Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
 
 multi-use-path

Highway=cycle-ped_path
Done! 
Lets render it with purple dots (blue+red).

Or we could just render it as a sidewalk, as that is what it is. A Sidewalk. 

Highway=footway+footway=sidewalk. 

Which conveniently already exists and is rendered and is used 192k times. 

So lets stick with that. 
And depreciate =path. 

Javbw. 



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

Re: [Tagging] oil binding agent?

[John Willis]

So if it swells less than 50%, it is adsobent. I learned a new word today. 

Javbw


 On Aug 8, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 
 Note the subtle spelling difference between
 absorption and adsorption:
 http://www.integrityabsorbents.com/content/abvsad.php
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Contact:* prefix

[John Willis]

 On Aug 10, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:
 
 Overall I only see that this in some way might be usefull for phone and 
 email. But I think it's better to assume phone= is used for some basic 
 contact number and then use other tags like phone:emergency= or 
 phone:reception if we want to tag more.

+1

In Japan, text input is historically very difficult in a car GPS Navi situation 
(smartphones are changing this), so the Navi has a phone number associated with 
almost any business or attraction in its database, so you would search by phone 
number to get the destination into the Navi. Even parks and sports grounds 
(baseball fields, etc) have a phone number associated with them, so phone= is a 
very useful field - not for contact, but for location lookup. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Describe explicitly that values of highway tag do not imply anything about road quality (except highway=motorway and highway=motorway_link)

[John Willis]

I agree that highway=* can't imply quality globally, but it is documented 
country by country how to tag certain types of roads, especially when there are 
enough types of roads to need all the definitions of highway=*. Japan's tagging 
page defines all the values and relates them to their region's system, from 
motorway through path. I imagine each country or region has a how-to guide as 
well to translate local conditions into basic highway=* types. 

Perhaps mentioning after this addition that a mapper should refer to their 
local tagging documentation in the wiki for a region, or ask a nearby mapper 
for pointers if they have a question. 

Like I pester you guys about. ^_^

Javbw 


 On Aug 12, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 What is below is supposed to document existing consensus rather than
 introduce new rule. I am aware that there is significant majority
 convinced that some road types universally guarantee or imply certain
 values (like widespread usage of highway=track to mark all unpaved
 roads and only unpaved roads, popular in some regions).
 
 I am also aware that in some regions dual carriageways are usually at
 least highway=tertiary, paved roads are at least
 highway=unclassified, highway=primary has at least 2 lanes in each
 direction or paved roads passable for the entire year are
 highway=trunk are good approximations - but it does not make it
 universally true or necessary requirement to use these tags.
 
 proposed description to be added on
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway - maybe also on pages
 about individual road types.
 
 Only highway=motorway/motorway_link implies anything about quality.
 Other road types, from highway=trunk through highway=tertiary to
 highway=residential=residential/service or
 highway=path/footway/cycleway/track do not imply anything about road
 quality. In area with poor infrastructure road forming main road
 network, of the highest importance in region should be tagged
 highway=trunk - no matter whatever is is high-quality asphalt road or
 unsurfaced tract unusable after major rains.
 
 In absence of surface, tracktype and other tags describing quality of
 road one may try to extrapolate this information from
 value of highway tag. Note that this needs tuning for every region.
 Typical highway=primary may be drastically different in various places
 across the planet.
 
 It is highly recommended to add and use tags describing road quality
 like surface. In one region it may be obvious that all highway=tertiary
 are paved and highway=track unpaved but no assumption like that will
 work worldwide.
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 If all mappers just map cycleways and don't care for access restrictions for 
 pedestrians we end up with the same tags meaning different things.

That is very true - which means that assumptions based on country need to be 
made by the routers, and presets that change based on mapping location need to 
be made. (German Cycleway and cycleway come up when searching for cycleway 
presets when mapping in Germany).

Just as we have a variance as to what is a primary road in a third world vs 
first world nation, we can still have a consistent regional meaning to what is 
a primary road. The same could be said of cycleway or footway.

What i consider a residential road in Japan might be thought of as an Alley in 
the US because of differences in expectations in how wide, easy to navigate, 
turn radius, pole placement, barriers and hazards, etc there are - beyond 
simple residential access. 

but we don't just make everything highway=yes and define the differences 
through subtags.

There are even more specialized tags in residential - a living street, which is 
a regional tag. Why not have highway=cycle-ped_path (and a couple others?) to 
fill in common situations? They could be rendered purple (red+blue). A regional 
mapper could choose the best one for their area. 

But i still feel that going by assumed purpose (a sidewalk is a footway, a bike 
path along a river is a cycleway) regardless of what is legal/permissive to use 
the way for (add foot=yes or whatever as necessary) would better reflect the 
duck qualities of the way being tagged. 

The easiest short term solution is to fill in some kind of trail substitute 
for true trails that are maintained, like rural hiking courses or narrow, 
rough paths through nature,  which would take a lot of the path through the 
wilderness burden off of =path, and set up for a change in rendering/meaning 
for path in the future - if you don't need to tag =path on anything, then 
eventually (a long time from now) it can be depreciated. 

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse=military

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 27, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 
 access=military has been discussed in the past (for roads) and dismissed

The area all around mt fuji is a military training ground. The major roads up 
the sides (which tourists drive) are criss-crossed by tracks and service roads 
with no gates, used by military personnel. 

Access=military would be great to show it is not a private logging road or 
mining cut.  

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse=military

[John Willis]

 On Jul 27, 2015, at 3:04 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 
 For land areas owned/used by the military for whatever purpose

Shouldn't that be for military or related purposes? 

The military ownsrecruiting centers in malls, that wouldn't be a good fit 
either. 

Martin brought up that in some counties, the military is the police. 

Defining all the police stations as military facilities would equally be wrong. 

There has to be some exceptions to that rule - as it mot a military facility, 
but operated by the DoD none the less. 

Weve had a lot of discussions how landuse=civic is really hard because dragging 
ownership (public or privately operated facility?) really makes classification 
and definition for usage of a blanket landuse difficult.

This should be hotel+access=private + operator=DoD. 

Since there is only 4 of these edge cases, it should be fine to tag them this 
way and not dilute the military landuse. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Playground equipment

[John Willis]

Im referring to the base platforms that make up the uninteresting part of a 
large playground piece. The other things are usually attached to it. Maybe it 
has a ladder or steps on one side, but it is the mundane part - the structure. 
The slide, rope bridge, zip line, etc are all bolted on the side of it.

And considering most of them are the size of a garden shed or larger, i think 
building is appropriate.  Then the way of the slide, the footbridge to the 
other slide, and the climbing frame coming down can all be mapped/rendered 
coming from this structure. 

Some may not need it, but others are quite large - but the interesting pieces 
are attached to it. 

Ill dry to take a picture of a few on my bike home today from the big city. 

Javbw 

Javbw. 


Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 21, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 why not?

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

Re: [Tagging] Playground equipment

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 22, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote:
 
 ships
 or castles are common in Europe, its the theme, and it would be good to 
 separate that
 from the functional category.

I guess that is a good way to look at it. 

 BTW, 'mountain' is a bit misleading in the english version of your value, 
 maybe
 hill would be better.

That is true too - i wish there was a natual=hill tag in OSM.

Tagging peak onto a 20m tall, yet named mountian seems very counter- 
productive - yet codified as there is no way to verify importance.   

Its a famous story (nationally) in Japan that foreigners showed up at the wrong 
mount Fuji (the 20m tall one in my town) because they both have train stations 
named after them. Google made a web ad for google maps in Japan satirizing the 
mistake. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Playground equipment

[John Willis]

 On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote:
 
 I would prefer to have that in the playground:theme=* tag,
 thus playground=structure and 
 playground:theme=octopus_mountain|ship|castle|dungeon|etc

If they were a one-off, yea, but they are a named playground item here (like 
climbing hill, slide, zip line), and there are probably several thousand. 

I know they offer indovidual things (a slide, climbing) but people refer to the 
opbject with a unique name, which is probably worth being mapped as an object 
itself. 

Considering these are going to show up only in Japan (maybe elsewhere in asia), 
It is just another standard japanese piece of equipment that Afaik is common 
enough to get his own tag / rendering.  

Here is a blog catalog from some guy. 
http://doneslide.fc2web.com/tako/takoindex.htm 

He's indexed a couple hundred already. There are 11 in my prefecture on his 
list. 

Javbw. 



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

Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 15, 2015, at 3:05 AM, Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Some of the proposed highways* are clearly just flights of fancy with no 
 timescale or money behind them.

Yea, thats true - There are some freeways in California that have been proposed 
for 50 years! California has a plan for their freeways (with money behind it) 
out to about 2030 or so (maybe to 2050, i think) - and those old ones still are 
not on the list to be built. 

Tokyo has the ring tollways being built now (actual construction) with the last 
pieces of some rings linking smaller roads in the planning stages (planned to 
be built, but exact routing is unsure), set for completion by 2020 or so. 

Ill have to move those pieces from proposed to planned, as they are actually 
planned. 

But poor 125 in California will have to stay as proposed

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

Re: [Tagging] Storm water control works?

[John Willis]

There is 1200 uses of man_made=pumping_station, so is this something worht 
documenting as in use and adding to the man made wiki page?

Javbw?

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 18, 2015, at 8:11 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
 
 there are a lot of “works” that are related to control stormwater runoff / 
 flooding control stations (more than just a valve on a levee), that close / 
 monitor the water outflow/inflow that is normally open for rice farming/storm 
 runoff, and closes for extreme weather events, but it seems to be more than 
 just a valve on a levee, as there are hundreds of thousands of those already 
 - these are some kind of facility that go with that object. 
 
  I would be tempted to tag them with man_made=water_works, but it looks like 
 that it’s only for drinking water. this is storm / flood control. Is there 
 some other man_made=* for stormwater control works (beyond levees), or a 
 modifier key for man_made=water_works?
 
 The thing I’m working with is called a drainage station or a pumping station 
 for wastewater control ( 排水機場 ) .
 
 In one larger city here, (according to a city PDF 
 http://www.city.narita.chiba.jp/DAT/000103890.pdf page 3 [115]) there are 50 
 of these stations there alone. There are probably several thousand of these 
 around Japan, and lots of other places built up that deal with flooding. 
 
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/35.80825/140.31914
 
 Any suggestions beyond an industrial landuse?
 
 Maybe this abandoned proposal? 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_Station
 
 This area gets a ton of water.
 
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091220855/in/album-72157638113676925/
 
 Javbw 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Storm water control works?

[John Willis]

There is talk on the discussion page about tagging what it is pumping (drinking 
water, sewage, raw water, etc) so i think we should add the tag for is the the 
pipeline umm..  Medium? usage? Ill have to check what is the documented method 
for tagging what a pipe is carrying, and make sure there is a value that 
corresponds to storm/rain/flood water of some kind to go with these pumps. 

Javbw 


 On Jul 18, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 There is 1200 uses of man_made=pumping_station, so is this something worht 
 documenting as in use and adding to the man made wiki page?
 
 Yes.
 
 I have mapped many of them here in Northern Italy, but had not noticed that 
 the tagging is not documented in the wiki. They are called Idrovora and 
 vary considerably in size. There are hundreds of them around here. Many are 
 still not mapped.
 See this Italian Wikipedia article: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrovora
 A quick search brings up about 50 around here: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/auC
 
 Volker
 (Padova, Italy)
  
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Storm water control works?

[John Willis]

Question on storm drain tagging -

Most of the rivers here have storm levees to hold back the typhoon runoff (like 
right now in Kyoto) - and *every* single tiny stream and many drains from rice 
farming (drains are streams  streams are drains when everything goes through a 
field)  go into a culvert through the levee. The smaller ones have a hand 
operated valve at the top of the levee to close it, but the larger ones for a 
large stream/ tiny river have a large pier that sticks out into the dry 
riverbed, with electric valves that close, at the end of the pier,  sometimes 
with a roof or building protecting them. The valves are deep under the riverbed 
(as opposed to in the levee) and let the water join the river mid-stream when 
the river is high. 

This is beyond the massive tsunami gates that span whole rivers in Japan - 15m 
tall gates that close to block a tsunami/typhoon surge at the bay outlet. 

Several of them were washed away to their foundations by the last tsunami. 

Anyways - should we consider making a flood or storm surge control key? Or is 
this all under waterway somewhere?

Javbw. 

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 When I do more detailed mapping, I actually show the pipes that the water 
 flows through.

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

Re: [Tagging] Storm water control works?

[John Willis]

Shouldn't be drainage? Perhaps flood_water would be a good choice

Javbw

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Drain is missing

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

Re: [Tagging] Playground equipment

[John Willis]

Because it is under the playground tag, just structure should be fine. 

Structure might be a good value for a large piece, if the other pieces 
(bridges, slides, climbing nets, etc) are large enough to be mappable (like a 
very large installation at a park).

If it is really small with a small slide, id just map it as a slide, as the 
reason for climbing on it is to go down the slide. 

Javbw. 

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 20, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote:
 
 I assume you are using the playground=* key already, just looking for a
 proper value for these kind of devices?
 
 Probably something with .*combination.* or multi.* ?
 Or, checking some manufacturer's websites, I found
 play system
 playstructure
 play combination 
 play castle/village
 play installation
 
 Playstructure would be my generic favourite, or playcastle if it is more
 themes into knight games...
 
 Marc Gemis wrote on 2015-07-19 16:37:
 I recently started tagging the playground equipment in the parks in the 
 neighborhood.
 
 I have a problem to properly tag tag wooden constructions that typically 
 consists of platforms, towers, bridges, ropes, etc.
 
 e.g.
 
 http://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2015/2015-07-19-Rivierenhof/i-JCHh86F/A
 http://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2015/2015-OSM-Miscellaneous/i-FNDqVj5/A
 http://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2015/2015-07-15-Boom/i-bkxLqZ6/A
 
 any suggestions ?
 
 thanks in advance
 
 m
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Playground equipment

[John Willis]

A lot of playground equipment has a theme, especially old ones. Concrete 
octopuses that you climb and and one of his tentacles is a slide is common (in 
old playgrounds) here in Japan. They are so common, they should have a value 
(and maybe an icon  Playground=tako_no_yama) 

I think it would do this particular thing a disservice to map the parts, 

http://www.play-scapes.com/play-art/playable-sculpture/the-playground-octupi-of-japan/

But if we are mapping parts, 

Perhaps having a key playground:theme=* or playground:motif=* would be best to 
describe the object as a whole, or if it is very prominent/large, name=* and 
have it render at z=19 or something. 

Javbw

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 20, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 Only in case the castle/composite structure is themed particularly I would 
 see the wish for a combined object (knight's castle etc).

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

Re: [Tagging] Storm water control works?

[John Willis]

Substance is floodwater, purpose is drainage. 

If the land floods, naturally from runoff  or by heavy rain, its still flooded.

The stations I'm tagging are for putting water over the levee when the river is 
high during a typhoon, so they can not open the normal outflow gate, as it is 
below the rivers current level. 

Weather the purpose is standard drainage of a low lying area  or storm 
drainage, the substance still is floodwater right? 

Javbw  

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 19, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 No, floodwater is not correct here. It's regular drainage we are talking 
 about, as the territory around here is artificially kept dry. Without the 
 pumping stations we would be living in swamps. Obviously the pumps would also 
 try to deal with floodwater in case of heavy precipitations upstream, but the 
 main purpose is drainage.
 I agree drainage would be better than drain
 
 
 On 19 July 2015 at 02:49, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
 Shouldn't be drainage? Perhaps flood_water would be a good choice
 
 Javbw
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
  On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Drain is missing
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Playground equipment

[John Willis]

 On Jul 21, 2015, at 3:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 This is almost not more information than without it

I think that is untrue. 

If this were building=yes, then it really doesn't give a clue what the 
structure is. 

But in the playground key, every element is a separate playground item. 

Structure is a bit ambiguous, but it does have to conform to all the different. 
Shapes, types, and sizes that the other taggable equipment can anchor to. 

So in the playground key, structure is the main core that other taggable pieces 
are anchored to. 

It is probably not practical to tag the stairs, ladders, platforms, holes, and 
other access points that make up the center core of large playground 
structures, but it should be practical to tag, by point or way, what specific 
equipment is anchored to it : slides, bridges, climbing frames, monkey bars, 
zip lines, etc.

This is better than putting a point tag for a slide or showing that there is 
just a slide when in fact there is a generic structure (of platforms/ steps) 
for the kids to  access other pieces of equipment - which is more than single 
slide with its line staircase. 

I would suggest that building=yes be tagged on playground=structure too. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Playground equipment

[John Willis]

 On Jul 21, 2015, at 4:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 I think this is ok, if these are indeed japan specific, but I'd add a 
 namespace like this:
 
 playground=jp:tako_no_yama

so if I was tagging it in english it would be playground=octopus_mountain
Or in Japanese plaground=jp:たこの山
？

That would truly be the Japanese name. 

Javbw. 


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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 9:33 PM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> two tags describe a situation quite common in Alaska.

Quite common here too in Japan. The runoff is captured and fed into a 
feed/drain system to fill rice fields with water, as well as used as a mostly 
open air storm drain system. Almost all of this system is concrete U shaped 
sections along fields or roads -  with or without lids depending on its 
proximity to road/foot traffic and cost. They go under roads everywhere, then 
feed into large streams (in larger 3 feet concrete Us) and finally dumped in 
the river (the cost for this even in the most rural areas must be 
astronomical). There are probably 200 culverts in a 1/2 mile-1KM circle around 
my house. I have seen a lot of galvanized ridged piping used for culverts in 
the US (suburban or rural culverts over paved / gravel roads - the frequency is 
less - but unless it is a ford, its basically the same "tunnel".

 Dropped Pin
near 2995 Niisatochō Nikkawa, Kiryū-shi, Gunma-ken 376-0121
https://goo.gl/maps/ANVYKNSXdBn

Two culverts crossing the intersection (grated drains) feeding into a 3ft/1m 
covered stream, whose lid sections form the sidewalk. The water will be 
diverted to flood rice fields further downstream.  Smaller drains along the 
sides of the road feed a tiny rice field reservoir, also crossing under the 
road as a fully buried culvert. 

So a "culvert sidewalk" with 3 culverts at one intersection. None of them are 
ever noticed by the drivers that speed over them. The drains are so plentiful 
here mapping them is very difficult. 

The hazard to drivers here, especially in the mountains and very rural areas, 
Is open topped drains running parallel - not across - the roads. The drains are 
wide enough to catch a tire or a whole. bicycle. 

https://maps.google.com/?q=36.327169,139.289432=en-JP=jp

The drain here is dangerous - but the culvert for it (metal grates) at the 
intersection is not. 

The drain here (by its open nature) shares a level with the road - but thanks 
to the culvert, it does not share the same level at intersections. They share 
no nodes. 

Javbw. 


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "Olive Oil Factory"?

[John Willis]

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 2:19 AM, david  wrote:
> 
> The factory
> takes harvested olives, after a few process, olive oil is produced).

The olive mill suggested was 5 years old, so adding that man_made tag would be 
on top of a few other tags. 

The big thing is if it is an industrial facility. 

If the factory is big enough / clear enough to see the land used by the factory 
and it's related things (parking lots, storage sheds) make an area for it and 
tag it as landuse=industrial. 

Outline the big buildings and tag as building=industrial. Add the office 
(building=office) and other small buildings (building=yes) if they are there or 
separate.   Put the man_made=olive_mill (or whatever that tag was) on the 
landuse area, along with the factory's name, address, and contact info.  Add 
any building references (Building A, #2 ) to the buildings themselves (ref=a or 
ref=2). 

Good luck in OSM!

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[John Willis]

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:59 PM, Andrew Guertin  wrote:
> 
> amenity=bicycle_tool_stand

+1

Self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand is also good too, if you want to really drive the 
point home, though a bit long. 
Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 6:45 AM, John Eldredge  wrote:
> 
> Could you have a named signal at a named junction, with different names?

Afaik, named road junctions do not exist in Japan (motorway junctions are 
named, but not normal roads with signals) I am not sure about other places. 



The closest thing is when a major street is named after the place=quarter(?) it 
goes through, and the area is broken up into numbered blocks (not street 
addresses for the buildings, but sequential block numbers) and the signals are 
basically numbered along with the adjacent area, So:

Driving down Honcho street through honcho sections 1, 2, 3, etc , the signal 
names  will match Honcho 1, Honcho2, honcho3. 

But this only happens for secondary/primary/trunks *sometimes*. 
Other times they will be named like "station north entrance" or just the name 
of the village, if it is a small place. Some are named as "foobar mountain 
entrance", because it is where you turn to drive up the large mountain - so 
expecting the signal names to be in some kind of sequential order, related to 
the current town name or nearby buildings is not good, as it is very 
inconsistent - hence the names need to be rendered, as provided mapping 
instructions and visible signage on where to turn - either on paper maps, a 
printed brochure or online PDF, or GPS navi systems are all based on signal 
names (when present) to tell you where to turn, or give you a reference point 
to count signals past that point on where to turn. 


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[John Willis]

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:21 PM, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:
> 
> This is not the only example when a residential road doesn't have a
> name

There are no residential street names in all of Japan for tertiary roads and 
below (99.99%). There are a lot of numbered roads, but usually the web of 
residential that springs from them is unlabeled. 

So in some places, a named residential road (even an informal name) is the 
exception, not the rule. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

[John Willis]

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 1:15 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> For start, traffic sign itself may be also mapped. It would also make
> clear that hazard (or other method to tag this) is based on something
> verifiable, not opinion of the mapper.

Sounds like a similar situation  to the advisory sign discussion (non-rule/law 
based signs giving information to motorists) 

Traffic_sign:advisory=carjacking
Coupled with whatever hazard=* you want to throw on it. 

(Or similar, I forget the exact tag syntax at the moment...)

I'm sure there are plenty of situations where "no stopping because of natural 
danger" exist. 

One of the roads up a volcano here (Kusatsu-Shirane) in Japan is surrounded by 
sulphur vents. There is an advisory to roll up windows and not to stop, to 
avoid the smell and possible asphyxiation (if there is a big burp of sulphur). 

It's not too much of a stretch to use it for a social danger *if* the signage 
actually exists.

If it is just your opinion, that is also debatable, as we do strive to get the 
local mapper's ground truth - but without a sign, that certainly is a big can 
of worms. 

With a sign - we're just mapping signs.

- theft of valuables (don't leave valuables in the car)
- car theft (lock your car!) 
- pickpockets / bag thieves  
- prison (no stopping for hitchhikers) 

Also, natural warning signs 
- dangerous animals (lions, bears, Pumas, snakes, etc) in rural/backcountry 
trailheads 
- land mines (certain countries)  
-tsunami zone (entering a low area) 
- turn car wheels to curb (very steep hill parking) 

These signs may not be necessary, but for micromappers who are mapping the 
vending machines' serial numbers (found in Tokyo), having a decent framework 
for advisory signs themselves to be mapped (regardless if they are rendered) 
should be considered. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

[John Willis]

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 9:38 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> 
> *You want to establish a new tag such as traffic_signals_area to solve 
> multiple signals rendering.
> *Opinions on the new tag are welcome from Japanese/Asian community because 
> rendering of traffic signal and its name is very important for (car) 
> navigation in Japan/Asia.

This is correct. 

We were also using this to solve multiple renderings of the name label as well 
(for named signals), but it could also be useful outside of Japan, like in 
Korea. 

However, Korea labels the junctions - they could be stop signs.  In Japan, the 
named item is always a set of signals. 

Perhaps we would need to do the same for signals and junctions separately, or 
it can be combined together. 

I don't care about the method, just that it is reliable. I believe the method 
will involve additional tagging for complex intersections, and may be optional 
for simple ones. 

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag traffic islands ?

[John Willis]

> On Nov 1, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> 
> I commonly tag the center-lane variety as lanes:both_ways=1, 
> access:lanes:both_ways=no

I completely forgot about the center common bi-directional turn lane. Tons of 
them in the US, never seen one in Japan yet. 

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[John Willis]

> On Nov 1, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Richard  wrote:
> 
> a way 
> which is shared by a waterway, a mulptipolygon forrest and an
> administrative boundary.

Clean up the inaccurate mapping and then do it the right way. I'm sure you can 
find an airport boundary, a fence, and a power line sharing a node too if we 
look hard enough for a more difficult example.  Military grounds? Nature 
preserve boundary? 

Why would someone link all that crap together? I doubt they share the exact 
same alignment. Someone mapping at z14 isn't going to map culverts on anything 
- how could you even see anything nor care about it to link all of those things 
together? 

The first order of business isn't mapping culverts, it's cleaning up the 
inadequate mapping. 

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag traffic islands ?

[John Willis]

> On Nov 1, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> access. I tag the enclosed area with highway=pedestrian, area=yes, and the 
> way surrounding it

Your road islands have people on them?

They have big signs here saying "no crossing - cross at the light" with a fence 
or hedge down the center to keep people from crossing (in most places, esp in 
Tokyo), and I'm sure if there was someone walking down the island would be 
stopped by the police.

The cutout for a ped crosswalk in an island (at an intersection on a major 
road) I just run the crosswalk through the hole (there is no kerb or hedge, 
just a flat crosswalk), and then a tiny island for the (raised) piece that was 
cut off sticking out into the intersection. 

Or were you referring to the little piece of the crosswalk that in on/in the 
island? 

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

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

[John Willis]

> On Oct 30, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> IMHO, if you don't consider them significant enough to be mapped as a way you 
> should maybe not map them at all.

+ 1 

These are small *culverts* - not bridges or tunnels for a main road - so they 
are already not a primary feature of the map. People assume there are culverts/ 
tunnels for everything unless there is a bridge - similar to power-lines over 
the road - no one thinks they have to watch out for the power-lines while 
driving. If a stream intersects and shares a node, it is a ford. Tunnels are 
not single points either. And single point bridges are equally as bad. Adding a 
smaller feature of a drain or stream (if it was a river culvert it should be 
easily mappable as a way) and not taking the time to do it right for the sake 
of a few clicks is not good mapping and should be strongly discouraged. 

Most people just run the road over the stream or drain, no nodes or anything. 
If you are going to take the time to tag a culvert, don't do it "half way" - 
make the  other node and create the culvert as a way under the road. Having a 
slightly inaccurate way position is much better than a hidden culvert node 
under a road way. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[John Willis]

Here's a picture of some mountain flowers (the tiny pink ones) on 
Kusatsu-shirane, near Kusatsu. They look natural, but they were all planted and 
maintained as a tourist attraction. They were not native to the area. 

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11094084766/

The picture I took is not so good to show the large fields of them, but even 
though the flowers  appear to be in a natural setting, these were planted for 
the express purpose of tourism - visitors to the sulphur crater lakes by 
car/ropeway would have something else pretty to see on a nearby hiking loop 
where there is also a good view. There were a hundred pro photographers there 
on the day I visited (with my photo club), all to see the blooming pink 
flowers. 

Tsukuba is a popular tourist destination (via Ropeway) and it wouldn't surprise 
me to learn that a small patch of flowers has been tended to and artificially 
expanded to be a tourist attraction. 

They always need something pretty for the tourist guide pamphlets! ^^

There is a flower park on the east side of Tsukuba that also needs some flower 
tags. 

フラワーパーク
https://goo.gl/maps/vKTAJ9x5VSF2

These are other cases of places I have visited & mapped where I would like to 
tag the cultivated flowers as some sort of flowerbed or maintained flower field.

Javbw

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:47 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> 
> For Mizubasho, most famous field is Oze swamp(but sorry I have never been 
> there) due to a famous japanese fork song, you know.
> I remember natural Katakuri flower field at the top of Mt. Tsukuba. They say 
> there are 30 thousand Katakuri flowers in 20,000 m2 area 
> (http://www.ttca.jp/?p=1552), they are on the forest floor as you said.
> Actually I don't know they are *natural*, but they say so.
> 
> Maybe you can check a list of Natural monuments designated by Japanese 
> government.
> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A4%8D%E7%89%A9%E5%A4%A9%E7%84%B6%E8%A8%98%E5%BF%B5%E7%89%A9%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7#.E8.A2.AB.E5.AD.90.E6.A4.8D.E7.89.A9.E3.83.BB.E5.8D.98.E5.AD.90.E8.91.89.E9.A1.9E
>  (sorry it is written in Japanese)
> 
> muramoto
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-11-04 21:47 GMT+09:00 johnw :
>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:52 PM, tomoya muramoto  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> to a flower field grown naturally (not planted by man). Is it appropriate?
>> 
>> AFAIK that a natural open area of grasses is natural=grassland. 
>> If it is a bit taller stuff, possibly natural=scrub ( like the 1m tall green 
>> plants growing along roads in Japan, for example. 
>> 
>> If it is a field of crops or stuff, like grasses or hay or something, it is 
>> a landuse=meadow. 
>> 
>> Do those flowers grow in such quantity to make a mappable *natural* field? 
>> of all that one kind of flowers?
>> 
>> the Mizubasho looks like it grows when cultivated in a swamp or something 
>> (per google image search).  
>> 
>> I have seen a few growing naturally on Mt Akagi (I think), in streams/places 
>> with water.  
>> 
>> Where are you trying to map them? I’d love to visit a place with big fields 
>> of them growing naturally!
>> 
>> most of the flowers shown here on this page ( I randomly found ) are in 
>> fields that seems to be very man-managed, or possibly fallow farm fields. 
>> 
>> http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/kisono3/colony/colony-e.htm
>> 
>> But some of these would be the flower field tag we are discussing. 
>> 
>> 
>> some of the flowers growing naturally seem to be forest floor coverings.
>> http://previews.123rf.com/images/whitetag/whitetag1310/whitetag131085326/23683697-clumps-of-katakuri.jpg
>> 
>> I have no idea how to tag stuff on the forest or wood floor, which some of 
>> these natural groups seem to be. 
>> 
>> Javbw
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

[John Willis]

(This Was sent earlier but looks like it wasn't received. Cleaned up/ clarified 
a bit and sent again). 


> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:30 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> However, I do not see why the "ignorance" of the non-Asian mappers

Full disclosure: I am an American. I moved to Japan in 2011, and my 
comprehension of written Japanese is poor (I don't know much kanji at all), 
which makes me much better than a tourist, but I can not claim to speak for 
native Japanese mappers, just what I see in the tagging/wiki. In some ways I am 
stuck in between, because my home (I'm married and not leaving Japan) and 
language don't currently line up yet, so I am very familiar with & mapping 
places I can't always parse the meaning of without research, and dependent on 
the EN wiki. 



TL;DR:

The English/German taggers are the leaders in the tagging scheme AFAIK, so it 
is important for you to be inclusive and flexible when making tagging schemes. 
This will solve issues that you will eventually have to solve anyway, so we 
might as well do it now, for the benefit of all regional maps, not just myself 
and my region. saying a regional rendering solves the issue just puts off 
solving the issue via making a proper tagging system that is flexible enough to 
handle the regional issues we don't know about yet. 



There are many people who are native Japanese speakers mapping, as well as 
people who love Japan (and other Asian countries too, of course) but are native 
English speaking mappers - so I want to make OSM's default render as useful as 
the default render in Google Maps or better. At least I want to repair glaring 
omissions and polish when possible. 


AFAIK, the OSM JA mapping community Is similar to the Wikipedia community - 
they follow the lead of the larger English community. And since 
Europeans/English speakers are driving tagging and "proper tag documentation", 
they are following what we lay down in the wiki, as I understand it. 

So as we are driving the tag set being used and content of the wiki pages, that 
exerts a tremendous amount of control over everyone mapping everywhere. 

And since a lot of the world, map wise, is the same, the difficulties come up 
with difficult to imagine regional or cultural differences, which cannot always 
be solved by just having a region render it in their own style. 

I believe those regional differences should be rendered in the default OSM, as 
the default should be the most useful for all users. 


1) Asian countries, due to the script barrier of their language, offer most 
everything (at least in Japan) in JA and EN - which is reflected in dual labels 
for of most navigation signs throughout all of Japan. This is embraced in the 
default view of google maps, but not in OSM/-carto. This idea of dual language 
labeling should eventually become standard for non-standard scripts makes it 
useful for visitors, residents, and other Asians. It also describes the 
situation on the ground - everything (in Japan at least) is coated in English 
for non-native speakers, so the default render of OSM should reflect that. 

2) Font issues persist. I helped a bit with updating the fonts, but very 
complex characters are difficult to read, there are not many different 
character weights supported, and shields, even with the render change, still 
render Kanji refs badly. 

3) Japan is hit by a spatial mapping issue triple whammy:

- no road names on tertiary or below (90% of all roads have no name or ref) 
- A very very dense place name system & lot number based addressing: nothing is 
labeled in sequence along the roads - a map is necessary to locate almost any 
structure. 

- the need for signals to have consistently rendered icons and for some to be 
named for spatial / map usage for visual navigation. Cities have many named 
signals.  

This makes what iconography and place labels somewhat more important for the 
"last kilometer" of a journey. 

4) regionally agnostic umbrella tags, with consideration given for value 
expansion. This is not so big a deal, as it is the easiest to understand, but 
think of how churchyard or building=church was documented - it is evident that 
all the other religious buildings would need to be tagged, but shrine and 
temple were added to the wiki by me (?), rather than a proposal handling all 
the religious buildings at once. Since the European pages are driving tags 
(English and German, right?), they need to think more globally when adding 
tags. It easy to come up with and document tags, but it is far easier to come 
up with tagging solutions that cover everyone in the first place. 

5) regional variation in the default render should be encouraged. Proper 
regional iconography/shields and certain pattern conventions should be 
encouraged in the main view IMO. For example, the current railway 
renderedblack/white pattern is used only for JR trains. The other private lines 
get a solid line. Again, as spatial 

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

[John Willis]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> The network is ran/owned by a government institution, the actual power 
> distribution by commercial providers. So when you want a contract to get 
> electricity you go to a commercial entity. So building=civic is not suitable 
> there (I think)

This is a good point, and one of the reasons that the proposal was narrowed 
down to exclude utilities, including only things commonly done by governments. 

This is a variable across the world, and is different for different utilities 
in different regions of different countries. 

Perhaps it might be good to make a office=utilities
And utilities=* and have it cover the gamut of all the stuff you commonly would 
have to pay for for a house or rental property 
(water/power/sewer/sanitation/trash/recycle) and leave telecom out? What common 
things are a utility common in most counties (outside of telecom?) 

I'm not sure where the line is, but I wantto document these beyond a simple 
office=water, as I think the should be tagged differently so they can be 
rendered differently (eventually). Just as residential is rendered very 
differently from commercial - the landuse for governmental complexes (and their 
buildings) should be easily visually distinct from the the other buildings - 
Especially with the color palette simplification -carto recently did. But maybe 
keeping the utilities out is best. 

Perhaps just making a bunch of office=* tags is the way to handle it - but when 
the water district office that manages your house's water supply is tagged 
office=water, does the filtered bottled water guy also get office=water ? 

I wanted to have some tag to separate the state sanctioned monopolies/duopolies 
(or truly governmental) utility offices from the standard commercial offices. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 1:09 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
> I'd suggest to use a node tagged 
> place=junction
> 
> with name=* or ref=*
> for this. What do you think?
> 

From what I remember - in Korea they name junctions, and in Japan they actually 
name the signals themselves. 
I know that sounds like the same thing, but people to speak and refer to the 
Signal at the junction, and the name is on the signal, and the iconography used 
is the signal icon. As there are almost no street names in Japan on tertiary 
roads and below, spatial navigation is done through counting *unnamed* signals 
and occasionally using named signals.

The big problem traffic_signals_area 
was trying to solve is the over-rendering of signal icons. 

Billboards, pamphlets, and now websites use static images of maps with access 
directions and simplified maps that show how many signals you have to drive 
through before turning and reaching a destination from a known landmark 
(highway exit, train station). 

Here is the access map for a very large park. 

http://hitachikaihin.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/996e3788561dbe76ffe45257c28c7c25.png

Note the line of signals in a row. Those are there to be counted. 

Because of Japan's very old and extremely convoluted road network, it is 
usually not obvious where to turn - so people not using GPS directions 
(actually using a *map*) Rely **very heavily** on accurate and consistent 
placement of street light icons. And OSM is totally broken in this regard. 
Every node gets an icon. Depending on the zoom level, there is 0-1-2-3-4 or 
more icons when just **one** should be rendered. The signal icon is more 
important that almost all place names. 

This is something all the Japanese paper maps and online maps follow, and 
Apple/Google also had to add all the icons properly to be useful *as a map* in 
Japan. 

Google Maps of the signals in a row. Note 1 named signal has a name box that 
doesn't cover the road. 

https://goo.gl/maps/E1hEzfi3iYF2

OSM has no rendered icons. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/36.3967/140.5927
It has a label for the lights rendered, but no icons. 

Next zoom level - label disappears. So no signals, no labels. Ugh.  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.4009/140.5901

Now icons - but two of them, with label. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.40107/140.58986

Next, 4 icons - no label
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.40160/140.58949

Finally, at z19, I get 4 icons and a label together.

What a horrible job of rendering a single icon with a single label! 

This is an unacceptable situation  for the Map in Japan. It 
fundamentally breaks using the map for road navigation for many many map users. 
and since every other map is better at this fundamental necessity of Japanese 
maps, it basically makes OSM an unusable choice in Japan (for spatial map usage 
while driving) and seem unfinished. 

Traffic_signals_area was an attempt to solve this, but as this isn't an issue 
in Europe, it was ignored.

Javbw. 




Labeling the signal area is just icing on the cake of removing all the unneeded 
icons cluttering the map. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a fence made with metal bars?

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 3:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I suggest to be quite specific at this type level, because barrier=fence is 
> already generic. For the material without any more detail we could use 
> fence:material rather than a type tag

+1

In America, chain link is very very popular, whereas in Japan, 1.8m  welded 
wire lattice sections are everywhere (I think these are very European).

(Use street view) 
https://goo.gl/maps/4S9eCrNnKTN2


Speaking of metal bars, I have a question about that. 

In Japan, a half-wall half-fence like thing is common.  Cinder block walls are 
very common for commercial and residential boundary walls, and in many places 
are normal 1.5m tall walls. These cinder blocks are almost as narrow as bricks 
- 15cm or so. 

But also it is common to have extruded aluminum square tubing/bar arranged in a 
10-15cm spaced pattern prefabricated 1.8m sections put on top of a 50-100cm 
tall wall. 

An isolated example of a common type.
(Use street view) 
https://goo.gl/maps/R7tYyYXQh6E2

There are probably several thousand KM of this type of wall-fence in Japan. 

(Interesting note, across the street is precast concrete fencing! It is used 
exclusively for protecting train lines). 

The aluminum sections are very light, and not only allow very strong winds to 
pass easily (so much less reinforcement is needed), but allows much greater 
visibility through the wall and less danger of collapse over time from 
earthquakes.  

Many places who want something more decorative than anodized aluminum get all 
kinds of precast metal, fancy metal rod, or use even cheaper ones like that 
metal lattice fencing to put on top. 

Concrete wall with brick facade, aluminum posts and cast aluminum sections. 
(Use street view) 
https://goo.gl/maps/k6tnknBZXKS2


I have just tagged those as "wall" and be happy to continue doing so - but if I 
wanted to document it's 1/2wall, 1/2 fence nature, what do you Suggest? 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging airport approach aid systems

[John Willis]

I would use navigation aid=*

I tagged a ton of Approach Aids (PAPI, localizers, VOR, etc) for Narita Airport 
(NRT) and the navigation aid subkey covers all of it and is very well 
documented. If you understand a pilot's airport diagram guide,  it's easy to 
tag the correct information.  Airmark=* might be in conjunction with  other 
tagging schemes, but navigation aid=* is the place to start.

Javbw

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 9:45 PM, David Marchal  wrote:
> 
> Hello, there.
> 
> I'm trying to map some approach aid systems on a local airport, but I have 
> trouble choosing the correct tags: the wiki mentions aeroway=navigationaid, 
> and navigationaid=* to precise type, but this page has a banner telling to 
> use airmark=beacon, an almost empty page with no instruction to precise the 
> type of aid; the airmark tag wiki page is also empty. How should I map the 
> approach aid systems? Which landuse should I use for the underlying land, as 
> this land is only maintained for the approach aid system, nothing else?
> 
> Hoping you can help me,
> 
> Regards. 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

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

[John Willis]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> The building tag is about the building itself,

That is a good point. I don't want to throw all this in amenity. 

It isn't a shop... 

Office=*. ?

I always assume that a building at this level is usually dedicated, but I guess 
there are big building with many offices too...

What do you suggest? 


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

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> everything's an object ;-) (if you want/need to)

In a general sense, everything is a node, way or area object, yea.

But a flower field is not a man_made=* object, in the common OSM usage. 

It's not "man_made=forest" because it is not a man-constructed structure. 
Cultivated, yea, but it's not something made out of steel or cinderblocks. 

And um, a flower box does't describe the flower field at all. I don't think the 
boxes are even mappable in OSM due to their impermanent and portable nature 
when not nailed on a house window.

Perhaps planter boxes (their bigger cousins) are, as many of them are permanent 
or semi-permanent - but not dedicated to "flowers". 

A flowerbed is much closer, and good enough to tag a contiguous field of 
cultivated flowers for display purposes.

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

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

[John Willis]

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> while front facing offices often get the shop tag.

Most offices that provide customer service for existing services or billing 
resolution don't seem like a shop. 

If the role for shop=* is so expansive, then it should be documented better and 
have 100 more values (at least). Perhaps a couple thousand. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[John Willis]

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:39 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> Trade is more an access tag, you can have a shop=motor_spares for
> example. Some are open to the public,

Is that really implied in the trade tag? 

I understand if you need a license or certification to buy parts - but a shop 
is still a shop. 

Shouldn't access restrictions be in access?

In Japan 99% of car parts require a mechanics license (or similar) to buy. If I 
wanted to do anything other than change the oil, I am out of luck. This is the 
same situation for buying electrical sub-panels for a house, or large plumbing 
fixtures - DIY stores and automotive stores in Japan have huge sections 
missing.  

In America, I can pretty much buy and do any repair I am comfortable doing. 
Many things I could access at a DIY store (Home Depot) or at a specialty shop 
for professionals are not accessible to access=customer here. 

Therefore, A small specialty store that caters to professionals, or a small 
office of a specialty tradesmen may have very different levels of "access" 
depending on country. 

Warehouse stores have memberships (Costco) - but are still widely used (i would 
still consider it access=customers)

But maybe we need an access=membership or access=certified for these kinds of 
cases. 

Moving the access to um, access seems appropriate. 

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC key:oven - a tag to add details about a kind of oven

[John Willis]

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:35 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> 
> Oxford dictionary describes kiln as
> "a furnace or oven for burning, baking, or drying, esp. one for calcining 
> lime or firing pottery."

We should really separate things used to prepare foods and things used to make 
pottery, regardless of one type oven named a kiln.

I don't think trying to replicate the nuance of the dictionary is going to be 
helpful in this case because it confuses two tags that should not be confused. 

Compare the google results for pottery kiln vs kilns for food. Will it reach 
1/2 of a percent of pottery/glass/ceramic/metal?) kilns? 

Unless you want to make  subkey oven=breadkiln or something, foodkilns should 
point back to oven. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[John Willis]

> On Oct 15, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Another famous example: Hearst Castle [1]
> I think the "historic" key is correct. 
> 
+1

Hearst castle is definitely historic, its on several historic records. 

My parent's house in California, built in 1922 out of 40cm cut granite stones 
and mortared together is similarly on our city's historic  list - but it 
certainly isn't a castle. Even if they put turrets and a moat around it, it 
still isn't a castle. It is a house. It just looks like a castle. 

Hearst castle is a very imposing and dominating structure. It was styled 
somewhat as a castle (good imagery in google street view) Hearst was also a 
powerful figure - but was it a seat of dominance over the land? A home to 
political power?  A place to defend the leaders from attack? Nope. 

It was just his lavash palace on the coast - there is no town or region to 
dominate. The spot was chosen for its beauty and isolation. 

It certainly is a historic residence, and is named a castle, but is it really a 
castle? 

Osm would reflect the "castle" in the name, and its historic and museum 
qualities in other tags. That should be good enough. 

Otherwise we need a tag for "modern" replicas or castle-esque things or 
something. 

Every imposing building with the name castle would get the tag =castle then.

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[John Willis]

> On Oct 15, 2015, at 4:02 AM, François Lacombe  
> wrote:
> 
> importance=*

That word is not allowed over in -carto github,  no matter how relevant or 
useful - like with mountains or regional features that need to shown at varying 
z levels based on... Importance. 

In OSM, 30m tall hill and Mt Everest (and all its little named points) are 
equal - usability and readability of the map be dammed. 

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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:11 AM, David Marchal  wrote:
> 
> Do you mean that the landscape impact criteria is already the one used to 
> distinguish minor_line and line?

I think he means that there is usually a huge difference in voltage and line 
type between lines on giant towers or lines on smaller single wooden / concrete 
poles - and that also happens to be where a novice mapper can tell the 
difference in arial imagery. 

Because of this, it is a good idea to differentiate between line and minor line 
at that point - the lines are usually a very different class, and the novice 
mapper can easily tell the difference from decent imagery or when directly 
surveying their area. 

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091291246/

One of these things is not like the other! 
Two lines and 1 minor line (at least in the foreground). 

Having something be that obvious might be good for tagging and ease of mapping 
at the same time. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[John Willis]

Javbw

On Oct 15, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Éric Gillet  wrote:

>> > On Oct 15, 2015, at 4:02 AM, François Lacombe  
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > importance=*
>> 
>> That word is not allowed over in -carto github,  no matter how relevant or 
>> useful - like with mountains or regional features that need to shown at 
>> varying z levels based on... Importance.
>> 
>> In OSM, 30m tall hill and Mt Everest (and all its little named points) are 
>> equal - usability and readability of the map be dammed.
> 
> If the height of a mountain define its importante, simply use the 'ele=*' 
> attribute to sort them, no need for another subjective 'importante' tag.

Mt fuji is 20% taller than than Mt Tate in Central Japan. 

It is several orders of magnitude more famous. Not 20%. Have you ever heard of 
Mt Tate, or the other "100 famous mountains of Japan" besides 3 or 4 active 
volcanoes in the news? Mt fuji is an internationally recognized symbol. Though 
just ~800m taller, it is probably the only mountain most people can name from 
Japan. It should have its icon rendered as soon as the label for Tokyo is 
rendered - it is arguably as well known. Same with Denali, vesuvius, Everest, 
Kilimanjaro, The Matterhorn, and other iconic mountains from around the globe. 

Mt Akagi is ~40% shorter than Tateyama. It is also more famous. But not 25% as 
famous as mount Fuji

your suggestion to use elevation as some substitution for what z level a 
mountain should have its icon/label shown breaks at the most fundamental level 
on first attempt of application. 

Please think it through and try again. 

Mt Fuji - 3776m -Internationally iconic. 
Mt Tate ~3000m - regionally famous 
Mt Akagi ~1700m - nationally famous. 

Hill near my house - 25m AGL-  not important.

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/no_through_traffic_signs_in_ne.html.
> This case would be unthinkable here in Central Europe.

The police have no power because the road is public and built, so people are 
legally allowed to drive on it. There is no division between locals and 
visitors because we're all "public". Public roads are truly "public" roads. 
Your "house" begins at your property line.

With this in mind, private roads, gated communities, and other privately owned 
places exist in order to gate off road to (among other things)  stop 
non-residents from cutting through. 

Roads very often times have turn restrictions to avoid short-cutters near busy 
intersections - but for roads leading into communities (for a long cut-through 
between arterial roads), they really can't stop people from entering - and the 
idea of checking drivers' licenses for residence information is unlawful stop 
and search - what crime is the person committing by entering or exiting the 
community how would the police be bale to tell who os a resident? Since there 
is no assumption of a crime, a police stop AFAIK would be an illegal stop. 

So new residential neighborhoods are very convoluted and full of dead ends to 
make the through path longer and slower (and covered with stop signs) to deter 
cutters. 

Also - the police put a speed trap in the middle, as cutters are usually 
speeding, so a 50mph in a 25mph residential street is a hefty ticket. 

So no, there is no way to enforce "thru traffic" signs, but there are several 
other ways to deter or eliminate cutters through other means, but old roads are 
usually out of luck. 

How do they enforce it in Europe? Stickers on cars? Stop and ask? 

They use stickers/passes for parking on the street enforcement in 
busy/congested places (near the beach, near colleges).

I live in Japan now, and I have to show my residence card upon request for any 
reason by an official or police anywhere. Since I am not Asian, I have never 
been asked. 

In America, just stating "I am an American" is grounds for them to stop talking 
to me and let me go even at a (somewhat illegal) "immigration checkpoint" they 
do randomly on highways - it is against US law to detain a citizen for no 
reason - Especially to check where they live. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[John Willis]

There are a couple shops like "la mesa Lumber" and places dedicated to 
stone that are public shops. Often times they are the more "pro" shops a 
builder or DIY person goes to source a large quantity of wood, tile, or stone 
for a building project - but there is not a tool to be found (all that is at 
the DIY store). 

Javbw

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Matthijs Melissen  
>> wrote:
>> > building_materials
>> 
>> Possibly duplicate with shop=doityourself, not sure though.
> 
> I see this as a place where you can buy bricks, sand, wood, etc. but no 
> tools. A do-it-yourself in Belgium typically also sells tools. Something like 
>  http://www.bouwmaterialen-vanherck.be/ (Dutch)
>  
>> 
>> 
>> > rental
>> 
>> I would use office=estate_agent for this as well.
> 
> I see this for companies such as Eurorent, where you can rent machinery. From 
> simple hammers to specialised cranes. (e.g. https://www.eurorent.be/nl/ )
>  
> regards
> 
> m
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[John Willis]

Li really like the idea of cleaning up the shop values, especially removing 
really generic ones. 

But specific ones have their place

For example, electronics is a good shop value, but what about a ham radio 
store? 

Generic hobby shops exist, what about model train shops?

We need to create a skeleton that has sub values, or we need to allow (usually 
on a region by region basis) more detailed tags than is what expected. 

For example, in Japan, a "bath fixtures" shop is a common store. They sell 
toilets, showers, tubs, etc. there are plenty of big home stores that that slo 
sell those, but the local "bath fixture shop" is a common sight. 

Same with "bamboo home goods" and "tea goods" for loose tea, powered macha, 
special teapots, and the accessories for the pots. You can not buy a drink 
there, just goods to make tea. W

A skeleton of premade sub keys that can accept specific values shop=hobby, 
hobby=trains  or an acceptance of more specific values ( similar to cuisine - 
octopus ball stands are fast food here) need to dealt with in a proper way. 


Javbw

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 10:58 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> 
> I was trying to review the shop values we show in osm-carto (top 100 
> according to TagInfo - you can list it by running this Ruby script: 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/scripts/shop_values.rb
>  ) and here are my quick findings:
> 
> No wiki page or definition (some of them can be also candidates for 
> deprecating and replacing with something else):
> 
> builder
> building_materials
> craft
> discount
> energy
> flooring
> gallery
> games
> health_food
> hobby
> market
> phone
> real_estate
> rental
> salon
> shoe_repair
> tiles
> 
> Candidates for deprecating:
> 
> antique - no wiki, mentioned on antiques page so maybe deprecate and propose 
> antiques?
> appliance - wiki redirects to electronics, so maybe deprecate and propose 
> electronics instead?
> car_service - maybe car_repair?
> communication - wiki redirects to mobile_phone, so maybe deprecate and 
> propose mobile_phone?
> general - deprecate and propose to look for other shop values (like "yes")?
> health - medical_supply?
> household - houseware?
> interior_decoration - houseware?
> office_supplies - stationery?
> printing - copyshop?
> radiotechnics - electronics?
> sewing - maybe tailor?
> shopping_centre - mall?
> solarium - leisure=tanning_salon?
> souvenir - gift?
> tanning - leisure=tanning_salon?
> 
> Also organic is deprecated, but I was told that it was made by one person, so 
> we should also decide if we support this change or we want to revert it.
> 
> What are your propositions?
> 
> -- 
> "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
> down" [A. Cohen]
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Oct 16, 2015, at 3:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> t least the intention was to build a castle, the typology is copying
> from castles, Hearst ruled an imperium (of publishing), he organized
> impressive receptions, held formal dinners, etc. --- for me the
> meaning of castle as you describe it would not have to be stretched
> (much).

No, it wouldn't, you're right. 

Apple is building a big round HQ in Cupertino - it is very large and imposing 
structure - holding thousands of "troops" - famous "generals" of Ive and Cook", 
and their formidable "weapons" to fight against their enemy across the valley 
in the "Googolplex" castle. 

Its easy to use language to make anything anything, especially if you conflate 
the personality of the occupants with the building, rather than the usage and 
purpose(s) of the building itself. 

All of the things that make Hearst castle not a castle are in its intended 
purpose and usage before it was a historical museum. The qualities of the man 
made it seem more formidable, and its location is also topographically 
imposing, but the intended use of the facility was a lavish residence in the 
style of a castle. My aunt has a giant log cabin on a 1500m hill, much higher 
than Hearst's lavish residence on the coast. 

This height advantage doesn't make her residence any more of a castle, nor more 
important than Heart Castle (the elevation importance argument). 

Apple is calling their new campus a "spaceship" - and though large and 
imposing, it is not a craft for space travel. It's just a name. 

"A man's home is his castle" - but the structure is still a "house". Same with 
Hearst. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Oct 16, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I d call the hearst residence at least a villa, if castle doesn't find 
> agreement.

A villa or mansion or something more than a common house - but...  

It just feels weird to tag a more modern structure never used as a castle as a 
castle.

You are right - the duck test tells me it is an imposing historic building. And 
yea, it looks a bit like a castle and is named "castle" - like the disney 
castle - but it's style is to mimic a castle - it was never meant to really be 
one. It is a rich person's house. 

In the Ironman films, Tony Starks malibu house is similarly large, a residence 
for a powerful person, and very imposing. If he put a couple turrets on the 
top, would it be a castle? Does the style of architecture define it as a castle 
(which is easily replicated) - or its purpose (when active) as a true defensive 
fortified local/regional/national power center? 

This is a fabulous question. 

Does a building that looks like a castle but has no historical usage as a 
castle - nor could ever used be a castle - be tagged as a castle?

No archer has ever been upon the battlements at Hearst castle nor Disneyland's 
castles and loose an arrow at an enemy - nor discuss african swallows and their 
airspeed velocity vis a vis coconuts.

To me, it is a historic mansion (villa?) called "Hearst Castle". 

But this "style" vs purpose (active or historical) is a very interesting 
question to me. 

Javbw. 


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

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Oct 16, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Georg Feddern  wrote:
> 
> 
> Ever worked/trained with horses?
> 
> What is the key definition for sport?
> Concentration? Reactions? Best moves? Power?
> 
> Is a carrière
> - sport_practice when there is just training
> but
> - sport when there is a competion?

We were talking not about what sport=* would be, but how to tag a practice 
pitch /facility that does not replicate the entire sport's regimen:

Batting cages, driving ranges, pitching cages, and other facilities that help a 
person (or animal) prepare for the true sport. Currently each item is defined 
in each sport's subkey - not with a generic leisure=* or pitch=* subkey on 
which sport=* is appended to. 


With a sport like baseball, it is easy to separate batting cages or pitching 
mounds from a true baseball diamond - but most horse breeding facilities have a 
small oval for practicing running the horse. It doesn't feel right to say it is 
a track - as no race, even a private race - will take place there. It is for 
the horse to practice turing left over and over, to learn to be comfortable 
with the rail. I assume dressage is the same. 

I put pitch+equestrian on the oval. 

Similar facilities that replicate certain aspects of a sport without the aspect 
of competition might want to be tagged as such, so not only is the facility 
properly tagged, but not confused with or rendered as a proper facility for the 
sport (a racetrack for horses, a country club for golf, etc). 

Tennis serving machines sit next to tennis courts in special cages, none will 
used for a game - just practice.  

Javbw. 


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

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Oct 18, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Am 18.10.2015 um 02:28 schrieb John Eldredge :
>> 
>> I find shop=trade too generic to be useful, as there are many different 
>> trades besides the building-construction trades.
> 
> 
> +1, 
> 

+1

It seems to follow the old "tradesmen vs college" division - but a lot pf white 
collar geek jobs (like web and graphic design) are often more like modern trade 
jobs now - a person can slap their name on a business card and rent a small 
room and start making "things."

Craft is a bit better, as it is still pretty narrow scope - but trade vs shop 
vs office seems a little weird. 

Maybe it is a distinctiin that is stronger in some regions than others - farm / 
industrial / commercial / retail / is a great distinction for landuse names - 
the business types should follow a similar divide. Trying to split commercial 
up into trade/office and retail into craft/shop leads to some weird 
distinctions. 

A lot of craft people have shops in the workshop for their work - and some 
trades are in offices. Better just to leave it all in retail, just like we 
don't try to break out ball sports or paddle sports or  sliding sports in 
sport=* (soccer, tennis, skiing).

If the distinction offered something distinctive for the data or the mapping, 
that would be great, but it doesn't seem to offer that, so the distinction is 
just more busywork and tag confusion. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Unmarked opening hours

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Oct 17, 2015, at 9:59 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> > If I don't know something .. I don't tag it.
> > So I would simply not add the tag.
> 
> This is the right answer.
> 
> +1
> 
+1

> Agreed. Why would you add a tag when you don't know a value to assign? N
> 
People doing surveys want to state that this business has opening hours, but is 
unknown at time of survey, and they may want to note that it is difficult to 
get the hours because it is not posted.

I would use:

fixme=opening hours not posted. Add hours. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[John Willis]

Javbw
On Oct 8, 2015, at 4:40 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

>> Similar to shop=craft.
> 
> Do you know what hobby this is about? Almost everything can be a hobby.

I belive it is about some form of scale model building or small scale electric 
things (trains rc cars, planes). Many of the hobby shops I know in the US cater 
to the Plastic model / train / RC enthusiasts. 

Craft stores are usually that place between art and hobby - scrapbooking, silk 
flowers, beads, papercraft, with a smattering of hobbyist stuff (a model car or 
two for kids and a little framing.  

Fabric shops still focus on cloth and other sewing or clothcraft, but also 
beading and scrapbooking - but their focus is "fabric"

I wouldn't go to the hobby shop for stickers, the fabric shop for silk flowers, 
or the craft store for model kits, though they can be found at all three. They 
each have their focus. 

In Japan, there are several "plastic model kit" stores just in my tiny town 
here in Japan (they are insanely popular) - so even a value of plastic model 
kit store is appropriate. They are Jammed floor to ceiling with model kits, 
some with archways and tunnels made of model kit boxes to be sold (more of a 
cave than a shop, fire code be damned).

Shop=hobby
Hobby=plastic_model
Hobby:ja=プラモデル

This is where a subkey of craft=* or hobby=* would be useful (i think craft=* 
exists?) for detailing both large shops that have everything 

Shop=doityourself

and a specific shop that focuses on one aspect. 

Shop=doityourself
Doitfourself=fixtures

Shop=Building_materials
Building_materials=tile

Shop=electroc


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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Éric Gillet  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't think 
> a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two last 
> messages.

I disagree with Frederik's position often,  but he is aggressive because he is 
passionate. He felt offended from a post and responded with a somewhat "tame" 
rebuke to the slight. The line he said he was responding to was equally 
"offensive" to someone who is passionate about their topic - espcially if we 
take his comment in the stongest possible way - when it is usually a flippant 
retort to such a slight. 

He's not here proposing garbage tags - and not purposefully antagonizing people.

His big mistake was not following the mod's direct order. Which he should have 
- just like "following the ref's call" is pretty sacrosanct. 

I hope he returns to the list to be his same old self. 

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Éric Gillet  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't think 
> a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two last 
> messages.

Oops - forgot to add:

 +1

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

Re: [Tagging] How one may tag object as castle?

[John Willis]

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Castle as in "a type of fortified structure built in Europe and the
> Middle East during the Middle Ages by nobility".

We'll have to append "and Asia" on that. There are castles all over Japan 
(China too?), and I know at least one is a unesco world heritage site. 

The nice thing About Japanese castles is that they are clearly named and 
clearly castles - there is very little confusion on what is a castle and what 
is some other structure. 

While Himeji-jo is the most famous, I'm fond of the "Black Crow" castle - 
Matsumoto-jo

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091222754/

Definition Attempt:

[
Usually an existing fortified, physically isolated (through 
walls/moats/topography), and vertically dominant structure used (when active) 
not only for protection of leadership, but also as a base for controlling the 
surrounding area politically, economically, and militarily. 

Tagging:  When still existing, castles are usually historic attractions. If he 
structure is damaged beyond recognition or partially destroyed/abandoned, then 
its a ruin, or if just the raised ground base of the castle remains, just a 
historic attraction. Only a structure that is whole enough to be recognized as 
a castle should be tagged as a castle. Partial ruins or remaining grounds 
should not be tagged as a castle, but as [insert proper ruins historic tag 
here].  This tag does not apply to modern structures styled to look like a 
castle (Like Disneyland's). 
]

This "raisedbase/pad" is a very common occurrence in Japan - there are three 
bases of razed and deconstructed castles in my city area alone. They are parks 
and/or historic sites now, not a stone left to even be a ruin.

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

Re: [Tagging] How one may tag object as castle?

[John Willis]

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> This historic places map has a list of castle types, 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Historical_Objects/Karteneigenschaften
> There is "Shiro" in the list, which is marked a Japanese Burg.

Its up now and I looked through it. 

I take it "berg" is German for castle?

I was suggesting a better (english) definition for castle, as there are castles 
all over Japan, albeit many are rebuilt (in a period accurate method) because 
only the very large footings are stone. The rest is wood. The wood 
construction, using whole trees as supports for the castle towers, is because 
the flexibility of the structures was necessary for earthquakes - stone castles 
would have collapsed after an earthquake or two. Between the stone footing 
shifting in earthquakes (recently damaging Matsumoto-Jo), fire (claiming many 
castles in battle), and rot (himeji-jo recently went through its scheduled 
renovation to replace the removable support tree trunks with new ones AFAIK), 
the wood castles present a "grandfather's axe" issue. But as with other 
historic buildings rebuilt after a disaster (the gold temple was rebuilt in the 
50s) they basically look at heavy repair as "maintenance" of the structure, 
since damage or fire is inevitable. 

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

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> use when you need to include them?

Yes/permissive under general.

If I am free to come up park my car for any reason and wander about, that is 
pretty damn permissive. 

I may be wrong, but the signage you are describing is very interesting to me 
because in general it doesn't exist in the US. Usually private residential 
streets (not driveways) are still access=yes/permissive unless there is a gate 
(I lived adjacent to one w/o a gate), and parking on busy streets/ 
neighborhoods is done with permits - but the road itself is permissive. 

They will have a "pass at your own risk" sign for legal purposes at the ends of 
the road.

If they don't want you to use a road as a shortcut through a neighborhood, the 
city puts a turn restriction on the intersection (either 24h or for a certain 
time of day), which the public road I lived on had, to keep people from 
bypassing an annoying stop sign on a trunk road where people have to wait in 
the morning. 

If there is some sign that says "residents and people with business with 
residents only" - that sounds an awful lot like access=destination. 

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

Re: [Tagging] How one may tag object as castle?

[John Willis]

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 1:42 AM, NopMap  wrote:
> 
> Therefore I think
> that a very general tag historic=castle and a subtag for refinement is a
> better idea, even if the actual meaning is more like "castle-like building".

Does this include plastic disney castles? 

Those are definitely psuedo-castles. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[John Willis]

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:16 PM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> A simper way to describe this would be to say that:
> 
> `power=line` is for “transmission”
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
> 
> `power=minor_line` is for “distribution”
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_distribution

+1

We can tag colour=* and other things (strobe lights/ colored balls / etc) and 
have maybe a hazard=* tag or something - but none of those things change the 
distribution or transmission nature of the lines. 

Some of the transmission lines are very very big (like the gigantic power 
towers near my house in Japan) that dwarf the much smaller transmission lines 
nearby. 

Is there such a thing a "regional" transmission? 

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091407063/

Here's some large towers going through my area. They are 3 times taller than 
the normal distribution towers.

We really need a method to denote colored stripes 
color:stripe1=white 
Color:stripe2=red

Or partial color. 

Color=gray
Color:top=yellow 

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

Re: [Tagging] Rural Alley?

[John Willis]

Then why did they keep track+level1+paved at all? It's like calling it a 
motorway level 9. Its shoehorned into somewhere it doesn't belong. 

These roads may have a similar purpose - local access - but the grade of the 
road is completely out of the category I would ever call a track.

There are so many implied things with road classifications - i know they can 
all be described by other tags (surface, width, max speed) but if i say the 
word freeway parkway alley lane track - all of them bring different 
things to your mind. 

Categorizing them as a track - and rendering them as a track - seems to be in 
error, even if track grade1 describes the surface well, it does not capture the 
maintenance and expected conditions of the road correctly IMO.

This is especially true with a valley full of actual tracks - and one of these 
little roads through/around. It is not the same as all the tracks in the area. 

I would suggest a new value of service=*  to further define these roads.

Just as Alley isn't a track nor a residential road - these are neither as well. 

Javbw

 On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:04 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 08/07/2015, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
 https://www.google.com/maps/@36.431238,139.246753,3a,78y,233.04h,65.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqk2OIIDRfkCjb8uqWNbkhw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
 
 To me this (along with the description) is highway=track
 tracktype=grade1. You can add surface, lanes, maxspeed, width, etc for
 good measure.
 
 The difference between track and service is not about the quality of
 the road, but about its intended purpose. Track for agrigulture,
 service for built up areas (very simplified). It's the same for all
 highway=* values : the purpose and official classification are more
 important criterias than the road quality. Which makes the secondary
 tags even more usefull.
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tagging] service=rural (Was Rural Alley?)

[John Willis]

I want to make a new definition for the the service=subkey to better define 
highway=service when used to map the the odd public, maintained, paved, yet 
extremely narrow, meandering, and often parallel or inconvenient nature of a 
lot of rural roads in Asia that are used to access sections of farming lands, 
river embankments, and other roads that run parallel to major/minor roads to 
allow access to tracks, footpaths, occasional service buildings, and paths, 
similar to a Alley in an urban setting, which is also a variant of 
highway=service.

I look forward to more feedback before drawing up a wiki page, but you can see 
my reasoning and 2 good examples below. This is something not covered well by 
track+grade1 IMO and below unclassified IMO. 

Javbw

 On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:02 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 I may be wrong, but I've always seen (rural) service roads as (typically 
 relatively short) access ways 
 
 
 I normally do too. But Alleys are sometimes a kilometer long, paralleling the 
 major road. This idea is what led me to Alley at first. 
 
 Ways with a lot of crossings/bifurcations won't be service roads because 
 they will serve some collecting/distribution/through traffic function  that 
 goes beyond access to one or two sites.
 
 
 This is the hard part of what I’m trying to explain.. Maybe this occurs in 
 Europe too, but having travelled all over California - driving, biking, 
 trekking - through several hundred miles of tracks through the mountains, on 
 several hundred calls to repair computers in rural areas with farms and 
 ranches - 
 
 I have never seen anything like the tangle of roads Japan generates - nor the 
 condition the more unimportant roads are kept at. 
 
 I imagine the easiest way to explain this would be the tangle of residential 
 roads that occurs in old neighborhoods. there is usually one or two 
 unclassified streets that are the main route through the collection of 
 houses, leading to a larger arterial road. and if you really wanted to, you 
 could drive only on the residential roads through the neighborhood, but it 
 would be a total waste of time - as they make you go longer, and keep leading 
 back and crossing the unclassified road over and over. Some may lead off to 
 access the houses on a hill - but there is no reason to go up the hill and 
 back down because there is nothing there besides houses.
 
 These roads have a similar density and distribution - but what they access is 
 rice, corn, banboo, and cedar trees.  There occasionally is a building, a 
 tower, or a farmer’s house, but for the most part it is a tangle of roads you 
 would never want to be directed down, nor use for “cutting through” because 
 you would be parallel to a better road 200m away or you would keep coming 
 back to a trunk road at intersections with no no safe way to enter traffic. 
 
 They allow access to the tracks and paths, and link everything back to the 
 unclassified roads, which in turn lad to the larger roads. 
 
 In rare cases, like my biking example, you might want to traverse the long 
 way through, but seeing them as a bunch of service roads / tracks lets you 
 know exactly what roads are what. 
 
 Here is a link to the google maps of my area, the area I traversed between 
 towns.  many of the rendered roads should be unclassified, but some of them 
 should be classified as a smaller service=rural. A lot of them are tracks as 
 well. 
 
 the spread of paved roads is enormous, and tangled to hell. 
 
 https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4266157,139.1978983,6412m/data=!3m1!1e3
 
 
 here is an area I was mapping a while ago:
 https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4447783,139.2111792,1603m/data=!3m1!1e3
 
 Which of those is a good road to use? the second choice? and what is a tiny 
 road you would curse being routed down, and what is a track?
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.4437/139.2109
 
 this area in particular is a good example of why some kind of service=rural 
 would be useful. 
 
 I really trust your guys opinion - but this is something I have never seen in 
 America. 
 
 Javbw
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rural Alley?

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 9, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 very rough construction

Most of these are in very good condition, comparable to the residential or 
unclassified roads. They are well made and well maintained, besides the summer 
overgrowth that grows too fast to cut back in some places (this even affects 
secondary and primary roads in rural areas). 

The issue is the narrow nature, destination access, and uselessness in routing 
- which is why I compared them to Alleys. 

If a Navi told me to turn down an alley or a rural farm access road because it 
shaved 30 seconds off the theoretical time but was a pain in the ass to 
navigate, id be cursing the navi either way. And if i was biking from village 
to village, knowing which were actual tracks and which were these nice paved 
roads would be very useful - i could choose to cut my way across a region with 
many many little roads rather than get killed on a primary with no sidewalks 
and large trucks zooming by.

In summary - it costs us nothing to treat these as a service road - and it gets 
us more detail at high zooms and more accurately reflects the road system as it 
exists - where the tracks are and aren't, and  they disappear at lower zoom 
levels - as they should. 

Putting them in track or unclassified similarly seems to make the data and the 
map worse. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Rural Alley?

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 9, 2015, at 6:03 AM, John Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
 
 I have seen some people insist that highway=track only be used if the landuse 
 Is farmland, but not if the land is covered by bushes or trees because no 
 cultivation is taking place.

That is weird as hell. These roads go everywhere - through little patches of 
cedar forests and bamboo stands to reach the next field, in (very tiny) tunnels 
 and on bridges under/over new train lines and motorways built to preserve 
farmers local access to fields when the new line cut through everything. I 
would say 20% of all motorway bridges and 90% of tunnels under the motorways in 
rural areas are for these 1 lane famers access your lands roads. Its just 
that with the topography of Japan, they've crammed fields into every 
conceivable little place. The example I linked to is the most straight forward. 

This is besides the tunnels and bridges  a local person would use to move 
around the town, let alone for primary/trunk roads

These then *lead to* the tracks that access individual fields /orchards / 
plantings. 

I think service=rural would be a good choice. 

Small, narrow, usually paved roads that provide local access to fields, 
stands, and otherwise (mostly) uninhabited groups of lands. Used by local 
landowners to access the tracks or paths that access the sub-divisions of a 
field, or lead to other service=rural roads. 


Javbw

 
 -- 
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
 drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
 
 
 On July 8, 2015 6:06:21 AM moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 08/07/2015, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
  https://www.google.com/maps/@36.431238,139.246753,3a,78y,233.04h,65.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqk2OIIDRfkCjb8uqWNbkhw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
 
 To me this (along with the description) is highway=track
 tracktype=grade1. You can add surface, lanes, maxspeed, width, etc for
 good measure.
 
 The difference between track and service is not about the quality of
 the road, but about its intended purpose. Track for agrigulture,
 service for built up areas (very simplified). It's the same for all
 highway=* values : the purpose and official classification are more
 important criterias than the road quality. Which makes the secondary
 tags even more usefull.
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Rural Alley?

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 9, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 highway=track

Yes, it is where a grade 3(?) track meets the service roads.  
 
^_^

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] service=rural (Was Rural Alley?)

[John Willis]

 On Jul 12, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 Maybe you have to raise your current unclassified roads to tertiary to make 
 room for these roads in question?

Japan tagging rules (on the wiki) states only roads with a painted center line 
can be tagged tertiary. Japan has a more rigid and administrative definitions 
for all roads tertiary and up. 

PS : where are alleys in your statement? They are clearly under unclassified. 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Footway is a constructed or engineered way, dedicated and built to a grade 
where foot traffic should expect an easy walk. This might make other traffic 
passage easier as well ( bikes), but engineered with pedestrians in mind.

Path is a cleared area with minimal-to-no construction to create the surface, 
or uses repurposed ways/areas that are no longer suitable for 4 wheel traffic 
(and abandoned road, track, or brownfield). The lack of considerate engineering 
means the way can be used by any non 4-wheel traffic because it was not 
engineered at a grade to specifically be a footpath.

Before they change path to mimic footpath, can we at least have a trail way 
then? 
This is getting ridiculous. 

This change also means the retagging of all paths in Japan, as path is defined 
as a trail. 
But thanks to a data import a long time ago using path, almost all paths need 
to be re tagged as tracks anyways (as they are tracks dedicated to 4 wheel 
(farming) vehicles.



Javbw

 On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:14 AM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
 
 So do you have any functional suggestions or enhancements to my proposition
 in the OP for a proper classification criteria between footway and path?  
 
 Thanks,
 geow

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

The Montgomery ward's department store in my old hometown was turned into a 
Walmart (2 stories) but most department stores in California are 1-2 floors 
(with most targets and walmarts being 1 story).  Most supermarkets are one. 
Size is the only difference in their construction, and often near each other, 
built by the same construction companies, paid by the same landowners. 

I can totally see that in some countries (and especially for certain brands) 
there would be easily defined building types, but All of them are retail 
buildings. They should at least be called retail buildings. To many people, the 
brand logo out front and the color choice of the paint will signal that it is a 
market or a dept store far beyond it's architecture, in most cases. 

 The difference between a large drug store, a supermarket, a department store, 
and a DIY store in rural Japan is almost non-existent (Besia, Besia fashion, 
Sekichu, Kawachi stores). Interestingly, most electronics shops are on stilts 
- first floor is parking, second floor is is the main floor. In Tokyo, 
everything is crammed into the bottom floors of multi-story buildings, with the 
supermarkets in the basements of large buildings or malls - there are very few 
dedicated buildings to a single store if it is large - especially supermarkets. 
They end up being leaseholders in the basement of a large residential or 
business office building, or in the basement of large department stores or 
malls. The rest of the city is a sea of mixed use little tiny house sized 
buildings (shop on the bottom, house up top) for which, AFAIK, we still do not 
have a proper mixed-use tag (urban nor rural) 

Javbw 

 On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 sent from a phone
 
 Am 26.08.2015 um 02:09 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
 
 The difference between a building used as a supermarket compared to a 
 department store is the internal fitout, the building remains the same.
 
 
 not at all, this might be the case in some areas (that I am not aware of) and 
 edge cases, but the typical supermarket is 1 storey, in huge cases 2 (and 
 then one level is typically electronics, or gardening and other non-food 
 articles and tends towards a department store by the selection of products) 
 and doesn't have a representative / expensive outside facade, while 
 department stores tend to have at least 3 floors, typically 4 and more, and 
 do have to have a representative outside, so no, these are not the same kind 
 of buildings.
 
 Do you have any real example of a supermarket becoming a department store or 
 vice versa?
 
 
 cheers 
 Martin 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

I forgot to mention, as most supermarkets are part of large shopping centres 
(shops ringing a parking lot). the building is built, and the market or 
whatever is merely a leaseholder.  Many are purpose built inside to be a 
certain one, but the architecture matches all the other (smaller) shops in the 
shopping centre. This means the leaseholder has very little say in the 
architecture choice.  Most of the older supermarkets I know are newer 
leaseholders in old locations in older centres with distinct styling - without 
the signs on the front, you couldn't know where one shop stopped and the other 
began. 

Javbw

 On Aug 28, 2015, at 7:20 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
 
 To many people, the brand logo out front and the color choice of the paint 
 will signal that it is a market or a dept store far beyond it's architecture, 
 in most cases. 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

 On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
 
 Along with specific sub-tags for physical and access properties it's the
 Swiss army knife for non motorized traffic.

We have a cutting block full of kitchen knives. How many people use the 
pocketknife to cut vegetables in the kitchen? How many people choose the 
corkscrew when a better tool designed for the task is in the drawer? The little 
saw to make a table? 

A pocket knife will save your life, or making camping way nicer. 

But no one uses them except when the situation dictates they must do so. 

I have 3 dedicated tools - the knife, the saw, the wine opener, and i want a 
screwdriver too.

The answer isn't use the pocketknife - I'm not camping or improvising a tool 
to solve a problem with my car - I have a dedicated job (mapping trails) and 
that requires a dedicated tag. 

Imagine if we had highway=road, used in some places for all roads, occasionally 
meaning motorway, major road, and residential road or a mix of them all. 

And i live in a place that doesn't use highway=road for anything other but 
tracks. So I wanted track to fill out my hard defined tag set (and leave path 
for situations truly meant for situations where its flexibility is useful) 

Saying use highway=road for my task is similarly wrong, as there is a great 
amount of trails in the world, and shouldn't be confused with others, just as a 
major road and track are so different. 

There are no sidewalks on the top of Mt Fuji. There are tracks and trails.

Javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Javbw

 On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:46 PM, Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I think that trail is very vague, look at english witkionary, wagon trail 
 etc
 so the word itself would already cause trouble.
 
 highway=footpath may cause less trouble

I think highway=primary is very vague. It is the name of a color group and 
schools for little kids. Does that mean it is a driveway for primary schools? 
Lets use road since it is means everything (and therefore nothing).

A wagon trail is now called a track in most of the world.  Maybe it is still 
a trunk road in Very rural or developingp countries, but it will have cars on 
it. I have seen an actual wagon trail in the desert made in 1847 up a narrow 
canyon in the desert in California. A trail back then was a way for people and 
horses. A wagon trail was a rough path large enough for a 4 wheeled vehicle - a 
standard wagon - to pass, sometimes with great difficulty, but still pass. We 
call those tracks today.  The Mormons in the Mexican-American war turned a 
foot trail into a wagon trail by cutting the sedimentary rock (with axes) just 
wide enough to squeeze a wagon through, making the first trunk route directly 
to Southern California. 

Parts of it are now *gasp* a hiking trail, as it is an abandoned track unfit 
for 4 wheeled vehicles. 

http://www.borregospringschamber.com/landmarks/#472

There needs to be a distinction between sidewalks/walkways through a park and 
rough trail through a forest. 

People are mapping not only huge expanses of wilderness where there are only 
tracks and trails, but areas where the wilderness meets cities, where informal 
or formal cuts through the woods bypass the long winding road, or a primary 
road, a service road, a cycleway, and a trail all parallel a river. 

Places where, as Shel Silverstein said, the sidewalk ends. And being able to 
differentiate that in the data and the rendering is super important. Anyone 
travel with a stroller? A wheelchair? A city bike? A bike with a trailer? A 
hand cart? Use a cane? Have a bad knee? Not wearing boots? One look at a trail 
vs a sidewalk rendering would make you choose the appropriate path. A sidewalk 
down a hill from the temple vs a trail down the other side means the difference 
of life or death for an old man walking - slipping in the mud of a trail could 
kill him. It could be impassible for a city bike when wet. These are all 
assumptions we can make when seeing a sidewalk vs a trail - just like taking a 
minivan on a service road vs a track in the desert - Having dug 4 different 
cars out of the desert sand driving on tracks in washes, There is a big 
difference between a unpaved residential driveway and a track out in the 
desert. A police car was stranded in the mud outside my home when he mistook a 
grade 3-4 farming track for a service road (driveway) in the rain. That same 
distinction needs to be made with walking ways too. You can't expect one tag to 
cover everything between a nice paved, flat, straight, wide cycleway in a city 
along a river - all the way down to the crooked, narrow, rocky, uneven, steep 
way in a forest leading up the side of a mountain to a chain and ladder rungs 
nailed into a cliff (highway=viaferrata). That is insanity. 

Unclassified ~ track
Footway ~ trail

Those ways should be mapped and rendered differently. Which is why we have 
track. We need trail too. 

That abandoned trunk road in Box Canyon in the desert sure as hell isn't a 
sidewalk. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

 On Aug 29, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 supermarkets have different requirements than electronics stores, e.g. 
 because they have big refrigeration storage areas (with good insulation). 
 Yes, you could use them for other purposes, but it typically won't be cost 
 efficient.

Modern ones are floating - almost no part of the freezers or coolers are built 
into the floor. They replace them or re-arrange them as needed. A lot of older 
locations are bing remodeled to use the newer, more efficient units lately. The 
industrial ones in the back are quite small, (and not part of the structure)  
and their power sub-panel need  is about the same current draw as a standard 
factory. The deli or other labor based section (people who make box lunch, 
prepare fresh food, or an onsite bakery) would have more of a architectural 
burden than the freezers -  but externally they look the same, and they could 
be a drug store or a clothing store or a halloween store - i have seen a 
supermarket turned into all of those. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

Javbw

 On Aug 29, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 I thought anchor stores are dedicated areas in malls and shopping centers, 
 not buildings on its own (i.e. the tag would be building:part in this case)

Technically, the anchor is the large important tenant that takes up a lot of 
space in a mall - usually with a large, dedicated, and easily mapped building 
adjoining the actual mall promenade that pulls people into the mall - which 
used to be a department store (Sears), or a clothing reseller (like Macy's or 
JC Penny), but nowadays there are still department stores (Target), but also 
cinemas, and in Japan - plain supermarkets and large bookstores can still 
anchor a mall medium sized mall.

I suggested a seperate building, because in a lot of outdoor malls, the anchors 
are easily mapped and separate from the smaller shops.

http://goo.gl/maps/Ww0Pz. There are 3 anchors here -  easily mappable and 2 
stories tall (the rest of the mall is 1 story)  

Apple stores are the exception in the retail world - most are in a small 
(10x15m) shop location in a mall - but drive as much foot traffic as an anchor 
and earn more money per sq meter than any other retail shop on Earth - but the 
notion of an anchor with their name on the side of a huge building at the end 
of a mall is still really common. 

I guess for a lot of places it would be building:part. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

 On Aug 29, 2015, at 9:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 I'm not sure those are or have to be landuses , eg the gated community is a 
 settlement or settlement part.

A group of separate buildings that make up an apartment complex is a single 
named Landuse=residential

This is a group of individual building=apartments grouped together to be a 
singularly named place with a single Landuse. Without the landuse to tie them 
together, thy are just buildings next to each other.  

http://goo.gl/maps/aliFj
http://goo.gl/maps/TpcQ2

If you don't go by landuse, you end up with this mess - what happens in Japan 
with bad data. 

The government builds complexes full of apartment buildings, and gives them 
names like Ref=A1, A2 , etc - but zenrin's data is crap, and feeds the complex 
name + ref to Google to map each building like it is a separate facility. 

http://goo.gl/maps/XVuEx (this is A1)

I want to avoid this stupidity.

If you visit the complex, it is a single name, with a single landuse, with map 
out front with the complex name on top, and the refs on the individual 
buildings. 

That is how i want to map it too. 

So landuse=residential is a wonderful thing to group buildings into their 
respective complexes - just like buildings in a shopping plaza, a gated 
community, a business park, industrial complex, or regional capital buildings.  

Many buildings with unique names. 
One landuse with one name on it. 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

 On Aug 29, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
 
 isn't that a track?

In 1847 it was the first trunk road into San Diego from the east. Then, as 
other roads were built and traffic dwindled away, it lost importance and grade 
down to a track, and finally S2 was built to replace it turned into an 
abandoned track/trail. Now its a trail along a riverbed (or other roads are now 
over it's alignment), with a historic marker nearby for visitors to walk down 
and see the last remaining bits where you can see there was a road there. 

Sections 30 meters or so long could be considered grade 4/5 tracks - if you had 
a wagon - as most of it is too narrow for any car to actually get up to the 
sections that haven't eroded away yet. Its only 5 feet wide (?)  in critical 
places, in the narrow ravine of a wash. 

http://goo.gl/maps/DwJM2

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

Re: [Tagging] Construction

[John Willis]

 On Aug 29, 2015, at 12:08 AM, Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Gardiner is still highway=motorway

If the construction doesn't impact the maxspeed, the lanes, the alignment, nor 
the classification of the road - then its not really under construction. If the 
road changes alignment for a long time (like routing around construction) - 
follow the new alignment and mark the construction area with a tag. 

Usually digging a giant trench down a primary road to build underground access 
(like the Los Angeles subway did)  either closes the road or drastically 
changes its classification. (The 2 dead-ends become residential, as it is for 
residents only / no through traffic. 

If all it does is make the road lumpy - everything around the road changes, but 
the road itself doesnt (patches, metal plates) change the surface of the road 
and mark construction on the areas alongside it. 

If there is a set schedule of closures (every night from 12-5AM, maybe that can 
be put on the closed section with tags as well. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Buildings mixing residential and commercial use

[John Willis]

 On Aug 31, 2015, at 12:05 AM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 uilding=commercial is quite suspect.

To me, there are 2 basic types of mixed use buildings.

mixed_use_urban
And 
mixed_use_house

There are so many different combinations of retail, residential, hotel, and 
commercial (and in come cases, attraction) That as long as there is some kind 
of residential space (apartments/condos), then it would be mixed_use_urban. 
This is especially true if the public facing  part (the bottom floor or the 
side towards the street) are non-residential use (a business/shop/not parking).

The second kind is very rare to see in America, but Japan is covered with them 
- half-n-half houses: a mixed_use_home.

A house where a room or section of the ground floor is a business, and is 
accessible from the house side, as there  is a Japanese-style house entrance 
(with the raised floor and slippers) for the owner to go between the business 
and their private residence. This is not an adjoining building, but a private 
residence with a small business inside. 

My dry-cleaning shop, most beauty salons/barbers, my favorite cafe,  my 
physical therapist, most tobacco shops, and other small, family owned and 
operated businesses can be operated out of a home in the middle of a 
residential area or along a road that cuts through an area (so many barbers!) 
or along a busy road - but are usually not found along side the bigger 
mixed-use-urban buildings. The homes are standard 2 story houses, and the 
business usually takes up 1/2 of the bottom. 

As these are so different from the multi-floor urban-mixed 3-25 story apartment 
buildings with shops, where the tenants are separate (the people living there 
are not the operator of the shop downstairs, nor do they share access between 
them).

So i suggest those two building types to denote these two basic types of mixed 
use. 

Javbw 





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

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

Javbw

 On Aug 30, 2015, at 4:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 suggests a proper entity. Landuse can be seen as a propery, I wouldn't use it 
 to constitute objects on their  own.

A mall sits on one named landuse=retail.
A factory sits on landuse=industrial.
A company HQ sits on a single landuse=commercial. And an apartment complex sits 
on a single landuse=residential. A gated community in San Diego is 20-30 
houses made by the same builder with an access gate out front (and a single 
sign for the name of the place). It is not an actual community. 

Landuse is awesome. 

Why do some values of landuse, in your description get treated so differently 
when the urban/suburban ones are all the same?

Every building in a city should be on a landuse. The exceptions are the old 
amenities (school, hospital, which I would love to change to a landuse). 

Why do we keep coming back to the rejection of this simple and consistent idea? 
Why do people insist on making it difficult, counter-intuitive, and strange? 

Why should the pattern for mapping industrial complexes be any different for 
residential? Civic/government? Schools? Hospitals? None of the buildings in any 
of those examples, when grouped together into a named complex, have the name of 
the complex - they are all named differently. There is no building named 
factory when they *all together* make a factory. 

A factory, an apartment complex, and a school are usually *a lot bigger* than 
their buildings. Their landuse area is well defined.  The landuse is named. 
Their amenities belong to the landuse, not a building on the landuse. 

This is true of every other category of urban and suburban landuses and the 
older grounds amenities. 

Amenity=*
   Building=* ref=*  building=* ref=*
|-Landuse=* name=*-|

That should be consistent and unchanging, no matter the building. 

Hence my desire for landuse=civic. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Buildings mixing residential and commercial use

[John Willis]

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 3 storey buildings are normally quite different to 25 storey buildings for 
> various reasons (e.g. safety regulations, usage intensity, ...)

Is there some easily understood dividing line between a "building" and a 
"high-rise building" in OSM or the real world?

Most 3-5 story buildings are steel framed here. As are the 25 story ones.  The 
7 story apartments have a few street level shops, just as the 25 story ones. 

"Usage intensity" is a new phrase. The area downtown (in my town) seems to be 
full of students going to the schools in the morning, whereas the apartment 
buildings/shops don't add to the traffic so much, even the 10+ones. People 
trickle out 1 or 2 at a time every so often. 

The shops tagged onto the building would have more impact on usage intensity - 
the convenience stores by far have the most foot and car traffic for a single 
building, and they are smaller than a house when stand-alone. 

There are endless possibilities, shapes, and sizes of buildings for 
mixed_use_multi. 

Most in Japan would be 3-5 story buildings, while in Tokyo there would be few 
thousand 10-25 stories. Anything over 10 is rare outside of the few big cities. 
There is a single apartment building that is 12 stories in my town. 

We already have levels - and we are trying to describe a building that is a mix 
- so what do you propose? A "high-rise" tag or something? Something to imply A 
larger building with more structure and regulation?


Mixed_multi_highrise
Mixed_multi
Mixed_house

Javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] Road classification

[John Willis]

> On Sep 1, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> presently traverses a staircase!

I currently forget which, but a national road in Japan officially becomes a 
staircase near its terminus, as the government managed  "road" is significant 
older than cars, and for historical reasons, the staircase is legally 
considered part of the road. 

There are some national primary/trunk roads that have a modern tertiary bypass, 
but the 200 year old primary bypassed section that goes down a "toboggan route" 
down a mountain or narrows to less than 2 meters is still considered the 
primary/trunk route for the same reasons - which is a real pain to reconcile. 

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

Re: [Tagging] a "letter box" for books

[John Willis]

We might want some kind of generic "drop box" or "return box" - there are other 
kinds of things that are returned (dvds, kerosene tanks, shoes, rental /loaned 
items, etc. 

It would be an item belonging to the business or location, so we may mot need 
to tag what is returned. 

You arent going to return DVDs from a rental shop to the linrary, not even 
other library's books. 

Javbw. 

Javbw

> On Sep 6, 2015, at 3:04 AM, Andrew MacKinnon  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2015 2:01 PM, "Carl von Einem"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm looking for some ideas how to tag a feature I saw at a local library: 
> > just outside the entrance it has a box that can be used to return books and 
> > other media like CDs or DVDs, no matter if the library is still open or 
> > not. It looks like a huge letter box, no receipt returned.
> 
> amenity=book_return is what I used. Every library has one.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[John Willis]

Im talking about how to tag the barrier. That thing was **tight** and very 
unusual to find in a major urban area. 

The amount of scars on the poles was amazing. 

The hight restriction barrier (a common thing) is tagged along with maxheight - 
this barrier seemed to be the same - if you are over max you will hit and 
severely damage your vehecle on the barrier - not the bridge or overpass or 
whatever. 

Javbw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Andrew Errington  wrote:
> 
> I don't think a new tag is warranted.  maxwidth=* is fairly unequivocal.  If 
> map users or routers want to interpret it as "max width, but probably not 
> really, there's probably a bit of extra space, I mean, who's going to be that 
> petty" then that's not your problem.
> 
> Since most roads do not have a maxwidth=* restriction it is safe to assume 
> that the road is suitable for any vehicle*, but if you add a maxwidth tag 
> somewhere it is immediately clear it was done purposefully.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 8 September 2015 at 12:38, johnw  wrote:
>> I was driving in Chiba and Saitama yesterday and encountered a couple new 
>> types of barriers. I realized later one is traffic_calming=chicane. 
>> 
>> 
>> The other one is all over rural Japan as traffic_calming=choker on rural 
>> roads that could bypass traffic near the rivers, - but this one is not for 
>> traffic calming, it is for enforcement of maxwidth of the bridge, similar to 
>> barrier=hight_restrictor. 
>> . They put very strong steel poles or guardrails along the sides and center 
>> of the road at the maxwidth + 20 cm of a standard car.  car can pass 
>> (barely, my mirrors were 5 cm away from each pole), but a large dump truck 
>> cannot pass. Both are in areas where commercial dump trucks or other large 
>> vehicles are nearby, but this one is used to enforce access to the narrow 
>> bridge near a very very busy area to keep a massive traffic jam from 
>> occurring from a stuck dump truck. 
>> 
>> https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7  The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are doing 
>> the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the background. 
>> 
>> https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used. 
>> 
>> Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? 
>> 
>> 
>> Javbw
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drafting proposal: use oneway=reversible or create tag?

[John Willis]

I think using it for pipes and waterways is a good thing, especially when used 
with the way's inherent direction.

There are pipes, canals, and other waterways where both directions occur, but 
like the incline tag, it is best to specify what direction the way's inherent 
direction implies in some circumstances (like near very convoluted river, 
canal, and drain systems found in rainy /low lying places).

Javbw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:04 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/09/2015 12:43 PM, johnw wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Flow direction is the best of these (so far). It is descriptive of what is 
>>> to be tagged. 
>> 
>> What do they use for pipelines? I imagine there is some tag based on the way 
>> direction that can indicate flow. 
> 
> I don't know. But I do know of one group of pipelines that are used in doth 
> directions;
> 
> When electricity generation is required they flow water down hill to power 
> electrical turbines. 
> 
> When there is an excess of electrical generation they pump water uphill. 
> 
> From the pipeline wiki this looks to be used ... 
> 
> flow_direction=forward/backward/both .. note that flow_direction is 
> undocumented. 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[John Willis]

I use bollards all the time , guardrails too. 

If i tagged it as you suggest, we wouldn't need any of the cycle barriers,  
pinches, nor chicanes if they happened to be made of poles. we could use 
bollards for it all. 

The guardrails are there not to contain a car nor block access, they are 
positioned for enforcing maxwidth - just as a barrier=height_restriction is not 
there as a lamp post or sign. A chicane or pinch point is not a bollard either 
- a bollard is meant to completely block access by being in the way. This is a 
set of "bollards" positioned to do a different job as a set (like the ones used 
to make a traffic calming=chicane or a pinch) - so i feel that a guardrail or 
bollard would not reflect the item properly in the database nor be rendered 
properly either. 

Javbw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:12 PM, Carl von Einem  wrote:
> 
> johnw wrote on 08.09.15 05:38:
>> (...)
>> https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7  The maxwidth is signed and guardrails are
>> doing the job. This is width limited for the very narrow bridge in the
>> background.
> 
> barrier=guard_rail
> maxwidth=2.2
> traffic_sign=maxwidth
> 
>> https://goo.gl/maps/3NT9X  The other direction. Poles are used.
> 
> see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard
> 
> barrier=bollard
> maxwidth=2.2 (should be the same width as above)
> motor_vehicle=yes (to be set in this case since bollard implies "no" by 
> default)
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Road classification

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:17 AM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> 
> It also means that real importance could be tagged one day instead of 
> "official" importance, so we have at least something proper once people will 
> have what they really want anyway. =}

Rant:

I agree that importance is very important. But not everyone agrees. 

I mentioned "importance" on the -carto github page (rendering mountain icons 
based on a tagged "importance" score or something), and gravitystorm informed 
me that it is unmappable because it is unverifiable, linking to a "verifiable 
knowledge" page on the wiki. 

It is verifiable. It just that it is not documented in a neat tidy way. 

We can't even separate hills from mountains because they are all "peaks" for 
some reason. 

I mean, a 30m tall hill called "fujiyama" (there are hundred or more little "Mt 
fuji" hills and mountains throughout Japan) and the iconic Mt Fuji have the 
same name, characters (富士山), icon, and rendering in OSM. This particular name 
issue famously led some Chinese tourists to my small town looking to climb Mt 
Fuji, and they arrived at"base of mt fuji" train station (fujiyamashita) - 
which is below a hill that takes 5 minutes to walk up. It is a national joke. 
Google Uses it in ads to show off Android. 

It obviously is known and documented that this hill is less important. But 
making one icon render at z8 and one render at z15 is not allowed, because it 
is "unverifiable". ><

 OSM is stuffed full of value judgements - but the ones that could improve 
renderings on tiny, large, and iconic non-manmade items the most is not 
allowed. 

Labeling Denali or the Grand Canyon or Mt Everest or other natural landmarks 
*correctly* requires a value judgement by someone. Every online map does this. 
Someone put the special "mt fuji" icon in Apple Maps for a reason. Ot is an 
internationally famous peak. 

It requires prioritizing their rendering over other mountains, and their own 
sub-peaks. And cluttering the map with peak icons that appear and disappear all 
at the same zoom level gives no idea as to the size, visibility, cultural 
importance, nor landmark status of the peaks and other natural features. 

I purchased a USA map that won a national mapping contest - this 1 guy spent 
years choosing features to include and exclude - highest points, POIs, and 
historic features - his map beat out NatGeo and other maps in the contest. It 
is beautiful. 

Capturing local / regional information on what should and shouldn't be shown at 
certain zoom levels - importance - makes a better map.

Ignoring it seems to be the exact opposite of OSM's mission to capture local 
knowledge to make a superior map. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Road classification

[John Willis]

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> From this it sounds like this tagging in OSM is relying too much on
> official classification rather than on real road importance.

And similar to someone printing out an email and faxing it to someone, we have 
reached a cultural impasse that the Japanese (big giant stereotype incoming) 
impose upon themselves - because in so many aspects of their lives - the 
paperwork or ceremony or existing standard is vastly more important than the 
people holding the paperwork, people in the ceremony, or a new method that 
makes the old standard useless (looking at you, fax machine!). This has 
benefits but also tremendous technology drawbacks. 

The map honoring the roads is vastly more important than the people using them. 
You eventually end up using width as a yardstick more than anything - which is 
why  (good) Japanese maps are all area based at high zoom levels - no lines, 
all areas - so you can see that a road to the train station is so small that 
your minivan cannot fit through the walls along the road in the middle. 

The actualities on the ground means a bypass road should be built, but come 
hell, high water, or a 20% incline on a hairpin turn on road 2 meters thick - 
that is a primary road - because the road has always been one for 150 years, so 
why change the paperwork? The paperwork is more important than representing 
reality. The smooth two-lane road with shoulders bypass road 100 years newer is 
obviously a tertiary.  

This greatly affects googles (representation of the roads at lower zoom (where 
they rely on googles in-house line-vector mapping style rather than Zenrin's 
area based representation), though they don't try nearly as hard as OSM to 
render all the different grades of road, so the mismatches can be even more 
pronounced. 

But - most importantly - this implementation is what japanese people expect and 
require from their maps, as the shape of the roads gives users a spatial 
awareness of where they are - and changing those roads means making an 
"inferior" map. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Husainiya

[John Willis]

Javbw

 On Aug 24, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 sent from a phone
 
 Am 22.08.2015 um 02:37 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
 
 We already define the religious buildings themselves through building=* and 
 the POW through amenity, and the religion and denomination through their 
 respective tags.
 
 
 if those religious buildings have defined specific functions these should get 
 a dedicated tag besides the building tag. Building =* is a tag about the 
 building itself, not the use/function of it.
 

If it is a common enough building name type, like a temple or shrine or church, 
then add it to the building=* with the others. 
 
 
 
 Landuse=religious generically says this is land used by a religious 
 facility.
 
 
 should the vatican museums get the landuse =religious tag? Saint Peter's 
 square? Castel Gandolfo? How can I tell whether an amenity  nearby a POW and 
 owned+operated by the church belongs to the POW, and when does the POW belong 
 to the amenity without them being landuse=religious? Like you wrote, in 
 certain contexts it will be normal to have holy places like chapels and 
 shrines associated with other things.
 
Based on the (small amount) of what i know of the square, and model i have seen 
(in Japan 
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2010/08/miniature-world-heritage-buildings-at.html?m=1),
 and my limited understanding that it is the pope's big square in the catholic 
city-state of the vatican (It's like a giant outdoor church!):

If St peters square isn't landuse=religious, i don't know what is.

But I'm not the local mapper who would be familiar enough with the square. 

But any place dedicated to seeing the pope talk to people surrounded by a 
hundred religious statues on a giant religious building hugging all the 
people in the square seems to be a giant catholic shrine to the pope or the 
church as an entity itself, IMO. 

In capital cities, (proposed) landuse=civic would take up a lot of the land 
(not through ownership, but dedicated usage), and I imagine that a city-state 
dedicated to being the HQ of a religion would have a lot of landuse=religious. 

But again, I'm no expert. Im not even religious. 

Javbw. 
 

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

 On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Everyone does not participate in all the OSM news sources. Thus people are 
 surprised when presented with stuff they had no idea of.

When I was a gamer, I played a lot of Blizzard games (WoW  Diablo), and the 
same situation applies - devs would propose and beta test changes to the game 
and its systems, and would get feedback from beta testers and on the forum - a 
tiny minority of players.  After lengthy discussions, they would roll out the 
changes into the actual Live game - which would affect ?10-15 million players 
(who have a large time investment in the game, like mappers). 

The only way around the backlash to changes is to have the game display news of 
upcoming changes (for weeks or months) before they happen, on a screen that 
shows up every single time its launched.

If OSM put a note from the devs about upcoming changes and (separate from 
Github) place where the expected mass of comments could be consolidated outside 
the workflow, it might make people less surprised and feedback on an issue 
collected easier - and point to help or new tags added - weekly new documented 
/ reworked tags on the wiki would be awesome, and help people stay on top of 
tags as well

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Husainiya

[John Willis]

 On Aug 24, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 sent from a phone
 
 Am 22.08.2015 um 15:38 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
 
 A school operated by a church on separate land with separate facilites is a 
 school. The sign out front says school. It is a school. It may be a 
 religious school, so it has religion=* **but it is not the landuse of a 
 facility dedicated to worship!**
 
 
 how/where do you draw the line? I'm sure they mostly will have a POW, 
 sometimes also an important one.
 

I am not exactly sure. Maybe by the time I am done typing i will have a better 
answer. 

The places I have seen and visited seemed pretty easy to draw the line. 
I imagine there are places where it is basically two things mixed together. If 
it were me, there might be some dividing line in the grounds that is possible 
(separate halves of the grounds or separate entrances), but when it is truly 
mixed, it is subjective - and I am okay with that. 

My son's catholic college is part of a kindergarten/HS/college combo. 
It is very easy to map the college and kindergarten (and the historic 
missionary building) - but the HS is tough. The big HS buildings are built 
around a big church - you enter the high school to worship at it. The complex 
can be seem to the left of the pin in GoogleMaps. 
http://goo.gl/maps/Uc7yR

In this particular case - because it is built-into the school, and the sign out 
front says school - then the POW is an amenity (a big one!) of the school 
itself - I went to the graduation ceremony in it (and school talks are held in 
it) - so I would tag it as a school grounds, and the building itself as a 
church, with a POW on the church. 

And almost all of the land is used for HS related facilities - the grounds are 
dedicated to the school, not the church. 

In my other older church with preschool example, almost the entire grounds 
were dedicated to the church, not the 2 rooms of the preschool. So it is 
primarily a POW facility, so landuse=religious. 

land Dedicated to a religious facility for worshipping and supporting 
activities of worshippers and visitors to the facility 

A single (named) landuse thats dedicated to those facilities

The catholic HS fails both. Its land primarily dedicated to education and the 
activites of students (classrooms, pitch, track, pool,) and it is a single 
named landuse: High School. 

But where the line is drawn for something else, I'm not sure. How the people 
who operate it themselves are a big clue, though. 

Javbw 

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

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

Re: [Tagging] unequipped outdoor area for sport activity

[John Willis]

Leisure=pitch + sport•=* 

Its not anout the markinggs - its about dedicated use. 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch

I am not sure about the reservation system - but if it is a dedicated area for 
sports of any kind, the area is a pitch. 
If it is just a spot on a park people can reserve for sports or birthday 
parties or a concert (or similar), it might just be a park with landuse=grass 
(or landcover=grass).

Pitches are used for model airplane fields and other "sports" - so don't let 
the narrow idea of a sports pitch constrain you - it is for any land dedicated 
to a leisure "sport" - especially if it is an outdoor field of any kind. 

It may not have painted lines, but if it is regularly reserved and used for 
"sports" - its a pitch. 

Javbw

> On Sep 13, 2015, at 1:22 AM, Aury88  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> I'm Aury88 and I'm new in this mailinglist.
> sorry for my bad English  ;-)
> I'm looking for a way to tag unequipped outdoor areas used often / regularly
> for certain sport activities. 
> pilates, yoga, stretching etc only need a grass covered area witch usually
> is not equipped nor is marked as dedicated area so I don't think
> leisure=pitch is correct.
> but they are fixed meeting places  dedicated to those activities by groups.
> some times need to be reserved or authorized to permit carry out the
> activity.
> I don't find any appropriate tag for these situations. 
> Is a closed way with only sport=* tag a viable solution?
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Ciao,
> Aury
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/unequipped-outdoor-area-for-sport-activity-tp5854587.html
> Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Orchards and their crops

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Jerry Clough - OSM  wrote:
> 
> our next problem is to identify the cultivars: not easy with cherries in 
> Japan.

So there is nothing between

"This is a pear"

And

"This is the very specific cultivar of this variety of this pear.

?

It looks like ill be requesting some more tree types then. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Cycle cafes

[John Willis]

I have no idea about this, but are there ways to tag zones in a theme park? 

Trying to discern themes might be really difficult without a good list of 
beginning themes. 

Westernland and tomorrowland, etc, for example. 

Is that cowboy and astronaut? The old west? Retro space? Pioneer times? 
Rocketships? 

These are the zone names in Japan - "frontier" means like living with cows in 
the snow in Hokkaido, so they use "westernland", which maps better to "western 
US cowboy gold-rush" - like the film genre. 

It will be super-easy to make a crap-ton of different tag values for the same 
basic thing. 

Javbw

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 11:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> the suggested theme=disney. "multi" is mostly useless, as you don't know what 
> it stands for.

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

Re: [Tagging] Cycle cafes

[John Willis]

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> , they would not
> necessarily want to be shown playground locomotives.
> 
> The idea for playground:theme=* came up when johnw was looking for labelling
> octopus-themed playgrounds in Japan (though he has not applied it yet).

Yea, the octopus playground is a very nostalgic piece in Japan, and few new 
ones are made AFAIK. People catalog them online (like railfans cataloging 
bridges or locomotives), so i wanted a way to tag them when the equipment 
itself is made into the shape of a giant octopus.

I love the idea of railfans searching for "train themed locations"!  

I guess if you were looking for 50's style diners with waitresses in hoop 
skirts or something, theme might be a very big part of the choice.

But considering the overlap that can occur with themes, it might be good to tie 
some to their parent tag to avoid a kind of tag pollution. Theme parks, 
restaurants, and playgrounds may all have themes, but often times the theme of 
the park is much more pertinent than that of a concrete octopus slide. 

A lot of theme parks are tied to their brand (disney), so places with a very 
obvious theme might just be their brand. 

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag cricket nets?

[John Willis]

Net is not a sport. "Putting green is also not a sport, so it is in golf=*

Sport=cricket
Cricket=net would be more in line with existing tagging schemes, especially the 
sub-keys for sports with static and well defined features (like golf courses 
and baseball diamonds). 

But we're wondering of there is need for a key that says "this is for practice 
of a single aspect of a sport" - it specific sub-keys for each item as it is 
now, and just add some more values.  This  always lets the sport=* key define 
just the sport (as it is supposed to do), and not be bogged down in definging 
equipment of the sport like leisure=pitch + sport=* works now.

Javbw

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
> 
> see no problem with the way it is at the moment. The value of 'cricket_net' 
> tells any user what it precisely is.

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

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long names for highways

[John Willis]

I was using official_name=* for this already (like stores with ridiculously 
long names) - I just realized this might be completely undocumented. 

Javbw

> On Sep 27, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/09/2015 8:21 PM, Peter wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> we've detecting more and more long names for highways, like I once
>> reported here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/karussell/diary/26055
>> 
>> One example:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51109811
>> 
>> As discussed there the names are from official source, but should we
>> really include this in the name tag?
> 
> Why not put it as the alternate name? This way the 'official name' is 
> recorded for all to see.
> 
> The name= I'd use would be what the locals call it .. or what is on a sign 
> post. It won't be long (I'd think).
> 
>> 
>> I've posted this to the OSM forum already and there seem to be a bit
>> controversial answers :)
>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=50717
>> 
>> But I agree with 'SomeoneElse' that description should not go into the name.
>> What is common sense here?
> 
> Descriptions do not go into the name tag.
> But if the 'official name' is that then it goes in.
> 
> If it has no name then there are tags for that too! key:noname=yes 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noname
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> addr:floor is about the address, "level" is used more often.

What about situations where the level and the signed level don't match? Im not 
trying to spatially locate the building for 3D rendering - i just want to know 
where to head in the mall.

I got lost at Kasuga station, because there were exits labeled 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 
A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,A6. I wanted 6, but followed A6. i just want to know what ref i 
should follow to get where i am going. 

Having a floor:ref=* that says "tell the user my shop's floor location is 
"mezzanine" is more useful than "level=1.5". The signs and elevator will say 
"Mezzanine". 

A lot of places have alternate floor names (skylobby 4, P3, B2, observation 
deck, "450" - height in meters off the ground for the Tokyo skytree floors - 
since there are only 6 or so "levels" in the 634m structure. There are 
restaurants, gift shops, and other amenities up there. Nowhere does it ever 
mention a number relating to "level". 

I imagine that 99% of most structures follow the standard model and basic 
level=floor location structure, and it is not needed for them - but almost all 
of that other 1 percent is in large public venues where public visitors would 
be interested in the information - so a solution should cater to solving the 
problems presented by this 1 % because it will be an immediate problem for 
mappers, as public and interesting buildings are more likely to get more 
detailed mapping, and more and more detail is added to more and more objects in 
OSM. 

Also, to go back to my example, Kita-senju station is maybe 9 levels covering 3 
different station sections - B2-7(?), with shops in the station from basement 
to 2 - but then there is a whole mall on top covering the rest. They might 
start measuring the map where it begins on the 2nd level, not the actual levels 
of the building, or have some odd naming scheme. 

Being able to refer to the location **as labeled on the user information 
signage** is very important - even if that doesn't line up with the level=* of 
the overall structure. 

Which is why i suggested level:ref= as it is the reference for the level it is 
on, not the physical level it is on. Which for these 1% structures, is the 
difference between useful and garbage information. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

[John Willis]

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
> 
> Actually, Taginfo says that addr:floor is used 4314 times (3162 on nodes): 
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr:floor

I was reading the numbers off the wiki page - I guess there is an error in the 
counter implementation widget. 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:floor

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2015-09-29 13:10 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :
>> > addr:floor is about the address, "level" is used more often.
>> 
>> When addr:floor=* was first proposed a few years ago, it had almost
>> the exact same semantics as level=*.
>> 
>> Now, I'm using addr:floor=* to indicate the human-readable floor
>> information while level=* is used for the machine-readable number. For
>> example: addr:floor=Mezzanine Level and level=0.5
> 
> 
> +1, I'd see addr:floor as always in local units (the way it is called in the 
> building and would be written on a letter), while level is the osm version, 
> counting "levels" from ground floor=0 upwards and downwards.

Isn't addr:* for its postal / legal location definition? 

What if the floor level is not part of its address? I think most 
business/dwellings don't have floor in their address, which is why its usage 
(152 for points) is so low. Most buildings hide that information in its room 
number (1222 =floor 12 room 22). 

This is why I suggested level:ref=*

You could tag however they are referred to (the ref part), which is often 
independent of its address, and sometimes independent of level. Most mappers 
rely on level=* to tag this info, and is probably sufficient for most. But 
since we are talking about names and schemes that deviate from concentional 
levels, level:ref would show this deviation, which is why it is a subset of 
level. I guarantee you those shops addresses are something like suite/space 
#270, and may or may not encode floor information, so addr:floor seems wrong to 
me. 

Also, level=2 to us in OSM is referred to as "2F" in signs for many Japanese 
malls on signs and maps. Being able to give rendered. maps and data customers 
the proper ref to display when more info is requested about the store (eg:click 
on the icon, or however data customers wish to show additional info) would be 
useful.

Mapping 2-3 malls' stores would go over the tag count of addr:floor quite 
quickly. 

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