Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 4. Mai 2020 um 13:10 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole : > The previous versions of the page in particular the one that was actually > voted on (in 2007) does -not- have that reference, see also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:ele for discussion on the > issue back to 2007. > yes,

Re: [Tagging] 'amenity:hospital' at university hospitals?

2020-05-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 4. Mai 2020 um 11:50 Uhr schrieb Lena Essig : > Hello, > during mapping hospitals I found some university hospitals which are > inside a university terrain. They are tagged with "buidling:hospital" - > without an amenity tag, and some which are tagged with "building:hospital" > AND

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common

2020-05-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. May 2020, at 10:27, severin.menard via Tagging > wrote: > > With this approach we would need to create a lot of new tags, eg for > highways. Primary, secondary and tertiary are hierarchy based and does not > mean the same reality everywhere they do mean the same: a

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 4. Mai 2020 um 10:50 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole : > Historically the understanding was that ele would use "height above the > ellipsoid", there is some reasoning on the Altitude page, might have > made sense originally. In 2013 the ele entry was fiddled to point to the > height above geoid.

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. May 2020, at 15:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > What happens when the sign is replaced or removed? if the information on the sign is replaced you should obviously update the value, when it disappears I would not act, but I imagine the purist answer would be to

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

2020-05-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. May 2020, at 10:52, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I still would learn towards cycleway:lane:doorzone=yes as being my preferred > option though, since you can tag =no as well. do you really need the lane component? Could be cycleway:doorzone=yes/no or with left/right

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 3. May 2020, at 12:51, Andrew Harvey wrote: > There is an EPSG code https://spatialreference.org/ref/epsg/5711/ for the > datum, perhaps ele:epsg:5711= is better then. A system like this would probably be ignored by 85-98% of our mappers, although I would encourage

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. May 2020, at 13:06, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > When I see an elevation value on the ground I do not see any reference to the > reference system, so I cannot know, as a mapper, what reference system is at > the base of the informaton that I find on the ground. In

[Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I’m asking for comments on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ele:regional Cheers Martin sent from a phone___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

2020-05-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. May 2020, at 08:39, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > For a while myself and others have been using cycleway:lane=doorzone to say > the bicycle lane is in a doorzone, I am not completely sure, if I get this right, do you mean the area where a door that is opened, would

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. May 2020, at 17:15, Kovoschiz wrote: > > Eg "walking speed" is often > used as a descriptor, and in this case we have "running". walking speed is still a prescription for vehicles only, it does not exclude pedestrians from running. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. May 2020, at 00:37, Jmapb wrote: > > minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should > separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's > guess if there would ever be any software support for this key. minspeed and

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-04-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend : > On 30/04/2020 12:10, Peter Elderson wrote: > > landuse=common makes most sense to me. > > name, surface, access etc could be added when applicable. > > > That's currently one of the keys used at >

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-04-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:59 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 30/4/20 7:29 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier < > j...@liotier.org>: > >> The concept they are closest to is &q

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-04-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier : > The concept they are closest to is "plaza" > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza) - which, by the way, does not seem > to have currency in Openstreetmap. place=square Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy

2020-04-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
while I also don’t see an urgent need to deprecate healthcare=pharmacy, I neither see a compelling reason to use it for “normal pharmacies” (those that are tagged as amenity=pharmacy with dispensing=yes/no). As long as there isn’t a “fix” to remove the amenity tag, the double tagging is not

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

2020-04-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 23. Apr. 2020 um 17:14 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > I do not see why you would have to remove the address information from the >> building when you add it to another object with the same address (like a >> shop). >> > > DRY. Having the same address info for the building and the business >

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

2020-04-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 22. Apr. 2020 um 14:12 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > This is all true. And in an ideal world we'd map the building and its > occupying > object as two separate-but-coincident objects. This isn't an ideal > world. :( > > Problem 2: Duplication of address info. The building has an

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

2020-04-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Apr 2020, at 07:51, John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > -1 I really like tagging info onto landuses and buildings because that is > *exactly* what I’m trying to convey - everything in this area or building is > *this thing* but the building is also a thing,

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

2020-04-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Apr 2020, at 22:12, António Madeira wrote: > > If you have millions of tags like ref:"whatever", how are you going to > distinguish between them if you make a query or some kind of data reading? by looking at the combination: you query for heritage AND ref tags

Re: [Tagging] Tagging and rendering places without a name

2020-04-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 21. Apr. 2020 um 06:03 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > So by the definition I see no issue of having place without a name tag, as > long as it has a name :) > > Errr If it has a name, tag it. If you don't know its name then how do you > know it is a place? > for example

Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?

2020-04-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Apr 2020, at 20:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > No it isn't. I'm entirely serious. Amenity has come to mean miscellaneous. > This is not a good thing. this sounds as if you were implying it was different some time ago? Anyway, it is offtopic in this discussion

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:path=mtb

2020-04-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Did you consider mtb=designated? Are there implications for pedestrians, riders and "other" cyclists? Motorbikes? (Question is, are they allowed, not allowed, or maybe allowed in absence of explicit specific access tags?) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?

2020-04-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Because "amenity" has come to mean "miscellaneous." > this is trolling, because amenity=social_facility social_facility=food_bank still has amenity as the "main" key, if we made it amenity=food_bank we would not change anything in this

Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?

2020-04-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:41 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > I would suggest deprecating social_facility=hospice, and I'm also not > convinced that social_facility=nursing_home is better than > amenity=nursing_home. interestingly, these 2 tags also haven't been

Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?

2020-04-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > > Is it or is it not a social facility within the broad meaning of the term? > I'd say that it is. It's a facility. It's social (in both meanings: > people > interact socially and it is a social service). > apart from workshops, it is

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

2020-04-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 20:29, Justin Tracey wrote: > > Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME, > are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More > generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

2020-04-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
vantageous. advantageous I meant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

2020-04-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 19. Apr. 2020 um 17:53 Uhr schrieb Robert Castle < castler...@gmail.com>: > I noticed that some businesses are polygons whereas others are points > within a polygon. I was wondering which way is correct. > both is correct, although they are not equal. With polygons, you also convey

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

2020-04-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 10:53, Jo wrote: > > It only makes sense if the teleférico can be used all year around and is > useful for the whole public. If it's only there to get skiers up a mountain, > I don't think it's part of the public transport network. I don’t agree

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

2020-04-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Apr 2020, at 23:13, Gegorian Hauser wrote: > > I know that in the aerialway=station wiki site is nothing written about > public_transport. > But there should be the description about when the public_transport tagging > is allowed and when not for all kinds of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a warehouse or distribution centre?

2020-04-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > and the landuse is > landuse=industrial (+ industrial=distributor or industrial=warehouse) > - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:industrial This page doesn’t seem to indicate that distribution and logistics

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a warehouse or distribution centre?

2020-04-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Do we need another tag like man_made=distribution_centre, or is > landuse + building enough in this case? Why would it depend on the case? The building tag is about buildings and the landuse tag about landuse, so

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

2020-04-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Apr 2020, at 01:04, Paul Allen wrote: > > The fraction of heritage POIs which are > protected areas is less than 1%. I still don’t see why we would need a new tag heritage_title rather than the established protection_title Maybe protected “area” is a strange tag

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

2020-04-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Apr 2020, at 00:08, António Madeira wrote: > > I know there are many ref tags that don't follow this procedure, but if this > is useful why not starting to adopt it for some schemes like this one? because it leads to key bloat. It makes evaluation harder or more

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

2020-04-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Apr 2020, at 23:33, António Madeira wrote: > > Do we divide big schools from small schools? Or small theatres from big > theatres? things can change nature just by changing size or quantity. We have different tags for a single tree and a tree row and a forest.

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

2020-04-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 04:27 Uhr schrieb António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > After communicating with lutz from Historic.Place, he told me they didn't > create this heritage scheme, they just adopted it. > I took the opportunity to present him my proposal of refining

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pumps (wells and many other things)

2020-04-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Apr 2020, at 01:11, François Lacombe wrote: > > It is still proposed to discourage pump=powered/manual as they're at least > redundant with proposed classification of pumps/drivers technologies. aren’t manual pumps powered as well? (human powered?) Manual means

Re: [Tagging] Footways where pedestrians may only walk in one direction: oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no?

2020-04-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 16. Apr. 2020 um 13:50 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com>: > But on a highway=footway,cycleway,path you can't drive a vehicle, so in > those cases if there is a oneway=yes it's fair to assume it applies to all > modes of transport on that way, unless otherwise

Re: [Tagging] Footways where pedestrians may only walk in one direction: oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no?

2020-04-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 16. Apr. 2020 um 12:48 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 16/4/20 7:59 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > > > On 16. Apr 2020, at 05:04, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Some paths and footways have oneway=yes. Sometimes th

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

2020-04-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Apr 2020, at 11:41, Marc Gemis wrote: > > It's a health fund, and every adult Belgian needs to have one judging by their names, are they all mutual insurance companies? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Footways where pedestrians may only walk in one direction: oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no?

2020-04-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Apr 2020, at 05:44, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > foot:backward=no may make sense > to someone who has already read the wiki or other documentation, but is > confusing and has the double negative aspect to it. there is no double negative to it, it is a simple

Re: [Tagging] Footways where pedestrians may only walk in one direction: oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no?

2020-04-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Apr 2020, at 05:04, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Some paths and footways have oneway=yes. Sometimes this means that > bicycles may only access these features in one direction, but other > times it has been used for one-way features for pedestrians (for > example,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

2020-04-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Apr. 2020 um 17:37 Uhr schrieb Manon Viou : > Hello again Martin, > I agree large and small are quite relative concepts, I proposed to set a > threshold to "less than 5 buildings" because it was the easiest way I > found. I'm not sure counting people is feasible at least for remote

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

2020-04-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Apr. 2020 um 16:05 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > and a proper staffed office in a city. These sales representatives are > usually self-employed and get a kickback from every contract they sell. indeed, it wouldn't even be important where they are, because you

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

2020-04-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Apr. 2020 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > If there is a preset for "insurance" and a subtype for what kind, I > think most people would complete their tagging in seconds. And this is > something that isn't super common, and many people mapping it will be > tagging one, very

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

2020-04-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2020, at 10:17, Manon Viou wrote: > > amenity=refugee_site and amenity=social_facility + social_facility=shelter. > amenity=refugee_site is for large refugee site > amenity=social_facility and social_facility=shelter is f or small refugee > site (less than 5

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

2020-04-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2020, at 01:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would think amenity=refugee_site is an area set aside for the non-temporary > residential use of refugees maybe I’m a dreamer, but I would expect all refugee related features to be “temporary”, even

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

2020-04-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2020, at 03:17, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But it takes more time for each mapper to add 2 tags instead of one. > Mapper time is the most precious resource in OpenStreetMap: we don't > have enough mappers, and most are working for free, for fun. > Let's make

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

2020-04-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 13. Apr. 2020 um 14:16 Uhr schrieb : > Hi, > oh sorry you are confused. Maybe it's too much text I think. But your > conclusion is completely correct, yes. > > Did you have a look at the currently used values for traffic_signals?

Re: [Tagging] city limit sign end

2020-04-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 14. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > OK, > > we seem to agree that city-limit-begin sign needs to have angle or > cardinal direction values and not forward|backward, because it is often or > nearly always, on a joining node of two ways due to the implied speed limit > in

Re: [Tagging] city limit sign end

2020-04-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Apr 2020, at 00:52, Marc M. wrote: > > we do the same for stop, give_away, ... > and those ways may also be splitted > if both ways are in the same direction, this is equally disputed and should be discouraged as well > the direction is just > as understandable

Re: [Tagging] Things within things | Re: Request for assistance in creating a tag.

2020-04-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Apr 2020, at 11:29, Rory McCann wrote: > > OSM could do much better for indoor mapping, and for shopping centres or > train stations, that's easy. Add each `shop` or corridor. But what about a > (sorta of) clinic within a larger OSM object? it‘s a similar

Re: [Tagging] city limit sign end

2020-04-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Apr 2020, at 13:54, Alexey Zakharenkov wrote: > > direction=backward is invalid value in this context. The road is often split > at city_limit node to reflect the change in highway properties (primarily > max_speed), and backward/forward notion is undefined for an

Re: [Tagging] building=public vs. building=civic

2020-04-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Apr 2020, at 12:35, Steve Doerr wrote: > > Whether that's what it means in OSM is another matter. While building=public seems defined, I have difficulties with building=civic, which is according to the wiki

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

2020-04-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Apr 2020, at 11:41, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > boundary=national_park is an *existing* tag that is used to tag "a relatively > large area of land" that is "set aside for human recreation and enjoyment, as > well as the protection of the natural environment and/or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

2020-04-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Apr 2020, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > But if Wikidata is already storing this info, maybe we don’t need a tag for > it? if the information is useful for us, or maybe even essential to understand the nature of the thing, then we should have the

Re: [Tagging] building=public vs. building=civic

2020-04-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Although I also see a lot of overlap, I could imagine public buildings to be a bigger category of which civic buildings are only a part, according to your culture and context, one could imagine public buildings that aren’t civic buildings such as churches and temples. I could also imagine

Re: [Tagging] Rarely verified and third-party data staleness in OpenStreetMap

2020-04-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Apr 2020, at 16:51, Paul Allen wrote: > >> or use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Permanent_ID > > I didn't even know that existed. I'm not sure I trust such IDs to survive > intensive editing by newbies who can delete an object then add it > with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

2020-04-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 6. Apr. 2020 um 14:00 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > That would also allow us to address Joseph Eisenberg's objection (in > the talk page on the WIki) that the proposal violates the 'one object, > one tag' principle. there is no such principle (AFAIK a principle

Re: [Tagging] Rarely verified and third-party data staleness in OpenStreetMap

2020-04-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 6. Apr. 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm : > Secondly, this is a problem shared by all the "last survey" approaches: > You're standing the logic on its head. You're essentially saying: "If > the object has NOT changed in reality, please DO change it in OSM" (by > updating the

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 5. Apr. 2020 um 11:03 Uhr schrieb Yves : > As a side note: I would be worried to redefine the mtb=yes/no tag that is > not documented but widely used. > how can it be "redefined" if there isn't documentation about it? Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 4. Apr. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Morten Lange via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > >> We're on the edge of tags definition : this a path limited > cyclist, > > >> where a mountain bike almost mandatory to ride there. Some > features > > >> help the cyclist. > > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I agree with those that do not like highway=cycleway for unimproved mountain bike paths. The assumption for cycleway is generally a paved way (or at least with sufficiently smooth surface) which you can take with any bike (admittedly, 10 years ago I have locally seen some very bad examples of

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
A Do., 2. Apr. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > You're misinterpreting 'cycleway'. In itself, it carries no implication > of permission, ability, condition or location. These should all be > covered with additional sub/adjective tags. Is it a

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

2020-03-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 31. März 2020 um 18:38 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend : > If the consensus here is that the approach that iD is taking isn't ideal, > then I'd suggest updating the wiki to match the consensus here > (cross-referencing the mailing list discussion), then suggesting that the > iD issue be looked

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

2020-03-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 31. März 2020 um 04:22 Uhr schrieb Gegorian Hauser < grenhau...@mail.com>: > There are over 15000 aerialway stations in Europe and over 1000 are just > tagged also with public_transport > > For me these combination is in the most situations wrong and for this iD > should not have this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Unifying playground equipment tagging)

2020-03-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Mar 2020, at 20:03, Sören Reinecke via Tagging > wrote: > > For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137931618 . In this case > Key:playground was used to tag playground equipment on the playground > object itself. But for such cases we use Key:playground:* .

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Unifying playground equipment tagging)

2020-03-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 30. März 2020 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unifying-playground-equipment-tagging > > > Proposal: > I propose the key playground to be deprecated and the use of key > playground:*

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

2020-03-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 30. März 2020 um 01:11 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > One example: Berkeley Square in London. In form, it's a public garden, > but even the English designate it a town square. As I understand it, an > Englishman would not raise eyebrows at a sentence: "Winston

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

2020-03-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Mar 2020, at 00:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Let's not try to bend over backward to make sure that only European >> squares qualify PS: for me all of your examples are squares and should get th

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

2020-03-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Mar 2020, at 22:16, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Let's not try to bend over backward to make sure that only European > squares qualify! Absolutely, IMHO we should have a very generic and inclusive definition for town squares, applicable worldwide (basically what people

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

2020-03-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 29. Mar 2020, at 18:24, Greg Troxel wrote: > Really, it seems like > you are trying to shoehorn european definitions into US naming when it > is just not the way it is. Frankly, I am not really familiar with the situation in North America (besides some lessons about

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

2020-03-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Mar 2020, at 17:23, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Really it is a place=neighborhood > with an indistinct boundary, even if there is a bit of eurosquare there. the fact there is a neighborhood which takes its name from a square does not imply there cannot also be a

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

2020-03-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Mar 2020, at 01:56, Greg Troxel wrote: > (times square) > But is that a place=square? That is simply an intersection which is > called square. There is no hard-surfaced area for people separate frrom > the roads. But there’s an architectural staging /

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

2020-03-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Mar 2020, at 01:07, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I think you are saying that the open, typically hard-surfaced, typically > square area that is typically contained within roadways, is exactly the > square. That one should draw a way around that area, such that no roads >

Re: [Tagging] Veterinary pharmacy

2020-03-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Mar 2020, at 08:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> veterinary medical supplies, how to choose what amenity? > > > > Map both as separate nodes. but it’s the same shop. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing

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):

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