Re: [Tagging] Unifying large multi-location store chains

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 3 May 2018 at 18:34, Leon Karcher  wrote:
> To have an overview I created a list in the wiki which includes applicable 
> tags
> of some brands, but it's still under construction and only shows the ones that
> I know. So feel free to help.

You are effectively duplicating
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index , which is used by iD,
Vespucci and Go Maps!!. You might consider contributing to this
project instead.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] red housenumbers

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 19 March 2018 at 18:02, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> In the Italian city of Genoa there are housenumbers in black and in red,
> which are different numbers. People have started mapping them with the
> postfix "rosso" (red in italian) but are now wondering if there are other
> areas with similar objects and how these are tagged.

In Haarlem (the Netherlands), house numbers are either black (ground
level) or red (upstairs addresses). The government denotes this with
22-RD (rood=red) or 22-ZW (zwart=black), which OSM follows.
Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2709690724

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 19 March 2018 at 00:27, Dave F  wrote:
> It's been agreed they are redundant.

Perhaps a bit too early for that statement, please note that the
discussion on the osm-carto side is still ongoing:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3102#issuecomment-374062776

> I'd recommend
>
> adding maritime=yes to all required ways that don't have them.
> adding boundary=administrative relations to ways the require them
> removing admin_level & boundary=administrative from ways which have them in
> relations

Just to be clear, you propose removing boundary=administrative from
maritime borders, but leaving the maritime=yes tag? So this will
result in many ways with the only tag maritime=yes?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 10 March 2018 at 01:51, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> OpenStreetMap Carto, the default stylesheet on openstreetmap.org, is
> considering to change the mechanism for rendering admin boundaries.
> The proposed rendering of admin borders will be based on admin
> boundary ways rather than polygons. This has a number of advantages -
> for example, it will make it possible to style maritime boundaries
> differently.

Hi all,

Thank you all for all feedback. I will take this back to the project.

Just something I'd like to clarify: many of you seem to assume this
introduces a new tagging paradigm. The opposite is true: the proposal
uses a tagging scheme that is already used in about 90 percent of the
countries, and the retagging request only concerns the exceptions. You
might or might not agree with this tagging scheme, but it is the way
things are currently done in most countries.

I would also like to point out that other data consumers do rely on
the presence of admin_level on boundary ways too. For example,
https://www.öpnvkarte.de and https://korona.geog.uni-heidelberg.de/
already rely on admin_level tagging on boundaries (and thus do not
display internal admin boundaries in Poland). There might be more of
them.

Anyway, as I said, I will take this back to the project and will let
you know if there is news.

— Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

OpenStreetMap Carto, the default stylesheet on openstreetmap.org, is
considering to change the mechanism for rendering admin boundaries.
The proposed rendering of admin borders will be based on admin
boundary ways rather than polygons. This has a number of advantages -
for example, it will make it possible to style maritime boundaries
differently.

The admin boundary ways are already in the database. However, in some
cases they are missing an admin_level tag. When the proposed style
change will be deployed, boundary=administrative ways without
admin_level tag will no longer be rendered. I would therefore suggest
to make sure admin_level tags are present on all
boundary=administrative ways.

A map showing admin boundary ways without admin_level tag (displayed
in gray) can be found here:
http://product.itoworld.com/map/2?lon=20.00736&lat=51.92203&zoom=6
As can be seen, most countries already do have admin_level on ways.
However, in for example Poland, Iran and Australia, this data seems to
be missing.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] nursing homes and group homes

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 June 2016 at 11:20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> From my understanding, these are different things, where a nursing home is a
> place for people in need of permanent care (maybe in groups but more likely
> not), while group_home is a very specific kind of structure for which
> (small) groups (of the people to be looked after) are necessarily required.

No, in my opinion, amenity=social_facility+social_facility=group_home
was intended as a structured way of tagging amenity=nursing_home.

Whether we should deprecate the latter is a different question, but in
my opinion they are equivalent.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

The proposal for office=government has been approved. The
proposal also proposed to mark the alternatives
amenity=public_building and office=administrative as 'discouraged':

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

The proposal received 18 approving votes, and 5 opposing votes (78%
support). I would like to thank everybody for voting.

I already submitted a request at JOSM to drop support for the tag
amenity=public_building:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12588

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 24 February 2016 at 23:08, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name&diff=next&oldid=1275952
>
> Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a
> knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've
> explained  how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of
> the discussion on [Tagging], and why name_N cannot simply be
> deprecated.

Moltonel, could you please refrain from making changes that go against
the community wishes? I know you have good intentions (and you might
even be right), but the community has discussed this topic in depth
and decided on the outcome by vote, and you are making changes that
disrespect the voting outcome. It's you who is starting the edit war,
not Hakuch (and I'm saying this as a neutral outside observer).

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Rejected - Jewellery shop

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

The proposal to replace shop=jewelry by shop=jewellery has been rejected.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop

The proposal received 40 votes for, 18 votes against, and 4
abstentions. The approval rate was 68.97%, which is less than the
required 74%.

It is clear that this is a contentious issue within the community.
People on both sides of the debate seem to have strong opinions. The
vote shows that a majority of voters supports changing the tag, but
also that there exists a strong minority that is against the change.
Most people voting against the proposal do so for fundamental reasons,
so I don't think a modified version of the proposal might change the
balance (under current voting rules).

Thanks everybody for the large turnout.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 23 February 2016 at 12:54, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> The tricky bit of course is that those percentages are "of the people who
> voted".
>
> Taginfo reckons objects with the key "shop" were last edited by 105 030
> different users, and there are 1,976,690 shops, of which 20,851 are jewelry
> and 215 jewellery, which suggests (finger in the air) around 1100 individual
> mappers last edited a jewellery shop. Taking that as the base, the "approval
> rate" of a little under 4%, based on a "voter turnout" or a little under
> 6%*.

That doesn't really make sense, people use the American spelling
because this is the tag suggested by editors or because it is the tag
supported by data consumers, not because they think it's necessarily
the best tag,

I'm quite sure that most people who voted for 'jewellery' use
'jewelry' when mapping.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 23 February 2016 at 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> I feel voting count is broken for some time. Has there been a formal
> proceduce to change the way we count the votes? How was this procedure
> introduced?
>
> Example, the current jeweller voting:
> Voting closed
> Voting on this proposal has been closed.
> It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and 4
> abstentions.
> Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional rejection;
> proposer to make final call.

For my proposals, I follow the currently documented process with 74%
approval, and therefore consider the jewellery proposal rejected.

However, I think a discussion about a lower threshold, and in general
a formal approval of the voting guidelines by the community, would be
very useful.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting (reminder) - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting for the proposal for office=government is still open. The
proposal also proposes to mark the alternatives
amenity=public_building and office=administrative as 'discouraged'.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

I would like to thank everybody in advance for voting.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 February 2016 at 12:14, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> 1. the proposal seems to suggest that there is only one "main seat" of a
> ministry, but in Germany we had the historical situation of many ministries
> divided between Berlin and Bonn as part of the compromise to move the
> government to Berlin. IMHO it doesn't make sense to exclude those "seondary"
> seats from the tag, like the proposal currently seems to do.

In this case, both are "main seats", of course. Probably in more
countries you will find situations like this. This clause was merely
included to make clear that for example tax offices shouldn't be
tagged as government=ministry, even when they have a sign saying 'Tax
office - Ministry of Finance' next to their entrance.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 February 2016 at 11:41, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> 2016-02-15 11:11 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen :
>>
>> Basically you are saying that the English term matches the definition
>> correctly, but that there exists a near-synonym in Germany that does
>> not match the definition. I don't think that's enough reason to change
>> the tag (or its definition).
>
>
>
> No, I say that there are 2 principal meanings / usages in English for the
> term "government", one corresponding to the German usage, and one not, and
> that this fact alone makes a different name for the tag desirable. Germany
> was just an example, and of course there is a term for all branches together
> in German (de: "Staatsgewalt"), and if I were to find a system that fitted
> particularly well for Germany, I'd insist on distinguishing "Ämter" from
> "Behörden" ;-)
>
> I guess the actual interpretation of the term "government" will heavily
> depend on how the governance is organized, so I am not surprised that in the
> UK which doesn't implement a strong separation of powers (legislative and
> executive powers are intermingled,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system ), the term can refer to
> both, legislation and the executive branch.

Thanks for the addition, I see what you mean now.

Anyway I don't think this will lead to significant problems in
practice, so I don't really see a need to change the proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 February 2016 at 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> What I don't like in the new tag, and what was already mentioned several
> times in previous discussions, is that you still insist on using the term
> "government" for apparently all kind of public entities, be it executive,
> legislative or judiciary. According to wikipedia, this double usage is
> common for English speaking countries (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government first paragraph: "the word
> government is also used more narrowly to refer to the collective group of
> people that exercises executive authority in a state." second paragraph: "In
> the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists
> of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators."), but it isn't in other
> countries like Germany for instance. I would appreciate finding either a
> wording that is less ambiguous and will not lead to problems that are
> already foreseeable now, e.g. "public entity" for an integrative approach,
> or splitting the different kind of powers already in the main tag.

I would argue that the German term Regierung does not correspond to
the term government (and that the German language is missing a synomym
for government). For example, Dutch has both the term 'Overheid' which
refers to all branches of government, and 'Regering' which refers to
the national executive branch (and more precisely only to the
(vice)ministers).

Basically you are saying that the English term matches the definition
correctly, but that there exists a near-synonym in Germany that does
not match the definition. I don't think that's enough reason to change
the tag (or its definition).

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 February 2016 at 10:52, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> Maybe the Van Gogh Museum
> does deal with van Gogh's life and not just with his work, what would
> explain the term museum for this.

The Van Gogh museum only displays paintings.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 February 2016 at 09:10, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> why does a proposal for office=government discourage the tag 
> office=administrative?

From the proposal:

| The tag office=administrative is used in some countries for local
government offices.
| However, the tag is poorly chosen as the term 'administrative' does
not automatically
| excludes national government, nor does the tag 'government' exclude local
| government. It is also not clear how intermediate levels, like
German Kreisen or
| Dutch provinces, should be tagged.

The proposal suggests using office=government for all levels of
government, leaving no function for the tag office=administrative.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Confectionery shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

Currently, we have the following confectionery related tags:

* shop=confectionery (12045 instances)
* shop=chocolate (730 instances)
* shop=pastry (708 instances)

How should we tag a shop selling cakes? A shops selling croissants and
cinnamon rolls? A shop focussed on chocolate, but also selling other
types of confectionery marketed towards adults?

Should we preserve the shop=chocolate and shop=pastry tags, or should
we make them subtags of shop=confectionery (or shop=bakery)?

Thank you in advance for your input!

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 February 2016 at 01:29, Max  wrote:
> I see two reasons why it would make sense:
>
> 1. the word gallery alone seems to cause so much confusion because of
> its ambiguity.
> 2. if we depreciate tourism=gallery and introduce
> amenity=contemporary_art_gallery it would make it clear which tag is
> old and should be carefully reevaluated or is a new one following the
> new scheme.

What do others think of this point?

I think the second issue is a bigger problem for shop=art, as this tag
is currently mainly used for galleries, and only sporadically for art
shops. Should we also invent a new tag?

-- Mattijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 02:39, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> 2016-02-09 0:20 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen :
>>
>> What do you think, would it make sense to try to keep both shop=art
>> and tourism=gallery?

> I'm for keeping both, but would prefer a less ambiguous tag for the latter,
> e.g. amenity=contemporary_art_gallery

Currently, basically nobody uses tourism=gallery to tag art museums
(even though the wiki specifies so), so I don't think there is a need
to change the tag to something like tourism=contemporary_art_gallery.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 00:20, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> What do you think, would it make sense to try to keep both shop=art
> and tourism=gallery? Or should we discourage either of these options
> in favour of the other? Or should we come up with new tags?

Most people seem to be in favour for keeping both tags, so I'm going
to write a proposal that preserves both tags.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting (reminder) - Jewellery shop

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting for the proposal to replace shop=jewelry by shop=jewellery is still open.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop

I would like to thank all voters in advance for their contribution.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting for the proposal for office=government is now open. The
proposal also proposes to mark the alternatives
amenity=public_building and office=administrative as 'discouraged'.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

Thank you in advance for voting.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 04:57, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> @Matthijs,
>
> I like what you've done so far. I think using office=government and then 
> following that additional tags to more closely define what sort of 
> administration is done by that office is a good way to proceed.
>
> I would suggest a minor change to the definition you have above by including 
> a reference to facilities. These might include water and irrigation projects, 
> government controlled utilities and the like.
>
> The tag office=government is used to tag offices of a
> (supra)national, regional or local government agency or department. In
> these offices, staff work directly for government and carry out
> tasks to administer facilities, operate registries and licensing bureaus, 
> regulate lands and/or people, etc."
>
> Something like that maybe?


Thanks, I have incorporated this definition in the proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 11 February 2016 at 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> can you back this up by some real examples? I also have thought about this
> and came to the conclusion that typically a museum would not sell parts of
> their collection as long as it fits within their concept (they might get
> stuff (e.g. by donation) that doesn't integrate with their collection and
> will sell these).

This is an example:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/09/museums_round_on_gouda_gallery/

A small local Dutch museum sold a painting to a private party, to
improve their financial situation. For doing so, they risk being
expelled from the Dutch federation of museums. I think that underlines
your point.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 07:31, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> The Hubo shop I know best  (Reet, Belgium) sells  fencing, flooring,
> garden furniture, etc. besides all the tools. So it fits the DIY
> better than the hardware definition.

That's correct and something I'm aware of. Hubo in Belgium is very
different from Hubo in the Netherland. The chains are not even owned
by the same entity.

Dutch Hubo: 
http://www.hubo.nl/sites/default/files/Ondernemers/HU-Eersel-pand.jpg
/ http://www.hubo.nl/sites/default/files/Ondernemers/Wilbert5.jpeg
Belgian Hubo: 
https://media.hubo.be/img/4492.jpg?base=stores&sub=hea&bottom=h75&name=8812982927390.jpg

Of course the problem with using size to distinguish between hardware
and doityourself is what to do with intermediary cases. How would you
classify, for instance, a store like this?
http://westerbork.hubo.nl/sites/default/files/Westerbork_new.jpg?1373797524


-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

We currently have separate tags for shop=doityourself (37 857
instances) and shop=hardware (24 674 instances).

The OSM wiki gives the following definitions:

Do-it-yourself:
| Do-It-Yourself-stores (DIY for short) are similar to hardware stores, except
| they are generally larger and stock a wider range of products.
| Products sold may include hand tools, power tools, self-assembly furniture,
| decorating products, bathroom and kitchen furniture and fittings, garden
| furniture, electrical goods, fencing, flooring, and more.

Hardware:
| A hardware store, sometimes known as an ironmongers shop in the UK, is
| where you can buy screws and bolts, nails, hooks and other metal materials as
| well as metal tools.
| A hardware shop will often stock a wide range of products which can include
| building, electrical, plumbing supplies, garden tools, power tools,
kitchenware,
| homeware, locks, keys, and a key-cutting. Where these types of product/service
| are supplied in isolation, a different tag may be more appropriate.

As you can see, these definitions are quite similar. Not surprisingly,
taggers have problems with these definitions too. Some examples
* Home Depot in the US is tagged home depot 1161 times as
shop=doityourself, but also 148 times as shop=hardware.
* True Value, according to the wiki a prototypical American hardware
store, is tagged 74 times as shop=doityourself and 106 times as
shop=hardware.
* The Dutch shop Hubo, which might fit the Hardware definition better,
is tagged 23 times as shop=doityourself and only 4 times as
shop=hardware.

Would it make sense to keep distinguishing between shop=doityourself
and shop=hardware? If so, how could we make the difference more
precise?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 January 2016 at 15:03, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in
> an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd
> normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially
> people will say "the government has passed a law" or "the government has
> put him in prison" too.

Good point, I added an additional tag to clarify that all branches are included.

> For a government=* tag to succeed, it would have to be clearly
> delineated for what kinds of things it is to be used. The proposed
> definition is already murky; for example, a job centre or even a museum
> cashier could be "fully paid for by the government and completely
> controlled by them". This is not any better defined than
> amenity=public_building.

True, coming up with a precise definition is quite hard though. I
think I would like to include places like job centres, but exclude
museum cashiers or private bus/road work companies. Would something
like this work?

"The tag office=government is used to tag offices of a
(supra)national, regional or local government agency or department. In
these offices, staff directly paid for by the government carry out
administrative jobs to govern the area and/or people."

Could somebody (perhaps a native speaker) improve on this definition?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

Continued here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028479.html

-- Matthijs

On 1 February 2016 at 20:28, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have created a proposal to discourage the tag tourism=gallery,
> suggesting either shop=art or tourism=museum as an alternative.
>
> The proposal can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_tourism%3Dgallery
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> -- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

This discussion continues the feature proposal 'Discourage tourism=gallery'.

Most list members seem to agree that, in spite of what the wiki says,
tourism=gallery should not be used for places like the MoMA in New
York.

However, it is still not clear to me whether we should distinguish
shop=art and tourism=gallery.

Max proposed the following definitions:

| A gallery is showing art to the public. There is the possibility of
| purchase, but it is only a tiny fraction of the audience which actually
| is buying. The works are by artists the gallery represents. Shows are
| designed by the artist (with help or in collaboration with the
| gallerist). Am exhibition consists typically of new work by the artist
| is usually on display for a couple of weeks only. The business model of
| an art gallery is based on the sales from the art. A gallery usually
| gets a cut of up to 50% of the price of the artwork and is doing the
| dealings with the art collector.

| An art shop is selling art(sy things). Visiting without buying is
| possible, just as you may walk through a supermarket without buying
| anything. The artworks are for sale may be more on the craft side
| of the arts. They usually are of decorative nature and not of
| considerable worth on the art market.
| Artworks may end there as second hand goods. The
| producers of these artworks may not even know their work is in the
| shop. There is no special exhibition, concept or theme other than the
| intent of selling the goods.

I think these are nice definitions that we could work with. However,
it is quite different from the use of the tags now.

First, the wiki page on currently states for tourism=gallery: 'Private
galleries which are primarily funded by selling the works to visitors
would still be tagged shop=art'. This would imply that Max' galleries
should be tagged shop=art.

Second, the tag shop=art has 5316 uses, the tag tourism=gallery only
1526. The data indicates that the majority of art galleries (per Max'
definition) have been tagged as shop=art. Conversely, a significant
part of all shop=art objects, are actually art galleries according to
the definition above.

Furthermore, the line between art shop and art gallery might also be
subjective and hard to draw in some cases.

What do you think, would it make sense to try to keep both shop=art
and tourism=gallery? Or should we discourage either of these options
in favour of the other? Or should we come up with new tags?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 00:02, Max  wrote:
> The Moma is a Museum.

Please keep in mind that this is your personal definition - and
perhaps the definition of the people in your field. But that's not
necessarily the definition of the average English speaker. For
example, Wikipedia calls the following museums all art galleries in
their first line:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_Institute_of_Fine_Arts
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tate_Modern
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery,_London

I don't think either fit your definition. You could say Wikipedia is
wrong here, but I think it does show that English speakers use the
term 'art gallery' in this sense of the word too.

Are you British yourself, by the way?

> For actual (contemporary) art galleries we should introduce
> amenity=art_gallery or something similar.

I don't think this would help, for example Birmigham has the
'Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery' which is certainly not an art
gallery in your sense of the word.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 3 February 2016 at 21:52, Max  wrote:
> So we are now at:
> tourism=museum (nicer would be amenity, but for the sake of not changing
> too much)
> museum:topic= art / railway / history / war / mathematics / ...
> art_form = painting / photography / sculpture / video / 
> art_genre = still_life / landscape / portrait / religious /  (if
> applicable, many collections will be more diverse, but some might be
> specialized)
> art_style = expressionism / futurism / impressionism / mannerism / ...

I think such a specific subdivision would be useful, but I'm under the
impression that the more complex a proposal grows, the larger the
chance it will be rejected. I am therefore not planning to include
this in the proposal. Feel free to propose it yourself, or just start
using it, though.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 1 February 2016 at 22:50, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> On Mon Feb 1 21:44:50 2016 GMT, ael wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 07:56:22PM +, Dave F wrote:
>> > Sorry, but a gallery is not a museum
>>
>> +1
>> ael
>>
> +2
> The wiki should reflect the tags mappers use, not dictate to them.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)

I'm still a bit confused by this statement, and I'm not sure whether
all of you mean the same by it, so the same question for ael and Phil:
Would you consider places like the MoMA galleries and/or museums?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 1 February 2016 at 20:56, Dave F  wrote:
> Sorry, but a gallery is not a museum

I'm still a bit confused by this. Would you consider the MoMA a
gallery and/or a museum?

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Jewellery shop

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting for the proposal to replace shop=jewelry by shop=jewellery is now open.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop

Thank you in advance for voting.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 1 February 2016 at 22:17, Max  wrote:
> Those are clearly museums, not galleries and they are correctly tagged
> as museums. Sorry to say this, but that sentence clearly shows OP has
> not understand what a gellery is. The wiki pages for tourism=gallery,
> and shop=art do explain nicely what the difference is between those.

Thanks for your useful comments.

I'm not sure if I fully understand your explanation. How would you
categorize the following examples:

* http://www.mudam.lu/en/le-musee/la-collection/currently-at-mudam/
* http://www.whitewallgalleries.com/
* https://www.bcee.lu/en/Discover-BCEE/Discover-BCEE/The-'Am-Tunnel'-art-gallery

I'm not sure if I ever saw an art shop of the type you described. Do
you have any example of these, perhaps a URL?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 1 February 2016 at 20:28, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> I have created a proposal to discourage the tag tourism=gallery,
> suggesting either shop=art or tourism=museum as an alternative.
>
> The proposal can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_tourism%3Dgallery

Note that this proposal is exactly the proposal althio formulated
here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-January/028265.html
In that thread it got a lot of support. Interesting how rapidly the
hive-mind can change opinions...

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 1 February 2016 at 20:56, Dave F  wrote:
> Sorry, but a gallery is not a museum

Note that the wiki currently states: 'Note that art galleries very
often have the word "museum" in the name. Despite this, if they are
primarily displaying art, they should probably take the tag
tourism=gallery'.

It is not clear whether you (and the people agreeing with you) do or
do not agree that this statement in the wiki is correct.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 1 February 2016 at 20:48, Chris Hill  wrote:
> I think 'ignorant mappers' is disparaging. I'd drop the whole sentence.

Good point, I rephrased it now.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

I have created a proposal to discourage the tag tourism=gallery,
suggesting either shop=art or tourism=museum as an alternative.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_tourism%3Dgallery

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 January 2016 at 14:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> I have no idea why you have included:
>
> amenity=register_office (1044 instances)
> office=administrative (8807 instances)
> office=register (137 instances)
> office=tax (354 instances)
>
> on that page, without any suggested detailed tagging.  Information will be
> lost if people change e.g. "register offices" to be merely "government
> office".

There is new tagging in the proposal. It is, respectively:
- office=government, government=register_office
- office=government (with correct admin level)
- office=government, government=register_office
- office=government, government=tax

> As an aside, when I looked at "office" use in the UK a month or so ago while
> trying to work out what to render as what, I came up with this list:
>
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1421
>
> Obviously that's a much wider net than you're looking at here, but there are
> some synonyms in there you might want to think about.

Thanks. I think the proposal takes some of these values into account
already. I don't think the others necessarily need to be included in
the currrent proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 January 2016 at 15:03, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in
> an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd
> normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially
> people will say "the government has passed a law" or "the government has
> put him in prison" too.

Isn't the division of powers theory referred to as 'three branches of
government'? That seems to indicate that government can encompass the
legislative power as well.

Also, note that on local level, the branches are much more mingled,
and usually share a single building (the city council usually meets in
the building where the mayor/aldermen work).

> For a government=* tag to succeed, it would have to be clearly
> delineated for what kinds of things it is to be used. The proposed
> definition is already murky; for example, a job centre or even a museum
> cashier could be "fully paid for by the government and completely
> controlled by them". This is not any better defined than
> amenity=public_building.

Good point. Do you, or anybody else, have a better definition? I think
I'd prefer the job center to be included, but the museum to be
excluded.

> 2. At the same time, governments all over the world are vastly
> different; in some places, for example, the water works will be closely
> guarded government institutions, and in others, private enterprises in
> competition to each other. Same with railways and many other utilities
> which, at least in socialist countries, tend to be practically
> inseparable from government (except that it will be bloody difficult to
> assign an admin_level to them). I think that it is very likely that
> you'll end up with a vastly varying use of this tag across the world,
> with many values limited in use to a single country plus a few uses
> sprinkled across the world because nobody understood that a certain type
> of office really only exists in three Philippine provinces.

True, but I don't think that's really a problem. If the reality is
different in across countries, we can expect the tagging to differ as
well. I think the wiki page should provide some international
guidelines, but in the end each national community can decide how to
implement them (similarly to how each country decides what counts as a
trunk road).

> 3. Personally I feel that in addition to the above, there's a major
> difference between places where the government provides a service to the
> citizen - where you go to do something or have something done - and
> other places where the government essentially revolves in its own sauce
> and you're not even let in to watch. The former is an useful "this is
> where you go if you need to " information, the latter is essentially
> just for fancy lettering on the map because you won't usually go there
> for anything. Much like the difference between a Domino's pizza place
> and the Domino's central franchise building. I think that it might make
> sense to find different tags for the government "outlets" or "serivce
> points" as opposed to government office buildings.

Good point as well. However, note that this differs a lot between
countries as well. For example, in some countries, if you have a tax
question, you can just walk in to the tax office, where'll you be
redirected to the tax inspector that will actually handle your tax
forms. In other countries, you can only reach the tax office by phone
or mail. There are also many forms in between places where you can
just walk in, and places that are closely guarded. For example,
ministry buildings are generally relatively closed off, but sometimes
you might need to go there to get certain documents. For instance, in
Luxembourg you can register your diplomas in person at the higher
education ministry. An other example, you would not usually go to the
city's traffic department are usually, but you might need to go there
if you need signs to close of a parking space.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Only problem: if an institution
> serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only
> the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no different
> from "government:level=state;local".

Do you have an example of an institution serving multiple admin levels?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 January 2016 at 17:18, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>> Take for example your example shop=supermarket,
>> shop=bakery. Independent of the exact way of tagging,
>> using a multivalued tagging scheme forces the renderer
>> to make a decision between a supermarket and a bakery
>> icon. Basically, there is no possible way for the renderer
>> to support a multi-valued key here!
>
> That's not at all true. A rendering chain can choose to split out multiple
> values and then render a different icon for each one. You don't even need
> any preprocessing - you can do it on-the-fly with a SQL query, and I've done
> exactly that in one (Mapnik-based) map I've produced.

Do you have an demo rendering (screenshot is fine) for that?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi Colin,

Thanks for getting this discussion started. I agree it's fine to use
the proposal template also for proposals that are not about proposing
a concrete tag.

One thing to take into account in this discussion is that multi-valued
keys often move the problem to the data consumer. For that reason I'd
recommend to avoid them in many cases.

Take for example your example shop=supermarket, shop=bakery.
Independent of the exact way of tagging, using a multivalued tagging
scheme forces the renderer to make a decision between a supermarket
and a bakery icon. Basically, there is no possible way for the
renderer to support a multi-valued key here! The renderer might have a
rule that considers supermarkers always more important than bakeries,
or vice versa. But I think it's much more useful if the mapper decides
what's the main function, supermarket or bakery, rather than forcing
the renderer to make a choice.

-- Matthijs

On 27 January 2016 at 16:09, Colin Smale  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have created a proposal page as a channel for constructive debate about
> the way forward. I hope you will all take a look and participate!
>
> Although this subject is a bit more than just a proposal for a new tag, I
> have used the same template. I will try and flesh it out a bit more in the
> coming days, but everyone is of course welcome to add their stuff.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multivalued_Keys
>
>
>
> --colin
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

This didn't get any responses yet on the list. II would be interested
to hear what other mappers think of this proposal!

-- Matthijs

On 26 January 2016 at 00:13, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have created a proposal to use the tag office=government for the
> tagging of government offices. The proposal also replaces/discourages
> a number of tags, amongst which is amenity=public_building.
>
> The proposal can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> -- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 26 January 2016 at 00:08, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>the German word "Galerie" is often used for art showrooms where you
> can actually buy the stuff on display. (I know a couple that are not
> larger than a typical hairdresser's.)

Note that we have shop=art for such places, which is about 4 times as
popular as tourism=gallery.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

I have created a proposal to use the tag office=government for the
tagging of government offices. The proposal also replaces/discourages
a number of tags, amongst which is amenity=public_building.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Art galleries/museums

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

The wiki defines the tag tourism=gallery as 'an area or typically a
building that displays a variety of visual art exhibitions' [1]. This
is an officially approved tag [2]. In addition, the wiki page on
tourism=museum [3] specifies that art galleries should be tagged as
tourism=gallery, even if they have 'museum' in the name.

However, practice shows that the tag tourism=gallery is not very
frequently used. We have currently 54 951 instances of tourism=museum,
versus only 1 505 instances of tourism=gallery. I had a look at some
famous galleries: the MoMA in New York, the Uffizi in Florence, the
National Gallery of Art in Washington DC, the Van Gogh Museum in
Amsterdam, the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, and the Guggenheim Museum in
Bilbao. It turned out that all of them are tagged as tourism=museum.

This might be partly caused by ignorant mappers, but perhaps there is
also a more fundamental problem. The line between a gallery and a
museum is not always easy to draw, especially in continental Europe,
where many museums have both historic and artistic exhibitions
(compare for instance the Louvre). Also the fact that many galleries
are called 'museum' does not help.

How should we continue from here? Should we try to improve the tagging
situation? Or should we discourage tourism=gallery, making it a
subtype of tourism=museum?

-- Matthijs

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dgallery
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Art_gallery
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dmuseum

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Jewellery shop

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

The tag shop=jewelry is one of the few tags that use American rather
than British English. The previous discussion seemed to indicate that
people have strong opinions on this topic, but that there is no strong
consensus either way.

I have therefore created a proposal page for the tag shop=jewellery.
Hopefully this proposal, and a possible vote, will help the community
to create an opinion on this topic.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Retag request: swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

Recently, amenity=swimming_pool has been officially marked as
discouraged. In addition, a vote was carried out to propose a tag for
swimming pools that are used for sport or swimming lessons. This vote
was rejected, but from the comments of the voters,
leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming has emerged as a suitable tag
combination for such objects.

I therefore have two retagging requests. It would be great if mappers
could have a look at this in their local area.

* Please change the tag amenity=swimming_pool into
leisure=swimming_pool (Overpass Turbo:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dYz).
* Please make sure that leisure=swimming_pool is only used to mark
water areas. Tag the entire facility as either leisure=water_park or
leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming (Overpass Turbo:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dYB).

To use the Overpass Turbo links, browse to the right area and click 'Run'.

When executing mechanical edits, please make sure to take the
mechanical edit policy into account.

-- Matthjs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Discourage amenity=swimming_pool

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

The proposal to discourage amenity=swimming_pool has been approved:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_amenity%3Dswimming_pool

The proposal received 36 approving votes, and 5 opposing votes (88%
support). I would like to thank everybody for voting.

I also opened a couple of requests at various OSM projects:
* I asked iD to stop rendering the old tag
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2926)
*  I asked JOSM to add amenity=swimming_pool to the validator
(https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12431#ticket)
Of course it is up to these projects to decide what to do with these requests.

In any case, I would like to ask mappers to change the tag
amenity=swimming_pool into leisure=swimming_pool (Overpass Turbo:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dYz).

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Rejected - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

The proposal for aquatics centre has been rejected:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre

The proposal received 17 approving votes, and 28 opposing votes (38%
support). I would like to thank everybody for voting.

From the comments, it follows that there is strong support for the tag
combination leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming to map such
features. I have therefore taken the liberty to document this tagging
combination explicitly on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dsports_centre#Combinations

I also opened a couple of requests at various OSM projects:
* I asked iD to render leisure=swimming_pool with a blue rather than a
white outline, call leisure=swimming_pool something like 'Swimming
pool (water area only)', and add a searchable preset 'Swimming pool
(facility)' or 'Swimming pool (sports centre)' or something of the
sort for the tag combination leisure=sports_centre, sport=swimming
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2927)
* I asked JOSM to call leisure=swimming_pool something like 'Swimming
pool (water area only)', and add a preset 'Swimming pool (facility)'
or 'Swimming pool (sports centre)' or something of the sort for the
tag combination leisure=sports_centre, sport=swimming (see
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12432#comment)
* The project opentreetmap-carto was asked to add support for the tag
combination leisure=sports_centre, sport=swimming
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2018)

Of course it is up to decide to these projects what to do with these requests.

In any case, I would like to ask mappers to make sure that
leisure=swimming_pool (Overpass Turbo: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dYB)
is only used to mark water areas. The entire facility should marked as
either leisure=water_park or leisure=sports_centre + sport=swimming.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrap yards, junkyards

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 20 January 2016 at 02:03, Dave Swarthout  wrote:

>
> I'm trying to decide how to tag what we in the U.S. refer to as junkyards.
> Mostly these are where old automobiles go when they are discarded and are a
> source of used parts. They are therefore an amenity of considerable value,
> at least to some people. In other countries they might be called scrapyards
> (or perhaps salvage_yards or even some variation on automobile_salvage) so
> I'm looking for input from our little world-spanning community of expert
> taggers.
>
> Would amenity=waste_transfer_station be an option? See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_transfer_station .
Perhaps this makes more sense for scrapyards that make most of their money
from selling the iron used in cars.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage amenity=public_building

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Based on the discussion arising from my previous message, it seems
that there is support to discourage the tag amenity=public_building.

I have therefore created a proposal page to explicitly mark this tag
as discouraged in the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_amenity%3Dpublic_building

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Jewelry/jewellery shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

We currently use British English for almost all OSM tags. Jewellery
shops however are typically tagged with the American English variant
shop=jewelry (20083 occurrences), and hardly ever with the British
English variant shop=jewellery (187 occurrences). Editors and data
consumers only support the American variant.

Some mappers have proposed switching to the British English version.
I'm not sure if that's really is a good idea. It wouldn't be an easy
task, as it would require synchronisation between mappers, editors and
data consumers. The gain would be fairly minor and the disadvantages
rather large: all data consumers that handle jewellery shops would be
required to update their code. On the other hand, maybe it makes sense
to try anyway.

If we decide to accept the tag shop=jewellery and mark shop=jewelry as
discouraged, we should have at least a good plan. Without plan,
nothing will happen, as mappers don't want to use unsupported tags,
and data consumers don't want to support unused tags. Of course we
can't decide what editors/data consumers should do. However, we could
come up with a recommendation, and hope editors/data consumers are
willing to follow it. An example plan/procedure could look as follows:

Editors:
- The first 6 months after acceptance of the proposal to switch,
editors should keep producing the old tag shop=jewelry only. This
gives data consumers time to make arrangements to support the new tag.
- The following 3 months, editors might either produce shop=jewelry or
shop=jewellery.
- After 9 months from acceptance of the proposal, editors should only
produce shop=jewellery.

Data consumers:
- Within 6 months after the acceptance of the proposal, data consumers
should accept shop=jewellery in addition to shop=jewelry.
- When usage of shop=jewelry has declined sufficiently, data consumers
can stop supporting shop=jewelry. This is not expected within 12
months after acceptance of the proposal, and likely much later.

Data:
- The first 6 months after acceptance of the proposal, the data should
remain unchanged.
- After 6 months, the amount of shop=jewelry tags is expected to
decline in favour of shop=jewellery tags. It is hard to predict how
long this process will take.

Wiki:
- 6 months after the acceptance of the proposal, shop=jewellery should
be marked as recommended tag.
- 9 months after the acceptance of the proposal, shop=jewelry should
be marked as discouraged.

As you can see, this is not a simple proposal. There are also some
risks involved, for example because it is unclear whether data
consumers and editors would be willing to follow the recommendations.

All in all, it is a fairly large operation for a relatively small
improvement, and I'm not sure if it's worth it. I wonder though what
other mappers think. Would it make sense to switch the recommended tag
to shop=jewellery? And if we do so, would a plan similarly to the one
above make sense?

(Please note that I'm writing this on personal title and not as
maintainer of the openstreetmap-carto stylesheet.)

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 January 2016 at 23:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have the wiki page 'amenity=public_building' redirect to
> 'building=public' and then any alternatives suggested on that page.

To me it is not clear that this is a solution, as the definition of
building=public is equally vague. Is a prison a public building? A
band stand? A theatre? A bus depot?

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Public buildings

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

The tag amenity=public_building has been marked as 'Don't use' on the
wiki since 2010 (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building ). As
far as I know, marking the tag as 'Don't use' has not been discussed
extensively, and the tag is still very commonly used (111 941 times
currently). I therefore think it would be worth to discuss this tag
once more.

Initially I didn't have much problems with this tag, and I have used
it commonly to mark government buildings. However, when I started
looking at how this tag is used (with Overpass), I discovered that it
is indeed use for quite a variety of things. It saw it being used for
government buildings, train stations, expo halls, art centres,
municipal sport centres, and band stands, amongst others. Nearly all
of these have more specific other tags.

In particular, potential replacement tags for government tags are
office=administrative (26 836 times in use) for central government and
office=administrative (8 725) for local government.

I think we have a choice of two options:
1. Accept the tag - in that case we'd need to come up with a clear
definition, and decide how it compares to the office=administrative
and office=administrative tags.
2. Reject the tag and mark it as discouraged on the wiki..

The tag is currently supported by JOSM, but not by iD. If we decide to
approve this tag, it would make sense to ask iD to support it. On the
other hand, if we decide to discourage it, it would make sense to ask
JOSM to remove the preset, and preferably, even add a deprecation
warning to the validator.

What do you think? Which way would you prefer to go?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging tourist offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 1 January 2016 at 22:55, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> So my question is, would it make sense to propose a different tagging
> for tourist offices, for example tourism=tourist_office or
> office=tourism? Or should we stay with the current tagging? I'm myself
> quite ambivalent on this issue, and I'd like to hear your opinion.

Thanks Martin and Eugene for your comments.

There does not seem to be much interest to change the tagging, so I
will not continue with any proposal in this direction.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting (reminder) - Discourage amenity=swimming_pool

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting on the proposal to discourage amenity=swimming_pool is now
open. You can vote here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_amenity%3Dswimming_pool

On request, the voting period has been extended by an additional 7 days.

Thanks in advance to anybody voting on this proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting (reminder) - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting on the proposal for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre is still
open. You can vote here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre

On request, the voting period has been extended by an additional 7 days.

Thanks in advance to anybody voting on this proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 5 January 2016 at 11:25, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> I think the proposal has been rushed into voting prematurely, with just 5
> days
> from draft on 25 Dec, during the holiday seasons where many people might be
> mapping away from home ;-)

It was in fact 7 days, but your point is still standing. Some users
have requested an extension of the voting period. I doubt an extension
will change the outcome of either of the proposals (Aquatics centre
and Discourage amenity=swimming pool), but if people prefer more time
I don't mind either. I therefore have extended the voting period for
both proposals by an additional week.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Tagging tourist offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Tourist offices are currently tagged as tourism=information, information=office.

The tag tourism=information is also used for guideposts, maps, boards,
etc. In my opinion, the tagging for tourist offices is quite complex,
and the grouping of tourist offices with things like guideposts is not
very intuitive. On the other hand, data consumers will probably not be
eager to start supporting a different tagging scheme, and it will
probably take quite some time to change the data to the new tagging
scheme.

So my question is, would it make sense to propose a different tagging
for tourist offices, for example tourism=tourist_office or
office=tourism? Or should we stay with the current tagging? I'm myself
quite ambivalent on this issue, and I'd like to hear your opinion.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Discourage amenity=swimming pool

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting on the proposal to discourage amenity=swimming_pool is now
open. You can vote here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_amenity%3Dswimming_pool

I would like to thank in advance anybody voting on this proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting on the proposal for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre is now
open. You can vote here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre

I would like to thank in advance anybody voting on this proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

Thank you for all feedback. The feedback brought forward a couple of
valuable points, but in my opinion these points don't require a change
to the proposal. In particular, I don't think it's useful to
explicitly state in the proposal whether or not customer parking
should be included, and will leave this decision to the individual
mapper. I also think aquatics centres are distinct enough from regular
sport centres to warrant their own tag. The discussion on civic
landuse is independent of this proposal. Thanks again for all input!

-- Matthijs

On 25 December 2015 at 21:42, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have created a proposal page for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre
>
> The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot
> of documentation on suggested subtags, as I'd prefer to focus the
> discussion on the acceptance of the main tag, rather than getting lost
> in a discussion concerning countless subtags for special cases.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> -- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 25 December 2015 at 22:38, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> What about parkings for customers? Given that it is typical associated
> amenity it may be a good idea to also list it after "small cafe or
> bar".

I had a look at the data, but for comparable facilities such as water
parks, sport centres and theme parks, the parking area is usually not
included in the areea. I don't think it makes sense to suddenly
deviate from the current practice, so I will not explicitly require
parking areas to be included in the area in my proposal.

For indoor aquatics centres, I can imagine the leisure=aquatics_centre
would normally be placed on the building.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage amenity=swimming pool

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 26 December 2015 at 13:13, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> I would write "discouraged" rather than "DISCOURAGED".

I can change it in the main text, but I'd prefer to leave it like that
in the description, so it's more clear to users of Taginfo that the
tag should not be used.

-- Matthijd

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage amenity=swimming pool

[Matthijs Melissen]

Yes, this is intentional, as there are more people that believe the
Wiki can discourage than there are that believe the Wiki can
deprecate. In the e-mail, I meant to write 'discourage' as well.

-- Matthijs

On 26 December 2015 at 00:22, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> You use both 'discouraged' and 'deprecated' in your mail.
> The wiki has a list of Deprecated features, only. Is it intentional
> that your proposal calls for discouraging and not deprecating?
>
> Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2015/12/25 23:13:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have created a proposal page to explicitly mark the tag
>> amenity=swimming_pool as deprecated in the wiki:
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_amenity%3Dswimming_pool
>>
>> The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot
>> of documentation on suggested subtags,
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage amenity=swimming pool

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

I have created a proposal page to explicitly mark the tag
amenity=swimming_pool as deprecated in the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_amenity%3Dswimming_pool

The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot
of documentation on suggested subtags,

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

I have created a proposal page for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre

The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot
of documentation on suggested subtags, as I'd prefer to focus the
discussion on the acceptance of the main tag, rather than getting lost
in a discussion concerning countless subtags for special cases.

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 20 December 2015 at 22:37, John Willis  wrote:
> Aquatics_centre.

The term "aquatics centre" seems indeed more popular for facilities in
the UK, while the term "aquatic centre" is more popular in Australia
and Ireland.

I still wonder whether it would be problematic to use this tag for
water parks and other places that are focussed on 'fun swimming' as
well? For example a indoor swimming hall with slides and wave
generators, heated to a subtropical temperature, would you be happy
calling (or tagging) it an aquatic centre, water park, or both?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 19 December 2015 at 17:42, ael  wrote:
> An aquatic centre would normally contain aquaria with typically sea
> creatures, often associated with research. A sort of sea-museum.
> Definitely no swimming pool, although I suppose that a very eccentric
> such centre might offer the experience of swimming with dolphins, but I
> doubt it.

That doesn't seem to be exactly true, I can find aquatic(s) centre in
London, Manchester, Liverpool and Sunderland (amongst others), and all
of them offer swimming, not dolphins :)

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 19 December 2015 at 03:11, John Willis  wrote:
> I would call it leisure=aquatic_center if it is based around pool based 
> exercise/ sports/ competition and leisure=water_park for recreation (like a 
> theme park with slides and splashing and tube pools and whatnot.

I like this one, and I think going with two main tags, water_park and
aquatic_centre (I think we should use UK spelling), is a viable
option.

Alternatively, would aquatic_centre also work as an encompassing tag,
using subtags to specify the usage, as Holger suggests? Would it be
strange to refer to a subtropical waterpark or an outdoor swimming
pool with toys and water slides as an aquatic centre?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 18 December 2015 at 21:46, Holger Jeromin  wrote:
> I would be happy if this main tag would be water park, as many
>  mapper are using that because of the rendering already.

I suppose this is the best we have. If nobody comes up with a better
tag for the area around a swimming pool (indoors or outdoors), I'll
start a proposal to standardize on leisure=water_park. It would
perhaps slightly deviate from normal English usage but I don't see a
better way to disambiguate between swimming pool as water area and
swimming pool as the facility including amenities.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 18 Dec 2015 19:46, "Holger Jeromin"  wrote:
> What about a tag for all swimming facilities (building or area)
>  and a separate tag for main usage
> =fun
> =wellness
> =health
> =learning
> =sport or competitive
>
> Would be a easy solution for rendering (can ignore the sub tag)
>  and data consumer.

That would make sense, but coming up with a good tag for this seems quite
hard. Do you have a proposal?

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 17 December 2015 at 23:06, John Willis  wrote:
> Water park- for frolicking - shallow pools with slides, rubber amusements to 
> slide down.
>
> Swimming pool - usually square multi-sport pools for swimming, lap swimming, 
> and water polo.

The difference between these two is not always clear in my opinion.

For example, how would you call this place (same pool during different events)?
http://www.archiduc.lu/wp-content/uploads/piscine-bonnevoie-archives.jpg
http://media.mywort.lu/media/2_3433050

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

I collected some usage statistics of pools I know:

Indoor swimming pool, building:
5x leisure=swimming_pool
2x amenity=swimming_pool
1x leisure=water_park
1x leisure=sports_centre
1x leisure=sports_centre+sport=swimming

Indoor swimming pool, water area:
10x not tagged

Outdoor swimming pool, area:
5x leisure=water_park
2x amenity=swimming_pool
2x not tagged
1x leisure=park and sport=swimming

Outdoor swimming pool, water area:
5x leisure=swimming_pool
2x leisure=swimming_pool and amenity=swimming_pool
1x natural=water
2x not tagged
1x water area under construction

The statistics make the overloading of leisure=swimming_pool for two
different purposes very clear.

-- Matthijs

On 15 December 2015 at 23:41, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are currently two tags for swimming pools in use:
> * leisure=swimming_pool (511 413 occurences)
> * amenity=swimming_pool (46 495 occurences)
>
> Historically, amenity used to be the more popular tag, but usage has
> shifted to leisure, with amenity now making up less than 8% of the
> instances. Would it be time to mark the amenity-version as
> 'discouraged' on the Wiki?
>
> In addition, it seems that the swimming pool tags are used for two
> different things: the pool itself, and the entire building/area
> (including showers, cafe, etc.).
>
> Would it be useful and possible to resolve this ambiguity? We
> currently have leisure=water_park, but it seems to more focussed on
> recreational swimming with water slides etc. Does it make sense to use
> leisure=water_park for indoor swimming pools that are focussed on
> swimming lessons or speed swimming as well? If not, should we use
> another tag for such facilities? Any other suggestions to resolve the
> ambiguity?
>
> -- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 17 December 2015 at 21:19, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> Most public baths in Germany (Hallenbad/Freibad) are tagged
> leisure=water_park no matter if they qualify as such or not (which
> would be commonly called 'Erlebnisbad').

Does this including indoor swimming pools (for example public swimming
pools used for swimming lessons)?

And for the native English speakers: it's still not clear to me
whether this use would be very contradictory to the regular use of
'water park' in English, what do you think?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 16 December 2015 at 12:26, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> No. In British English, the term "Water Park" means an outdoor
> facility - a country park - of several acres, with lakes for
> activities like sailing, water-skiing, fishing, and as a nature
> reserve. There may be no swimming pools. For example:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotswold_Water_Park
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Water_Park

On the other hand, I can find on the internet 'Splashdown waterparks',
'Calyspo Cove waterpark', and 'Sandcastle Waterpark' as
counterexamples.

Would aqua park be any better? I suppose still it still wouldn't work
for pools mainly used for sport swimming or swimming lessons?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 16 December 2015 at 11:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2015 8:53 PM, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>>
>> On 16 December 2015 at 02:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As only the swimming pool should be tagged with swimming_pool... not any
>>> changing rooms, showers, toilets .. that may be present and shared with
>>> other things. These should have their own tags.
>>
>> Yes, that would make sense. Do you have a suggestion of what this tag
>> might be?
>>
>>
>
> Tags..
>
> Toilet and show already exist under amenity.
>
> Nearest to changing room .. room=dressing
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:room#Other_values
>
> some 2,000 uses. One may be tempted to use amenity=changing_room .. but that
> could be confused with a baby nappy changing room.
>  I'd go with room=dressing.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I wondered if you (or somebody
else) has a suggestion for a tag for the collection of the pool(s)
together with dressing rooms, showers etc. Or do you think this
collection does not deserve a separate tag?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 16 December 2015 at 02:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As only the swimming pool should be tagged with swimming_pool... not any
> changing rooms, showers, toilets .. that may be present and shared with
> other things. These should have their own tags.

Yes, that would make sense. Do you have a suggestion of what this tag might be?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 December 2015 at 23:50, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Why not stick to the simple facts and note that "leisure=swimming_pool
> is the more popular tag to use"? If you say "is discouraged" or "is
> recommended" the question is always, by whom and when did they make the
> decision to discourage it and did they even have a right to do so. If
> you just state the facts then you avoid this problem.

There has been a long tradition of this mailing list (and, before it
branched off, the talk mailing list) making recommendations on tagging
schemes, so I see no reason to suddenly question this. In this case
the recommended tag is the more popular tag, but there have also been
instances were a fewer used tag was recommended.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Swimming pools

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

There are currently two tags for swimming pools in use:
* leisure=swimming_pool (511 413 occurences)
* amenity=swimming_pool (46 495 occurences)

Historically, amenity used to be the more popular tag, but usage has
shifted to leisure, with amenity now making up less than 8% of the
instances. Would it be time to mark the amenity-version as
'discouraged' on the Wiki?

In addition, it seems that the swimming pool tags are used for two
different things: the pool itself, and the entire building/area
(including showers, cafe, etc.).

Would it be useful and possible to resolve this ambiguity? We
currently have leisure=water_park, but it seems to more focussed on
recreational swimming with water slides etc. Does it make sense to use
leisure=water_park for indoor swimming pools that are focussed on
swimming lessons or speed swimming as well? If not, should we use
another tag for such facilities? Any other suggestions to resolve the
ambiguity?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 18 October 2015 at 12:55, ael  wrote:
> But really it was invented as a way to tag clear groups of places that
> had no obvious existing tags

Do you have a source for that? (Not questioning you, just curious to
read the original discussion.)

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 7 October 2015 at 15:58, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> builder

Not sure what this is used for.

> building_materials

Possibly duplicate with shop=doityourself, not sure though.

> craft

I use this for shops selling coloured paper, glue, knitting supplies etc.

> discount

I use shop=variety_store instead, but some mappers split the two categories.

> energy

Likely used for public-facing offices of energy suppliers, especially
in countries where there is a free energy market so people might
actually be 'shopping' for an energy provider.

> flooring

Makes sense.

> gallery

Lesser used alternative of shop=art.

> games

Makes sense.

> health_food

Lesser used alternative of shop=organic.

> hobby

Similar to shop=craft.

> market

Probably used for market halls. Might be a lesser used alternative of
amenity=marketplace.

> phone

Likely most of these should be shop=mobile_phone.

> real_estate

Lesser used alternative of office=estate_agent.

> rental

I would use office=estate_agent for this as well.

> salon

Lesser used alternative of shop=hairdresser.

> shoe_repair

Lesser used alternative of shop=shoemaker.

> tiles

Makes sense, I guess.

> Candidates for deprecating:
>
> antique - no wiki, mentioned on antiques page so maybe deprecate and propose
> antiques?

Yes, shop=antiques is more popular.

> appliance - wiki redirects to electronics, so maybe deprecate and propose
> electronics instead?

Agree.

> car_service - maybe car_repair?

Agree.

> communication - wiki redirects to mobile_phone, so maybe deprecate and
> propose mobile_phone?

No, shop=communication is used for places where you can go to and call
abroad cheaply. Mainly common in places with many immigrants.

> general - deprecate and propose to look for other shop values (like "yes")?

Not sure.

> health - medical_supply?

Likely yes, or shop=organic (or shop=supermarket organic=yes)

> household - houseware?

Yes.

> interior_decoration - houseware?

No, I use houseware for shops were you can buy practical stuff such as
pots, bins, and brooms, while I use interior_decoration for shops

> office_supplies - stationery?

Likely yes (although people state that shops like Staples also sell
printers etc., and that that goes beyond what a stationery shop would
sell).

> printing - copyshop?

Agree.

> radiotechnics - electronics?
> sewing - maybe tailor?

No, in a sewing shop you can buy threads and needles, in a tailor you
can get your clothes fixed.

> shopping_centre - mall?

Agree.

> solarium - leisure=tanning_salon?

Agree - apparently solarium is not even an English word.

> souvenir - gift?

No, for example in Amsterdam shops where tourists buy things to take
home are very distinct from shops were people go to buy a present for
a friend they are visiting.

> tanning - leisure=tanning_salon?

Agree.

> Also organic is deprecated, but I was told that it was made by one person,
> so we should also decide if we support this change or we want to revert it.

Agree, I feel neutral about this.

> What are your propositions?

Thanks for working on this! Very useful to get more clarity in this direction.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.35.0

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 16 September 2015 at 23:30, Tom Hughes  wrote:
> On 16/09/15 21:59, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>
>> Today, v2.35.0 of the openstreetmap-carto stylesheet has been
>> released and rolled out to the openstreetmap.org servers. It might
>> still take a couple of days before all tiles show the new rendering.
>
>
> No, it has not been rolled out (yet).

Thanks for the correction, I didn't look well... No hurry...

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.35.0

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

Today, v2.35.0 of the openstreetmap-carto stylesheet has been
released and rolled out to the openstreetmap.org servers. It might
still take a couple of days before all tiles show the new rendering.

Changes include:

* Add new icon for ford
* Stop rendering of landuse=conservation
* Restore rendering of
amenity=kindergarten/school/college/university/grave_yard names
* Various other bug fixes.

For a full list of commits, see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v2.34.0...v2.35.0.

As always, we welcome any bug reports at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed mechanical edit: surface=soil to surface=dirt

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 31 August 2015 at 11:00, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> See
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny/surface%3Dsoil_to_surface%3Ddirt
>
> I plan to change surface=soil to surface=dirt. surface=soil is a clear
> duplicate of surface=dirt. It is also less popular and undocumented on
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface . surface=soil usage is
> slowly increasing and recently passed threshold of 400 entries
> worldwide. It would be a good idea to retag it to already documented
> tag before this duplicate gets more popular.

Totally agree, I support this edit.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed tag shop=wholesale

[Matthijs Melissen]

Note that we also have shop=trade. It would be good to make the
difference between both tags clear (of deprecate shop=trade, which I
wouldn't oppose).

-- Matthijs

On 8 May 2015 at 17:04, Andrew MacKinnon  wrote:
> I propose to create the tag "shop=wholesale" for stores that sell
> large quantities of merchandise in bulk, such as Costco and Sam's
> Club. Many such stores require a membership to join. See
> . This tag has 320 uses
> in taginfo already.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org)
will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon.

There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as
historic=monument.

The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki:
'A memorial object, especially large (one can go inside, walk on or
through it) and made of stone, built to remember, show respect to a
person or group of people or to commemorate an event'.

Note that this tag should not be used for national heritage buildings
(called listed buildings in some countries). The word 'monument' does
not have this meaning in English. Instead, historic=yes, the heritage
key, or the listed_status key could be used for such buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage

It would be good to correct as many incorrectly tagged objects as
possible before the tag is rendered. This map can be helpful for that:
http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html

See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1532
for the discussion on Github.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
> It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on
> [tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact
> mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. OSM doesn't have a
> policy that interested contributors have to participate on this or
> that dicussion medium. I've joined [tagging] very late in my OSM life
> (and can't afford the time to read it all), but I've always been very
> interested in any change to the data I've contributed.

Unfortunately, contacting mappers individually has a very low response rate.

For my bookmaker changes, I contacted 20 mappers individually through
the OSM messaging system. All of them were frequent mappers (17 of
them had more than 1000 changesets). I only received a response from
three of them. This was to ask me help with retagging, but I'd guess
asking them for their opinion would give a similar low response rate.
With less frequent mappers, I'd expect the response rate to be even
lower. So asking every single mapper of a certain tag for their
opinion is not really an option, I think.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 4 May 2015 at 05:23, Andreas Goss  wrote:
> The problem is that everybody is so strong against mechanical edits that it
> is pretty much impossible most of the time

No, not everybody is against mechanical edits, not even a majority.

The problem is that there is a very vocal minority against mechanical
edits, and that minority is of the opinion that a majority cannot
approve mechanical edits if there is a minority that disagrees.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Possible Vatican City tagging issues

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 3 May 2015 at 13:11, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> Should they not be tagged motor_vehicle=private, bicycle=private,
> foot=yes.

No.

> As tagged it says you cannot walk there.

This is correct. There is a security checkpoint at the gate, and
pedestrians are not normally let in unless they are known to security.
This is different from a national border checkpoint, because there are
no such checkpoints at places where the public can cross the border,
for example at St Peter's Square. I imagine there are also similar
checkpoints between the public and private areas of Vatican City.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] AE and BE orthography in tagging

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 April 2015 at 12:47, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Recently I had amened the shop=jewelry page with a short notice that
> shop=jewellery should be preferred, as this is British orthography and the
> generic tagging rules/guidelines state that tags should be in British
> English where possible.

Note that shop=jewelry is not the only US English term we use.

Others include (I'm not a native speaker so correct me if I'm wrong):
- railway=subway rather than railway=metro or railway=underground (in
UK English, a subway is a pedestrian underpass AFAIK).
- highway=elevator rather than highway=lift
- sport=soccer rather than sport=football.

I'm sure there will be others.

In the case of shop=jewelry, most data consumers only support the US
spelling. Usage stats for the UK spelling are currently about 1,1%.
Getting all data consumers to change to the US spelling would be a
huge hassle.

If we want to change spelling, I would prefer a choreographed process,
for example an announced automatic edit one year in the future, in
order to allow data consumers to prepare themselves.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 3 April 2015 at 10:22, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of "Approved" to read
> "Published",
> with no other changes.  The feeling is the term "published" is less likely
> to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described
> on the wiki.

I appreciate your effort to bring more clarity in the different wiki statuses.

However, I don't think changing the status 'Approved' to 'Published'
is a good idea. In my opinion, 'approved' is exactly what it is: a
proposal approved by the OSM community.

The fact that only a small number of people vote is not relevant, as
anybody in the community can get involved in the tag selection process
if they want to.

In short, I oppose this proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 17 March 2015 at 23:04, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:
> Although OSM-carto is not supposed to be consumed by end-users

This is not correct.

The purposes of the osm-carto style can be found here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/CARTOGRAPHY.md

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Rendering of individual power lines in residential areas on default osm-carto

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 12 March 2015 at 02:21, johnw  wrote:

> I opened a ticket in which I was told it was my fault for thinking it it
> was a bad idea and to stop complaining or claiming persecution (which was
> really really weird).
>

Just to be clear, this was not a comment by one of the maintainers of the
style.

The issue is still open, which simply means nobody has gotten yet to
implementing this. If you want to speed things up, feel free to write a
pull request.

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

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse  wrote:
> To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue
> and it was summarily closed:
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641

That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a
duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier
bug report.

We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken
a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 March 2015 at 15:15, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The
> job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their
> projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to
> guide mappers in their choice of tags.

That's not necessarily true. According to CARTOGRAPHY.md, the purposes
of the default layer are:

- It's the primary feedback mechanism for mappers to validate their
edits - so detail is useful
- It's a major part of the impression visitors to osm.org receive - so
clear design is useful
- It's an examplar stylesheet for rendering OSM data - so easy
customisation is useful

That said, as the openstreetmap-carto is a one-size-fits all map,
there are often better maps for specific situations.

-- Matthijs

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