Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

Thanks, Brian, for taking the lead on this. I generally agree with the overall direction of the proposal. There's a lot of details on the proposal page but I guess we can discuss them on the wiki talk page. On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:58 PM Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > A proposal[1] to clarify t

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

There are lots of tags in OSM that have fuzzy borders with respect to size or importance. Some that I can think of are waterway=river/stream and place=island/islet. Although the island/islet tag does have a hard boundary at least in the JOSM validator and an approximate boundary in the OSM wiki ("a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Oh, here in Indonesia you can find motorcycle taxis (ojek) everywhere, > including in all the towns where bicycle rickshaws / pedicabs operate. > > For example, all of the markets in my town have a pangkalan ojek > (motorcycle taxi stand)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg, wrote: > > I think using "motorcycle_taxi" as a tag value would be confusing. > > Unfortunately, the English language terminology for these things is > not very established, since they are not used in Britain or North > America (except for the touri

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > > Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < > sea...@gmail.com>: > >> The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is >> engine-powered. >> > > &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

As a person from the Philippines who uses these "motorcycle taxis" (we call them tricycles here and they are basically motorcycles with an attached sidecar for passengers), I am in favor of having a new top-level tag for these "taxi" stations. The reason why we used "taxi" here is that this was the

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

FWIW, here is a query results map showing all volcanoes (805 of them) in Wikidata that already have the GVP ID: https://query.wikidata.org/embed.html#%23defaultView%3AMap%0ASELECT%20DISTINCT%20%3Fvolcano%20%3FvolcanoLabel%20%3FGVPID%20%3Fcoords%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Wikidata already has the GVP property: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1886 So it's just a matter of ensuring that all volcanoes tracked by the GVP is present in Wikidata and has the correct P1886 value. On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 4:20 AM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > Sent from my Android pho

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 10:20 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please take a minute to review the new page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status > Overall, this looks pretty good! I am in favor of documenting the status of tags and this wiki page is a goo

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I added some comments to the talk page of your "type=group" relation > proposal. > > I would recommend simplifying the proposal to just be for groups of > nodes, because there are already relations for multipo

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:28 AM Richard wrote: > It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction - >> often construction starts many years before the building is finshed: >> Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain >> are famous examples. H

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:11 PM Simon Poole wrote: > [...] addr tags are for postal addresses I don't think using them as a > level name/ref makes very much sense outside of that very narrow > application. > I rechecked the two main OSM Wiki pages[1][2] on addr:*=* tags and addresses in general

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 2:38 AM Tobias Zwick 2. no calculating forth- and back between level "indices" and real names >for the levels (for neither the software nor the mapper) because this >effectively eliminates the concept of indices > I use level=* for the machine-readable zero-based lev

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, 9:50 PM Tobias Zwick Region| likely zero-based | likely one-based > --|---|- > Washington, Philadelphia, NY | 3 |2 > Silicon valley, Los Angeles | 4

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Side discussion: On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 6:31 AM Paul Allen wrote: > One could argue that place=island should be natural=island. > And then we go into the discussion that not all islands are natural, like the artificial islands in Dubai. Then again, not all things currently tagged natural=water

Re: [Tagging] Imagery variations/misalignments in iD - which to use?

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:26 AM John Willis wrote: > The issue I am facing is that, even after some adjustment of the angle of > bing imagery, there seems to be some distortion. things don’t line up well > between the Bing and ortho maps in some places, and are much closer in > others. a *lot* o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:35 PM Phake Nick wrote: > I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, > for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain > meet France > So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula?

Re: [Tagging] Building names, historical/original owner?

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:36 PM Adam Franco wrote: > What are folks thoughts about these historical-owner building names when > they aren't well-known? Should they go in a `description= > ` tag, `alt_name= >

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 11:58 PM Eugene Podshivalov But in Belarus for example we call our settlements "город" (can be city or > town), "городской посёлок" (can be town or village), > "посёлок"/"деревня"/"хутор" (can be village or hamlet or isolated_dwelling). > When people use the maps created form

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:44 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < > sea...@gmail.com>: > >> can you give a definition for de jure? >> >>> Which law applies? >>> >> >> Maybe th

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > > > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary > relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 12:45 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > Well, a central bank is a bank, after all, whether it is owned by the > government or is a "private" parastatal organization. I would tag it as > amenity=bank since it is a bank. Not all banks offer consumer services, so > the fact that an

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse wrote: > 1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in case a > country has enclaves. > Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves within it, you still don't need to have "inner" and "outer" roles at all in order to make

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

I have been following this discussion with interest since I would also like to have bays and straits represented by some sort of polygon/area instead of just nodes. However, I also agree that having overlapping relations containing hundreds to thousands of natural=coastline ways would tax many data

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM Noémie Lehuby wrote: > Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a *de facto* > standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a proposal about > this tag ? > > The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the Foundation >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Just a suggestion. Under the "Additional tags routinely used would include" section, name=* and country=* are listed. I think the target=* tag (for the receiving country) should also be included since it is already documented in the amenity=embassy page. (I am not sure if "target" is a good term fo

Re: [Tagging] visa offices tags

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:29 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) this is a commercial firm - not a government > authority/branch/department/etc > 2) it 'assist' people to obtain a visa > 3) it is not at an airport/seaport

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

On Nov 7, 2018 11:22 PM, "Allan Mustard" wrote: I like constituency_office. +1 FWIW, Wikidata has settled on the term "constituency" for this political concept (aka parliamentary seat, electoral district, legislative district, etc.): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192611 __

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:12 AM Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > >> * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional >> (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional > (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use > embassy, consulate and other as additional (tertiary) tags to specify > further the type o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:52 PM Allan Mustard wrote: > If my sense of growing consensus is correct, I suggest that diplomatic=* > would include only [embassy, consulate, non-diplomatic]. > Tagging something as office=diplomatic then diplomatic=non-diplomatic sounds silly and oxymoronic. Why not

Re: [Tagging] Standardizing Mapillary tags and keys

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:34 AM Christopher Beddow < christop...@mapillary.com> wrote: > Is there any critique of these ideas? > I think these tags are only appropriate as changeset tags and never as tags on actual map objects (nodes, ways, relations).

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 26.10.2018 o 22:08, Eugene Alvin Villar pisze: > > > On the other hand. diplomatic offices and services encompass a range that > is much too narrow such that I don't think having diplomatic=* as a primary > key see

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

office=government On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:53 AM Paul Allen wrote: > If you can come up with a better value than "diplomatic" then do so. If > you don't like it being under > the office key, maybe have diplomatic=* as the primary key rather than a > secondary key under > office (although that m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:27 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > In OSM I would expect the term government not to be a foreign government > but a resident one. > Uniquely, Italy hosts its own embassy to the Holy See (aka Vatican City). So technically, you could use "government" for that si

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:13 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > for instance the Canary Islands are explicitly referring to the islands, > but I would expect the name to apply to the sea between them as well (or > according to the interpretation / context they might be included or not at > the same t

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 7:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant > but it is not used very often yet. > Can you care to explain why building=retail is not enough detail? I would think that a combination of building=retail + amenity=fast_food (whether o

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 9:29 AM Bill Ricker, wrote: > Is the OSM primary DB the right repository for this? > Have we accepted being the repository for everything that anyone wants to > map? > (I don't remember hearing a change from "no".) > If people are already mapping whether an amenity=fuel is

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I know in the US there are distance based housenumbers, and also in Rome > there is one single street which has distance based numbering, still the > vast majority of distance based address indications around here are _not_ > housenumbe

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: > The same applies to other place nodes like oceans, seas, natural bays, straits, etc. At the risk of forking this discussion to another topic, I'd like to point out that at least for oceans and major seas, bays, and straits, the Internati

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > Others have qualms about signing up to an American social network platform >> just >> > to participate in OSM discussions (remember - if the product is free, you >> are the > > produ

Re: [Tagging] brand=* necessary?

This whole discussion reminds me of the following passage from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass: The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks' Eyes.’” > > “Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel > interested. > > “No, you don't understand,” the Knight said, lookin

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the coastline should represent the limit of the sea, in case of a river > flowing in, people look at the level of salt in the water and whether the > level of the river is influenced by tides (afaik) > It seems some mappers go to the e

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:41 AM, André Pirard wrote: > Hi all, > > Please all, take a very attentive look at this. > Please note the subject change: unnecessary. > Please note the disambiguation boundary vs borderline. > > The problem with admin_level tags is that numbers need to exist to *be **

Re: [Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Given that the Overpass API exists, do we have a worked example > here to demonstrate that external tools have a ready way of accessing > 'wikidata' tagged items within OSM? > This is quite easy to implement using the Overpass API. In fact, I

Re: [Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > This is just a question on editors managing that. Right now the > inheritance of IDs is usually not a conscious choice of the mapper but > if this is deemed desirable this could be changed. > > [...] > > OSM recruits mappers to map the

Re: [Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > * Wikidata is definitely not suited as an universal meta-database > > connecting OSM with other open data sets. This is because of the > > Notability concept > > (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability) which practically >

Re: [Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > ... but I don't believe that I've ever actually seen an application that > uses it, and don't have a real understanding of how it is used and what can > be done with it that cannot be done without it. Like OSM, you don't immediately see tha

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:39 PM, wrote: > The main critisism is that we map the same address multiple times, but > in fact they are different things, we have the "Postal Address" at the > entry and then a node for each buisiness/shop at that address, they all > share addresses, but represent diff

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

On Oct 27, 2017 8:03 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote: Time for a more philosophical discussion... What is the function of this thing we call "address"? Is it to identify a premises? Is it to describe a premises? Does it refer to the whole premises, or just the bit with the front door or letter box? Or is

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > I would map those as separate tunnels and only map them as a single tunnel > is multiple ways share the same bore. > I think this goes to the question of whether we want man_made=tunnel to map a physical tunnel (that may contain a dual car

Re: [Tagging] OSM+Wikidata intro video

Please clarify the license of this combined database and any data returned from a SPARQL query. I assume any data returned is under ODbL since it contains data derived from the OSM database. But this is not indicated anywhere in the Query Service and is not included as metadata in the returned data

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana < jptolosanz...@gmail.com> wrote: > An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too > arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use > boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding interna

Re: [Tagging] address property of features

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Tristan Anderson < andersontris...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Either tag the store or the entrance, not both. > This goes back to the long unresolved question on whether addresses are: (1) features in themselves (so each address must be uniquely represented in OSM and

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > there are only 33 991 objects with a building:min_level tag now > I'm not now commenting on whether the proposal is good or not, but other redefinition proposals have been shot down for numbers much less than the number given in the ar

Re: [Tagging] self-service laudry machines a camp and caravan sites

> > Laundromat:foobar=n scheme. > > Laundromat:10kg_dryer=8 > Laundromat:20kg_dryer=2 > Laundromat:10kg_sidewasher=3 > Laundromat:20kg_sidewasher=1 > Laundromat:shoe_washer=1 > Laundromat:shoe_dryer=1 > I'm not so sure that tagging minutiae like this is appropriate for OSM, which is really a geo-

Re: [Tagging] Non-geometrical ways in boundary relations

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > Tom, I think we need to have consensus about what we mean by admin centre. > +1 In my area, a local mapper also had the idea of adding the town hall building into the boundary relation. I did not revert this even though this resulted in the d

Re: [Tagging] Landuse=grass - boots on change to wiki

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the grassed area needs to be tagged then tag WHAT IS THERE ... > landcover=grass (or natural=grass) ... the land is use in a highway > situation to provide safety for the highway users .. it is not for the use > of the grass

Re: [Tagging] Coworking space: amenity vs. office ?

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Arguably, if the coworking space intened to accomodate professional > carpenters who worked for different companies, maybe that would be > coworking. But really coworking is about something that feels like an > office with coworkers and suppor

Re: [Tagging] Artworks inside the Louvre

My initial reaction, and one that you've mentioned, is to add indoor=yes. But then, you need to make some specific rules on which objects tagged indoor=yes get hidden in rendering (like artworks?) and those that still probably deserve to be rendered (like cinemas inside shopping malls?). On Sun, J

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 3/22/16, Janko Mihelić wrote: > ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis je napisao: > >> >> This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have >> ever dealt with as an OSM mapper. >> > > You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just > look at th

Re: [Tagging] Jewelry/jewellery shops

I disagree. As mentioned, there seems to be little improvement given the rather large effort required. I prefer we spend the effort doing other more impactful changes. And unlike other inconsistent cases of tagging, I don't think there is any confusion on what shop=jewelry means. As I understand

Re: [Tagging] Tagging tourist offices

On 1/2/16, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > So my question is, would it make sense to propose a different tagging > for tourist offices, for example tourism=tourist_office or > office=tourism? Or should we stay with the current tagging? I'm myself > quite ambivalent on this issue, and I'd like to hear y

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] If a school is a shelter when a disaster happens...

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > besides the precise tagging (social facility or emergency), I just want to > point out that you can have 2 main tags for the same area (overlapping), > just not on the same object. > You could for instance have a way tagged as school a

Re: [Tagging] Lights other than highway=street_lamp

Try the following proposed light source tagging scheme: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:light_source The scheme's primary key, light_source=*, is currently used 2854 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/light_source On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Mike Thompson

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

This has been discussed somewhat last year: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-July/018517.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-September/019338.html See also this tagging proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:40 AM, John Willis wrote: > I think most business/dwellings don't have floor in their address, which > is why its usage (152 for points) is so low. > Actually, Taginfo says that addr:floor is used 4314 times (3162 on nodes): http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr:fl

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:40 AM, John Willis wrote: > Isn't addr:* for its postal / legal location definition? > > What if the floor level is not part of its address? I think most > business/dwellings don't have floor in their address, which is why its > usage (152 for points) is so low. Most bui

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/09/2015 9:10 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > >> On 9/29/15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >>> b) indicating floor level in the mall is useful, and looking at the wiki >>>>

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On 9/29/15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> b) indicating floor level in the mall is useful, and looking at the wiki >> shows that the tag addr:floor=* is suggested - but it only has 158 uses - >> which is amazingly small. is this the right key to indicate what floor a >> shop is on? > > addr:floor

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > To leave a tag that describes it as a pub (when it is not) then add > another tag that says it is not a pub is plain daft. > +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openst

Re: [Tagging] Disputed area

es > > Am 21.07.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar: >> My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated >> 'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with >> 'defacto' and 'dejure

Re: [Tagging] Disputed area

My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated 'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with 'defacto' and 'dejure' (or 'claimed') roles. The 'inner' and 'outer' roles are very trivial to compute (assuming a relation is properly constructed) and are actuall

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > that's why I suggested to use a multi tag approach. One tag to say it is a > government office, one to say at which level (admin level) and then tags > for the stuff you can do there (property list) or about the general > classification

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)

On 6/3/15, Steve Coast wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> On Jun 3, 2015 8:06 AM, "pmailkeey ." > <mailto:pmailk...@googlemail.com>> wrote: >> > OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessar

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)

On Jun 3, 2015 8:06 AM, "pmailkeey ." wrote: > OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessary flaw. [...] OSM is 90% argument, 5% dead-end discussions and 5% progress. The whole is not a marketable product; it's not fit to be rated as 'beta'. Is this a significant cause of ex-mappers ? I

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, pmailkeey . wrote: > > In the US where there are mailboxes with the little flags on them it seems > correct to put the address on the node for that box. Common sense really. Mike, you keep on insisting that addresses should always be put on an area and never on a

Re: [Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

I, too, object. level=* is meant to be the numeric stacking order of floors/levels in a building. One redundant tag to level=* is addr:floor=*. This tag currently has the same definition as level=* (with the same numbering convention). I propose that we use addr:floor=* instead for your string lev

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:18 AM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Speaking of stable ids, how does wikidata handle renames, merges and > splits on the wikipedia side ? Even in the best-case scenario, it > seems that an OSM wikidata tag can drift off-target following > reorganisations that are correct f

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - admin_title=*

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 10.05.2015 10:38, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > I prefer designation=* since it it already a widely used tag that fits > the > > intended purpose of the proposed admin_title=* tag. The question on > whether &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - admin_title=*

I prefer designation=* since it it already a widely used tag that fits the intended purpose of the proposed admin_title=* tag. The question on whether the value should be human-readable or machine-readable can be solved by using correspondence tables to link the two. Barring such a table, I don't s

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

Isn't shooting just aiming at non-living targets like what is seen in the Olympics? If so, then paintball is definitely different. On 4/12/15, Andreas Goss wrote: > There is still the question if it's sport=shooting + shooting=paintball > or sport=paintball. > > They are both used to s similar am

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

On 1/26/15, Lukas Sommer wrote: > I think this can be a useful new tag. > > And I think it makes sense to define explicitly some things in the > documentation. Things like > – use always (or use never) “Saint”: “Saint Paul” vs “Paul”. > – write the name of the dedication always in the local langua

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a corner address with addr:street:corner=*

Hi Friedrich, On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > Here in Austria, we sometimes use corner addresses informally, when > verbally > (e.g. on the phone) arranging an appointment, or when describing how to > find > a certain shop. But these discriptions are not considered a

[Tagging] Tagging a corner address with addr:street:corner=*

Hello, In my country (Philippines), many corner addresses are specified with the intersecting street instead of (or in addition to) the house or building number. This actually makes sense because the house numbers are not immediately obvious when looking at a map, but intersections are quite easy

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

Given the current discussion, I wonder if roads that are usually flooded during heavy rainfall should be also be tagged as waterway=river/stream and intermittent=yes. ;-) On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:27 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I would recommend expanding the definition of "intermittent stream

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > The only other tag that would work is amenity=fitness_centre. Taginfo > would indicate that amenity is the most used. > > Taginfo results > > leisure=fitness_centre (and other spelling variations) = 452 > (leisure=fitness_centre is used 440

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > In the UK "designation=" is in wide usage for this. > +1 I think designation=* fits perfectly with what is intended by the OP's proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

Re: [Tagging] Various alt_name values?

+1 I agree with alt_name=name1;name2 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote: > Some time ago, there was a discussion on the “talk” mailing list about how > to deal with the situation of more than one alt_name: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-September/070838

Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, wrote: > Dormitories are rooms with multiple beds, usually bunk beds and associated > with youth hostels, certainly not suitable for student accommodation where > there is typically one student in a room, maybe two but they are certainly > not dormitories. > Wha

Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)

On 9/20/14, Dan S wrote: > 2014-09-19 15:52 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > I still prefer (d) though if building=dormitory becomes widely > accepted then I guess I shall have to swallow that loss for British > english! Wouldn't be the first time if ever: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

t;> [...] >> >> Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this >> particular >> building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was >> not >> defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to > the > whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship]. > > To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the > full campus, and [landuse=religi

Re: [Tagging] minus or underscore in attribute values?

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > Hi, > > another mapper metnioned to me that it is unusual to have > attribute values with a minus, like > bridge:structure=cable-stayed > > On the other hand, it is an apporved proposal - what are the > opinions on that? > Based on previous

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > What should we sue to link to Wikimedia commons categories like: > >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:St_Paul,_Birmingham > > I've previously used Wikimedia_Commons=, but that's verbose; and I > seem to be alone in doing so. >

Re: [Tagging] Multistory medical office building

Is this a building completely separate from a hospital? I encounter these buildings as part of a hospital complex and so include them in an area tagged with amenity=hospital. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Hans De Kryger wrote: > Wondering how to tag a 2 story medical office building. It has

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Jesse B. Crawford wrote: > Something I've noticed as an American that works with many foreign > nationals is that the majority of people who learn English in a foreign > country seem to learn British English - my sample may be biased since I > work with a lot of

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with "place_of_worship" >> only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping. >> > > I hear what you're saying, but with a tag that's used 600K times (on 226K > way

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I'm not sure "church grounds" is a place of worship. People don't usually > worship God in an organized manner besides the church. > There are actually a lot of churches where I am where the Catholic 14 Stations of the Cross are spread thro

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Pieren wrote: > I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that > amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody > is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly > on the main osm style. The problem is that amenity=pla

  1   2   >