Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Mar 2020, at 13:36, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I would like to came back to the proposal of using place=square with the > addition of the type of the square as a second key where we can accommodate > the various interpretations according the local varieties. I

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Mar 2020, at 13:06, Paul Allen wrote: > > This is untrue of British English, when speaking of town squares. In geometry > a square is a particular shape, a subset of the class of rectangles, In the > geometrical sense objects can be square regardless of their

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 18:23 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > Around here, squares are not square. (Oral tradition is that our roads > used to be cow paths.) indeed, from this thread it seems we all agree that squares do not have to have a square shape (even who asked about this seems was of

Re: [Tagging] What language is the name tag value? Was: Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Mar 2020, at 23:54, Tod Fitch wrote: > > 2. Create a scheme where a default language can be set on boundaries as has > been suggested by Joseph Eisenberg [4]. This has the advantage that > relatively few objects need to be tagged, for example it might be possible

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:locked

2020-03-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Some tags have been approved which allow for adding such details under the barrier:-tag, e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier:personnel This is the original proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=840159#Combinations_.2F_Subtags Unfortunately, the other

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 25. März 2020 um 15:23 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > "if the name is otherwise regarded correct by mainstream media or a > language authority." > > In that case, please add it to wikidata with a reference, but it would > not be appropriate for

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 25. März 2020 um 10:27 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > In my opinion, a name:xx tag should only be added if you can demonstrate > that people natively speaking the living language xx are actually using > this name for this entity. There are a few notable exceptions

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > An area that was once used as a town square (hard-surfaced place where the > public > congregate and may or may not be used for meetings) may retain the name > "Foo Square" even though it is now a car park or a bus station. > Maybe there

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 13:40 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard < lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > If we take the key "place=*", all the values are only related to toponym : > place=city/town/village/neighbourhood/locality/... They all are just the > name of a location of some type (either defined by

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 03:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > Place=square was defined until 3 days ago as “a > > named square” and “a town or village square which is an open space > common in > > urban centres, typically crossed by streets but can also be a

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

2020-03-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 05:28 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > ...the centre of Paris in a Nolliplan: http://www.iad > bs.de/site/assets/files/1954/schwarzplan.jpg > > > All the areas where the streets widen significantly at junctions with > other streets are

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

2020-03-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 05:25 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > "Here’s an example of a square in Berlin in a residential early 20th > century area:" > > Is this mapped as a leisure=park in Openstreetmap? If so, then I don't > see any need to also map the same area as

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Mar 2020, at 23:03, Greg Troxel wrote: > > (seriously, New York > is not part of New England) pardon my ignorance ;-) > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474864229 > > does not use sqaure in the name and is not place=square. it looks like a square on the

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Mar 2020, at 20:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > Actually, I think that "You can't tag something > because I don't see a need for it" is not a very good idea, but apparently > some people think otherwise. This is not what was written. I wrote if you don’t have the things

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Mar 2020, at 20:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > But it has been documented, interpreted and used (by people other > than yourself) to mean the public place you do not want it to mean. Have a look at the history. Place=square was defined until 3 days ago as “a named

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Mar 2020, at 15:07, Joseph Eisenberg > In Indonesia an "alun-alun" is never small, they are always rather > large to very large open areas. so these are likely not the only kind of squares in Indonesia (if you decide they are squares at all, or some of them), there

Re: [Tagging] Shelter for bats in an old building

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Mar 2020, at 14:26, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I guess it depends on what state the building is in, eg if it's been gutted > and in need of a lot of maintenance to be a functional service building then > I'd probably still use the lifecycle prefix. judging by the

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 18:47 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > We need it for en_US, too, because in the US, at least in New England, > everybody knows what Square means and it is different from what this > thread is discussing. Think about pre-60ies urbanism. And "new urbanism", for example. Here

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 01:39 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > A blanket rule that anything with "Square" in the name must be mapped as > place=square is as defective as one saying that anything with > "Maes" in the name must be mapped as a field. > > Right, and it

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 09:56 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard < lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > My only problem with "fixing unnamed place=square" is that i know at least > 2 locations where the village center open area is definitely a place=square > (i.e. an open area with some car parks, and open just in

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 06:26 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > "Praça ou largo: Praça, praceta ou largo: espaço numa zona urbana, > normalmente sem edifícios (apenas a volta desta), que constitui um > espaço público aberto" > > This translates back to English as

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Mar 2020, at 20:46, Paul Allen wrote: > > So you say it's purely about the name. Then, later in your response, > contradict > yourself. let me put it like this: it’s a very strong indication. Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Mar 2020, at 15:13, Paul Allen wrote: > > Um, the name is everything? So if it's named "Foo square" it's a > place=square > even if it's not a place for people to congregate and it's not square? yes. > Take a look > at Finch's Square (aka Finch Square):

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Mar 2020, at 01:34, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Check if any of the place=square features in your area should instead > be junction=yes (for a named street intersection or road junction) or > leisure=park or place=neighborhood. I don’t agree that an open space

Re: [Tagging] General Tags for unmapped cities

2020-03-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Mar 2020, at 07:14, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The building=* tag should describe what the building looks like. Often > that has something to do with it's function: a building of storefronts > with glass display windows will often be mapped as building=retail, >

Re: [Tagging] Clearer definition of tunnel=flooded: when should it be used instead of tunnel=yes or tunnel=culvert?

2020-03-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Mar 2020, at 00:46, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > How safe for walking does the tunnel have to be? waterways often will have quite different levels depending on the atmospheric conditions in the past days and weeks in the upstream area. When does it have to be

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

2020-03-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 20. März 2020 um 11:40 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > > I'm personally in favor of contact:pobox - it's not an address, but a > way of contact. but isn't this referring to post office boxes, as opposed to the other kind of lockers and boxes that the OP mentioned? Are you suggesting to use

Re: [Tagging] Pumps (wells and many other things)

2020-03-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 05:02 Uhr schrieb Michael Patrick < geodes...@gmail.com>: > Since pumps have been a manufactured commodity for about 400 years ( > https://www.worldpumps.com/general-processing/features/a-brief-history-of-pumps/ > ) there is an abundance of existing typologies and

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

2020-03-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Mar 2020, at 18:27, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use tray > barbecues. Unable to find the appropriate tag in the wiki or taginfo. > Suggestions? I recall this has been discussed some time ago,

Re: [Tagging] Add man_made=goods_conveyor to Map Features or vote on the proposal first?

2020-03-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Mar 2020, at 01:38, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Just a quick question. Is it reasonable to support `oneway=no`? I know > of one that serves a lime kiln that hauls coal one way and cement the > other. is this at the same time/ parallel, or reversing? If it is the

Re: [Tagging] Add man_made=goods_conveyor to Map Features or vote on the proposal first?

2020-03-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Mar 2020, at 23:48, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > Is there enough usage to just add it to those pages, or should the > proposal be voted on first? I am in favor of adding it right away. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal drinking_water:refill:fee

2020-03-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. März 2020 um 04:25 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Hi Martin, > > drinking_water:refill:fee=no/yes/0..9 > > >> I don't think the third tag value "0,9" is easily mappible as one > needs to have access to the menu to get the price data. a mapper

Re: [Tagging] Proposal drinking_water:refill:fee

2020-03-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Mar 2020, at 17:37, European Water Project > wrote: > > ==> drinking_water:refill = . So yes, means free and for > everyone, and fee means there is a charge. what about drinking_water:refill:fee=no/yes/0..9 Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 9. Mar 2020, at 09:04, John Doe wrote: > > What I have in mind is the case of Delhi's NH9, in which a road was changed > from two to four carriageways. In such a situation, with the constraint of > the existing stops, routers would have to ignore the new inner

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=fountain

2020-03-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Mar 2020, at 08:48, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The only real difference to me is the inclusion of historical. > I don't see why a fountain that is 'historical' does not also fit into one, > or more, of the other classes in particular cultural? I had

Re: [Tagging] RFC amenity=student_accommodation

2020-03-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 4. März 2020 um 22:43 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick < graemefi...@gmail.com>: > > IMHO it is something we should work on. Residential compounds / aparment >> complexes could get there own tagging orthogonal to landuse. >> > > Sorry, Martin, don't quite understand? You're saying we

Re: [Tagging] Crosses and how to tag them

2020-03-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Mar 2020, at 02:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > So if the crosses which you want to map are "always religious and most > of the time historic", probably this tag is more appropriate for most > of them, certainly for all 3 examples which you linked above. I would

Re: [Tagging] RFC amenity=student_accommodation

2020-03-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 29. Feb. 2020 um 06:55 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > I don't see a clear distinction between student accommodations and > other residential areas. > > In California there are many "mini-dorms" and private student housing > buildings which are not located on

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

2020-02-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> `map_source=openstreetmap` is a good tag? >> Yes, though I think that posting >> the same thread to tagging and talk ml >> is a poor idea. > > I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that

Re: [Tagging] RFC amenity=student_accommodation

2020-02-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 28. Feb. 2020 um 18:43 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > name and operator may be tagged > also on landuse > IMHO it doesn't make a lot of sense, and it isn't typically done (have a look at landuse=residential, and get rid of those that

Re: [Tagging] RFC amenity=student_accommodation

2020-02-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 28. Feb. 2020 um 16:50 Uhr schrieb Захаренков Алексей < a-z...@yandex.ru>: > Hi. > > My dictionary places 'student accommodation' into the series of synonyms > 'student residence, student hostel, student dormitory, student > accommodation'. > > I think the proposal is about a type of

[Tagging] RFC amenity=student_accommodation

2020-02-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I am reproposing the 2014 proposal for amenity=student_accommodation orginally proposed by user Hno and kindly ask for your comments. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/amenity%3Dstudent_accommodation Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

2020-02-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 27. Feb. 2020 um 01:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > Christmas trees are intended to regulate the well pressure or manage > filling product injection to raise field pressure. > > You'll find them independently on oil or water wells depending on the >

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

2020-02-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 27. Feb. 2020 um 00:23 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Different tags are used for petroleum wells vs water wells because > they look totally different do they? Have a look at this short clip that shows a water well:

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

2020-02-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 27. Feb. 2020 um 08:34 Uhr schrieb Andrew Davidson < thesw...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, 27 Feb. 2020, 08:22 Martin Koppenhoefer, > wrote: > >> >> can you explain with the amended rules what the outcome would be for >> >> 8 votes yes, 0 no, 1 abstent

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Feb 2020, at 08:56, Markus Peloso wrote: > > The amenity=give_box tag is specific for sharing and reusing none food items. > Please do not use it for food sharing +1, although these are somehow similar features from a certain point of view, they are also

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

2020-02-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Feb 2020, at 09:15, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Does anyone else want to add their comments or votes there? This seems > to be a rough consensus now. can you explain with the amended rules what the outcome would be for 8 votes yes, 0 no, 1 abstention 8

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

2020-02-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Feb 2020, at 09:15, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > After 2 weeks, the discussion at Talk:Proposal_process shows 10 people > in favor of considering an abstention the same as not voting, except > for the quorum, and 1 opposed: >

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

2020-02-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Feb 2020, at 21:32, François Lacombe wrote: > > Nevertheess, should we take advantage of this discussion to use man_made=well > + substance=* only as to prevent usage of values mixing two independant > concepts (the well and the substance)? these aren’t

[Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

2020-02-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Feb 2020, at 09:56, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > man_made=petroleum_well thank you for bringing this up. I just noticed you have added a deprecation note on man_made=gas_well and suggest to use man_made=petroleum_well for gas wells.

Re: [Tagging] Photo-stand-in

2020-02-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 25. Feb. 2020 um 09:30 Uhr schrieb Jez Nicholson < jez.nichol...@gmail.com>: > amenity=photo_stand-in as it is a usable public object? > +1 or attraction=photo_stand-in as it is tourist related? > IMHO the only true and unambiguously tourism related objects are temporary

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

2020-02-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Feb 2020, at 08:10, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Christmas markets less so. > > Delete it. christmas features are quite established for example in Germany, have a look at taginfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/xmas:feature I can understand it is an edge

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

2020-02-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
generally, I thought that was agreed, we do not map events, but we do map places where events take (regularly) place. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Feb 2020, at 04:37, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > > Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*, > fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki. I guess this should better be discussed on talk and likely on the OSMF board, but it

Re: [Tagging] Tagging venues which give away free condoms?

2020-02-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Feb 2020, at 13:32, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: > > condom=yes > condom:fee=no > > (condom is available here) > (free condom, yeah!) too few semantics in condom=* Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

2020-02-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 21. Feb. 2020 um 07:13 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Hi Martin, > > There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not having a > concept of access. > > 1. Where is the observability ? How can I know if a water tank has > drinking

Re: [Tagging] Tagging venues which give away free condoms?

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb Rory McCann : > Some places give away free condoms to fight the spread of STDs (incl. > HIV/AIDS). Is there a good way to map that in OSM? > there's likely yet to invent a way to map it. > I suggest `free:condoms=yes/no`, since it's descriptive,

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Dear All, > > I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is sometimes > used in a manner not described in the wiki. > >

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Often it looks similar to the current highway=trunk rendering at in > the German map style used at openstreetmap.de - and I believe > "highway=trunk" is always for dual-carriageway "expressways" there. >

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

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < sea...@gmail.com>: > The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is > engine-powered. > IMHO, if we distinguish automobile taxis from motorcycle taxis, we should also distinguish both from human powered vehicles.

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:07 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > If people are interested in using it, I might make a proposal. But > perhaps we will decided that database users should interpret the > geometry and name=/ref= tags of parallel highway ways to add this

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

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 12:47 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > This is a very common feature in Southeast Asia, Africa and parts of > central and south America: there are hundreds of thousands of them. > > Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 23:50 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > My concern is still that it might be hard to translate "donation in > kind" from English into some languages, and that people with limited > English vocabulary might not understand the phrase. > >

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb Jez Nicholson < jez.nichol...@gmail.com>: > in the UK at least, people just didn't keep records because "out of sight, > out of mind". > that's what they tell you... ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni < cascaf...@gmail.com>: > Hello, > > I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older > ones are already covered by grass and/or trees. > > IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use.

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

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:23 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Do we have any idea how many amenity=taxi already in OSM are in fact > toctocs or similar? > I suspect that this number is huge, and introducing a new tag for them > will only create confusion, as we have no way of migrating the

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Feb 2020, at 07:42, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage > in the database: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway you wrote this was also a key for divided carriageways in general

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

2020-02-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Feb 2020, at 01:41, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > While all expressways are major roads designed for high-speed motor > vehicle traffic, they are not often "motorroad=yes", because most > States allow motorcycles and pedestrians on all roads that are not >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 04:31, Victor/tuxayo ha > scritto: > > > In countries where the public must be notified of surveillance cameras, the > > following tags could be used on the node: > > > > tourism=information > > information=board > >

Re: [Tagging] (Un)removable Bollards

2020-02-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 18 feb 2020, alle ore 03:05, Jonathon Rossi ha > scritto: > > I can't think of a bollard here where the general public can remove/fold it, > otherwise what does it achieve? I have seen many removable bollards, both in Germany and Italy, which weren’t locked

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 16. Feb. 2020 um 21:54 Uhr schrieb ET Commands : > > My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests > "irremovable." However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are > ultimately removable, so maybe more appropriate values would be > "retractable" and

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 16. Feb. 2020 um 22:52 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Umm... > > Bollards are there to protect people. > they might be there to protect people, but not in all instances, their purpose is to either physically prevent or at least signal to vehicles wider than x to pass,

Re: [Tagging] Horse yards / corrals

2020-02-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 17 feb 2020, alle ore 08:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick > ha scritto: > > > The other spot that this would apply to is yards at meatworks, sale yards & > similar. > > Any thoughts? I agree we could need a tag for a generic animal enclosure, which could be used in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 16 feb 2020, alle ore 19:07, Jmapb via Tagging > ha scritto: > > It's similar to recycling but implies that the goods are reused rather than > used as raw materials. Personally I feel this is a bit of a continuum and I > don't see a problem with tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 16 feb 2020, alle ore 14:23, Steve Doerr > ha scritto: > > My immediate reaction is that this sounds like a very similar concept to > 'give box', which was the subject of a recent RFC. Do we need two ways of > tagging such similar things? likely yes,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Tax free shopping

2020-02-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 16 feb 2020, alle ore 13:42, Hauke Stieler > ha scritto: > > Hi all, > > thanks for all the feedback and voting. The proposal for tax free > shopping and the "duty_free" tag has been approved: 13 votes, 2 against, > 1 abstain. > > Currently there's a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 15 feb 2020, alle ore 18:46, Hauke Stieler > ha scritto: > > 2.) > According to [0] the convention for separation word in a key is the > underscore. So I would change the key to "in_place_donations". right, the underscore replaces spaces between words in

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

2020-02-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 14. Feb. 2020 um 10:43 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Hi Martin, > > According to wikipedia > > "Abstentions do not *count* in tallying the *vote* negatively or > positively; when members *abstain*, they are in effect attending only to > contribute

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

2020-02-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 13. Feb. 2020 um 08:37 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > An opinion from an OSM neophyte > > Abstain should mean just that .. either no vote .. or a blank vote.. > which is a great difference according to how we count. We used to count it as "blank

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 13. Feb. 2020 um 12:02 Uhr schrieb ael : > > Well, yes, I thought that someone might say that. But such cases are > very much the minority (except perhaps for motorways), which is why > asphalt is still a reasonable default. I would expect an explicit > tag for anything which is not

Re: [Tagging] What is a saltbox?

2020-02-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 12 feb 2020, alle ore 20:41, Julien Lepiller ha > scritto: > > Also for some reason, this tag is different from what wikipedia describes a > saltbox to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltbox_house the shape of OpenStreetMap-4D fits with the wikipedia

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 11 feb 2020, alle ore 16:54, Volker Schmidt ha > scritto: > > I thought there was no such agreement. > (I hope to be wrong) there isn’t such agreement, if there isn’t any data you have to guess. In some areas you can suppose that 99,9% of all residential

Re: [Tagging] [Tagging} no stopping, no parking

2020-02-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 10 feb 2020, alle ore 21:57, Volker Schmidt ha > scritto: > > This is a pity as the no-parking and in particular the no-stopping > information is important to understand the traffic flow in a street. yes, 60% of all parking_lane:both values are either

Re: [Tagging] [Tagging} no stopping, no parking

2020-02-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 10 feb 2020, alle ore 20:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > ha scritto: > > Note also that "stopping=yes|no" is unclear and > "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" is > clear. yes, clear madness ;-) Why would we describe a place beneath or on the road where you

Re: [Tagging] Tagging small areas of bushes, flowers, non-woody perennials, succulents, etc

2020-02-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 9 feb 2020, alle ore 09:29, Joseph Eisenberg > ha scritto: > > However, we still may need a way to tag ornamental plants that do not > produce significant flowers, for example, succulents and plants with > ornamental leaves but no flowers. I would not call a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging small areas of bushes, flowers, non-woody perennials, succulents, etc

2020-02-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 9 feb 2020, alle ore 04:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick > ha scritto: > > On that page, though, I just noticed a fairly recent amendment to include > reference to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dflowerbed - > used ~4000 times so possibly worth paying

Re: [Tagging] Tagging small areas of bushes, flowers, non-woody perennials, succulents, etc

2020-02-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 9 feb 2020, alle ore 03:35, Joseph Eisenberg > ha scritto: > > In the discussion about `barrier=hedge` areas, it is clear that > mappers want a way to tag small areas of bushes and shrubs, and not > everyone is happy about using natural=scrub for this case.

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 7. Feb. 2020 um 11:26 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann : > I currently tend towards a broader solution of dropping rendering of all > barrier tags on polygons. great, this would make it very clear that there is indeed some problem with the tagging. Although I guess carto would get a lot

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 7. Feb. 2020 um 11:03 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > 1) The tag `area=yes` is only supposed to mean "this closed way is an > area, not a line", and is only used when this is not already obvious > from other tags. > > It is not necessary to add `area=yes`

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 7. Feb. 2020 um 10:00 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > > But either way > > Please add pictures to Wikimedia commons as possible and link back to each > node. I would be happy to help. > do you intend, add a link from wikimedia to osm, or

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 7 feb 2020, alle ore 10:19, Lionel Giard > ha scritto: > > But creating a new relation type which would be with the same specification > than a site relation would be a bit weird to me. we’ve done this for boundary relations too, which are essentially

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 7 feb 2020, alle ore 07:01, European Water Project > ha scritto: > > This old drinking fountain is harder to classify: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fountain_Snow_Hill_Samuel_Gurney..jpg > Technically just a drinking fountain but it is rather decorative.

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 20:03, Paul Allen ha > scritto: > > It's better that tags mean the same thing everywhere. Otherwise you > have to check what each country means by each tag. countries are different and so the expectations you have for certain kind of

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 17:48, António Madeira > ha scritto: > > A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies > drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European countries, it > does imply, so it's just fair and logical that the wiki

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 16:50, European Water Project > ha scritto: > > drinking_water = as a sub-tag seems more logical. > > Assuming we open the pandora's box of removing amenity=drinking_water which > is used on 207,000 nodes and ways. >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 11:37, Volker Schmidt ha > scritto: > > Sorry, Martin, but what do you do, if you have a big multi-storey building > and all you have is the door bell on the street level? Not map it? that’s indeed a problem with multipolygons ;) But you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 01:11 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case. > > (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along > with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using > "give_box"

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 11:01 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Padua, Italy, where I live, has a big university spread all over the > place. This includes smaller sections being in apartments in buildings that > are mainly used residentially. > yes, I am also well familiar with universities

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 10:55 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni < cascaf...@gmail.com>: > > Since fountain is intended as "sculptural and/or decorational", IMHO > amenity=fountain is not consistent. AFAIK object belonging to > "amenity" are in someway necessities. So one day, I hope to see >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 10:16 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard < lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > One problem with multipolygon relation is that by definition you can't put > *node > *it those and you can't put *contiguous buildings* either. How do you > group "node + polygons + multipolygon" (some buildings

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >