On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andy suggests :
>
> "drinking_water:refill=yes" and
> "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"
>
> As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or
> "yes", this alternative
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 04:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> As they say, it's hard to point at a volcano & say it's active or not!
>
Yup. Worse, public perception of "active" differs from that list. Public
perception of "active" is more like "really, really active" (which isn't a
category on
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 20:44, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:38 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> > But "active" is too broad a term to be meaningful, I think.
>
> Well, then, let's clarify the intention, narrow the definition, choose
> a more appropriate
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 19:22, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> "Active" is too vague to be mapped.
>
+1
Like Kevin Kenny, I have no problem with allowing for different levels of
expertise. I have no problem with making use of expert sources (as long
as there is a good consensus and their opinions are
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> && Deleting a non-functioning fountain node, is discouraged
> But in case of removed structure deletion
> of node is encouraged.
>
There are some (I'm one of them) who would say that if the
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 13:21, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> Its a shame the website doesn't have location, I do not use Google play,
> but I guess thats why you want to put them into OSM.
>
I tried the app on Android. It uses Google maps, which is common for
Android
apps. I expect the Apple
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 10:46, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Yesbut (I believe that) this tag is driven by the 'refill scheme' use
> case, which should be identifiable on-the-ground by displayed information.
> Data could be collected by apps built by the schemes.
>
For those unfamiliar with the
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 20:45, pangoSE wrote:
> I recently stumbled upon the tag wikimedia_commons see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
>
> Its definition is: "links to related Wikimedia Commons' media of the
> feature "
>
Yep. That's correct, apart from the word
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 15:05, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I agree that earthwork reinforcement may be out of scope here, but the
> term "surface" as you read it seems to comprise the first feet of earth,
> while I would read it as the surface in contact with air (no thickness,
> just a
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 13:52, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
I don't find the surface tag compelling for this, because around here, most
> of them are below the surface (although not very deep). I would either see
> them as erosing control features or maybe ground reenforcement? (in any
> case these
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 13:05, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> I am not completely sure, but maybe "car" was chosen purposefully because
> this is not the same as a legal access restriction?
>
Possibly chosen to make a distinction between vehicles propelled by petrol
or
diesel and electric
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 12:40, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> are these 2 things both called "stove" in British English?
>
> Some would call both of those a stove. Some would call only one of those a
stove. Some would call neither of them a stove (one is a cooker, the other
a
wood burner).
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 22:19, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>2. Re: RFC free_water (Paul Allen)
>>
> >>>>>Paul, one could imagine offering water in a glass? Or a carafe if for
> customers yes, w
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 20:49, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Is there free water available ?
> 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
> available
> 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
>
Do you
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 22:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And that is a problem. A reduction in information caused by a render
> failing to render information.
>
Not quite. As things stand, that information is being mapped. The problem
is
that some people, such as you, are calling
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:15, Kevin Kenny wrote:
'Church'/'chapel' seem to be the unique example that everyone resorts
> to when identifying the former purpose of a building - because in so
> many places or denominations, the architecture is distinctive.
Yep. Although I'd argue that
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
> 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> If the 'standard map' starts rendering 'disused=yes' the same way as
> 'disused:*=*' (presently not rendered) then what?
>
> Then standard map style will be fixed to
> remove this bug.
>
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:12, marc marc wrote:
in case of a was:SHOP=*, the previous shop (what's inside
> the building) has gone. and if you are consistent with yourself (you say
> that osm is not a database for memorizing history) when I survey it,
> the only thing I see is that the previous
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Dave F wrote:
>
>
> On 16/01/2020 12:57, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> >> So the wiki says now. It's not what it said in the past. But let's
> say you're
> >> correct. We both know that standard carto doesn't render physical
>
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Dave F wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2020 12:01, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better.
> > But
> > you already lost the battle with building=house, which is too firmly
> > entrenc
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 12:43, Dave F wrote:
>
> On 16/01/2020 01:08, Paul Allen wrote:
> > That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree.
>
> Do they?
>
Until you chimed in, most did.
>
> > So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended.
>
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 11:35, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
>
> This never really stands up. Storing the supposed type could only ever
> work if there's a 'standard' style for each building type.
>
A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better.
But
you already lost the
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 01:49, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Ok, so a propane or butane "camping stove" is a "hob", not a "cooker",
> since it lacks an oven?
>
Didn't think about those. Probably a camping stove, even in British
English.
There's a lot of cross-cultural contamination. :)
Cooker
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 01:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
My thinking is that both 'disused=yes' and 'disused:*=* tag the same
> condition. As such they should be treated equally by renders.
>
And my thinking is that there is a difference between a disused building
(it's
still a
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I'm one of the maintainers of the Openstreetmap-carto style, but I
> think the community should make tagging decisions based on what works
> best for mappers and what makes logical sense, without worrying what a
> particular renderer will
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:26, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> British English speakers:
>
> If you are mapping a device which burns fuel or uses electricity to
> cook food in a pot or pan, is this a "cooker" or a "stove" or
> something else?
>
> What if it has an oven included, or doesn't?
>
With
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 21:17, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
I would not consider disused=yes to be
> deprecated for physical objects like
> building, adits, quarries etc.
>
The wiki for the disused prefix has been amended since the last time this
came
up, and a long way down the page, after several
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the thing is still physically present then it is still of use from a
> navigation point of view.
>
+1
> From an ease of rendering it would be useful to have a way of rendering
> any disused:* object.
>
For physical objects,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> If I recall correctly, JOSM favours lifecycle prefixes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, so you'd tag
> `disused:building=*` or `abandoned:building=*` depending on how much
> disrepair the building has fallen into.
>
The
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:46, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the c
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no
>
It's not meaningless at all. It says that although the road is oneway to
vehicular
traffic,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the
> oneway restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive
> your feet, do you agree?
>
> In English, the term "oneway" or "one way" can apply to many
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler wrote:
>
> What does "must_consume" mean?
>
free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says. Anybody who
enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it. Or else. So
we need a tag to specify the punishment if they refuse to consume the
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
> this tag is obvios.
>
> "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.
>
Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road
is
one-way to both
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 23:06, marc marc wrote:
> why it isn't a paving_stones ? the max height ?
>
Shape and size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick#Optimal_dimensions,_characteristics,_and_strength
I ask myself how and how many mappers 'll see a diff.
>
Any who have ever laid bricks, or
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:00, Colin Smale wrote:
Royal Mail do not say the Post Town is optional. RM also know of localities
> and dependent localities, which may or may not bear any resemblance to an
> inhabitant's perception of where they live.
>
Yeah, that's what they say. But only house
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:42, Colin Smale wrote:
I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And
> these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion
> to just handling the easy cases is cheating.
>
I know it's not true because I've had to deal
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:05, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I don't see misplacing nodes as being a good alternative to getting the
>> routeing right.
>>
>
> At least in the context of the legal requirements in Italy, I am not
> suggesting to misplace a node. I suggest to put it where the house number
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> May I come back to the navigation aspect.
> Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass
> directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed
> closer to the road on the North side.
> Its entrance is
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
What I meant: we put address tags on objects (e.g. shops, restaurants,
> museums, cinemas, etc.)
>
I put addresses on private houses too. I think you probably covered them
with your
"etc." but I thought I'd make it clear.
and this is
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:21, ael wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 10:59:35PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> > On 06.01.2020 21:32, Tomek wrote:
> > > Exactly, does a buoy with the inscription "Baltic Sea" swim at 56° N18°
> > > E? No, there is simply water that Poles call the "Morze Bałtyckie",
> >
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:09, Markus Peloso wrote:
>
>
> The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box:
>
>
> + Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community.
>
However, OSM uses British English where possible. I don't know what (if
anything) British English
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 00:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 7. Jan 2020, at 01:17, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a house
> name/number
> > plate associated with the address? I'd say the address.
>
&
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 23:56, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 1/6/20 4:38 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> > the buildings, where he can ring the bell. In many case this is not on
> > the building but on the entrance to the property.. I have a real case
>
> Here that's very common. Physical address signs
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 22:43, Markus Peloso wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Givebox
>
>
> Your proposal states that "Givebox" is the name of such a facility in
Germany
and links to its Facebook page. "Givebox" is therefore a trademark, and you
know it's a
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 22:11, wrote:
> I have now added a rationale part.
>
I don't see searches as relevant. There are far more emojis than most
people
can remember. Many emojis are indecipherable unless you're already familiar
with them. So this is how the search would actually go...
Do a
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 21:49, wrote:
> I have made this draft
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Emoji_names
> for this Topic and I would like feedback and improvement
>
The proposal needs a rationale explaining why it is necessary, or at least
why
it serves a useful
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 06:29, Maarten Deen wrote:
>
> I vote against it, if not only because your stance on this is flawed,
> but also because this might remove correct and valuable information.
>
+1
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 07:05, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > That said, on the ALDI UK website, only the logo depicts "ALDI."
> Everywhere
> > else on the page that the company name is rendered as ordinary text it
> is "Aldi."
>
> But the German sites (https://aldi.de/ and
>
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 00:02, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> I think this comes down to OSM's "use the commonly used name"
> guideline (or "common usage" guideline) which I don't think has ever
> been firmly defined. As I understand it's always been on a "you know
> when you see it" basis, and
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 17:09, yo paseopor wrote:
You lost my point of view:(WHICH) the best (or worst) conditions for a
> road you can find in a country. In some countries will be seem like a
> motorway, in other countries or zones will be a sand track. And the other
> focus: WHO can know these
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 23:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> Thanks, Paul - I don't disagree with a word you said, except maybe the
> importance of road construction?
>
It's complicated, but you understand the difference between a motorway (or
whatever
it is called where you are) and a dirt
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> But would they still count as either =trunk or =primary?
>
> While they're of high local importance, they're definitely not
> high-performance & they don't link major population centres either?
>
You have just identified three
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 18:03, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
>
> 1 Is plaque the best name? Our Wiki quotes Wikipedia as it being vertical,
> but that seems a bit restrictive to me.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:memorial%3Dplaque
>
The wiki actually says "typically attached to a wall,
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 00:32, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Or you could create a multipolygon relation for the island by adding the
> coastline as outer way
>
That's something I hadn't thought of. I just experimented in iD (didn't
save the result, it was
pure invention) and it seems to work.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 22:27, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Looking at the individual islands, it is kind of problematic that the
> linear coastline and the area place=island are not distinguishable: you
> can’t tell whether that’s the name of the coastline or the island or both,
> e.g. here
>
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 22:16, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> I agree, there are some more examples like IBM and BP. The capitalization
> of the _name_ should be like it is used (and likely registered).
I was hoping (with no expectation of success) that nobody would open the BP
can of worms.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 11:21, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 14.12.19 01:57, Paul Allen wrote:
> > How does the company itself capitalize its own name? Paint the label.
> > Even if it's an ugly label.
>
> I tend to view capitalisation as a design element not a part of the
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 00:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> When that is how the business name is shown, what is our policy for it?
>
How does the company itself capitalize its own name? Paint the label.
Even if it's
an ugly label.
--
Paul
___
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 01:03, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 09.12.2019 19:09, Paul Allen wrote:
> > Where it does cause problems is for people using the query tool (or
> > equivalent in things like maps.me <http://maps.me>) being confused by
> tennis pitches, shooting
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 18:34, François Lacombe
wrote:
Basically, it's really simple : the first box in the street your home is
> connected on. If you don't find it, don't map it. There are places where
> lines go out of homes from the roof and reach the box on a pole in the
> street.
>
Do you
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 22:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
leisure=pitch has never sat well with many sports;
> table tennis .. a pitch?
> chess .. a pitch?
> cricket.. the pitch is the bit in the middle .. not the playing area which
> is a 'field'...
>
> leisure=sports_field might be
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 17:31, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> I'd prefer to keep it leisure=pitch, avoiding top-level tag fragmentation.
> Refinements about the
> sport definition can appear in the sport=* subtagging.
>
I can understand that viewpoint. I'm not sure that there is any technical
merit, in
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:10, Martin Scholtes
wrote:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
> carpool.
>
I would prefer the key to park_and_drive. It's longer, and more typing,
but better
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 16:11, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > Others have also made sensible arguments against this.
>
> What kind of points? Am I something missing?
>
You appear to be missing EVERYTHING. Re-read the responses to this
thread. Then try
to
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 14:42, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags?
> If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms?
>
Sensible points. Others have also made sensible arguments against this.
There is no
sign, from his responses, that any
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
>
-1
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:19, Andy Townsend wrote:
It'd also be good to see an explanation of why it's worth the time even
> going through this again - haven't we all got better things to do?
>
+1
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 12:45, Andy Townsend wrote:
Tagging 2 things to represent 1 physical feature just makes it extra-hard
> for anyone consuming the data.
>
Yet we have a very similar problem with "two things, two objects." We make
a tennis court
surrounded by a fence two objects for good
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 10:56, Andy Townsend wrote:
> OSM Carto, as far as I'm aware
>
>- Doesn't have a concept of 2-sided embankments or a rendering for them
>
> Does it need such a concept? I haven't tried it when the embankment
resembles an
arete, but for an embankment with a plateau all
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> Question of my own - is there any particular reason that a berm couldn't
> just be rendered the same as a wall?
>
That question prompts another question.
Why render it as a wall? Since a berm is a type of embankment, why not
render
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 13:11, Tony OSM wrote:
A earthwork raised element which has an armoured side seems to be a
> revetment - I can see no use of this in OSM., but it is in many books about
> castles and fortifications.
>
When it comes to castles, a revetment is essentially a retaining wall
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 08:30, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I am not at all happy with "berm". It is unfortunately a term used for a
> number of different things all related to earthworks.
>
It appears that the technical term for the part of the range which the shot
impacts is known
as the butts or a
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 10:15, Markus wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 23:19, Paul Allen wrote:
> The examples in my previous message are from 30 km/h zones in
> Switzerland, where there are no marked or signalised pedestrian
> crossings except near schools or homes for senior or
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 21:52, Markus wrote:
>
> This is true, but mapping sidewalks with separate ways isn't
> unproblematical either, especially if there aren't any marked
> crosswalks: mapping unmarked crossings is often impossible because not
> verifiable, but not mapping crossings results in
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 13:40, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Mi., 20. Nov. 2019 um 14:12 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >:
>
>> Note also that, in civil engineering, retaining walls made of earth are a
>> thing. See
>> this video explaining mechanically stabi
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 06:18, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
It looks like the original question is about man-made earth slopes,
>
That's how I interpreted the original question.
however, and these are usually tagged man_made=embankment, with the
> line at the top of the slope as previously
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 00:27, marc marc wrote:
>
> yes. departures_board:url seems a good candidate.
>
That would be a URL giving information about the departures board itself:
its dimensions
and display type. Maybe even if it has a build-up of snow on it in winter,
if it's a really
advanced
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 09:07, Herbert Allmeier
wrote:
> 1) There was a discussion about the proposal already. There were some
> problems with the preferred place of discussion. I move the discussions
> from the mailing list to the discussion page on the wiki and back.
>
You missed the entire
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> So perhaps they are not really "a thing" in Britain.
I don't know if Britain has any of these. What does tend to be common is
that
site operators buy static caravans themselves, install them on site and
then rent them
to tourists
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 22:26, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> I would use something like
> shop=car car=truck
>
This is not good English. A truck is not a type of car. Both are kinds of
motor vehicle. I
doubt you'd find anyone with English as a first language over the age of 4
who would consider
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 20:54, Eric Theise wrote:
>
> I propose to introduce the key mimics to remedy this.
>
I'm not sure "mimics" is a good key, but I can't think of a better one.
However...
> Here is an example where what the tower mimics is included in the note
> field.
> {
> "type":
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> On 11. Nov 2019, at 14:38, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> For better or worse, shop=cafe is documented as selling beverages AND
> light meals, and this
> is how it is understood in British English.
>
>
> from t
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 14:22, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
>
> As emergency=ambulance_station appears to be a later invention, was
> there a valid reason fire_station did follow suit?
>
Presumably because the icon looks like a firepit. Or maybe an eternal
flame. Or maybe
a flammable chemical
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 09:49, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Note I didn't write a bar cannot have seats, I wrote it isn't a strict
> requirement, while it is for pubs I would say.
>
>From my experiences, seats are normally present in both, the difference
between the two
being the types of drinks
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 23:51, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 10. Nov 2019, at 21:57, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > I also see a clear parallel between amenity=bar and amenity=ice_cream:
> go in, sit down
> > and consume (there may be an option to purchase to
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 19:42, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
I agree here that there is difference between ice cream kiosk and ice cream
> parlour.
>
We agree on that, then. Even though it's possible that in US usage an ice
cream
parlour may also include a kiosk (Wikipedia says it does, but
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:33, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
Are you claiming that there is some consistent difference between
> shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers?
>
I would hesitate to claim that mappers tag anything consistently. What I
am claiming
is that there are
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 16:45, Markus wrote:
>
> However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away.
Then the wiki is unclear and misleading. And it looks like somebody has
taken an
alread-misleading page, decided it was a synonym of amenity=ice_cream and
then
made it even more
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 16:31, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> I was covering both take away kiosks and ice cream parlours in probably
> too few words.
>
> Take away is far more common in my experience.
>
I've never encountered an ice cream parlour in real life, but I've seen
them in US TV shows.
So
On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 15:30, Philip Barnes wrote:
I have never come across somewhere only selling Ice-cream to take home.
>
Me neither. But that's a bit of a false dichotomy. It isn't just eat on
premises or take home.
There's also take away. As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch. Rather
On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 14:54, John Sturdy wrote:
> I think of a driveway as typically leading to only one house,
>
Usually. There are exceptions, such as where there's a gateway to a drive
that was
originally for a single house but a new house was later built on the
grounds.
> and would
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 09:16, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Country-specific concepts require country-specific tagging,
>
Yes, but how that country-specific tagging is implemented matters.
Rest of world uses A=B to denote objects of type P. Country X decides that
A=B
denotes objects of type Q.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 00:05, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> For the rare situation like a "kreisfreie Städte" which can be a
> "city" or a "county, it could make sense to use
> "border_type:de=, or "designation:de="?
>
I have an innate dislike of such countrification on a global map. It's
better
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 17:17, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:54 AM Tom Pfeifer
> wrote:
> > >>> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
> > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign
>
> I concur with all those who said this is a horrible idea.
>
So
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 00:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> estuary = tidal mount of a large river? As defined by the Oxford
> Dictionary.
>
Estuaries are complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 23:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I hate to be a stick in the mud, but whether or not it's legally
> traversable doesn't seem to have much bearing on whether or not it's
> physically traversable.
>
If it's not physically traversable then it IS illegal to drive over it.
Take
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 13:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>
>>
>> Necessary, but not sufficient. It doesn't just have to be physically
>> treaversable, it has
>> to be legally traversable.
>>
>
> Eeeh,
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 02:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
OK, I'm looking at it in these images now:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=wnh2yPXi1HakCH5-dILZHw=51.81508205831051=8.849023785442114=17
>
>
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
Inside, there are three “retarding basins” (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1
> having with a large traditional reservoir, parks, golf course, and sports
> grounds inside.
>
There is more to the system than
501 - 600 of 1514 matches
Mail list logo
