Re: [Tagging] Idea for a new tag: amenity=power_supply

Am 23. Juni 2019 14:16:43 MESZ schrieb Paul Allen : >Mapping a GPU would be like mapping a tractor on a farm. It's not >sensible >because it moves. Wouldn't it make sense then to tag it with the airport or airstrip and indicate the connector/voltage/etc for the entire facility?

Re: [Tagging] Idea for a new tag: amenity=power_supply

t Philip Barnes > Folgendes geschrieben: > > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 15:49 +0200, Jan S wrote: >> >> Am 21. Juni 2019 15:25:06 MESZ schrieb Philip Barnes < >> p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: >> > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 16:07 +0300, Anton Klim wrote: >> > > G

Re: [Tagging] Idea for a new tag: amenity=power_supply

Am 21. Juni 2019 15:25:06 MESZ schrieb Philip Barnes : >On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 16:07 +0300, Anton Klim wrote: >> Guess it could be the same as fuel stations/hotels etc with extra >> amenities: high-level tagging on the whole campsite pitch with a sub >> tag, or nodes on actual power sockets for

Re: [Tagging] refugee camp

/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Camp_Boundaries > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Camp_Boundaries> > *>>* I also think is is something to dig in and happy to help... > *>>* Best, > *>>* V > *>>* On 11/06/2019 05:39, Jan

Re: [Tagging] refugee camp

Am 10. Juni 2019 22:05:53 MESZ schrieb Dave Swarthout : >The refugee camps I'm familiar with in Thailand are not social >facilities >except in an incidental way. They are essentially internment camps >surrounded by fences with guarded gates where undocumented aliens are >kept. >They are

[Tagging] refugee camp

> > On 6/6/2019 5:27 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >>* I'd suggest something like social_facility=temporary_housing. > *>>>* To me, social_facility doesn't quite cut it for "refugees". Refugees > *>* strike me as people fleeing from war / massive natural disaster - > *>* social_facility

Re: [Tagging] refugee camp

Am 6. Juni 2019 23:27:37 MESZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 04:34, Jmapb wrote: > >> >> There are 40 instances of social_facility=refugee_camp, and 18 of >> social_facility=refugee_housing. >> For the primary tag you could go with social_facility=group_home or >>

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

Am 31. Mai 2019 11:57:58 MESZ schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: >Also found at airports .. and those can be some distance from the >border. Which are borders also? Hm... Anyways, I'll just change the wiki. Just wanted to be sure beforehand.

Re: [Tagging] Inland customs offices

Am 30. Mai 2019 22:40:56 MESZ schrieb Paul Allen : >On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 21:19, Anton Klim wrote: > >> There is another, older key, amenity=customs, which is actually used >at >> border crossings (from what I’ve seen) to denote customs control. >> I am not sure why the amenity tag was

[Tagging] Inland customs offices

Hey everyone, I've just noticed that the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:government%3Dcustoms defines a customs building as "A structure near or at an international boundary where travelers and vehicles crossing the border are inspected." Customs controls however take place

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

Am 22. Mai 2019 00:44:51 MESZ schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > >22 May 2019, 00:38 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > >> Le 22.05.19 à 00:16, Florian Lohoff a écrit : >> >>> >>> Hi marc, >>> >>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:02:53PM +, marc marc wrote: >>> Hello, Le 21.05.19 à 23:46,

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

Am 20. Mai 2019 16:30:30 MESZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg : > >It seem to me that the presence of public passenger flights is the >basic idea of the word "airport" to the general public (pilots certain >have different ideas, but they have their own specialized databases), >and it would be good if

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Hi, I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping site, either. I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key can be used for isolated camping pitches that are not part

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

Am 19. Mai 2019 06:10:21 MESZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >Would the police then work under building=government (which was >discussed a >while back) + police=xxx? I'd think so, as long as the police (or other government offices) occupy the entire building. Otherwise it would just be a node

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

Hi Valor, Thanks for reducing your proposal. I could go with it. Still, it's up to the programming guys to say whether the changing of the name of the key from diaper to changing_table is somehow problematic. Best, Jan Am 18. Mai 2019 11:28:31 MESZ schrieb Valor Naram : >Hey guys, > >my first

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

lf? > >Simon > >Am 17.05.2019 um 23:03 schrieb Jan S: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've created the pages https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:police >> and subpages for values police=barracks, police=car_pound, >> police=car_repair, police=checkpoint, poli

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

Hi Graeme, I've just seen that. I've used the taglist template, but apparently it doesen't work as intended. I'll make a manual list. Best, Jan Am Sa., 18. Mai 2019 um 01:06 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick < graemefi...@gmail.com>: > > > On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 07:05, Jan S wrot

[Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

Hi everyone, I've created the pages https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:police and subpages for values police=barracks, police=car_pound, police=car_repair, police=checkpoint, police=detention, police=naval_base, police=offices, police=range, police=storage and police=training area, as well

[Tagging] Voting results - tag:police

Hi everyone, The police=* proposal has been unanimously approved by 30 votes. Thanks for your massive support! I hope that I'll have the time to change the wiki over the next days. All the best, Jan___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Looking for Existing Proposal/Feature - Firearm Restrictions

Hi Jane, Welcome! I'm currently visiting Texas, so I know that firearm restrictions are a fact that may be worthwhile to register in OSM. I suggest you write up a proposal following the guidelines in the wiki and taking other proposals as examples and put it up for comments here. If you feel

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - tag:Police

gt;> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 04:18, Jan S <>> grimpeu...@gmail.com ><mailto:grimpeu...@gmail.com>>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> So, I'm looking forward to your votes >>&

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - tag:Police

Hi everyone, since the police facilities proposal had already been widely discussed, I hadn't expected much further comment on the stripped-down version consisting only of the police tag. That's why I'm already putting it to vote again. So, I'm looking forward to your votes and expect

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - tag:police

Hey, As the proposed tagging scheme for police facilities appeared to be too complex to find approval by a majority of voters, I've stripped it down to just defining a police tag. I've set it up as a new proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tag:Police. I'm again

Re: [Tagging] Why should we avoid overusage of amenity=* tag?

Am Mo., 22. Apr. 2019 um 01:48 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > > It certainly makes overpass turbo queries a lot simpler and more intuitive > if we can group all > education facilities under education rather than under amenity. Typing > "education=*" is shorter > than "amenity=school or

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting results - Police facilites

The voting period for the refined police facilities proposal ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Police_facilites) has ended. The proposal has been rejected by 8 approvals against 3 rejections (72.7% approval). Best, Jan ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Police Facilities

Hi Graeme, Thanks for asking. I've left an answer in the wiki, which I likewise repeat here. "I think it would be convenient to leave this to be determined by people with local knowledge. It should depend on what is the more common denomination. In Germany, some abbreviations are the commonly

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Police Facilities

Hi everyone, I've adapted the police facilities proposal according to the votes and comments I've received during the first voting. In particular I've done away with the landuse=police tag and the plan to deprecate amenity=police in the future. Give it another look, please, and vote:

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

Am Sa., 30. März 2019 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > if you want to make changes to the proposal you can still do it, from my > understanding, this would stop the current voting, and there would be a new > voting on the modified proposal. > > The new

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

Hey guys, the voting has had people give more specific comments on the proposal. In has become clear in particular that landuse=police is mostly seen as superfluous, while hitherto there were people speaking out against as well as in favour of this tag. I've now also understood the idea of the

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Police Facilities

Hey guys, There are no more open discussions around the police facilities proposal. I've hence decided to open it for voting. I'm looking forward to your opinions. Vote here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Police_facilites Best,

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

Am 17. März 2019 22:38:30 MEZ schrieb marc marc : >Le 17.03.19 à 11:23, Jan S a écrit : >> it wasn't obvious which were police stations and which were other >facilities. In the end, I used Google maps... So there is practical >relevance. > >i'm in favor of police=* (

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

Am 17. März 2019 21:47:03 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >There are some extensive Police areas, rather than just buildings - as >mentioned, the Academy, driver training area, Mounted Police stable, >which >would usually include paddocks & so on. > I think this is similar to universities.

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

Okay, I think the police scheme is consolidating. I had included a new landuse=police tag, inspired in landuse=military. I'm not sure whether we really need that. I came to think that the police doesn't use land in the same way the military does for training grounds, huge shooting ranges,

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

Am 16. März 2019 20:09:05 MEZ schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : >Some police facilities will remain mistagged, no matter tagging scheme. > >Have you already fixed such objects or opened OSM notes mentioning >mistaggings? No. I wouldn't have known which other tags could've been applied. That's why I

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

Am 16. März 2019 23:18:38 MEZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg : >The key “police” is not currently on the list of features that import >as a >polygon in osm2pgsql, when mapped as a closed way. > >So renderers and other database users that rely on osm2pgsql will need >to >add the “police” key to the

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

Am 17. März 2019 00:56:42 MEZ schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: >On 17/03/19 03:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> sent from a phone >> On 16. Mar 2019, at 15:53, Jan S > <mailto:grimpeu...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>

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

Am Sa., 16. März 2019 um 15:09 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > On 16. Mar 2019, at 13:11, Jan S wrote: > > > > All other police facilites, that may currently have been tagged > erroneously as amenity=police would be tagged only as p

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

Am Fr., 15. März 2019 um 17:48 Uhr schrieb marc marc < marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>: > Le 15.03.19 à 17:16, Jan S a écrit : > > I sense dissent here about the future use of amenity=police. Would it be > a possible solution to keep amenity=police for public-facing police > stat

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

Am 15. März 2019 09:17:31 MEZ schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : >Mar 15, 2019, 7:37 AM by grimpeu...@gmail.com: > >> >> >> Am 15. März 2019 00:19:22 MEZ schrieb althio <> >althio.fo...@gmail.com > >: >> >Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com

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

Am 15. März 2019 07:55:31 MEZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg : >Please don’t change the established meaning of amenity=police; it >should >keep meaning “a public police station”. > >Most database users are only going to be interested in public police >stations, that’s why we’ve gotten by for over 10

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

Am 15. März 2019 00:19:22 MEZ schrieb althio : >Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> > If this seems viable, I would expand the proposal by a migration >proposal from amenity=police to police=station >> >> I don’t think we should abandon amenity=police and it will likely not >happen unless people tag

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

Am 14. März 2019 19:43:52 MEZ schrieb Markus : >On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:11, Jan S wrote: >> >> I'll collect more opinions on the abolition of amenity=police. > >Note that every software that uses OSM data would need to be updated >before amenity=police c

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

There have been no further comments on the proposal for several days now, neither were there comments on the proposal page. Would it be an issue if I started the voting this weekend although the proposal is less than two weeks old? Best, Jan Am 11. März 2019 17:32:13 MEZ schrieb Martin

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am 14. März 2019 01:02:56 MEZ schrieb Sergio Manzi : >On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi > wrote: >> >> >> I was advicing somebody something completely different as of >lately: to form a hidden, underground,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am 13. März 2019 00:33:02 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - >maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion >has >to happen on the tagging list? Or promote proposals better, may by consistently (or

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am Di., 12. März 2019 um 19:22 Uhr schrieb Johnparis : > Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 > abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, > which has no effect on the outcome.) > > The proposal was therefore defeated, not having

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

Am 11. März 2019 17:32:13 MEZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > >in Germany, the cells in a police facility would not be called a >prison, AFAIK there are only “drunk tanks” (Ausnüchterungszelle / >sobering cell) and people would otherwise (pre-trial detention) go to a >real prison (government

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

Am 11. März 2019 01:45:56 MEZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg : >> “in China some police divisions even managed to setup their own >for-profit companies, like hospitals or construction companies, that >would >serve general public and compete in business environment in order to >create >additional

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

Am 11. März 2019 00:40:14 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >> How about police=detention as a more generic term then? >> > >Yep, that covers it nicely! Ok, so police=detention be it. I've also adapted the definition to better distinguish the facilities I have in mind from prisons or jails

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

Am 10. März 2019 22:28:13 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >I agree, so what is the procedure for deprecating a tag? The normal proposal procedure, only that you don't propose a new tag but the abolition and replacement of an existing one? ___

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

Am 10. März 2019 20:31:33 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen : >On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:45, Sergio Manzi wrote: > >no problem maintaing the currently defined terminology "prison" and >> "operator", for me: as I said it was a bit of hair splitting and as I >hit >> the send button I also asked myself if

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

Am 11. März 2019 00:00:55 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen : >On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 22:53, Martin Koppenhoefer > >wrote: > >> >> > On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen wrote: >> > >> > Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as >military >> will need to be >> > figured out at some

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

>1) You're using "operator=*" to identify the particular police force to >which a feature is related. That's in line with what we do in several >other situations, but as we are talking about police, wouldn't be >"corps=*" more correct? > >2) More than "prison" I think "jail" would be more

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

Am So., 10. März 2019 um 14:15 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > > Under "Rendering" you say "Typical police stations, i.e. places where one > can get in contact > with the police usually 24/7, should be rendered different from other > police facilites" > > In my part of the UK (still running austerity

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

Am So., 10. März 2019 um 04:09 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick < graemefi...@gmail.com>: > Good start Jan. > Thanks! > > A first few thoughts. > > police=naval_base sounds very dramatic & possibly a bit over the top? > Having said that, none of the other common options seem quite right either >

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

Am 9. März 2019 22:34:39 MEZ schrieb marc marc : > >police:name : it's not what should be in operator or network ? > >police:type : type is a no-meaning tag despite I currently no idea for >a >good name. >I also fail to understand the dif with police:name. >what's the police:name of CRS ?

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Hi everyone, I have written up a draft of a police scheme. It would be a pretty fundamental modification of the current way of tagging police facilites, but I think that given the current state of the map, that does not allow to differentiate police stations that provide emergency services and

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

Am 8. März 2019 19:02:08 MEZ schrieb Martin > >what about other police facilities that are also tagged with >amenity=police >now, should they key the basic tag as well? That wouldn't be useful, I guess. Maintaining amenity=police would already be a concession to existing mapping and rendering

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

Am 6. März 2019 19:37:13 MEZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : >I would be more in favor of using more explicit tags, like >amenity=police_station because this implies more obviously that it is a >public facing facility. Or, to keep it simple, maintain amenity=police for public-facing police

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

Am 6. März 2019 13:56:43 MEZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > >IMHO we need to distinguish different kind of facilities (e.g. a police >station from police barracks) and different kind of police types at the >facility (e.g. coast guards, customs, federal police, military police, >etc. >plus

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

Am 6. März 2019 01:57:21 MEZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > > >sent from a phone > >> On 5. Mar 2019, at 12:17, Jan S wrote: >> >> Any thoughts on this? > > >if you think about it, there are more police forces in Germany, >particularly if we find mor

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

Am 6. März 2019 00:35:44 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 22:01, Jan S wrote: > > >How about emergency=police? > I had thought about that, too. But my impression is that the emergency tag is more restricted to facilities that help you in ongoing situati

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

Am Di., 5. März 2019 um 12:46 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > > > Mar 5, 2019, 12:17 PM by grimpeu...@gmail.com: > > I would hence suggest to introduce a new tag "police" with keys like > "station", "administration", "criminal police", "barracks", "range", >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

Am Fr., 1. März 2019 um 18:55 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > > I wonder what we call "police" in OSM. > > > > The wiki does not offer a lot of guidance (France aside): "A police > station > > is a building where police officers and other staff work and are >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am 23. Februar 2019 03:47:50 MEZ schrieb Greg Troxel : >Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be >"quaternary". Arguably residential should then be highway=level5, >regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about >residential or not - but as I

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am 22. Februar 2019 17:59:28 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen : >On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 16:42, Florian Lohoff wrote: > >> >> I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits. No, but other did. Sorry I didn't separate this from the reference to your post. No offense meant.

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Am 22. Februar 2019 16:20:23 MEZ schrieb Florian Lohoff : >On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:54:09AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> Florian Lohoff wrote: >> > From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road >> > in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

>> We also need to apply common sense when mapping. > > >yes. Although common sense is not a criterion for legal access. This is >either allowed or forbidden, and unless it is forbidden, access is by >default allowed on roads. I fear common sense in fact somehow IS a legal criterion. Lawyers