free public parking lot on >> surface." So it's as coherent as a wiki should be.. :-) And makes me >> think that there will be lots of bad data.. > > actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for > missing information is: missing information. Changing (or setting) > defaults after years of mapping cannot work. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aamenity%3Dparking&action=historysubmit&diff=648803&oldid=640812 Actually the proposal page from 2007 said "Generally only public parking lots should be tagged,", but that page is now deleted so you will have to trust me.. :-) The page also says fee=* Default value is no. So as much as it hurts me I must say that historically this tag is only for public fee less parking, and that you have to change it to something else for all other cases. I do not think this is very good for the future. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 19:58, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I think that a space that you rent as an open-air garage on a monthly basis, > cannot be considered an amenity "car parking". If you put these on the map > you are really creating confusion for the map users (= car drivers). > I would not map these facilities as car parking ( ... and don't have any > better alternative either) > On the first line of amenity=parking: it says "A parking lot is an area reserved for parking cars, trucks, motorcycles etc." Which is a broad and in my opinion good way to describe something: include everything by default. (See problems with natural=tree). Further down it says "A default amenity=parking means a free public parking lot on surface." So it's as coherent as a wiki should be.. :-) And makes me think that there will be lots of bad data.. There are two problems, neither which has been addressed. 1. how should different types of parking spaces be tagged 2. how should the existing amenity=parking be handled I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that you can't park there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Amenity parking
I tag all parking spaces as amenity=parking, even though you have to rent a place by the month. I'm guessing this is wrong? But this is how most people do it. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Health and other stories
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 17:28, sabas88 wrote: > 2012/1/11 Michael Krämer >> >> To be honest I haven't really thought about the >> difference between until this thread came up... > > > That's a problem for various non-native speakers (me included eheh) > > This should be an opportunity to make some changes in syntax and semantics > [1] of OSM. Use the tags, document them, link, upload pictures and write on the wiki. Try not to plan. these are things you can do even though you are not a native speaker. Openstreetmap has nothing to do with England nor English. For tagging this is a X type of feature what we really need is lots of info on "you want to add X to the map, then you can tag it like this, that, or like this". Where the simplest answer is the default. But just look at the discussion for amenity=gym, simple things are the hardest. > migrate existing data :) Nice smiley.. :-) It's not about migrating data it's about migrating stubborn fools. (i.e. everyone but yourself) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Coffee Roasting
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 13:12, Volker Schmidt wrote: > ... and what about the bigger roasters, that do not sell their products to > the consumer, but you can smell them from miles downwind. They are > factories, I suppose, but what is the tag? land_use=industrial and then the > name of the factory. I see a new tag comming: Coffee roaster: smellines=nice, paper plant: smelliness=horrible Or seriously you could add "odor:industrial=cofee roaster/paper plant" I'll add some odor:waste=sewer.. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] power=tower enhancement
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 21:12, Nick Austin wrote: > 3) Where three cables meet one of two of them may come up a riser and > it's impossible to tell which is the supply cable and which is leading > to a destination. > 4) When underground cables fail they are often abandoned and left in > place. The ends of the cable are disconnected at the top of each > riser. > > And finally I think that it's going to be difficult for many people to > verify that the information is correct. I'm not keen on having > information in the OSM database that can only be checked and updated > by very few people. I would really like you to expand on why adding "riser=power_line;tele_communication" would make things difficult to map. Though I think it might be hard to visualize making accidental deletions a worry. Risers seems to be pretty easy to map, but under ground cables might not be quite as easy (since even tunnels are hard). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Explain sport=multi
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 05:01, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Peter Wendorff > wrote: >> I would use it for sports facilities not dedicated to specific sports. > > So, to play devil's advocate: why bother with a sports=* tag at all in > that case? > > What's the difference between: > > leisure=sports_centre > > and > leisure=sports_centre > sport=multi No the question is if it is a sports_center with only one entrance where you can go to a Dojo and a weight lifting gym (plus other stuff). How do I map this, if I want to add a name for both. Since it has one entrance using multiple nodes seems strange. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Explain sport=multi
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 13:53, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Erik Johansson wrote: >> sport=multi is very well used but have no description in the wiki. Is >> there anyone that uses this tag? >> >> For some reason I get the feeling this is at least when I see it used >> as a shorthand for multiple values on a sport key > > I'd use sport=multi on a typical gym that can be used for essentially > every kind of (indoor) sport. > So you just use this for _indoor_ sport activities, so it can be everything from just an indoor leisure=pitch to something with lots of small rooms for different sports like dojos for Aikido/Judo and spinnings setups? I've seen it used on out door arenas. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Explain sport=multi
sport=multi is very well used but have no description in the wiki. Is there anyone that uses this tag? For some reason I get the feeling this is at least when I see it used as a shorthand for multiple values on a sport key e.g. sport=multi instead of: sport=soccer;basketball;curling http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sport=multi http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=multi -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wheelchair ramp
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 20:34, David Earl wrote: > On 02/12/2011 04:31, Josh Doe wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >>> >>> 2011/12/1 Martijn van Exel: >> >> Is there a specific tag for a wheelchair ramp that is not part of a >> steps feature? I agree with Martin and others, it is a separate feature, but I do think that it's also a distinct feature type and thus warrants its own highway type, therefore I am going to go ahead and use highway=access_ramp as David proposed. >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree that it might be desirable in some contexts (mainly >>> statistics) to be able to identify these ramps distinctly, but for >>> most contexts including routing it is the same as a footway. If you >>> use a dedicated, low-use highway-tag you will risk to not get this >>> feature evaluated at all (what is not desired here, IMHO). I suggest >>> to use a subtag/attribute instead. >> >> >> +1. I don't see the value in adding a new highway value. How do you >> differentiate a ramp intended for the disabled and one intended for >> all travelers? Thus I don't see it is substantially different than >> highway=path. I'd favor highway=path + wheelchair=yes, and if you'd >> like throw on access_ramp=yes as well which can give you special >> rendering and stats if you'd like. > > > I really don't care what the tagging is, so long as > (a) there is a reasonable consensus > (b) it represents the distinctive features of the object, and > (c) it is documented > (d) it doesn't keep changing > > The trouble with asking is that you get as many suggestions back as there > are people listening, and then it goes quiet and you're no further forward. I manage to keep quite sometimes... +1 is a great feature which sadly only works on wikis. > highway=access_ramp was the only remotely documented feature, even then as a > proposal, I don't tag tunnels as highway=footway_tunnel, let me suggest ramp:wheelchair=yes a well used tag. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ramp ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Announcing: website key integrity checking
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:18, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > KeepRight, at http://keepright.ipax.at/ > now validates "website" tags on ways and nodes. > The script loads each page and performs a fuzzy match... > a restaurant for example needs to match on name, phone number or address > (any one will do). > > The script also checks for hijacked domains, though this detection could use > additional match strings. > Great stuff, the best of armchair mapping. You do surveys of websites.. Is it possible to download these keepright lists in batch form? I would like to do a survey with paper of some places and then it would be cool to have your error messages available. Bugs: But you don't match phone numbers with spaces in them, at least over here people use these chars [0-9 +()[]-] to write a phone number. No OCR, and no flash parsing. (ha! joking) Could you add support for website2=*? Who reads what you write in the comment field in KeepRight? > The "http error" check could use some help also: many http errors are > transient, which leads to unfortunate flagging of non-problems. Patches welcome? -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, André Riedel wrote: > 2011/10/14 Erik Johansson : >> If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little >> use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you >> mean. > > You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as > entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a correspondending building > (or poi area). It is not possible to use the tag entrance=yes on a > single node without any connection to a building or area. That leaves a tricky problem to where does an entrance go; Which of the 10 different locations in the building will I enter, and also which of these 10 different entrances lead to the one I want. Most buildings are not single use. I'll try to change my perspective a bit, marking important entrances is a good thing there are several entrances that are more important than others, subway_entrance is just one of them.. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > In the case of a subway station, this will mean that the station's area will > need to underlay other mapped objects, and the mapper will need to map the > access tunnels as well as the station proper. Burrr! Openstreetmap is not made for mapping in 3D atm, even though people do try [1]. Even looking at 3D renders of subway stations complexes make my head go around. So lets not use building=* for subsurface buildings, but I'm guessing people are already doing this? [2] [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Building_attributes [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/112427969 subway tagged as building and layer=-1 -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM, André Riedel wrote: > >> As the creator of the proposal I do not like your proposed key/value >> entrance=public_transport. >> The tag should show the importance of an entrance and not what you >> will find behind the door. > > Definitely. I think it would be good, wherever possible, to stick to > the idea of the value of a tag "subclassing" the key, so that > building=* indicates what kind of building, and entrance=* indicates > what kind of entrance. If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit about what you mean. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > But that's still besides my point which > is that deprication should be handled properly instead of giving those > "hints" for DWG to not interfere on mass removal even before anything > is official. > > FYI, I'm not against the proposal itself and in fact I've used some of the > suggested tags already together with building=entrance but not the > entrance=yes. So the question is still what is proper action? Does it take Komяpa or someone similar with their own rendering engine to make the change? I do agree with you that removing all building=entrance might not have been the best idea, but I still support the intent of it. :-) -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Erik Johansson wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote: >> >> aren't we better of without building=entrance? I really >> hope that DWG can be kept out of this. >> >> Further I would like to propose railway=subway_entrance => >> entrance=public_transport, since it's probably interesting to have on >> bus/boat/rail terminals as well, now this is a bit more tricky sinceer >> it already renders. > > Please let me know when did my private renderer for those > building=entrances cease being something that renders (besides the times > when my VM is down of course :-))? ...Honestly, I think you just _assumed_ > that nobody is using the data for anything I assumed you would love to get rid of that tag, I might not have put it in the best way so I'll include what was said by Tobias: > Tobias Knerr: >> What makes this case interesting beyond the relatively trivial tagging >> issue is that it raises the question whether we, as a community, are >> able to revise earlier decisions. >> To me it seems obvious that we need the ability to do so. >> But it is also apparent that we have no working process - not even an >> informal one - for handling data model changes. /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote: > Hi. The proposal for marking building entrances with entrance=* tags was > discussed a year and a half ago, but didn't really go anywhere: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance > > An hour ago there was a big changset (#9541529) from one of belarusian > mappers changing 21640 building=entrance to entrance=yes in several > countries At last! Someone is actually doing something about that shitty tag, I support the intent of #9541529, is there really any reason to revert those edits, aren't we better of without building=entrance? I really hope that DWG can be kept out of this. Further I would like to propose railway=subway_entrance => entrance=public_transport, since it's probably interesting to have on bus/boat/rail terminals as well, now this is a bit more tricky since it already renders. /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wide steps
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:50 PM, David Earl wrote: > Any suggestions as to how to represent some steps... > > These steps aren't that unusual I guess, but they aren't a staircase. They > form the edges of a piazza-like platform, running most of the way around it. > There are only 4 steps, but they are several of them, up to about 40m wide: > > http://twitpic.com/6whcou http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/119046469 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vinterviken_fabriksomr_2010.jpg?uselang=sv This one has been tagged as barrier=retaining_wall which is of course true of these steps. There are also proposals on the wiki about being able to show what direction an area of stairs go, I believe someone needs to show that it is practical to tag like this. /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Anthony wrote: > 2011/9/19 Kytömaa Lauri : >> If there is one globally accepted definition of what a lane is, it's the >> one in the UN Vienna Convention on road signs and signals: >> >> "Lane" means any one of the longitudinal strips into which the carriageway >> is divisible, whether or not defined by longitudinal road markings, which >> is wide enough for one moving line of motor vehicles other than motor >> cycles; > > So, this includes "parking lanes"? Or am I misreading it? Parking lanes are usually not marked over here, only if the cars are parked as fishbones. I've never tagged cycle lanes nor parking lanes as part of the lanes key, this might be because cycleway=lane has existed for so long. Do you guys really count the cycleways in the lanes tag? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 9/18/2011 8:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> +1, lanes from the very beginning were to indicate all lanes of the >> road. Opposed to this was the common practice, not to split an highway >> because of a short lane for turns (otherwise we would for example have >> had to split a motorway at every exit which I never saw in the actual >> data). > > So it's down to the old prescriptive vs. descriptive debate then. The current lanes tag works pretty well for me as a pedestrian, it tells me how many lanes there is on a road. I agree that it gives too little information to be useful for routers etc, but that's because the generic name. Please write something more descriptive to describe the problem and how you think it should be solved. These single sentence responses do not really help. Btw the current wiki page seems to say that you should count cycle lanes in the lanes tag, something I don't really agree with. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Currently user Alv is trying to redefine the lanes tag to say that it must > include all turn lanes: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&action=history I've had this discussion before 2007 and I've always said and heard that lanes is always all the lanes on the road. This very easy definition goes back to the first version of the key:lanes page. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanes&oldid=85670 So the current wikipage is wrong and too complex. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Folk, I rediscovered an old proposal which is extending the set of > barrier values. > > Please comment now on this, before we can eventually vote to get this > to a more definite status: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types > I think turnstiles and full height turnstiles should be the barrier=turnstile, add some extra tag to differentiate them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/5/8 Flaimo : > The biggest issue I see is that this feature seems already be covered > by the social facility feature: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Social_facility > Have a look at the subkey social_facility:for=child e.g. daycare > center for children That page has a not so nice undertone of "help the poor", so I'm reluctant to tag my amenity=kindergarten as a social_facility even though it really is a "social facility". So maybe I should help to expand it to be more about social and less about "social outreach", but I would still tag most daycares as kindergarten: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten Obviously it's hard to describe daycare since it varies so much from country to country, but the proposals don't seem to touch many of the aspects brought up when you asked for comments the last time. http://www.mail-archive.com/tagging@openstreetmap.org/msg07353.html open_hours is not even usefull to map around here since it can mean so many different things. amenity=kindergarten religion=scientology age=1-6 /Erik. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Directional Flow
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/1/2011 5:59 PM, Paul Norman wrote: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/directional > > Presumably JOSM would treat this like oneway, in that it will prompt when > reversing a way? There are lots of tags that are direction dependant: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Way_Direction_Dependent It does seem like josm handles many of those in a good way, not all by far though. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: > Or take the Sucre, the capitol of Bolivien (193k people) and compare to > Santa Cruz de la Sierra (biggest city of the country) with 1.1m people. Funnily enough many people in Bolivia count La Paz (about 2m) as the Capital, the president is there among other things. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Karting...
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:53 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 11 January 2011 00:47, Erik Johansson wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:03 PM, John Smith >> wrote: >>> On 10 January 2011 23:52, Steve Bennett wrote: >>>> Definitely with a k. I actually tagged this sport recently, I took a >>> >>> Did I really need to say british english? cart with a k is american english. >>> >>>> punt on sport=go_karting. Either that or sport=karting sounds ok to >>>> me. (kart_racing is a bit un-natural) >>> >>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/go-cart >> >> It seems like all of the wikipedia pages uses "k", my gut reaction was >> "c" but we can all be wrong. > > Which matches what I said before about UK English :) > > Wikipedia would be more likely to use US English being US based... I might have been a bit terse not pointing this out, so I think you missed the 90% of my mail which consisted of a list of what karting is called on the different wikipedia language editions. MSA UK also uses "K" http://www.msauk.org/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=765 Here you have the top 8 from wikipedia again. [[bg:Картинг]] [[ca:Kart]] [[cs:Motokára]] [[da:Gokart]] [[de:Kartsport]] [[en:Kart racing]] [[es:Karting]] [[eu:Karting]] -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Karting...
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:03 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 10 January 2011 23:52, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Definitely with a k. I actually tagged this sport recently, I took a > > Did I really need to say british english? cart with a k is american english. > >> punt on sport=go_karting. Either that or sport=karting sounds ok to >> me. (kart_racing is a bit un-natural) > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/go-cart It seems like all of the wikipedia pages uses "k", my gut reaction was "c" but we can all be wrong. [[bg:Картинг]] [[ca:Kart]] [[cs:Motokára]] [[da:Gokart]] [[de:Kartsport]] [[en:Kart racing]] [[es:Karting]] [[eu:Karting]] [[fa:کارتینگ]] [[fi:Karting]] [[fr:Karting]] [[gl:Karting]] [[he:קארטינג]] [[hr:Karting]] [[id:Gokar]] [[it:Karting]] [[ja:レーシングカート]] [[lt:Kartingas]] [[nl:Karting]] [[no:Gokart]] [[pl:Gokart]] [[pt:Kart]] [[ru:Картинг]] [[simple:Kart racing]] [[sk:Karting]] [[sl:Karting]] [[sr:Karting]] [[ta:கார்ட்டு பந்தயம்]] [[tr:Karting]] [[uk:Картинг]] [[zh:卡丁車]] -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a (main) entrance to a large feature?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Mike N. wrote: >> I don't know if it's legal to park here and walk around the gate into >> the park, but assume for the sake of argument that it is. How do we >> tell the router to instead use the main entrance to the south? > > In this case, the way in the photo can be properly tagged as a > service/driveway and /or track to help direct routers to another entrance. I > recently found this exact situation where hordes of lost park-goers coming > from the north were directed to the back gate which is permanently locked. I > was able to tag the back entrance as service/driveway because the gate is > never open and the only normal access is for the ranger - even though I > think the road is still named as Lake Road in the official county records > (which I cannot access). > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=41.85594&mlon=-89.9528&zoom=15&layers=M Hum... Should private access roads really render as ordinary roads in zoom 14 and less? Bug in mapnik? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Groups of islands, how to tag?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Willi wrote: >> 2) If the answer is 'use a relation', have I done it properly, and if so, >> why isn't Mapnik rendering the name properly? > 2) If and how a feature is rendered is up to the renderer. The mapper can't > and imho shouldn't try to control this. > > Two examples: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/963669 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/963209 Since it's obviously not rendered in any renderer., the question is how to make this renderable, not how to write the relation in a nice way.. This problem exist all over and a fix is badly needed, e.g. 1. buildings/entrances 2. islands 3. metro stations/entrances 4. water areas -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Difference between footway and pedestrian
Basically pedestrian is for things in urban areas, like streets, footway is for paths in parks and in woods.. This shows a street ment for walking http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian This shows a path made for walking: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: > Hello all: > > There are two values highway=footway and highway=pedestrian and I do not know > which are the differences between them. The wiki does not contain a decisive > difference mark. > > Which is the point I must use to differentiate between them? > > Thanks > > Noel > er Envite > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
> At 2010-09-04 09:12, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> I would like to tag areas with apartment buildings, and small houses
>> for a single family differently, at the moment I tag all of them with
>> landuse=residential. I need good terminology in english to tag them.
>
> type=site
> + site=housing
> + housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
> Here's an example of apartment:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/194049 at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.079189&lon=-117.560582&zoom=18&layers=M&relation=194049
Thanks housing is a better term, here are some questions:
Is it possible to separate your category into physical and legal
status? All I want to do is separate houses/"villas" from apartment
buildings. I don't know how to spot the differences of different type
of housing tenures, it's only a legal difference between condominium,
housing cooperative and public housing.
But wikipedia is very vague on this subject so I think it's pretty
hard to be able to get good terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_types#Residential_Buildings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_tenure
/emj
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Many people are tagging single trees, and usually use natural=tree for > this. Now there are some voices on the German ML that say, > natural=tree is reserved for "special" trees, and can therefore not be > used for "ordinary" trees. > > I changed the wiki according to what I perceive actual usage, by > changing "lone or significant" to "single". Unfortunately this is > disputed at least by a few people. > > What are your opinions on that? > Well you remember Girona http://osm.org/go/xU1FEbE9 Don't think all of them are special, and I know I have never tagged a special tree. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > M?rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> > And AFAIK it's not a good idea to translate every value like you do it >> > here. >> > The translations/languages should only apply to names, not on "classes". >> > If your Application wants to use different languages than English, it >> > should >> > use a dictionary for that at client side. >> >> >> While this might be true in this case or not (don't speak Swedish) >> there are certainly cases in the world where English is missing a >> term. So as exception putting a tag in a foreign language (and marking >> it as foreign) is not a bad idea. > > Yes you're right there is some regional exception for specific things. > But the general rule is to use only one tag class for a definied thing. > > tag class has not to be translated, but specific tag class name should > not be always in english for some regional specific features. This is a dear subject to me, but it wasn't really want I wanted to know.. :-) I just want to know what english speakers call areas with apartment buildings/areas with villas. Maybe some smart guy will solve the translation of key/values at some point, I've not seen any solution yet. /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
Hi I would like to tag areas with apartment buildings, and small houses for a single family differently, at the moment I tag all of them with landuse=residential. I need good terminology in english to tag them. This is from swedish wikipedia: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flerfamiljhus#Typer_av_flerbostadshus http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sm%C3%A5hus So that would be something like: landuse=residential residential.en=[ apartmentbuildings | villas | small houses | vacation houses | farmbuildings] residential.sv=[ flerbostadshus | villområde | småhus | fritidshus | radhus | miljonprogram] etc. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Vincent Pottier wrote: > On 01/09/2010 04:09, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Nathan Edgars II >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I don't know of any other feature where the direction of the way means >>> something *without* another tag being added. >>> >> >> natural=cliff, barrier=retaining wall >> > > junction=roundabout > -- http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Category:Way_Direction_Dependent Is a category for tags/keys that are dependent on the direction of the way. I've not added waterways, since 90% of the water ways I've mapped are not mapped in a specific direction. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Erik Johansson [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]: >> If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it >> exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes >> shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there, >> and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies. >> >> Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive? > > Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated' > or 'baby=official'? Sure, I only want to use baby=yes to tag if there is toys for babies. This is mostly used for swings so I'm not entirely sure it's needed. :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king wrote: > Hi all, > > We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for > the last couple of months, And you did a very good job, I've always wondered what to call those hanging roundabouts myself. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king wrote: > Hi all, > > We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for > the last couple of months, and I hope that we've covered all the > ground that needs to be covered by now. Could those that care to vote, > cast your votes on the page? If you disapprove, please say why and > maybe we can continue the RFC stage for a little longer so as to get > it right. I'm aware that there are a few people who have had input on > this who disapprove of the whole voting concept; I'm not proposing we > open that can of worms here but I am keen to formalise this properly. > > Here's the page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Playground_Equipment > > Regards, If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there, and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies. Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Jonas Minnberg wrote: >> >> That is what I like about it - when all I can find out about an area is that >> is green and lies in between buildings, "yard" is an appropriately vague >> word. > > You say you only know two things: > > 1) "it is green" --> color=green (IMHO, this is silly - don't bother > mapping this) "don't map it" is a bad advice, lets say it's already mapped by e.g. me as a leisure=park even though it isn't. So the question is how do you handle the edge cases, that someone as scrupleless as me would tag as a park. I would tag it as leisure=park, access=no > 2) "lies in between buildings" --> just map the buildings with > building=yes areas > > On the other hand, if you actually know that it's a private garden, > then that's a different story - see the other posts about how to tag > this. There are buildings which don't have atriums. One could map it as leisure=private_yard_between_houses + surface=[green_stuff | mostly_concrete] perhaps defaulting to render green as a park. Maybe it's hard to decide because there are so many words for semi private yard, other words can be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrium_%28architecture%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrangle_%28architecture%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtyard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patio_garden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard And that's not even counting what Petr wants, front side garden. -- /emj PS. Jonas hälsa Emil DS. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2010 01:24, Stephen Gower wrote: >> Those calling for shop=fish rather than shop=fishmonger - what would you use >> for >> the pet fish shop? > > How many pet shops would there be that only sell fish? > > I'm guessing a small minority at best, but this would be better as a > sub tag of a pet shop... There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like shop=fish. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How To Tag Coastlines That Are Also Cliffs?
Well since the cliff is usually an area extending from the coast (at least around here), maybe you don't need to tag the coastline but the place where the cliff starts, as a separate way. That said if you want to further define the coastline way by adding a type you will most likely have to invent you own tagging scheme since tagging multiple values like natural=cliff;coastline is frowned upon(?). 2010/5/1, John F. Eldredge : > It seems to me that indicating whether or not the water's edge is a cliff > would be useful. For example, if you have small children, you probably > wouldn't want to take them to a cliff-edge site. > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not > to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > > -Original Message- > From: Erik Johansson > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:30:25 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] How To Tag Coastlines That Are Also Cliffs? > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm working on >> an area of coastline made up of cliffs and beaches. There are many >> sections where the cliffs drop directly into the ocean and it seems >> logical >> to me that the coastline and the cliff should be represented as one single >> way where this is the case. > > I've thought about it, adding the type of coastline would be very > useful when you don't want to do micromapping. But I've never done it, > on Rottnest Island I've instead used natural=rocks to tag areas with > cliffs/rocks. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.0154&lon=115.50287&zoom=17&layers=B000FTTT > > You could tag it as a barrier=cliff. :-) > > > -- > /emj > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Skickat från min mobila enhet /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How To Tag Coastlines That Are Also Cliffs?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote: > Hi, > I'm working on > an area of coastline made up of cliffs and beaches. There are many > sections where the cliffs drop directly into the ocean and it seems logical > to me that the coastline and the cliff should be represented as one single > way where this is the case. I've thought about it, adding the type of coastline would be very useful when you don't want to do micromapping. But I've never done it, on Rottnest Island I've instead used natural=rocks to tag areas with cliffs/rocks. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.0154&lon=115.50287&zoom=17&layers=B000FTTT You could tag it as a barrier=cliff. :-) -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Entrances..
Wouldn't it be great if railway=subway_entrance was rendering, and if we had a generic scheme to tag entrances for different stuff. I've used building=entrance, but I need to tag railway=station_entrance, train=door, highway=bus_station_entrance etc. etc. How do I solve this in a better way? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dsubway_entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Stop_Area When rendering railway=subway_entrance do you think one should disable to rendering of railway=station, and in that case how do you know which subway station to disable. About 1/3 of subway_entrances have names, even fewer have relations, I believe using names has advantages. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Cartinus wrote: > On Friday 09 April 2010 09:03:03 John Smith wrote: >> Although that brings up another issue about how coastlines are legally >> defined as being at the mean low tide mark > > Actually this is completely irrelevant. > > In OSM the coastline is not defined that way. > Please! There is no definition, if you want to define your beach/waterline as mapped in a specific tide then tag the waterline as such. I have a hard time believing that everyone that maps coastlines knows about this high/low tide "definition". -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] linear vs area roundabout
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: > - Forwarded Message > From: Thomas > > In looking at some features I am a little puzzled as to when a way is an > “area” and when it is not and how to resolved the “conflict”. If something renders as an area in Mapnik then it's an area; building=*, natural=water and leisure=park are such tags. Tags which are not areas by default can be made areas by adding an area=yes, example highway=pedestrian needs to be tagged as an area to render as such. Areas: leisure=park highway=pedestrian; area=yes; name=Plaza Central Not areas: highway=pedestrian; name=Central Street > For example “junction=roundabout” > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout) seems to a > linear feature even though the way is “closed” – loops back on itself. The > previous link lists the feature as linear vs. the table at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway indicating that the > feature can be both linear and polygonal. > > A similar situation arises from “highway=platform” which could be all three > type (according to the table at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway) I can not comment on these without testing how mapnik handles them, but the same principal should apply just add area=yes and make it an area, not sure if area=no is used at al. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dutch cafes (was: What's a power=station?)
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/1/20 Peter Childs >> >> In my book its easy. >> >> Cafe Usually Unlicensed. > > > Definitely I would not put licenses and other legal stuff into the > definition. They differ almost certainly in different countries, are of no > importance to the client and hard to research. You can not define a term with such a widespread use, without making it unusable somewhere. Two things; SteveC brought up internationalization of tags with his likeness scheme, nothing came out of that. This discussion is crossing=toucan all again. To meet both problems you can only do this: alcohol=yes coffee=no pastries=yes egg & chips=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do we map
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Liz wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: >> We map everything we can. And POIs btw is one big reason for lot of >> people to map. >> > > Originally I didn't realise that there was no special reason for which shops > had tagged and which didn't, so I only 'collected' POIs which had tags > already. Now I walk down a street a photograph each shop front in turn and put > each one in the database. I tried mapping open_hours of shops, but it's just too much work with my current work flow anyone with a good solution for it? -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging an old bus route
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > On 24/12/2009 01:13, Arlindo Pereira wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> I mapped a bus route that is integrated to the subway line (uses the >> same ticket) [1]. However, this route will be no more, because we've >> built another subway station, which would change the bus route. I'd >> like to maintain the old route to historical reasons. How should it be >> tagged? > > You should delete it from the current dataset, indicating it's no longer > current data. However, this doesn't remove it from the OSM database, > only from the current dataset so you'll still be able to retrieve the > route at some later point if you need to. Any ideas on how to indicate that a delete isn't an edit. These kinds of deletions are because of change of the physical world, not because of a better survey. There is a meta difference which some might want to map. /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2009-12-21 11:01, Roy Wallace wrote: >>... If you don't know where the other end of the >>street is, you can't use an addr:interpolation way, so it seems to me >>that you are just tagging a sign. >> >>Is there already a tagging scheme for this? If not, propose one - but >>(as others have said) don't use existing tags in a way they are not >>intended for. (btw, please don't follow up with "but I want it >>rendered..." :P) > > I've been "tagging the sign" from survey photos, with address nodes to > which I add the tag pseudo=yes. When you get info for adjoining > intersections, they could be used to construct a true picture of the range > of possible addresses. Shouldn't that be psuedo_position=yes, or some thing describing that you don't know the accuracy of the node you have entered? Because you seem tag just one "housenumber" and I do intervals, so it's possible to accept your numbers since they are just low resolutions. Here is one of your nodes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/587389651 > This area shows the results of a survey of both pseudo-addresses (from > street signs) and actual ones (from mailboxes): http://osm.org/go/TaBihQXG4- > > (Yes, I need to discuss/document this. I suppose this is the "discuss" part > :) ) I'm inclined to mark the position as inaccurate and some tag to be able to put an interval there as well.. The current scheme with drawing a way to interpolate is too much work and cumbersome, for me anyways. And for Roy Wallace: I'm not too keen on way interpolation, that's one of the issues. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/12/21 Erik Johansson >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm >> wrote: >> > Then why don't you use "place=locality, name=45-29" if that's all you >> > want. >> >> Thanks, that's a good idea (if it works), > > what do you mean by: if it works? All alternative ways to the well > established addressing scheme don't "work". It's easy as that. > place=locality is generally used to give names to localities that don't > match other established features (can be lots, hills, named localities, > etc.), IMHO a locality-node "name=45-29" to express housenumbers is wrong. > >> >> >> Does anyone have any improvements to make this scheme better? >> > >> > Yes, use the same scheme that everyone else uses as well ;-) > > +1 > >> >> I don't care about geocoders, I will fix it but I'm not that keen on >> getting geocoders to work. > > as soon as someone else is editing in your area it will be conflicting > anyway. I just don't see the point of entering useful information in a way > it will not be retrieved... But it is retrieved in the only way I care about namely the rendered map. It could be retrieved by geocoders as well, with small changes, it was this change I wanted help with. Note, place=locality seems even better after what you said, or do you have a better tag combo that works? So these are the issues 1. I interpolate but can't only see one end... 2. I will only enter a number, because a human can use it. 3. I will use the housenumber scheme since that works at the moment and this is what I'm mapping. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, David Earl wrote: > On 21/12/2009 15:39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> are you aware of JOSM-Presets and autocompletion? If you work in JOSM >> and use the presets, the street, city and country-tags will be >> autocompleted. > > Furthermore if you use JOSM's addressing plugin, you don't have to type > the street name at all - you just select the relevant pieces and enter > the number (and interpolation, if any) info. Since I collect the numbers as favorites on my phone in the j2me app mgmaps, it doesn't work for me. Don't want to touch them manually after the first entry. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Erik Johansson wrote: >> 1. I use addr:housenumbers, just to get numbers on the map. Even >> though I don't follow the spec. > > Then why don't you use "place=locality, name=45-29" if that's all you want. Thanks, that's a good idea (if it works), though I would probably use addr:entrancenumbers=45-29 as well. This is a useful tag for me, I'm only tagging the corners since I can't know where the street ends, I can only tell you what is here on this corner. It's the "likeness" and tag transform problem again, there is no standard way to transform/decompose my tags into standard tags. >> Does anyone have any improvements to make this scheme better? > > Yes, use the same scheme that everyone else uses as well ;-) your scheme > makes it really hard for a geocoder to find a house number. It is a nice > addition for people looking at the map, but you are misusing an existing > tag just to make something render, and that's not good. I don't care about geocoders, I will fix it but I'm not that keen on getting geocoders to work. Since that's not very usefull for me. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
Hi I've slowly started using addr:housenumbers, I'm not really interested in doing it according to the way the addr:* scheme work atm though.. Because of the amount of work to enter data in that scheme. Here are the things that I believe is different from the addr:* scheme.. 1. I use addr:housenumbers, just to get numbers on the map. Even though I don't follow the spec. 2. I don't add streetname 3. my add:housenumbers are usually like this: "45-29" or "89d-110" signifying that at this point their is a sign telling me that the first number I will find on this side of the street is 45 or in the second case 89d, and the last number on the other end of the street will be 29 or 110. Does anyone have any improvements to make this scheme better? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
