Dear all,
I would hereby like to propose a new value for the man_made tag:
man_made=water_tap
The proposal page is:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap
Thanks for comments in advance!
Cheers,
Kotya
___
Tagging mailing list
Dear all,
This is a kind reminder that the water_tap proposal (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap) is in the
RFC stage at the moment. Please comment here or at the discussion page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/water_tap.
Cheers,
Kotya
Hi Martin and all,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-10-18 23:20 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following
the suggestion at
Bryce,
Thanks for your comments.
Tagging amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no makes, at least, the WeTap
Android application show a false source of drinkable water.
It renders on many maps indistinguishable from potable water.
As I already said in the previous email, I think the only
Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
information he doesn't possess. This water is non-potable is very
different from I am not sure you can drink it. This is why I tend to go
for a generic water source tag with an additional potability
specification.
Taking into
What about introducing a name space:
water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find a
good English-language analogue, could someone help please?)
water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
water_source:nonpotable=compromised | designated
In principle, details regarding
I think this is an inconsistency in tagging and would be interested to
hear if you believe the recommendation should be changed. E.g. we could
have a plant:genus to explicitly state that the genus refers to the
plants rather than the nursery.
I agree about the inconsistency. In general I
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-11-17 23:26 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
What about introducing a name space:
water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find
a good English-language
water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
in analogy: water:effervescent (or ~:sparkling)
I don't mind using the word effervescent; however: is there any
recommendation that we should use as simple words as possible, to achieve
the above goals 1 and 3? I know this for scientific papers
For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a river, lake,
spring etc...
the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it comes
from) but its purity...
So I'd think the key should be
Water_purity with the key values 'potable', 'nonpotable' and 'unknown'
? On the Keep It Simple Stupid theory?
water_potable = yes/no
If not known you don't tag. Then it will some default action possibly based
on location. Some may want tags 'boil', 'filter','filter+boil' ...
What would be the difference from the existing drinking_water=*?
Happy holidays and 2015 everyone!
what is needed here is some tag, saying don't touch these
coordinates, they've been surveyed with high(est) accuracy.
I second this idea.
Just recently I discovered that something in this direction already exists:
Einverstanden :)
Please vote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Cheers,
Kotya
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
On 04.12.2014 10:31, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
For me, English common sense says a 'water source
:
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:18:28 -0800
From: Bryce Nesbittbry...@obviously.com
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap (Kotya
Karapetyan)
Message-ID:
CAC9LFPe1V1VMf
+0100
From: Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com kotya.li...@gmail.com
To: Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org r...@oudeis.org, Tag discussion,
strategy and
related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey
Message-ID
concerns and you can vote now :)
Cheers,
Kotya
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-12-30 21:33 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I agree.
Voting page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Amenity is the best fit for this tag.
I disagree. (Usually that just means I didn't find anything better)
+1
Amenity is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be
marked as such. So I'd prefer to use it only when it's an obvious
choice or there is nothing better.
What about using
I think this proposal is very relevant for some larger hotel and
resorts. I've been myself a few times in a situation when I had to
search for the reception over a large area. It can be a trouble if you
simultaneously have to get rid of your car in a parking restricted
area. Same for
:
Am 04.02.2015 um 10:56 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan:
Hi,
+1 for the proposal as such.
I have suggestions for some parts of the proposal though.
1) I would discourage specification of the temperature without the
scale indication. I have never lived in the US but I see from the Web
Now that the water_tap proposal discussion is over, I'd like to join
this important discussion.
My opinion: Since OSM is a *map*, we should *map* things. That means,
we should tag what actually exists on the planet, not what is implied.
Sometimes things are tagged in real life. For example,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan
kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Cheers,
Kotya
___
Tagging mailing list
Hi Marc,
By forced rules: you mean a committee that decides what gets mapped and how
?
So when I want to map something now, I have to file a request to the
committee to start looking for a new tag. And if they like the request they
come back within a few months with a proposal. And this
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I think that editor presets makers should really implement *all*
approved tags (barring some specialized stuff like OSM-3D, indoor
mapping etc) because not featuring a tag makes some people tag things
not
Hi all,
1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was
not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails
from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but
couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?) The last email I saw
was Warin's
have you checked your spam folder? sometimes gmail tends to label as
spam a number of mailing list posts; periodically going through the spam
folder and marking them as not-spam seems to reduce the problem, at
least for a while.
Yes, I have and do it regularly. Also the all mail folder,
Hi all,
I wonder: shouldn't we separate a conditioned room air in a hotel and
an object temperature? I get the feeling that this discussion on a
useful tag (how to denote the temperature of an object where it is
needed) is slowly drifting away to defining about everything related
to temperature.
Dear all,
This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Cheers,
Kotya
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I like the proposal. In Germany and in the Netherlands these machines
are common and it is indeed important to know where one can find the
nearest one. They are usually not operator-specific, though the
voucher they issue can be redeemed only within the operator shop (or
network).
I have no clue
I agree with Craig concerning the use of word literature and suggest
simply using books:genre, to make use of the existing key. Having two
keys book and books would be confusing. Besides, the current tag
seems to me to be overlapping with what is proposed. It is now indeed
used for types of books,
Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more
votes with at least 74 % approval ones?
I agree that the current situation looks funny pretty often.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
-1
The main criticism about votes is the approved status and the
small amount of participants, not percentage of approvals. So change
the status name and increase the quorum, not the opposite. It's also
not a problem to keep
Having lived in Russia and Germany for quite a while, I can confirm that
the language barrier definitely plays a strong role. A lot of people in
Russia will never use the English-language internet at all. I think the
same holds for France, Spain and Italy, to a lesser extent for Germany. In
the
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com
wrote:
Very good ideas and it would bring the original intention of OSM back into
the play: the numbers count and not the two-and-a-half people putting a
line starting with yes somewhere in the wiki.
I think some
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
+1 on showing the vote and discussion in the final page.
And I guess +1 on the lack of a vote. The ugly proposals DO look ugly.
---
This works well for single proposals, but fails to capture *competing
proposals
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I also don't think there is a procedure to change the proposal voting
system and how votes are counted. 8 votes in favor of a change seem too
few, and besides this, IMHO this is not something we should vote on
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 17.03.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
I don't think there is a procedure to vote on such proposals, so please
just give it +1 here if you agree. We change it when we have 8+ plus ones
if there are no significant objections
Dear all,
I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was
that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for accepted/rejected
decision was self-contradicting. Even if there may be different opinions on
that, the very discussion shows that the situation is not
To make it clear:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why should the page be converted to a feature page ?
Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a
stable 10 year-old feature page cannot be easily distinguished from a
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote:
So here's how I would answer your question of how would an interested
party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded:
instead of
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:
I use Stack Exchange a lot and it's great, very well designed for its
purpose. BUT Stack Exchange is not designed for community decision
making. There are tools/forums that are actually designed for that
purpose.
Also I
I'm starting to think a Forum is a good idea. But Stack Exchange is a
bigger decision, I have not used it, who has ?
I have :) Also participated in the proposal phase for a couple of sites.
I am wondering: If so many people think that forum is better, and if OSM
actually provides a forum
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-03-19 0:56 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
* Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a
like or dislike button and aggregate score is shown. For some time
Think StackExchange.
Nice. But practicable ?
Why not?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
of the proposal/voting process
and on how to carry out discussions goes on :)
Cheers,
Kotya
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 17.03.2015 15:04, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
I propose to clarify it by changing the recommended number of votes
in
https
of a word in the wiki page break any
connections?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why should the page
that democracy should sometimes be a little
helped by a strong opinion, when it minimizes damage. If you foresee a
damage—feel free to undo.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-03-19 11:37 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Dear all,
We
, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-03-18 21:05 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Do we have abstention possible at all? The voting system currently only
implements yes and no:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Vote.
If we had
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search,
Jan, I wonder if you've ever had a question, googled for an answer and
landed in a forum thread with 50+ pages with 10 posts per page.
Personally, I
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:
My issue with email lists is that for most emails I delete after reading.
If at some time later, I come across a tagging situation that I recall
being previously discussed I need to go into the mail archives at
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-03-20 11:50 GMT+00:00 althio althio.fo...@gmail.com:
Maybe it was Loomio?
That was it! Thanks
Shall we take a look at it all together?
https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
Dear all,
In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio
has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
And let me know if
Warin, you have a 50/50 split.
Maybe it's better to try to address the issues and re-vote the proposal? We
could have a good tag, but we are going towards a barely accepted one.
My main concern is not even that we don't have the vast majority support,
but that the proposal hasn't provided a
I believe it depends on the facility. My company has 3 receptions, and they
are called officially Reception 7, 4 and 8; these are the names
appearing on the phone when I receive a call to collect a visitor. I will
use that as the names.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Goss
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:
And if I'm a visitor how would for example a OSM based navigation system
figure out to which company or facility they belong?
I think it's a relevant point. I would include the
company/hospital/university etc. name in
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you 'navigate' to 'drinking water' or simply look for the closest
one?
Most would navigate to an address .. then look on the map for parking,
then look on the map for the closest reception desk ..
I think there is a
Also I believe most of the time you'll be more interested in the entrance,
the reception desk will very likely be close to it.
On our campus, we have a couple of dozens of entrances for employees but
only three of four receptions where a non-employee can enter. So mapping a
reception
Please also have in mind the amount of traffic between plain text and html.
I actually wonder how relevant this is. In general, I am a proponent of
saving resources, so the less transmitted data the better. But with the
increase of internet bandwidth and the speed of available hardware, the
not make actual tests.
On 2015-03-23 19:07, Kotya Karapetyan wrote :
Now I am missing the like link :)
We'll definitely need to find a smart and soft way to attract people to
a different platform.
However, though I agree that email is not the best tool, we need a very
good alternative rather than
Hi Warin,
10 state it should not be an amenity key and most of those are for it
being in the tourism key.
My failing there for not explaining that it has applications to offices,
industries and educational areas where tourism is not an appropriate key.
In my opinion, it depends on
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
branches
Hi Warin,
Why rush? I don't think it's a question of how long the discussion
took. The proposal still has open issues, some of which are even
mentioned in the proposal page itself. So what are we voting for? It
would be better to close the open issues (or at least remove the
options that cause
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I believe it is generally difficult to decide on English tags when you
don't speak English.
I tend to disagree. A lot of people would be able to use the words
temperature or reception desk. The same people
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'd prefer to require something like not more than x percent negative
votes rather than at least y percent positive votes, because when
requiring a percentage of positive votes all abstentions count like
Question:... Can you include pictures or diagrams as visual arguments to
support your reasoning?
Doesn't seems to be possible.
I was too quick. It *is* possible. Here is an example.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:
It's interesting. I hadn't realised it's open-source too, so osm could
run its own version of it if we wanted to.
Dan
2015-03-20 22:38 GMT+00:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Dear all,
In an attempt
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:42 PM, AYTOUN RALPH ralph.ayt...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Well, I guess I am also out of this. Needs me to log in to make a comment
but appears I have done something wrong because it just does not work for
me. I do not have a Google account and my Virgin email is
I was *too* quick. Here is an example:
https://www.loomio.org/d/1E3YAaz0/test-images
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Warin,
Maybe there needs to be a wiki page on the subject?
Associating one feature (a 'parent') with another feature (a 'child')?
More of a guide as to how OSM 'does' it?
Or may be it needs to be added to some already existing guide...
I would propose to word it as belongs-to. However,
I wonder if we want to limit it to spikes only. What about these things:
http://www.siapress.ru/images/news/main/24438.jpg
http://park-ur.ru.images.1c-bitrix-cdn.ru/upload/medialibrary/bee/beebb476f5dc4c2cccedd1ab6f41.jpg?142435251415224
My proposal would be to add oneway to the existing
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:32 PM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com
wrote:
How about mapping a cemetery with connected smaller cemeteries ? That's
what I've done to distinguish different areas and names.
Though you are of course free to do it anyway you find reasonable, I don't
think it's a
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
On 5/16/15 1:19 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
Though I strongly disagree to the idea of mapping for the renderer, I
agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM database
is effectively lost
Though I strongly disagree to the idea of mapping for the renderer, I
agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM database
is effectively lost because the renderers do not show it. Right now there
is a question whether we should use ref or name to tag parts of the
Hi everybody,
I was mapping cemeteries recently, and I stumbled over a couple of
confusing points. I would like to know your opinion.
1) There is landuse=cemetery and amenity-grave_yard. Could someone explain
the difference please? Is it that graveyard is always at a place of worship
territory?
4) Ref seems to be a good tagging for the cemetery section number,
but it doesn't show up on the map, unlike the name (e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345082198). Is ref still a
preferred tag?
it does not render as sole argument is not a good argument. Mappers
should not care
Great, office=administrative will do. Thanks!
Cheers,
Kotya
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 15.05.2015 um 16:49 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
Is there a tag for an administration building of a large campus/site
Hi again,
Is there a tag for an administration building of a large campus/site?
Specifically, I would like to tag the administration location of a
cemetery. There is an abandoned proposal (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Administration) but
its examples imply something very
You could evaluate the tagging already in use in different cemeteries
around the world and see which tags are used for similar objects, then
proposing some system to unify the situation.
Well mapped cemeteries you can find in Poland, Pere Lachaise in Paris,
Staglieno in Genoa, and so on.
I agree with fly that it would be good to actually change the proposal page
to make it closer resemble the tag description page. Currently it mainly
addresses the RFC process and questions. As the result, there is no good
page for which we could vote. All discussion could be moved to the Talk
One node, all tags is the gut feeling I get. Put all the tags on one and
if two are the same key with different values, add the values separated by
semicolons.
If in doubt, create two nodes and use iD to combine them ;) by (shift)
selecting both and use the + symbol to combine.
+1, but
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:34 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com
wrote:
If they need a map to find the place, the need any reception for newbies.
Tag the appropriate entrances with ent/ext tags - all those entrances
suitable for newbies.
I believe we should simply map the reality. So
It's really a pity if the proposal will be rejected. Its need is clear,
even though the exact wording may not be perfect. But do we need to have a
*perfect* proposal before we can get anything? I would suggest to those who
oppose it to accept it and then propose a modification. Otherwise we'll
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
Voting is a pointless, broken process that means absolutely nothing.
I think voting is a good indicator of the community opinion. As such, it is
useful. I agree of course that we are not bound by the outcome, but it does
Hi,
I wonder: Could we try to slightly change the proposal/RFC process to make
the community develop the good solution?
It is obvious that only a small amount of people voted against the proposal
as such, thinking it's not useful.
The majority complained about the specific wording.
We could put
Hi André,
I agree with moltonel.
But otherwise I think there is a difference between a general warning or
message from one mapper to another (which in its own is an interesting idea
but can lead to dialogues and discussions) and a specific technical feature
that would prevent moving an
gt; trying to validate http://dev.openstreetmap.org/ as well as
> http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/
> Thanks, but please give correct information.
> But a sandbox wouldn't help with the first bad example because it's to be
> looked at on Waymarked trails and that program does not dis
il.com>
wrote:
> On 2015-09-17 18:02, Kotya Karapetyan wrote :
>
> Hi André,
>
> I don't know why your text was removed.
>
> > It would produce a message saying something like:
> > "The coordinates you are trying to change are accurate to 25 cm.
> > You p
86 matches
Mail list logo
