Re: [Tagging] Tag which restaurant or cafe allows bringing your own food or drink?
Hi, in my opinion such tagging would only make sense if these rules were signposted at the restaurant. In the restaurants that I frequent, what you describe would basically mean a prior phone call - hey, we're booking a table for dinner for 6, but one person has to bring their own food, is that ok - and they would then say yes or no and it would totally depend on how busy they are, whether you are a frequent customer, whom you're speaking to and whether they like your voice. Extrapolating from such an instance to some form of general claim that things are always like this at this restaurant would certainly be wrong. And I've never seen a restaurant where they signposted that their policy was that you can bring your own food. Except of course old-style Biergartens in Bavaria. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] navigational aid relation
Hi, "navaid" may not be the best term since it is used in aviation for actual physical installations that help with navigations, like radio beacons or lights. I am also concerned about the verifiability; is there not a danger that people will disagree about what the "best" way is to reach something? Have you considered to, instead of using a relation that links sources and destinations (and btw I'd swap the terms in your examples) simply placing a node on the street network that is tagged as an "access point" for a certain address, without the relation and all? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms
Hi, On 6/21/23 16:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: There is a point where the differences are so big that we decide to introduce a new tag (or subtag), but in a case like the arms shop I believe the most likely answer for OpenStreetMap is actually "a shop that sells whatever the local law means by firearms", just like a highway=motorway is “a highway that the local law means by motorway”. W... Generally, yes, I'd however not invoke the law at this point - I'd say a shop=firearms is whatever locals would call a firearms shop, if that term is used locally. Generally speaking I object to an one-size-fits-all approach to tagging. Instead of defining that in order to be a shop=bakery something must fulfil the following 5 criteria (which can amount to cultural imperialism) I'd rather say that a shop=bakery is whatever the locals call a bakery. And highway classification is maybe not the best example, because it is generally agreed that the legal status of a road is not the sole deciding factor when it comes to which highway=* we map it as. A road that is secondary by law but primary in practice, will often be tagged primary. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
Hi, On 08.08.23 14:43, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: The fundamental thing that you're trying to map here simply doesn't belong in OSM, the proposal will not pass, and I would advise you to stop wasting your time and everyone else's on it. Agree. Also, what flohoff said about volatility. The goal would be better served by a (non-OSM) service that automatically collects data from apps that people have installed on their phone and that sends measurements to a server while they are moving around. I don't see this in OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Deprecating demolished railway tags
Hi, On 26/02/2024 05:26, Ewrt1 OSM wrote: This proposal aims to deprecate all Demolished Railway tags. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Deprecating_demolished_railway_tags Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page. Please don't discuss this proposal on the wiki talk page, or at least not without having read and understood the rather long discussion in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposing-to-deprecate-railway-razed-and-railway-dismantled/109679 - else you'll just repeat what has been said there. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica
Hi, personally I would not expect to see any roads of a higher class than "tertiary" in Antarctica. I would expect something like the 5% or 10% most important roads (by total length) to be tertiary, and then assign unclassified/service to the rest. Should the classification of highways in Antarctica: 1. Follow country-specific conventions near stations? No as the country-specific conventions will not have been made with Antarctica in mind 2. Follow generic OSM definitions based on absolute population thresholds of the places they connect? (10k+ people for town, 1k for village, 100 for hamlet, etc.) This will assign very low road classes across the continent. No as it would probably lead to seeing nothing above "track" ;) 3. Follow generic OSM definitions based on lower place population thresholds that are more compatible with the reality of the continent, based on regional importance? [4] The result may be perceived by some as assigning higher than normal highway classes to the connections between these small settlements. Yes but I wouldn't mechanically approach this with any objective "thresholds" based on numbers. As long as you don't end up tagging secondary roads up there, just go with tertiary for the important ones and follow down from there. Additionally, should the permanent population be considered I don't think population should come into it. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica
On 25/04/2024 16:16, Fernando Trebien wrote: I also think that such changes also imply corrections to the following section ... "In a region with poor infrastructure, a road of highest importance, forming the main road network there, should be highway=trunk, regardless of being a high-quality wide asphalt road or a low-quality narrow track worse than highway=service in other regions." Yes. I would agree with "trunk doesn't necessarily have to be a multi-lane road built to western motorway standards", but "trunk in one region might be worse than service in another region" is somewhat stretching the relativistic approach. What is missing is a statement about whether one starts judging such networks by importance from the top (trunk downwards) or from the bottom (tertiary upwards). As an aside, are there even any routing engines which by default will use different standard speeds depending on country? Or do they all assume you can go 80 km/h on a trunk road even if that trunk road happens to be "worse than service in another region"? I know that at least GraphHopper and OSRM have the capability of using different speeds for different regions but AFAIK that isn't used by any of the default profiles. Should the OSM community compile a list of sensible assumptions of "this is how fast you'll go on average on type X highway in country Y"? -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] breads of bakeries
Hi, In general, I would advise against trying to record which products are offered in any kind of shop, as this is likely to change often and lead to bitrot. Only map such detail if you are very likely to spot any change in the future, and will be able to record it. (E.g. it is the bakery you go to every week.) Bye Frederik On 5/2/24 10:16, iriman--- via Tagging wrote: Hi I've tagged a few bakeries for the bread they sell. At first I used semicolon to separate values: shop=bakery bread=x;y;z Since I'm focused on adding/updating bakeries that are using wholemeal flour in their products, I added a general tag bread:wholemeal=yes. But this tag was too general because some bakeries sell more than one type of bread and not all of them are made of wholemeal flour. So I decided to separate values with a namespace scheme: shop=bakery bread:x=yes bread:y=yes bread:z=yes and expanded this tagging by another tag per bread to know if it's made of wholmeal flour: bread:x:wholemeal=yes bread:z:wholemeal=yes By this method it's possible to face a long list of tags of bread types for a single bakery and also a lot of namespaced keys in general, as pointed by mueschel: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150528116 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150528116>> So is it better to retag like first tagging and also add the bread:wholemeal with semicolon-separeted values? shop=bakery bread=x;y;z bread:wholemeal=x;z or any other suggestion? Thanks ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building
Hi, On 2020-06-04 14:54, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I think having a photo of every building, as well as other features like > public sculptures, memorials, bus stations would be very useful. You > would be able to click a building, and know what it looks like. I would not want us to encourage and support the widespread photographing of private residences. I think that's a privacy nightmare. If it is only for commercial or public buildings, then it could probably be done. In addition, I would not like to rely on a third-party service like Mapillary since they can shut down their service at any time and then what becomes of all the work? Furthermore, adding tons of external IDs to OSM seems unnecessary; I'd rather have the imagery service store the coordinates and then you can query the service "which of your photos show this location" and thereby find photos that show a particular building. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion
Hi pangoSE, On 6/25/20 19:57, pangoSE wrote: > I recently started discussing the problems related to urls and > File:filename.* that links to wikimedia_commons using the tag. See > Talk:Key:image#Discourage_linking_to_commons_files_and_migrate_all_File:filename..2A_values_and_direct_urls_to_wikimedia_commons > and tagging. I'm afraid I do not follow. > Algorithm 1Edit image=File:* -> wikimedia_commons=File:* > image=Category:* -> wikimedia_commons=Category:* > image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:* -> > wikimedia_commons=File:* > image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:* -> > wikimedia_commons=Category:* I don't understand why this is necessary. Would you, before changing an "image=File:x" into "wikimedia_commons=File:x", even check whether the file exists there? There are currently 28k objects with wikimedia_commons in the database. Your edit would treble that. I'm not convinced that automatic edits that massively boost a niche tag are a good idea. > There are some image= tags that link to multiple images separated by > ";". These will be manually migrated to contain only one image that is > not linking to commons and the rest in a note, note1, noteX if multiple > urls. Why on earth would you do that? > image=File:* -> commons_file=File:* image=Category:* -> > commons_category=Category:* > image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:* -> commons_file=File:* > image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:* -> > commons_category=Category:* I am not comfortable with inventing new tags to better match Wikimedia Commons' namespace model. Remember, Wikimedia commons is, for us, just one of many potential image providers. Would we want to introduce various extra tags for each? > There are some image= tags that link to multiple images separated by > ";". These will be manually migrated to contain only one image that is > not linking to commons and the rest in a note, note1, noteX if multiple > urls. Again, moving valid information into note tags which are free-form human language is the worst idea of all. Parsing a semi-colon should be much easier than parsing a note tag! I am against the edit, and I also find the style of dumping an unformatted wiki page onto the mailing list for discussion a bit disrespectful. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?
Hi, in my view, the EU is not an administrative body with a border and many parts (countries), but instead the countries have made a contract to form the EU. I would therefore object to mapping the EU as an entity with a boundary; instead, if it were mapped, I would expect it to be a relation of yet-to-be-defined type and having the individual member states as relation members. I know there's a tendency among some mappers to try and map multipolygons or administrative boundaries for anything that has a name, but that practice is not helpful. I don't even dare to look but I wouldn't be surprised if some helpful soul has meanwhile decided to map "the Atlantic", "the Pacific", or "Eurasia", assembling thousands of little coastline pieces into giant relations in painstaking, week-long work... sigh. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?
Hi, On 30.07.20 11:19, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Unlike such objects EU has (AFAIK) well defined border, matching > existing administrative boundaries, so problems inherent in > mapping fuzzy objects are not present. I'm not an expert on international treaties but I believe that if France bought Alaska from the US tomorrow, then Alaska would become part of the EU, without the EU having much of a say in it, isn't that so? This is of course a very hypothetical example but little swaps of un-inhabited land happen between neighbouring countries from time to time. The "EU boundary" is the sum of whatever national boundaries its member states have. Same with the "Schengen area" which is guarded by Frontex which you linked to; it's a construct that is the result of a contract but not an administrative area. > I am not opposing it and it seems defensible. Anything is, on this mailing list ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?
Hi, On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote: > The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes > of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament > and justicial branches impacting citizens directly. To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than seceding from a country. I would prefer to map the EU as a contract than as an administrative boundary. There are many such contracts around the world, where smaller countries pool their defense or other typically national capabilities, and I would not be surprised if there were situations where countries pool their defense with one group, and their currency with another. Mapping these things as "areas on the map" is old-style cartographic thinking. We can do better than that. Even *if* a boundary was mapped, it would probably more pragmatic to map the outer boundary of the Schengen region than the outer boundary of the EU states. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
Hi, I don't know the region myself so I am limited to anecdotal evidence as found on the web: * Montevideo clearly brands itself as having "a coast" (from welcomeuruguay.com: "Costa de Oro" (Gold Coast) is the name given to the great variety of beaches stretching from La Barra de Carrasco, in Montevideo, to Solís Grande Creek, ...) * next city east is called "Ciudad de la Costa" * Buenos Aires, on the other hand, seems to be mainly referred to as being "on the SHORE of Rio de la Plata" * Wikipedia entry on Montevideo calls Rio de la Plata an "arm of the Atlantic ocean" It is obvious that, regarding the official definition, both countries have a shared interest of defining the coast as far out on the sea as legally possible. Therefore, I am not sure if our usual approach of "letting the locals decide" will work here. Our other usual approach is that of "truth on the ground" and the 200km+ straight line from Punte del Este to Cabo San Antonio certainly stretches *anybody's* definiotion of a coastline! The largest estuary in the United States, Chesapeake Bay, is almost completely mapped as coastline, only changing to a natural=river polygon very far inland - though I haven't researched currents or salinity. Are there other examples of large bays/estuaries? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
Hi, On 03.08.20 22:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I have previously proposed that estuaries should be mapped by extending > the coastline upstream to the limit of the estuary, and also mapping the > area of the estuary as water with water=estuary I wonder if we're not becoming too theoretical by thinking about scientific definitions. I know that we strive to have something "verifiable" but at the same time I have a bad feeling about there being a "coastline" in OSM where there is definitely no "coast" within dozens of kilometers. Sure, I can say "don't be too literal, natural=coastline doesn't mean there has to be a coast, it's just for closing ocean polygons" but that doesn't make it better really. Sure, with current ocean drawing technology we need a "coastline" across every river estuary at some point... but perhaps we should think beyond that? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
Hi, looking at the "bare_soil" proposal I was surprised to read: "Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in the voting process." Is that something that we have added by consensus? It sounds like a somewhat sneaky measure to ignore opposition votes, or discourage those who cannot properly express their opposition in English from voting in the first place. It also raises the question of what requirements there are for a "reason or suggestion". If I vote no with a reason "it stinks", will there then be someone who says "ah, this is not a valid reason" and strips me of my vote? Who will that person be? Has this been used in other votes in the past? I'm tempted to say it would invalidate any vote but maybe it *is* indeed based on consensus and I missed that. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
Hi, On 04.08.20 10:06, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> Have our tagging voting rules changed recently? > Which rules? Should I have written "was our voting process changed recently", or what exactly are you asking? I meant the established way of proposing and voting for tags as outlined in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
Hi, On 8/4/20 18:28, Kevin Kenny wrote: > In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very > seldom tagged that far upstream. From my Chesapeake Bay example, in OSM, Havre de Grace (290km inland) is a "coastal"city https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.5443&mlon=-76.0961#map=10/39.5443/-76.0961 though Baltimore (260km inland) is not, due to Patapsco River having its own polygon: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.2461&mlon=-76.6523#map=10/39.2461/-76.6523 Of course my "xxx km inland" depends on where you define the bay to begin, I used the US13 crossing at Norfolk. Not saying that is the measuring stick, and perhaps as a result of this discussion it needs to be tagged differently, or maybe the physical geography is different there. Or maybe we conclude that physical geography doesn't count and what counts is whether it "feels like" a coastal city ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] what is the "temp" tag?
Hi, https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/temp#values any guesses as to what this might mean? I stumbled across it when reverting some vandalism on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/784166844 but that street has been split so many times by people adding turn restrictions that the "person creating v1 of something" is just the person who split something and if I asked them what they meant by temp=tag they'll probably just shrug. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
Hi, On 24.08.20 02:46, Paul Allen wrote: > I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are > technically hostile architecture. :) As are cattle grids if you're a cow! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)
Hi, On 10/2/20 19:56, Wieland Kestler wrote: > I agree absolutely that somone who makes bread by itself and sells that > in front of its house, we should tag it by shop=bakery. So the grade of > „selfmadeness“ does not matter. We are not a business directory but a geo database. We map what exists, and not (or at least not primarily) what services might be offered. If there is a residential house and every now and then the owner puts out a table in front and sells bread, then I would say we shouldn't map that at all. (Map the house, yes, but not map the fact that a resident bakes bread occasionally.) In order to be mapped in OSM, it needs to have a physical manifestation - at the very least, a sign, or more desirably some structure that can be recognised as a shop even while not in use. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Hi, On 10/18/20 23:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > And the same applies to brains of people It appears to me that the end game in this is precisely that, to change the brains of people. OSM is just a means to and end in that quest. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Update - RFC - Special Economic Zones
Hi, my opinion is that stuff that is not visible on the ground and not meaningfully editable by mappers needs a very strong reason to be mapped at all. 1. Are SEZ boundaries visible on the ground (signage, physical separation)? 2. If not, do SEZ boundaries usually coincide with existing administrative boundaries (counties X and Y as well as the city of Z together form the SEZ)? 3. If not, how would you get your hands on the SEZ boundary? 4. In how far is it useful for mappers to modify the SEZ boundary based on their knowledge or aerial imagery? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?
Hi,
On 11/6/20 19:31, Anders Torger wrote:
> ** Tagging bays and straits as areas work great, as the renderer gets
> and idea how prominent it is and it can make proper text sizing and they
> can be seen even if zoomed out if the area is large. Lots of our lakes,
> even quite small ones have sub-naming, and with these features I can
> make really good mapping of this.
This is an absolute pain for me. We're seeing people define
ultra-precise multipolygons of various sizes with the single purpose of
getting a name rendered somewhere in a bay.
If this infects other areas of cartography, we'll see people build
thousand-node polygons for vaguely defined land areas ("the XY
lowlands", "the XY mountain range", "the XY plateau"). This is a very
sad development that makes editing more complicated and burdens the
database with information of very little value.
What people want to achieve is some lettering on the map, and because
the only way to get that is making huge polygons that purport do
describe the exact extent of something, that's what they do.
I think this needs to be stopped. We've created a
mapping-for-the-renderer mechanism by the back door. This is actually
*worse* than if we were to allow people to place a point somewhere and
annotate it with a desired label font size and orientation. Not that I
would advocate the latter, but what we have now has all the negative
features of the latter *plus* the side effect of creating giant,
unmaintainable polygons.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water
Hi, On 23.11.20 15:10, David Groom wrote: > Using this logic the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and the Persian > Gulf should all have the coastline tags removed from their defining ways > and converted to water areas! Italy, Greece, Libya, Egypt and a large > group of other counties would find they had no coastline, which might > come as a surprise to anyone lining there. I'll probably have to inform the tourism guys in Annapolis too and tell them to stop calling themselves a "coastal place" https://patch.com/maryland/annapolis/annapolis-among-20-best-coastal-places-live-magazine ;) sorry folks, you're on an inland waterway. Bit like Richmond really! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water
Hi, I would like to make one point that has been touched on but not said clearly, I think. Some proponents of the recent changes to Chesapeake bay have used reasoning like: "Only by mapping the bay as a polygon can $SOFTWARE properly determine that a given location is in the bay, as opposed to in some undfined part of the sea." To this, Jochen has even replied along the lines of "create a polygon if you want but additionally use the natural=coastline tag". I want to issue a stern warning here: This line of thinking will not stop with Chesapeake bay. People are already creating giant multipolygons for the Strait of X and the Gulf of Y all over OSM. Before too long, a desire to have $SOFTWARE properly decide that a given location is, say, in the Atlantic Ocean, will give rise to demands that the Atlantic Ocean be mapped as a giant, named water polygon. Our current tooling makes this impractical (that's the very reason why we handle the coastline like we do). Even the 2000+ member "gulfs" and "bays" and "straits" that some people seem to derive endless pleasure from plastering the map with - often using questionable third-party sources or guesswork to define where exactly you leave the ocean and enter the gulf - already complicate the delicate community processes of editing and quality assurance. Splitting a single piece of coastline anywhere along Chesapeake bay now will, for example, give your changeset a bounding box that encompasses the whole bay. Anyone monitoring local edits gets swamped with false positives like that. It will also require uploading a complete new version of the giant bay polygon, vastly increasing the likelihood of edit conflicts that might well lead a hapless novice to abandoning their work, rather than trying to solve the conflict. Now, you might smirk and say "let's fix the tools then", but until the tools are fixed - which might take years -, you've made life a hell of a lot harder for anyone editing or quality monitoring in the whole area. And all for what - a nice blue label in the bay? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?
Hi, On 14.12.20 12:20, Anders Torger wrote: > My sense is that OSM community do want naming in nature as well, but > only if it can be made very simple. Unfortunately that is not always > compatible with reality, and here we are... Personally I think naming is desirable for clear features. This mountain peak, this protected tree, this lake. What I don't like in OSM is naming for large geographic areas, like "the Alps", "the Black Forest", or "the Bay of Biscay", for two reasons: First, there can be any number of such areas. Anyone can invent something. I can speak of the Alps, or the French Alps, or the Northern French Alps, or the Vanoise Massif, I can group some regions at will and make up a new name. These are not administrative boundaries where it is clear which of them exist "as a region" and and which don't. Of course everyone knows what I mean when I say "Germany north of Oldenburg" but that doesn't mean that "Germany north of Oldenburg" is a name that should be on the map, or a polygon we need in OSM. If I issue a tourist guide for, say, "Vanoise et Maurienna", does that then make "Vanoise et Maurienna" a region? How many people need to issue a tourist guide for this to happen? Second, these areas are usually ill-defined: There are some places that are clearly in the Black Forest, and some that are clearly not in the Black Forest, but there's not one boundary line - there's fuzziness. OSM is not good with fuzziness; OSM forces us to have an exact point or line or polygon for something. For fuzzy labels, you need a different system that should exist outside of OSM's current data types. Either by adding a new fuzzy data type to OSM (no need to assemble 1000 ways with a total of 20,000 points to exactly describe the outline of the Alps if all you want is a nice big lettering in approximately the right spot), or by keeping these cartography options in a separate system altogether. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?
Hi, On 21.12.20 10:20, Anders Torger wrote: > In the mountains we have an number of named plateaus. There is a tag > proposal for natural=plateau, but just like with natural=peninsula and > similar tags there is an underlying question that we really need an > answer to first: should we have fuzzy areas or should we not? I think I have laid out my point in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056823.html Our current data model is not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or basic tenet of verifiability doesn't work well with fuzzy data. So the one questions is, do we want fuzzy areas, the other is, if we want them, how can they be established - because in our current database they cannot. I think fuzzy areas make a lot of sense for cartography, but I strongly object to people adding hand-wavy polygons to OSM for fuzzy areas. > We know there are disadvantages and no solution is 100% > perfect, but sometimes there's a higher goal to fulfill. Having a nice lettering across the Alps is certainly not a "higher goal" for OSM as a whole; forcing fuzzy polygons for that into OSM is irrelevant for most and outright damaging for some use cases, and the advantage it would have for the one single use case of map rendering does not justify it. Please stop trying to frame this as "cartographers have a right to abuse the data model, and if someone doesn't want that, they need to present a viable alternative". We've come very far in OSM without such abuse and I don't see why it should suddenly be introduced. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?
Hi, A property owner in Germany has complained that several routing engines - crucially also the one used by the local transport authority - route pedestrians trough their private residential property as a "shortcut" for accessing a bus stop. The private residential property has two driveways (highway=service, service=driveway) entering it from different sides, thereby enabling people to save a few metres by walking through, rather than around, the property. These driveways do not have an access=private (or access=destination) tag or anything like that. Questions: 1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a "driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? 2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or access=destination) in OSM... 2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally? 2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without saying that other access is forbidden? 2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum instead of the mailing list
Hi, On 09.10.22 11:36, Cartographer10 via Tagging wrote: Voting has started for "Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum instead of the mailing list." I think this proposal is not very well thought out. It's long rant about how great the new forum is and super big the hurdle is to subscribe to a mailing list and how many people don't like mailing lists and how it would be ideal for having tagging discussions on the new forum too as opposed to the wiki etc.etc. - and then in the end the vote is simply for replacing the rule "you have to announce your proposal on the mailing list" with "you have to announce your proposal on the new forum". 75% of the proposal text is completely irrelevant to the vote. This is not a well-written proposal. But I haven't voted no because of that - I have voted no because I want people to settle in with the new forum first. Nobody keeps anyone from discussing a proposal on the new forum but I don't want to formally make this mailing list irrelevant just yet. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
Hi, On 10/20/22 15:53, Casper Kersten wrote: @Marc_marc - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? I oppose this idea. Sometimes people just have plenty of free time and good ideas and use this to make and share proposals. I see no reason to hinder them. These people could use their free time to make one successful proposals instead of five unsuccessful ones that waste everyone's time because they are half-hearted. I like the idea. - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense? I strongly oppose this. The OSMF does not control OSM and it should stay that way. If people want to improve OSM without having to get directly involved with the OSMF I see no reason to hinder them. The OSMF should not be involved but the OSMF's definition of an "active contributor" could nonetheless be used. It would make it less likely to get proposals from people who don't map and therefore are unlikely to be able to make a good proposal. All this said, I do appreciate good quality proposals and constructive discussions. I'm happy with all these creative proposals that are being put forward. OSM isn't finished yet, after all. Keep in mind that the proposal process isn't a one-way street. It can only work as long as for every one proposal there are dozens of people who can read and constructively participate in the development of the proposal. The capacity for new proposals is limited. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Hi, I could swear I had written this as a public message long ago but I cannot find it now. Sorry, then, for the last-minute interruption. I had an issue with the proposal, namely the wording: "This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical meaning, regardless of ... interest to the OSM community." This is asking for trouble. There is a delicate balance in OSM - you can map what you want and you don't have to ask permission, but there are limits. If you were to start mapping, say, individual flowers, then a discussion would arise and it is quite possible that the community decides that this is going too far and you will be asked to stop. The same can happen with features that have a historical meaning. The OSM community needs to at least have sufficient interest to let you do your thing. Explicitly putting here, in writing, that the OSM community may not interefere in someone's mapping of historic features would be a first, and I can already see the discussions down the line where someone goes over the top, another person complains, and the first person then says "BUT THE WIKI SAYS I CAN DO IT" I'm sure this is not the intention of this proposal - in fact I am unsure what the intention of "... regardless of interest to the OSM community" is. I think that bullet point should simply be dropped, as it is either stating the obvious (map what you want) or inciting trouble (ignore it when people complain). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Ah, I see now I put this in my vote on the 2nd voting round. -- I also see that I asked there why abandoned railways were mentioned since I thought they had their own key and wern't using "historic", is this an intentional change? Is the re-tagging of abandoned railways proposed here? On 04.12.22 10:53, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, I could swear I had written this as a public message long ago but I cannot find it now. Sorry, then, for the last-minute interruption. I had an issue with the proposal, namely the wording: "This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical meaning, regardless of ... interest to the OSM community." This is asking for trouble. There is a delicate balance in OSM - you can map what you want and you don't have to ask permission, but there are limits. If you were to start mapping, say, individual flowers, then a discussion would arise and it is quite possible that the community decides that this is going too far and you will be asked to stop. The same can happen with features that have a historical meaning. The OSM community needs to at least have sufficient interest to let you do your thing. Explicitly putting here, in writing, that the OSM community may not interefere in someone's mapping of historic features would be a first, and I can already see the discussions down the line where someone goes over the top, another person complains, and the first person then says "BUT THE WIKI SAYS I CAN DO IT" I'm sure this is not the intention of this proposal - in fact I am unsure what the intention of "... regardless of interest to the OSM community" is. I think that bullet point should simply be dropped, as it is either stating the obvious (map what you want) or inciting trouble (ignore it when people complain). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"
Hi,
On 1/4/23 13:05, Marc_marc wrote:
or nothing due the fact that the only "Mörthe und Mosel“
is on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/51856
with a name=* in french :)
It does have a name:de though, like other French departements - I was
rahter surprised to read "Großer Osten" on a map with German labels, and
later found out that there are indeed German tourist guides for this
part of France that carry this name.
It is not always easy to determine whether a name is (a) harmless and in
use, (b) a silly translation that has no basis in reality ("pont neuf" =
"Neue Brücke", or the recently discovered Latin name "sub tilias" for
the well-known street "Unter den Linden" in Berlin), or (c) a tactless
reminder of times of occupation.
We shold prioritize names that are actually signposted on the ground,
and for those that aren't, at least require a clear indication that the
name is actually used in everyday language by living beings.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"
Hi, On 1/5/23 11:00, Anne- Karoline Distel wrote: I personally found old, yet now maybe offensive names on OpenStreetMap very useful Yes, this is something people occasionally quote as a reason for keeping old street names as well - genealogy and other historic research. Such names should always be in an old_name tag though, to avoid a multi-lingual map showing them prominently. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?
Hi, On 15.08.19 04:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like > suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with > Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting > using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests creating > a new Key: / Tag: page directly, rather than using User:username/ or > Proposed_features/. > > Is this a good idea? Occasionally new wiki pages are created in these > standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the > database. We have occasionally complained when someone did that, and forcibly moved their tags to their private space. (N.B. there used to be a time when we encouraged people to create private tags of the kind "username:key=value", a practice we have since stopped.) (N.B. do you know the watch:username key...?) > I would encourage mappers not to create new feature pages for tags > which are not yet in use, or have only been used a handful of times by > one mapper. Yes, I think it would be wrong to say it is "generally forbidden" but it is likely only right in exceptional circumstances. It is one of these "you can do it but you should be very sure that you're doing the right thing" kind of things! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage
Hi, On 07.09.2019 09:16, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> While in theory building=school could be reused as a hotel/pub (See >> https://www.mcmenamins.com/kennedy-school) in that case the building >> will be inside of a tourism=hotel polygon Why would it - a standalone former school in a city that now houses something else doesn't necessarily have to acquire a surrounding polygon. On 9/7/19 10:40, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Please understand that the building typology is orthogonal to the usage > of the building. > Thus having both a building=X and leisure/amenity=X on the same polygon > is not redundant. It is true that this is the canonical way of dealing with things, however it would be interesting to check how mappers and editing tools actually use this. We might well find that everyone is confused about this. When we say "a cafe in an old church" we think of a building that has certain properties that make it discernible as a church even long after it ceased to be one; however, depending on location and denomination, you might also build a church using a blueprint for a plain community centre. In that case would it still be building=church becasue that was the original, intended use? What if apartments are put into an old factory building - building=industrial and ...? I think we cannot simply throw the distinction over board and therefore I do not agree with Josh, but I also think the distinction is not really well thought out/well implemented in OSM and needs clarification. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas
Hi, On 09.09.19 02:37, Warin wrote: > Quote: "Open Defecation, people going to the toilet in the open, > specially in dense urban areas. Open defecation areas ODA are use by > about 850 million people. If they each use 10 different areas a year > then that is 8.5 billion areas." I don't follow that logic. If the 300k inhabitants of my city each use a bus stop 100 times per year, then that means our city has 30 million bus stops? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging
Hi, I am generally skeptical of us becoming more and more a business directory. I think that objects in the real world have some real-world, observable properties, like a house that has a certain form and height, or a sign that has been put up, or a bench, and while these properties can change, it will usually involve some construction and not happen willy-nilly. I am in favour of mapping such things. On the other hand, there are commercial and policy things, like: Does this shop accept credit cards, does this shop sell vegan food, or how many varieties of chocolate bars does this shop stock, and does this museum open on Sundays? While I can see that this information is interesting in some situations, these properties can change on a whim. A supermarket chain can introduce paper bags today, discontinue them next week, and re-introduce plastic bags next month. Do we really want to go into that effort of trying to actively represent what products are sold and under what conditions? Do we even have a remote hope of achieving a level of completeness and timeliness that makes this usable? Where does it stop? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
Hi, DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross). Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that there must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping. The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way mapping is violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if everyone maps how they want. The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established standards and rules concerning this situation, and two, in how far is it acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it is a good idea. Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have strict standards and definitions? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout
Hi, On 23.10.19 14:54, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I think the best suggestion in this case would be to update the > documentation, particularly in translated pages, clarifying that the tag is > intended for the formal mini-roundabout design as found in the UK, Ireland, > France etc., and not for any flat roundabout. The wiki is a bit conflicting here. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout says If there is only a single vehicle, or two vehicles traveling in opposite directions, it is common – but not necessary legal in all countries – to drive straight across the middle rather than going around. Whereas the German translation only said that you "can" go over the centre, not that you usually would. I adapted the German translation to more closely follow the English text. Further down, the same page says A roundabout is a one-way street with right-of-way and a non-traversable centre island. Which if taken at face value would make any roundabout, however big and however many roads join there, a "mini roundabout" if the centre is traversable. The roundabout in the Mapillary images that Paul Johnson posted seems to be one with a traversable centre. At the same time, I would not expect my satnav to ask me to "turn left" here, but rather to take the nth exit at the roundabout... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)
Hi, On 11/7/19 18:19, Greg Troxel wrote: > My point is that we have a lot of mappers and a set of norms (which are > pretty fuzzy and/or a bit contradictory). We have rules about > mechanical edits (including imports), since they change things in a > large-scale systematic way. Yes. If you are a programmer and instruct your code to change all A's to B's in OSM then it's a mechanical edit and rules apply (because much can go wrong, aka "with great power comes great responsibility" etc). And if you are a boss and instruct your 5000 employees to change all A's to B's that should be treated similarly. That's why we have the organised editing guidelines: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > So I'm not opposed to large-scale paid editing; i just think it needs > some caution and that the guidance to paid mapeprs needs to be > published to the OSM community. The guidelines request that, among other things, "if participants will receive training material or written instructions, a copy of, or link to, these materials" should be published. Generally, if an organisation does not follow the guidelines and this leads to problems, they should be held accountable & their edits are liable to being reverted. Of course one would start with a friendly pointer... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Business names in capital letters
Hi, On 14.12.19 01:57, Paul Allen wrote: > How does the company itself capitalize its own name? Paint the label. > Even if it's an ugly label. I tend to view capitalisation as a design element not a part of the name. If they write their name in Comic Sans then I won't try to copy that either, so why copy funny capitalisation that is only intended to attract attention. On the wider topic of writing names as they are on the sign, I would agree with this up to a certain point. It is entirely possible for a business to name itself "Fred's Bagels the BEST Bagels in Northern California Inc", at which point I would say they are starting to game our rules, hoping to be put on the map with exactly that name - and I'd reduce the name to "Fred's Bagels", putting the rest in "offical_name" or something. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
Hi, it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map the Rio de la Plata, here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310 This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and is now coming back. According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what has been the case in OSM until now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the "mouth" of the "river") and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river") This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city. One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I believe this is inline with guidance (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)". I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement but this is still at the proposal stage. Opinions? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
Hi,
On 17.01.20 07:37, European Water Project wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Free_Water
My opinion on this is:
1. It is not something that should be mapped in OSM at all; this is a
volatile property like mapping menu items for a restaurant or product
offers for a supermarket and may change at any time.
2. Even if we wanted to map this property, insofar as a whole chain has
been signed up ("all XYZ outlets in ABC country offer free water"), it
is wasteful to add the tag to every single outlet and it should just be
recorded centrally (i.e. an app displaying free water options should
simply highlight all outlets with operator=X or brand=X).
3. When we're talking about non-chain restaurants, the decision whether
a random traveller will be offered a free refill for their water bottle
can very well depend on the day of week, how politely the traveller
asks, or how busy the place is - just because you've been given free
water doesn't mean you should claim everybody gets it every time.
4. Even if all of the above were ignored, I think "free=yes" is too
limited, and would concur with those who have suggested a "fee=no"
approach, because if you are charged a dollar for your refill you can
simply put "fee=$1".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively
Hi, On 1/25/20 08:26, Thibault Molleman wrote: > Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch > their naming scheme That may well be but the fuel stations in my vicinity still advertise "Diesel" and not "e10", so at least for the part of Germany where I live, "fuel:b7" would be definitely wrong. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters
Hi, On 25.02.20 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > Ignoring they've just added an incorrect "website:" key when there is > already a "website" one, Hilton Hotels appear to be adding URLs with > WT.mc_id parameters to all their web site links. The presence of such tracking parameters is an indication of the author considering OSM to be a "campaign" in some marketing scenario where the success of different "campaigns" is measured. Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these situations remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking parameters. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters
Hi, On 25.02.20 11:08, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these >> situations remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking >> parameters. > > ¿Que? You'd remove an entire hotel from the map because... ok, I'm having > trouble finishing that sentence: because what exactly? I'd remove things from OSM that have been clearly added as part of an advertising campaign, because that means the information is not trustworthy. The purpose of an advertising campaign is not to provide unbiased, factual information, hence OSM cannot be the vehicle for an advertising campaign. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters
Hi, On 25.02.20 11:01, Philip Barnes wrote: > Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either made by > a single user, or the account is being shared between multiple users. Has someone contacted them about the issue already? If they're a single person we could request that they remove the tracking information, rather than us having to deal with it. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters
Hi,
On 25.02.20 11:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> But more broadly, we value data for its correctness
True. (There's a few other things we value too, but correctness
definitely is nice.)
> You are inventing a suspected rationale ("an
> advertising campaign")
Tracking components in an URL are usually a sign for an advertising
campaign. (They are often even called "campaign_ref=...".) If this is
*not* and advertising campaign but they give the outward appearance of
being one, is it then really me who is "suspecting" and "inventing"?
> on the part of the contributor; judging them by your
> own standards which aren't the agreed/stated values of OSM anywhere I can
> see
I don't follow. You said above that correctness is valued. The fact that
advertising and correctness do not usually go hand in hand certainly
needs no discussion. When I then say that we cannot trust data added as
part of an advertising campaign - is that "judging by my own standards"?
> I mean, isn't it also possible that, now we've all made such an outstanding
> success of OSM and it's used in approximately eight gazillion mapping apps,
> Hilton Hotels think it would be useful if their customers could use their
> favourite mapping app to find a hotel they're staying in?
Sure, I'm happy to compromise on "let's remove just those tags that do
not contribute to finding the hotel someone is staying in".
> Anyway, brb, got to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/312915889 from
> the map.
Clearly added in an advertising campaign. The business owner hoped to
attract more business by creating that node 11 years ago with
"addr:housenumber=17".
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters
Hi, On 25.02.20 11:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Yes. And we don't even need to do that: we can verify it with about 30 > seconds' Googling. Ok ok you're right. The URL does contain a tracking token but it does not exclusively track OSM usage. I have overreacted because I have in the past dealt with advertisers who had added an OSM-specific "campaign" ID the the links which was clearly out of line, and suspected the same here. This leads to the interesting question of what the correct URL for a business is and who decides that. If the business owner says "but the correct URL for my business is ...?wdycf=openstreetmap", what do we do? In theory they could configure their web site to only accept a few well-defined wdycf values. (Apparently in this particular case, not only the WT.mc_id parameter is decorative, the whole hotel name is; even https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-camping-in-the-woods/ directs you to https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-doubletree-stratford-upon-avon/...) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?
Hi,
the "name:xx" tags are something of an exception in OSM because while we
defer to "local knowledge" as the highest-ranking source normally, this
is not being done for name:xx tags. It is possible for no single citizen
of the city of Karlsruhe to know its Russian name, but still a Russian
name could exist. Who is the highest-ranking source for that?
My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually represent a
unique name in its own right; all others are either copies of the name
tag ("this city does not have its own name in language XX but I want
every city to have a name:xx tag so I'll just copy the name tag"), or
transliterations (or, worst case, even literal translations).
A while ago we had a longer discussion about Esperanto names; in that
discussion, it was questioned whether Esperanto could be in the name tag
but nobody disputed that adding name:eo tags is ok, even though
Esperanto is an invented (or "constructed") language.
Yesterday someone added a few dozen Klingon names to countries in OSM. I
have reverted that because of a copyright issue, but I think we also
need to discuss which languages we want to accept for name:xx tags.
In my opinion, a name:xx tag should only be added if you can demonstrate
that people natively speaking the living language xx are actually using
this name for this entity. I think we have a very unhealthy inflation of
names in OSM that are added by "single-purpose mappers" - they come in,
stick a name:my-favourite-language tag onto everything, and go away
again. Nobody knows if these names are even correct, and nobody cares
for their maintenance. The country North Macedonia changed its name
almost one year ago, yet roughly half of its ~ 170 name tags are still
what they were before this change. Nobody cares; these names suggest a
data richness that is not backed up by an actual living community that
cares for them.
What are your opinions on which languages should be accepted in name
tags? What do you think about
* niche constructed languages (say, FredLang which has 2 words I
invented just now)
* popular constructed languages (Klingon, Elvish) - note place names in
these languages will often be algorithmically derived from the English
or local name
* "serious" constructed languages (Esperanto)
* languages that once existed but are not natively spoken any more (Roman)
* languages that are natively spoken but their speakers do not have
their own name for the entity in question (instead they use the same
name the locals use, possibly transcribed into a different alphabet)
* ...
Or if you don't have the time to think about this in detail, just answer
the question: tlhIngan Hol - Hlja' or ghobe'?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?
Hi, On 25.03.20 10:45, Andrew Hain wrote: > Why on earth would we not (excluding exceptional copyright issues) want > to have lots of different name:XX tags? I thought I had given a couple of reasons in my post. If you have not understood them, I'm happy to rephrase. If you *have* understood them but think that there is a desirable value that outweighs my reasons, it would be nice if you could state more explicitly what you perceive that value to be and where *you* would draw the line! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?
Hi,
On 25.03.20 11:19, Phake Nick wrote:
> My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually represent a
> unique name in its own right; all others are either copies of the name
> tag ("this city does not have its own name in language XX but I want
> every city to have a name:xx tag so I'll just copy the name tag"), or
> transliterations (or, worst case, even literal translations).
>
> Isn't that the function of the key?
Unsure which of my list items you mean - copying the original name is
not the function of the key; a data user can simply fall back to the
name tag if no name:xx is given. Making a transliteration is also not
the the function of the key, since transliterations can be automated.
Making a translation is *certainly* not wanted!
> Adding Klingon name would not cause copyright issue since vocabularies
> are not copyrightable.
If someone adds a name and specifies a source web page, and the source
web page says "all rights reserved", then I will not start a legal
discussion.
> That is just the same problem with TIGER map data. I don't think anyone
> have ever proposed removing United States data from the OpenStreetMap
> database due to lack of maintainers back then?
Thank you for this comparison. People certainly use TIGER as an example
for not adding more of the same, and a lot of thought has gone into
identifying "TIGER deserts" and how to handle the stale data. If we can
start seeing the name inflation as a problem, stop adding "more of the
same", and develop strategies to deal with stale and possibly incorrect
names, that would already be a huge gain!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rarely verified and third-party data staleness in OpenStreetMap
Hello Stuart, may I suggest that you choose a personal email address for participating in mailing lists. It feels really strange to address a message to "europeanwaterproject". I don't want to talk with "a project", I want to talk with a person. On 06.04.20 09:31, European Water Project wrote: > Please find attached a draft note for a feature proposal, which I have > no idea if is even technically possible, for automatically adding a last > verified date/creation date to specific keys. Maybe there is a > better/more efficient way ? There are several issues here. Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "automatically adding". After all you need a person to manually confirm that the object is unchanged before a tag is added, so which part of this is automatic? Surely you are not saying that you want to add a tag to every object that simply duplicates the last-edit timestamp already stored? Secondly, this is a problem shared by all the "last survey" approaches: You're standing the logic on its head. You're essentially saying: "If the object has NOT changed in reality, please DO change it in OSM" (by updating the last-checked tag). This means that we're being asked to switch from mapping changes to mapping non-changes, with a potentially huge data inflation in OSM (in theory I could update the "last survey" of my local supermarket every time I shop there...). Your idea to identify potentially fast-changing things and concentrate on these softens the impact but still, we'd be churning out new versions of objects like crazy just to confirm they are still there. (Everytime you make a little change to one of the object's 10 tags, a full copy of the object is created in OSM.) Thirdly, also shared by many "last survey" approaches: If you tag a restaurant with a last survey date then exactly what have you surveyed? Just that it is still there? That is still has these opening hours? Or that it still gives you free water? There's potential from confusion here. The topic of staleness has been attacked by scientists in the past, trying statistical approaches along the lines of "if there's a decent number of detailed edits by different people in this area, then there is a high probability of data being up to date". This of course doesn't give you the same reliability but perhaps it delivers some results without being the massively invasive concept you're proposing. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Rarely verified and third-party data staleness in OpenStreetMap
Hi, On 06.04.20 17:25, Paul Allen wrote: > Expecting mappers to wander around checking refill points > is expecting far too much. Expecting people looking for refill points > to tap a "this place still does refills" is expecting far too much. Only way I would see this working is a "gamification" thing where - a bit like the "Kort game" of days past (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kort_Game) and a bit like "StreetComplete" - people who happen to be in a specific location and who have signed up to the game/system are nudged to go check something - "hey since you're standing in front of restaurant X, please check if it still has the property Y". But that would require people to sign up, and of course a server-side application to track contributions, leaderboards and so on. Whether or not the back-end storage is then OpenStreetMap or a separate database is actually a smaller question. Simply establishing a tag and hoping that you have to develop and run neither a backend (because OSM will do it) nor a frontend (because people can use Vespucci) is extremely optimistic. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] insurance health
Hi, On 15.04.20 03:16, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > OK, but are there any countries in the world where you can would > normally buy health insurance in the same place as car or home or life > insurance? Yes, sure. Many big German insurers offer health insurance and other insurances (e.g. life, car, home) too, and they will often have sales representatives tied to one insurer operating out of anything between a more or less private residence with a sticker outside in the countryside and a proper staffed office in a city. These sales representatives are usually self-employed and get a kickback from every contract they sell. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM
Hi, On 21.05.20 10:33, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote: > What I suppose that I wish to say with all this is that in practice, I > have seen highway=path used to mean anything from something that is not > even visible on the ground, An interesting side thread to this is not about the visibility but about the accessibility - at DWG we've recently received a plea from a member of a volunteer mountain rescue team to remove the highway=path attribute from a dangerous approach to a mountain that was only suitable for experienced mountaineers with appropriate gear. The way *did* have a "sac_scale" to indicate difficult alpine hiking but apparently that was not good enough, or too many clients were just ignoring that (in a post on talk-gb recently, Andy Allan wrote: "I've seen maps from a multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that were rendering anything with a highway tag the same as their most minor road style"). It is not proven that the many people having required rescue services on that path came there because of OSM - could be any other source too - but this is one aspect of the general "path" problem. If we map "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" and then someone gets shot because their Android app only looked at highway=path, can we *really* sit back and say "their fault, we don't map for the Android app"? Sorry if this is somewhere on the Wiki, I love the Wiki for documentation but I hate Wiki discussions with all my heart and cannot bring myself to read them, much less participate in them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
Hi, On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> and I fail to see how much more >> difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24" > > Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike boundary=aboriginal_lands We generally *try* and make our data human-readable. If archaeologists dig up an old planet file in 1000 years, then finding a tag boundary=aboriginal_lands is more useful to them than protect_class=24. Of course it's a far-fetched image but I find it helps making the right decisions. And yes, there are established things in OSM that would puzzle those archaeolologists, like sac_scale or tracktype. Or maybe how to read a PBF file. But we can't do all of their job for them ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.3)
Hi, so I've read the proposals that are on the table for the first time now. I wasn't sure at first whether your proposal would break existing tools that only look at boundary=administrative but I see from the discussion page that you understand it is important to keep things working. It would be worth making this clearer to the skim-reader of your proposal. I haven't yet understood how the relationship between boundary=administrative relations and your new relations is supposed to be in the future though. Would boundary=administrative not be identical to your boundary=de factor (apart from the yet-to-be-addressed maritime areas)? I am not 100% sure whether you are advocating to duplicate any and all existing relations right away. If yes, I am against that; I would like to map disputed boundaries only where disputes exist. You say in your recent email that "For any countries with no active disputes, there's no change needed at all." so I assume you're not planning to create "boundary=master" or anything for non-disputed countries. This is good. I am uncomfortable about your "list of claiming entities" and the importance it has for this proposal. I think that the fact that your proposal requires a well-maintained list of who is and isn't a valid claiming entity is a big weakness of the proposal. I am wary of bueraucratic statements like "if Transnistria joins the list, the boundary between it and Moldova would become admin_level=2". It doesn't sound right to me to have such things governed by a list. I can see how the list might be the least worst solution but I'm not in love with it. I don't understand what boundary=minimal is for. It should be easily deducable from the other boundary relations and I don't see its added value. I am not really sure about the notion of "zones of control" which seems essential to your proposal. If there are two countries both bordering a lake, and both of them think the far shore of the lake is the boundary, does that then make the lake into a "zone"? It sounds like an arbitrary concept to me. In some cases the "lake" might actually be an area that has a name and can be called a zone, but in many cases it will just be a dispute over where the border actually is, and the bit in between that is claimed by both parties is just where the country relations overlap - I don't see why it should have its own "identity" and relation in OSM. What is the use of this? You say it should be added to the boundary relations with the role "zone", but adding whole relations to boundary relations is unusual (only done in places where "subarea" is common). Doesn't feel natural to me and I don't see the use since the delineation of the "zone" should already be visible from the overlapping boundaries. If I have two countries A and B and each claims that area C which sits in between them is theirs. Then if I understand you correctly, the "Master Boundary A" will contain all boundary ways around A and C, and the "Master Boundary B" will contain all boundary ways around B and C. Why would C then have to be its own "Zone" and why would it have to be added to the A and B relations? On the whole I'm a bit concerned about the complexity of your proposal - not only the proposal but also the somewhat legalese way in which it is presented, which I fear will keep many people from even reading it to the end, or contributing. This is an important issue and I'm uncomfortable with having 15 people vote yes on this and then saying "this is how we do it from now on". I wonder if maybe we should - provided the proposal gains enough traction - simply declare two "testbed areas" in OSM where we apply the new tagging and give users a chance to get a feel for it before we roll it out world-wide. And yes, we definitely need good comparisons between different proposals, or perhaps a few more different proposals to add to what's already on the table. Your proposal is complex enough already to make it near impossible for anyone to suggest improvements - most people's way of suggesting something would probably rather be "why not do it this way" and then writing up their own ideas ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A fool with a tool ... Vehicle service tags
Hi, I agree there seems to be a problem here that needs careful discussion & consideration, but: On 03.01.19 16:47, Thilo Haug OSM wrote: > So which ACTION should we take now ? > At least those who introduced it should be in charge. The ACTION should definitely not be you mass-editing things back to how you think they should be tagged. This can be discussed here and we can make a change AFTER that, not while. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] motorcycle tagging
Hi, the DWG has received a complaint about user ti-lo/Rtfm's introduction of motorcycle tags. Until 03 April, the shop=motorcycle wiki page contained this: > The following is a proposal to put this service variety into tags: > > sale=yes/brand/used/no/... - sells whole motorcycles > rental=yes/brand/no/... - motorcycle rental > repair=yes/brand/oldtimer/no/... - repairs / maintains motorcycles > safety_inspection=yes/no - inspection of safety/emission regulation > conformance > parts=yes/brand/oldtimer/no/... - sells motorcycle parts > clothes=yes/brand/no/... - sells motorcycle clothes / equipment > scooters=yes/no/only - to distinguish scooter shops, very useful in Asia > services=... - other services this shop offers Rtfm (which is ti-lo's account on the wiki) then removed any mention of these tags and the word "proposal", instead added a table > Optional (compare with "Additional keys" in shop=bicycle) > key values description taginfo > motorcycle:sales yes/no/used sells motorbikes / used=only second > hand / yes;used=both new and used > motorcycle:rental yes/no/trailer motorbike rental / motorbike trailer > rental (Both: yes;trailer) > motorcycle:repair yes/no motorbike repair > motorcycle:parts yes/no sells parts > motorcycle:tyres yes/no sells tyres (may also be used in combination > with shop=tyres) > motorcycle:clothesyes/no sells clothes > motorcycle:type Rtfm proceeded to execute an undiscussed mass edit on the OSM database which was reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47664678 However: * The wiki page has never been changed back * Rtfm/ti-lo has continued to edit motorcycle shops around the world, and whenever he touched one e.g. to change the spelling from "Harley Davidson" to "Harley-Davidson", at the same time also replaced *all* the old-style tags with his new-style tags again. * ti-lo hismelf seems to be by far the most prolific user of these tags. What we have here is not really a classical mechanical edit, but a one-man crusade to push through their tagging scheme. I'm not sure how to best deal with this. Normally we don't want to over-emphasize the proposal and tag voting process and we often say "you can just use a tag and it'll eventually be used by others too". But that doesn't really apply to changing established tags. Even if it is for the better - the complaint we have is really not so much about the new tagging scheme but about the way in which it was established. Opinions? Should we revert the wiki page to the old version and revert all the motorcycle:* tags that ti-lo changed from old-style to motorcycle:*? Or ask him to run a proper proposal process until $DEADLINE under threat of doing the above? Or just shrug and let him have his way? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)
Hi, On 01.01.19 16:59, Markus wrote: > Thanks for your comments so far! I've changed the proposed tag to > natural=peninsula: It would be great if you could make it clear that the tag should be used for *small* peninsulas (peninsulae?) only, and is not intended as a vehicle to catalogue everything that technically is a peninsula. I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)
Hi, On 09.01.19 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > The only reasons I see for > approving "small" peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature Yes. People will create a new "multipolygon" or "boundary" relation containing each and every way of the Spanish coastline for every geographic feature they can think of. Ah, surely this is part of "Eurasia". And of "Europe". And of "Spain". And of the "Iberian Peninsula". And the water is the "Mediterranean Sea". And ... then when you split a piece of coastline in Spain, you've edited 25 relations spanning half the globe. Granted, it's a technical shortcoming, but while this exists people should respect it. > On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a > relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-) Must...resist...urge...to...delete... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)
Hi, on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, does that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding from it, or can there be cascading Peninsulas? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] motorcycle:scale
Hi, I noticed today that a wiki page for the rarely used key "motorcycle:scale" had been accidentally created as "Key:motorcycle:scale", and moved it to "Proposed features/motorcycle:scale". I haven't made any further edits to it though. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
Hi, On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all > right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without > creating a proposal. * invent keys - ok * document widely used/established keys that never went through a proposal process - ok * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or established - questionable * the whole thing done by someone who has in the past unilaterally documented their personal preferred tagging on the wiki, then made mechanical edits to push it through, and when challenged in changeset comments, cited the wiki pages they had edited themselves as an authority - ... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs
Hi, On 14.02.19 08:17, Colin Smale wrote: > Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions > from small to large to work out the mix That's what I see as an issue too. Something that is only verifiable if you are a customer and can make a large number of withdrawals to test, stretches our concept of verifiable. If I don't get a specific denomination from the machine, or if I am set an upper limit for my withdrawal, will another person experience the same on the next day, when they have more money on their account and the machine has been refilled in the mean time? I'd say we stick to stuff that is explicitly signposted on the machine - if the machine says what the limit is or what the network is or what currencies it has, then map that, but don't map data gathered by interacting with the machine. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dykes
Hi, On 22.02.19 12:46, Ulrich Lamm wrote: > if you map a dyke, ID-editor recently gives a warning that a dyke ought to be > a closed (circular) line. I put this into an id ticket: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5933 Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] start_date variants
Hi, On 21.02.19 21:46, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Does this essentially mean that data consumers should treat > architect:wikidata as an overriding tag? I wouldn't want to tell data consumers that they should. Depending on who contributed it, "architect" might have better or worse information than "architect:wikidata". > I would like to somehow get rid of the "us vs them" (osm vs wikidata) Both projects have different cultures and we can work and thrive together if we understand and respect that, in a "good fences make good neighbours" kind of way. For OSM, my main concern is that it must remain usable independent of wikidata, and that the OSM community must not be lured into spending their time to further wikidata integration if they don't have that personal interest. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dykes
Hi, On 2/22/19 13:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> if you map a dyke, ID-editor recently gives a warning that a dyke ought to >> be a closed (circular) line. > > I put this into an id ticket: > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5933 The bug has been fixed in ID and the fix will likely deployed when ID is next updated on the OSM main web page. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries
Sergio, and others who might be reading this and thinking it is "normal", On 15.03.19 12:41, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Another tasteless and vile joke. It is ok to say that, even though I'd hope it is rarely necessary. But it is definitely not ok to say > Not that I was expecting anything better from you, Martin: tastless jokes are > a clear sign of a lower IQ and a troubled personality by someone with the > delusion of being superior to others. Please keep such personal attacks to yourself, they have no place on our mailing lists. You can frame your criticism as a criticism of opinions or behaviour, but singling out an individual and making judgements about their IQ our psyche is totally out of line. > I have decided to unsubscribe from the mailing list and leave the community: > too much noise and bitching Well thank you for adding on top of that. Great help. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)
Josh & others, I think we need to take a break here from making OSM into a map of large-scale geographic features. This is getting out of hand. I vividly remember the endless discussions about bays and peninsulae. Drainage basins. Now plateaus. I don't remember mountain ranges in the recent past but if they weren't discussed then they surely are next. The way OSM usually works is someone stumbles over something in reality, with a discernible name or property, and adds it to OSM. We are, first and foremost, surveyors. The larger a feature becomes, the less suitable OSM is for mapping it. And in the case of the several large-scale objects I have mentioned, most contributors don't even have surveying in mind, but just writing down existing conventions. I haven't checked, but I would be very surprised if *anyone* actually used the natural=peninsula tag for something they happen to identify as a peninsula - no, natural=peninsula is just a method of putting existing geographical names into OSM (because the fact that something is a peninsula can be auto-detected). Same with your plateaus and tablelands now - do you really envisage someone looking at the landscape around them and saying "why, there's a hard layer of rock here on top of softer layers, and a couple cliffs at the sides, I guess I'll map this as a plateau"? No, again this is a situation where you have third-party information about a plateau (and likely its name) and are looking for ways to get that into OSM. All these requests are born from a desire to write down existing large-scale geological/geographical knowledge. But OSM is ill suited for that; OSM cannot accommodate imprecise features. If you want to map a mesa well in OSM then it has to be detectable on the ground, and it has to have a clearly delineated boundary. What you are trying to do here is adding large-scale features that come in handy when you want to make a map ata 1:10m or maybe 1:50m scale. Projects like naturalearthdata.com are ideally suited for that kind of data. OpenStreetMap is not. I think we all should stop seeking out one large-scale feature type after the other that is "missing" from OSM and think about how to best add them. In my view, the fact that these are underrepresented in OSM is not an opportunity to "improve" OSM but a sign that OSM isn't the right place for that kind of data. Instead, let us find a way of recording such imprecise information outside of OSM's data model, and make it easy to access it e.g. when rendering maps. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)
Hi, On 5/23/19 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote: > OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of > these mailing lists. It might; that doesn't invalidate points made on these mailing lists though! > # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts: > - Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to > donate their time to help others via the map. > - Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of > view and usually come around to a compromise. > - There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth. > - Objections are qualified and polite. > - 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea. Every person on this mailing list participates in many of these kinds of discussions, in addition to being on the mailing list (just in case you were thinking there were two different kinds of people, the friendly people and the mailing list people; this is not the case). > When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were > offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on > this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of > combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a > carefully-vetted import. I think you should attempt to apply a little of that "acknowledging the other point of view" that you lauded above to such situations. Every day brings new broken imports to OpenStreetMap. All of them are done with the best intentions. Very many of them are done by people with little prior experience. Therefore, when a group of students pops up and suggests to do an import, this already sets some alarm bells ringing (carefully vetted or not). Your project is to be applauded to even come here - as you rightly say, the lists are not necessarily easy to discover and a large percentage of problematic imports have never been discussed with anyone before they are attempted. Everyone on this mailing list has likely seen many buggy imports. Imagine being at a party and someone steps on your shoe. They say sorry, you say no problem. Five minutes later another person steps on your shoe. Again, a friendly sorry, a friendly no problem. By the time the 10th person steps on your shoe you might shout out "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PARTY" even if that person is totally innocent. It's not right, it's not polite, but it is somewhat understandable. > I think > it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even know that there is > a mailing list, as users have a negative experience. That is often repeated and I guess most people can confirm that people act differently in person than on mailing lists. However, many mailing lists in OSM are vibrant meeting places for many more than 8 community members, and spreading negative opinions about mailing lists reinforces problems instead of solving them - if you go around telling everyone what a snake pit "the mailing lists" are then people will either not join them, or join them just waiting to see their expectations confirmed. In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak with one voice. But this also gives us some resilience; there's no one "tag central command" that someone could take over and dictate what we are to do. > - Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email. > No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw > this. Completely unacceptable. Now you're going off on a tangent. Passwords are not required at all to use the mailing list. Of course, email in general is not a secure medium since you can easily impersonate others. Then again, if we judge the merit of contributions by their content and not by who wrote them, impersonating someone doesn't even give you much of an advantage. > Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real > forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging > discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or > something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual > moderators and code of conduct. The current forum system works and has moderators and etiquette guidelines (this depends on each sub-forum, they are not global). Discoverability isn't much better than mailing lists IMHO. In my country (Germany), OSMers are neatly split between forum and mailing list, most using just one or just the other, some using both. Nothing wrong with that IMHO; smaller groups form better bonds. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
Hi, On 25.05.19 00:11, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Its just a matter of > defining whom to exclude not if. True. My son attends a school that favours being inclusive, and this means that there's one student in the class who has a form of autism that lets him often loudly protest against assignments, throw stuff on the ground and leave the room in a huff. You'll find quite a few parents at this school saying "well I'm all for inclusion but this is starting to impact my child's education negatively..." It's easy to rattle off a catalogue of behaviours we will all agree on that they have no place here. Threats of violence, racist or sexist abuse would get someone kicked out whether or not we have codified rules or processes. These are extremely rare, though, and are certainly not the problem people refer to when they say that the lists are not welcoming. The problems that people often cite are softer in nature: The "culture" was not "welcoming", they felt "attacked" or not treated respectfully enough. These are much, much harder to codify, and I know quite a few proponents of strict code-of-conduct rules who are against any soft rules like that. People have a right to be treated with respect, but that does not mean that we need to extend US American style courtesy to everyone because US Americans have the narrowest definition of what counts as respectful. We want and need passionate debate about issues in this grassroots project; if someone offers a very bad idea, then nobody benefits if people say "this is a GREAT idea, I'd just like to suggest a small change" - tearing the idea apart in public is totally ok and if people can't stand that kind of (intellectual) heat then they cannot be part of that aspect of the project in which such ideas are debated. There ought to be a safe space for people, but there cannot be a safe space in which bad ideas are allowed to live just because nobody dares to call them out. Sometimes people attack the person presenting an idea, instead of attacking the idea. This is something that we can work on and improve. On the other hand, sometimes people feel attacked or "not welcomed" when you tell them that their idea is not a good one, or that they have made a mistake. If in this situation people are allowed to invoke some rule that demands everyone be welcoming all the time, then we can probably stop discussing anything right away, because the person with the thinnest skin will be the last one left standing. This, however, is leading us far off topic. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
Hi, On 25.05.19 01:12, Silent Spike wrote: > In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on > this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe. There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop participating. The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame, in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like the people here". It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their time. For example, if you have a complex idea like e.g. the "disputed boundaries" that we discussed a while ago, you need to bring a combination of skills to the table to succeed: * You need the understanding and experience in OSM to create a workable proposal. * You need clarity of thought and the ability to express your idea clearly, even to people who are not native speakers of English (or you might yourself not be). * You need diplomatic or political skills to find compromise, to get others to support your idea, and the willingness to iterate again and again. * and a lot of patience! This can be a demanding process and not everyone is cut out for it. Of 10 who attempt it, perhaps one succeeds and the others throw in the towel and even stop participating altogether. It would be sad, and a little disingenuous, if these people were then running around telling everyone how shite the tagging list is just because they didn't get their proposal through on the first attempt. And the same happens on smaller scales of course. You could be suggesting something and be faced with the opinions of people from the other side of the globe, for whom what you suggest is outlandish, or of people who live nearby but whose vision of OSM could not be more different than your own. I'm sure the communications can be improved in many ways, but even if everyone were super respectful, all this would still be *hard* and taxing and many people would leave because they just don't have the patience that decision making in a large, international group of volunteers with minimal authoritarianism takes. Ask anyone who's working at the EU or the UN... I think OSM on the whole should be welcoming for everyone, in that everyone can find a place where they can make a useful contribution. But I doubt that this mailing list, or any body that discusses tagging, can ever be built in a way that everyone feels happy to contribute. So please, if you feel your talent is better applied to other areas of OSM, just do it - that's great. There's no need for a "sour grapes" approach because you found that tagging discussions were not for you. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list
Hi, On 6/2/19 10:47, Simon Poole wrote: > In the interest of keeping the list at least half usable, I would > suggest that we all, starting now, voluntarily submit to: > > - not posting more than 30 times per month (the 30 comes from the WMF > mailing lists, where it seems to work quite well) > > - not more than one proposal per person per month > > - not more than 4 new proposals per month in total - propose tags only if you, personally, have solid demand for it (i.e. you have already mapped, or intend to map, the feature intensively). This puts a practical limit to idle tag fantasising. Everyone can think of something that doesn't have a tag yet - that is the cheap part... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list
Hi, On 6/2/19 13:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Note there have been in the past opinions that documenting a new tag > without creating a proposal is not desirable That is also my opinion, however, I don't see anything wrong with someone just "trying out" a tag in the "any tags you like" spirit without documenting it. (Or, if desperately needed, documenting it only on their private user page.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mismatched tag status
Hi, On 11.06.19 02:29, Warin wrote: >> Here's the thing. In terms of OSM statuses, "de facto" means that the >> tag is in use. > > Err I thought > 'de facto' = "approved" but before the formal approval process was in place > 'in use' = widely used and in large numbers, sufficient to be recognised > by renders > ' undefined' = low numbers, or restricted use .. some incorrectly place > these as 'in use' I think it has become clear in a short time that there is no hard-and-fast definition of any of this. The idea that tags even *have* a status was introduced by someone writing wiki templates at some time in the distant past; it's not something that was even discussed as far as I remember, because it never was of any importance. We have never discussed or decided that (a) every tag should have a documented status (b) the status should be the same in all langauages (c) what status values there are and what they mean So your opinion is as good as mine. I'd be tempted to side with Warin here; if "in use" only meant "used anywhere at least once" then taginfo can be used to determine that; only if there's *some* human factor in it would it even make sense. And it could certainly differ across regions. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of non-approved values for diplomatic=?
Hi, in general, I try to avoid marking anything as deprecated. I think the term only gives people wrong ideas. If anything, try to find wording that says "today, most mappers prefer the X tag", but don't say "this tag is deprecated" except in very clear circumstances, where an overwhelming majority has actually decided that this tag should be listed as "deprecated". Claiming something is "deprecated" should never be a silent side-effect of some other vote. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of non-approved values for diplomatic=?
Hi, On 6/14/19 5:49 PM, marc marc wrote: > I think the proposals for a new tag should clearly say: > - add such tag > - edit the old tag description to point the new tag > - write to editors to adapt presets > - propose a mecanical edit, if necessary by splitting it up > to avoid a global opponent blocking everything > - propose the depreciation of the old tag Such proposals would need to clear a much higher bar than we currently have. I'm thinking "at least 500 votes of which 75% in favour" or so. You cannot have 15 people decide on such wide-ranging changes. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Which global OSM mailing list for the "community index"?
Hi, in parts of the world for which no particular national/regional resources have been defined, the "id" editor will suggest to get in touch with "us" and/or other mappers through: * Reddit * Facebook * Telegram * Discord * Twitter * OSM help * OSM IRC channel * OSMF website (this list is defined in from https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/tree/master/resources/world) Clearly one of the global mailing lists is missing here; I wonder which one it should be. "talk" has had participation from ~ 160 different community members in 2019 so far, "tagging" even ~ 200. Though maybe tagging is too specific and talk a better starting point for someone who wants to get in touch? For comparison, I would be interested in how many people have participated in the global venues that id currently links to. Are there public archives that would allow me to count that? I tried to gauge participation in help.osm in all of 2019 and came up with ~ 620 different people who either asked or answered at least one question. But help is a less "egalitarian" landscape than the mailing lists; a very large part of those 620 just ask one question and don't participate further, and a very small number of these 620 answer all the questions. The mailing lists have fewer people participating but those that do are more likely to engage in a bidirectional fashion. It would be interesting to quantify this in a more scientific manner. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kerb regulations: moving towards a tagging schema?
Hi, On 21.06.19 04:38, Emily Eros wrote: > I'd love to hear from people about what they think about this as a > general approach. It is rare to see a suggestion from someone who is new to the game that is so well thought out. I am impressed that you did not, like so many others who want to scratch their particular itch with OSM, opt for whatever is easiest for you and not care about mapping. Everyone else on the planet would likely have said something like "ah let's just draw a line next to the road and add kerbside regs to that", or worse still, "let's just split up the road" which would, as you rightly point out in your example, lead to very fractioned ways indeed. For this idea to be really successful, I believe that your logic of snapping points to the road and deriving linear information from it might have to be added to editors, so that mappers can get direct feedback on how the interpretation changes when they add markers. I'm not 100% clear on some aspects, e.g. what if your on-the-ground markers are linear (double vs. single yellow line indicating no stopping/no parking etc.) but it is possible that you've covered that somewhere without me noticing. I'm sure practical application will lead to all sorts of questions or follow-on problems but the approach sounds promising. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm
Hello Ulrich, this is offtopic here but I'd like to say something anyway since you started the discussion here. Your are blocked from editing until we can trust you to respect our rules. This is a process that has to happen in your head. I would have hoped that you understood the issue but time and time again you have demonstrated that you did not. You cannot continue to use one inadmissible source and then when you're told this is wrong, use a different inadmissible source and so on ad infinitum. This is not a contest of who finds a loophole. Use your own knowledge, or use public domain (or suitably licensed) sources; and always add a source tag that lets people verify your source. All these relations you're adding about complex waterway systems and their names - these can impossibly all be your knowledge so you're copying them from somewhere and if you don't say where from then we must assume it's an inadmissible source. Since all your mapping is in Germany, please go to the German mailing list or German forum to discuss what exactly you are doing with your waterway mapping and what your data sources and processes are, and then if we find a way forward that will not lead to lots of complaints to DWG about your work, we can lift the ban on your account and let you continue. But simply letting you continue after a couple days, like we did in the past, has sadly not helped. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm
At this point the discussion should really be continued (a) under another subject and (b) on a different mailing list (maybe legal-talk?) Bye Frederik On 26.06.19 07:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 26 Jun 2019, 00:01 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > in particular for non-commercial and scientific use > > This are not relevant at all, OSM data is not restricted in how it can > be used. > > I don't know to what extent this is applicable for an international > project such as OSM, but there are fair-use and non-commercial ex- > ceptions in the copyright statutes of many countries > > Both have limitations that make incompatible with OSM licensing > requirements. > > Merely reusing names of watercourses is not a breach of copyright, if > you research them in non-database publications > > OSM is a database > > _or_ if you do copy > few excerpts > > This way lies madness, as there is no way to ensure that only one user > copied > something. Multiple users copying only few excerpts each is not allowed. > > (UrhG speaks of 15% for scientific, non-commercial use) > > How many for commercial use? > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which global OSM mailing list for the "community index"?
Hi, On 28.06.19 04:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Thoughts? Very bad idea, is my thought. Copying old threads to forums swamps the forums, and gives people there old discussions to look at but in which they cannot participate any more, as the authors of whatever arguments you post will not be reading the forum. In my eyes, this plan treats the forum as second-class and is disrespectful to its users. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 6/29/19 08:05, "Christian Müller" via Tagging wrote: > The intriguing question is: Please (again!), move this to legal-talk or elsewhere. It has no place on the tagging list. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?
Hi, On 29.07.19 08:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently > incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably > deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:* > (namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times. > > The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even > though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused: > page suggests it is deprecated. Frankly, I am worried about the obsession with tag "statuses". I couldn't care less whether "abandoned=yes" was obsolete, deprecated, in use, or even voted on; "negating tags" like this is are dangerous and problematic and the wiki should educate people about this, full stop. If we explain to people why negating tags are problematic then they will understand and not use them; this is far better than telling them "uh-oh you've used a tag that is classified as a type-X tag under section Y of the tag classification regulations, don't do it!" Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecate access=public (synonym for access=yes)
Hi, On 31.07.19 09:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I'd like to deprecate access=public. Can you explain what concrete actions you mean by that? What exactly would you do if everyone said "yeah, go ahaead"? Bye Frderik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of tag "import=yes" on objects, not changesets?
Hi, On 09.08.19 15:32, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Or perhaps there is a simple way they could check changesets to find > out how many roads they have added? I'd like to suggest how they could > do this, to avoid adding extra tags. f.s.v.o. "simple", a relatively foolproof method on a Linux machine is 1. download indonesia history pbf, 2. run osmium command line tool to convert into ASCII "opl" format, 3. grep how many ways with highway=* and v=1 are mapped by their team. Steps 2 and 3 combined could look like osmium cat indonesia-internal.osh.pbf -f opl | grep "^w" | grep highway= | grep -e " uxybot " -e " uArjanO "| wc -l [==] 100% 7413 (for a sample count of all highways created by users xybot and ArjanO). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Not mapping personal preferences and details
Hi, On 02/05/2018 08:04 PM, Thilo Haug OSM wrote: > There are two guys which appear to me like religios bigot on an Inquisition, > but maybe the definitions in the wiki are just unclear / too interpretable : They often are. Concerning your questions: 1. A "motorcycle_friendly" tag lacks the necessary verifiability, UNLESS it explicitly refers to some clear-cut scheme (e.g. certain hotels are member of the "motorcycle friendly" association and therefore they have a "motorcycle friendly" banner hanging out front). 2. There are two issues with mapping "the proprietor is a motorcyclist" in the database: 2a. It is personal information about the proprietor that could lead to data protection issues. While this might be ok if the proprietor agrees, we'd have to record his agreement somehow etc. so I'd rather not go there. 2b. This is not verifiable either. Who "is a motorcyclist" - if the proprietor used to ride but now he's in a wheelchair or lost his driver's license, are they still a motorcyclist? If the proprietor bought himself a grand bike but doesn't have a license to ride it? And so on. Essentially what you are trying to do is use OSM to record information that you would normally find in a review: "I was there, they were motorcycle friendly, and the proprietor is a motorcyclist himself so he knew all about it." - But OSM is not for recording reviews. You need to split your use case - record the basics in OSM, and record the recommendations elsewhere. (This could also go the other way round - you found a place shit and you want OSM to reflect the place was shit, and then the proprietor comes and edits OSM in order to make his place look better...) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging (or not) work from home businesses
Hi, On 02/07/18 02:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > I know we "tag what we can see" so if there's a sign there saying Bill > Jones Accountant, we should tag the premises as office=accountant, with > name, phone number & so on. Yes. > However, I've also seen mention that we shouldn't disclose personal > details, so /shouldn't/ say that Bill Jones lives at this address & > here's his phone number. Actually you wouldn't tag that at all. You would tag that this is where Bill Jones has his office, and what his office phone number is. You would not add "works_from_home=true" so you're not saying anything about where Bill Jones lives. People familiar with the area might infer that because it's a residential neighbourhood, it is likely that this is a work-from-home situation, but you don't say anything about that. Even in countries with data protection laws, individuals who solicit business through a sign out front can't at the same time request privacy. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags
Hi, On 10.03.2018 01:51, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > I would therefore suggest > to make sure admin_level tags are present on all > boundary=administrative ways. I can see how this makes rendering easier, but OSM isn't mainly a database for rendering. I don't see why a river that serves as an admin boundary should even have a boundary=administrative tag; including it in the relevant relation should be enough. Also when the admin_level of an area changes (due to either a political change or a change of mind in the OSM community about what should be which admin level in the particular country), I don't want to force mappers to change the tagging of all affected ways. On the whole, the openstreetmap-carto team usually has a positive influence on tagging in OSM and provides the occasional nudge for mappers to standardise something. In this particular case, I would say this is an undue request, and the change in tagging would be for the worse. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?
Hi, On 04/06/2018 05:26 AM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > Putting information about the legal default into OSM is not the problem. > It’s just that nobody has developed a schema for it yet. The French have invented something: Check the "Part of..." listing here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11980 It seems that a couple more of these exist, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1124248 I don't know if anyone actually uses them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Identifying language regions
Hi, On 04/18/2018 09:41 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > A relation may span multiple countries (e.g. US and most of Canada for > English), or split countries (e.g. EN and FR regions in Canada). In some > cases, the relation will reuse country border ways. We had a discussion about time zones here recently, and came to the conclusion that they should not be mapped as separate polygon relations, but instead that the time zone information should be tagged on the admin boundaries of a country or smaller entity; and that time zone polygons in their own right would only be welcome where they don't follow country boundaries. I have a feeling that the same will hold true for spoken languages. I would be very much against trying to establish fuzzy separate regions for language use, since the exact delineation will not be verifiable. The question "what is the majority/official language in region X" or "country Y", on the other hand, tends to have a clear answer. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Identifying language regions
Hi, On 19.04.2018 03:33, André Pirard wrote: > I have several times suggested a "language" boundary type (with > provision for minority languages etc.) I think such a boundary type would not be verifiable enough to draw a precise line; it's the same problem as "the Black Forest" or "the Alps" which simply don't match our data model. You can do it for verifiable facts like "the official language(s) in is/are " but you cannot do it for fuzzy things. Also, speaking of data model, we already have too many boundary relations. Pick an arbitrary strech of the Rhine river near where I live and you'll find it is a member of more than 20 relations, ranging from administrative boundaries on various levels, to church or school districts or cultural entities. This doesn't scale, hence my opposition to further relations that will, by and large, follow existing borders. If you want to tag that French is the official language in France, add that to the France boundary relation instead of creating yet another relation that re-uses the boundary ways. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] brand=* necessary?
Hi, On 05/10/2018 04:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > It is also a result of how the tags have been introduced, name was used much > earlier than brand (which was originally only proposed for automotive brands) > so that there is some self-amplifying process of people looking around how > things are done and doing it similarly. And maybe most important, osm carto > doesn’t render brands, which is sufficient reason for many maybe most mappers > to prefer name. "brand" is an artificial construct of today's global capitalist economy. I have nothing against OSM recording it, but I'd be loathe to afford the concept the same importance as corporate PR departments do. Knowing what brand a store belongs to is only worth anything if you combine that with OSM-external "knowledge" that you have gained from marketing material or past experiences with different branches of the same brand. It is not a useful fact that helps a visitor who doesn't know anything about the brand's supposed image. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages
Hi, On 12.05.2018 13:53, Colin Smale wrote: > As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a > documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting in a > purely personal capacity? Nobody from DWG was involved until Thilo asked DWG to get involved, and after that the involvement of DWG was limited to exchanging messages with Thilo. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
Hi, it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call for strong leadership to solve them once and for all. OSM is no exception. On 08.06.2018 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: > I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a > brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys. Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw? And if something turns out to be designed wrongly, how will it be challenged? > And I wouldn't mind if > these keys were enforced from now on. Not having an enforced set of keys and values was definitely a big part of OSM's success (there *were* competing projects which got stuck trying to define the one true set of keys and values that would work for everything). Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not convinced; a lot of innovation is still going on with tags, and strict enforcement would run the risk of killing that. > Someone some time ago on one > of the OSM mailing lists summed up the current situation by stating, "It > seems OSM is incapable of moving forward." OpenStreetMap is becoming a larger group of more diverse people with more diverse interests, and since we don't - and don't aim to - have a dictator at the top, things need to be done by consensus. These people who take to the internet complaining about how OSM is incapable of moving forward usually are people who are unwilling, or unable, to convince the "great unwashed" their idea of "forward" is a good thing. So they lament the lack of leadership and complain about "gatekeeping", but it's really just them being unable to do the work required to establish consensus in a large project. Because that takes much more than a couple of blog posts (cf. the license change). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard
Hi, On 06/18/2018 03:37 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > I think we should continue to make sure that every change > is raised on the tagging mailing list for WWIC [1] reasons. Using mailing lists provides no immunity against "WWIC", but it is certainly safer than Github for the time being (who knows, there might be a time when people sign up to Github before they do email, and their friends open an issue when they want to meet up for drinks but we're not quite there yet). Jokes aside, there are many serious reasons why good old-fashioned mailing lists should be the mainstay of important communication in OSM. For me, the greatest plus is that mailing lists are not controlled by (and at the whim of) business interests. 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 product). Others again might prefer the accessibility offered by email, where it is relatively straightforward to have a 100% voice based interface, and so on. So yes, +1 to keeping the discussion on email - documenting results on Github is ok, but trying to move the decision-making there would be problematic. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
