Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 00:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:45, Paul Allen wrote: here the buildings on the left and right: > https://www.10cose.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/chiesa-calcata.jpg > I can't figure out which buildings you mean. any but the church.

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 00:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: traditionally, people worked and slept in the same space (the helpers), > today these are typically shops and above dwelling/s. Are they „houses“, > building=house? > Ah, so that's what you're getting at. A lot of those in my town. Built

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 10:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > as nobody has replied to this, I’m asking again: is a house really only a > single dwelling building, or can there be a few more? > There are plenty of large houses, built for a single family (with servants) that have been split into se

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 13:00, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > Jake Edmonds via Tagging: > > ‘Specialty coffee is a term for the highest grade of coffee available, > > Specialty coffee is just about the quality and price which is very > subjective. > +1 > > In short, how would we deal with verifiab

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 13:15, Jake Edmonds via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: On 8 Jul 2020, at 13:08, Paul Allen wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 13:00, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > In short, how would we deal with verifiability requirement? >>

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 15:40, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Moreover, it would be interesting to see a court weigh in on 2b vs. 2d, > and what exactly constitutes "use". If I look at *content* in Google > Maps, and then copy that *content* as permitted by 2b, am I "using" Maps > in a way that 2d prohibit

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 14:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 8. Jul 2020, at 15:06, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > My questions are along the lines of "Is there any sort of coffee shop or > > cafe in this village?" rather than "Does it sell really

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 23:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > but regardless of that, I'd like to know what an > >> Independent, ‘Australian-style’, or artisan cafes >> > Australian-style cafe is, & how our's differ from everywhere else? > Something to do with kangaroos, is my guess. -- Paul

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 18:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Both appear to be tagged as office=company, but it seems to me that > there is a clear need to distinguish between > > (a) company office where I can walk in > and buy service (or handle issues with an

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 22:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > Maybe not ideal, but if you're looking for an immediate solution then > access=customers and access=private? > > I like it, but it is a bit tricky

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 22:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Something to do with kangaroos, is my guess. >> > > Check 1:53 & a few seconds after! :-) > You seem to have forgotten to give a URL. No problem. There's a timestamp, so it's going to be youtube. All I have to do is google for youtube

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 13:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being > a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. > > To me it is hard to imagine an area as perm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the > preceding paragraph. landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems > to handle th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:41, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also > paved > >> surfaces, > > &

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I believe the distinction should be whether a place has any area where > visitors/customers are welcome or not. Almost any place will have some > areas with restricted access, and it does not seem helpful to make > distinctions based on

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: The multipolygon is just ammenity=parking, but the sub-objects are > tagged with more information (capacity, in particular). Again, is that > sane, or do I need to do this differently? > Doesn't look sane at present. You have combined one pub

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >: > > If you're talking about one (or both) of those parking areas by the >> restaurant, then it is (or they are) not really a parking area. I'd >

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 04:57, Yves wrote: > Le 15 juillet 2020 23:10:52 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >Generally I would agree with Paul, maxstay of a few minutes isn’t > actually a „parking“ > > I doesn't agree. > I agree with you that a short maxstay

Re: [Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 19:26, Andy Mabbett wrote: I propose something like: > >destination:NNW=foo > > or, using degrees: > >destination:337.5:=foo > > If this would cloud the use of "destination", we could use, say: > >inscription:337.5:=foo > > What do folk think? > We need someth

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch wrote: > > What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications > of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag > them as errors to be fixed. > One of the things we need is an anti-spring. Marked on Ordnance

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:42, Alan Mackie wrote: > > I'd be tempted to just put culvert tagging on the node and add a barrier > tag for any gratings. I'm sure that will also annoy the validators, but it > should at least indicate to other mappers that it goes somewhere. > It will annoy validator

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt wrote: > manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are not > suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage > > People have used manhole=drain for that purp

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 13:42, Michal Fabík wrote: > On 7/21/20 1:31 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > I've used "tourism=information; information=route_marker" for these. > > "trail_blaze" is also frequently used > > That doesn't sound right to me. If I understand the description on the > Wiki[1] corr

Re: [Tagging] Riverbanks

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:23, Tomas Straupis wrote: > 2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> It is totally NERDY. > > What you mean by that? > > There are two very different things: > * IT > * coding > Such a simple world you live in. There is a third thing you hav

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 16:02, Jan Michel wrote: > > I would stay with information=guidepost for those. > That is fine if the only meaning you wish to convey is that there is something which indicates the path of the route. But there are those, like me, who think the physical appearance is impor

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign > forbidding this", > Indeed. not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling". > That sounds like bicycle=prohibited. :

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 16:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out > over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate > this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this > discussion that has any

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 02:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > No. The material the guidepost is made from is of lesser importance to > the fact that it is a 'guidepost'. > That is one viewpoint. It is something indicating the path of a route. Collect them all under one tag because they

Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:09, Simon Poole wrote: > Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be > covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value? > One use that comes to mind, where shop is inappropriate, is my county council. It has small (one- or

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:01, bkil wrote: > >> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you are >> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...). Do >> you know of any examples? >> >> > I don't quite understand what you are trying to get at with the ques

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 14:51, Volker Schmidt wrote: > ... and if the fingers are nailed on a shed, a common practice in the > mountains around here? > No post? Or the building is the post? > Good question. But it more closely resembles a guidepost than a blaze. Whereas the things being shoe-hor

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:27, bkil wrote: > Thank you, I do have a degree related to mathematics > That's something I didn't know. and I do understand what *iff* means. > I would hope so. However, that message didn't make sense with this interpretation, > It didn't make much sense to me with

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 16:35, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Well off-topic now. (OT: Airline transponders may be IFF — note the capitalization — > although I wonder about that because I always think of IFF as more a > military thing. I'm not sure if civilian transponders are really meant > to *identify

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 17:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > Sometimes 'expectations' turn out, on examination, to be 'cultural > assumptions'. I tend to prefer, where possible, to interpret tags _sensu > lato,_

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two > questions. > > First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is > parking:lane:*=marked which would seem to apply, but then it isn't clear > how to

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:00, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM Paul Allen wrote: > >> Different cultural expectations. You're looking for information about a >> trail and don't care what form it takes. >> > > I suppose that you there

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Interesting. By that criteria, I would think that > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826561593 has on-street parking, Tough call. In isolation it looks like a parking lane, but it has markings for car parking. On-street parking (at lea

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 00:06, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 23/07/2020 17.26, Paul Allen wrote: > > > From the geometry, I'd say that was a parking lot. > > Currently, I have the non-parallel spots marked as a lot. To my mind, > parallel parking and on-street parking ar

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 14:50, Christoph Hormann wrote: > In OSM we generally think that using an open tagging system where the > tags are narrowly defined in what the positively mean in a locally > verifiable fashion is better for representing the global geography in > all its diversity and to do

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 24/07/2020 08.19, Paul Allen wrote: > > > The image in the wiki for parking lanes matches > > what I expect of it. As in this situation near me: > > https://goo.gl/maps/WUZKmhQTDSRsgnDx7 on the right > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934579 and > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934591, or (even better) > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934580 and > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934583. To wit, in both ca

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 24/07/2020 10.18, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Sounds like the same thing, Near enough. Especially if some streets > > have signs saying "no parking at any time." > > Right; I didn't mean "we

Re: [Tagging] TRAVEL_DIR (and other fields) in shapefile?

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 19:22, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I have a shapefile I obtained from a county's GIS¹. In addition to road > names (sometimes) and speed limits (yay!), there is an attribute > TRAVEL_DIR, which seems to have the possible values (at least) 1, 2 and > 3. Does anyone know what t

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier > with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the > part that is on land. > There is no part of a pier on land. Not according to the wiki: "A pie

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 21:57, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > This is not in line with current usage in OSM, e.g. > In which case the wiki page is unclear and misleading. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreet

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 22:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jul 28, 2020, 22:09 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke > wrote: > > Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier > with a platform on

Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe wrote: > > Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me. > The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part orchard, was landuse=orchard. If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll change it. -- Paul __

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 05:09, David Dean wrote: > > For the second type of highway=service with no service tagging, what about > using service=access? > How about because not all service roads that don't currently fit into service=* would be viewed by some as access roads? The service roads in a

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 14:02, Tobias Zwick wrote: Maybe service=property_access would be a little more clear. Or not. Because it overlaps with service=driveway. Especially as property is often used to describe dwellings. > Of course, strictly speaking, pretty much all the above are also > "p

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:54, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as > natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries. > I suspect the answer is contained within the question. We have the words "ocean" and "estuary" because we consider the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 13:53, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the > least "interesting" bit of the proposal. The purpose here would be just > to bless the tag with "status=approved" rather than "status=de-facto". > But it wasn't approved

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 14:40, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Ahem: > Brain fart on my part. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] parking:lane:left=no / parking:lane:right=no / parking:lane:both=no

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 18:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I need a tag that could be used where distinguishing between > "no parking allowed" and "no stopping allowed" is not possible, > not wanted or extremely hard. > > In many cases in Poland one may easi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 10:09, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: The truth is that both shop and > amenity fit and both well > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. Amenity fits where consumption is allowed on the premises. Ameni

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 13:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. > > while it could be an indication, there isn’t such a strong rule that you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 15:36, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Paul Allen wrote: > > > We're into cultural edge cases here. > > Not surprising since your "shop fits where consumption is not allowed > on the premises" is a very your-cu

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 19:19, Tod Fitch wrote: > > It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is > indeterminate [1], thus the problem mapping it. > Ordnance Survey represents this as a sort of star of very short waterways at the approximate point of disappearance and labels the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 12:55, Lisbeth Salander wrote: > > I'm asking for the proper way to tag a salon which only locates and > removes head lice. (Probably not every country has these > super-specialized salons) A quick search online suggests that some of > them double as hairdressers. > The on

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 13:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I agree with Paul that those which are also hairdressers should probably > get an additional property, although I would not use “beauty” as key for > this. I'm not impressed with the idea of using beauty=* for describing what services

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 17:07, Tod Fitch wrote: > > To clarify it for me, the a “waterway=spread” tag would be used on a node > (rendered possibly as an asterisk) or on a way? Or either depending the > situation? > I'd say "spreads" rather than "spread" because that's the term OS uses. I've only

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Would waterway=spreads only be used for intermittent streams/rivers where > the waterway spreads out and evaporates on the surface? > I hadn't even considered its use with intermittent streams. > > If the water appears to sink into sand, g

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:36, Tod Fitch wrote: > Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing Imagery with > an area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239 and flows generally > to the east and north only to dissipate around 33.06076,-116.06077. > There's water there? It

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 22:54, Lisbeth Salander wrote: > All good ideas except beauty=*, I'm sorry. That recommendation makes > sense in most cases, but if head lice was a beauty treatment we wouldn't > need clinics for detecting head lice in the first place hahaha. > You're saying people with he

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 00:35, Lisbeth Salander wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 12:52, Paul Allen > wrote: > > healthcare:speciality=podiatrist and they remove corns and verrucas. Your > salons are removing unwanted stuff from the other end of the body. In fact, > your s

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner wrote: > > For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation, > look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa. It looks like > someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but > forgot to add the water. > As I

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 11:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > as it is stated in the page, you should not do it. Having the individual > trees mapped does not change the property of the road as being tree lined. > Similarly, you can map individual trees within a tree row, but you do not > have to.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 12:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Maybe it’s because I am not an English native speaker, but I would expect > something more than a head lice removal treatment place or a speech > therapist when I see healthcare=clinic. It's stretching the case, perhaps, but not break

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately > mapped > What purpose does tree_lined=separate serve? Inspection of the map shows the object is tree-lined. I still do not s

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? > Yes. But we all know that many people don't read the wiki, they just go by what the editor gives them. They se

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:21, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The WIki picture of a sinkhole happens to be large, but in karst terrain > they come in all sizes. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5599524737 is > a sinkhole of quite a small stream. > It's been a long time since I've been near (never on) k

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > indeed I would not suggest to use this on polygons, rather for linear > features like roads and waterways. I’m specifically interested in roads > with associated, purposefully planted tree roads (shade, scenic effect). > Around here t

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? > > vandalism. It’s like suggesting removing the

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The “rise” where the stream comes back to the surface would usually be > mapped as natural=spring > Ordnance Survey makes the distinction between issues and springs. An issue is where a waterway reappears after a (natural, not a culvert) j

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > I wouldn't use this attribute on anything around here. > > > that’s fine. Apparently this attribute wasn’t created for an area like > you

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 22:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > Trees at > the side of the road are an incidental. Fields at the side of the road > are an > incidental. Quaint houses at the side of the road are an incidental.

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 02:36, Tod Fitch wrote: > > One question I have on this is how much are the OS maps tailored to the UK > environment? > The OS maps of the UK are very much tailored to the UK environment. I don't know if they are, or ever were, responsible for mapping portions of the Brit

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 17:05, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 12/08/2020 19:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > I would interpret 'Collects', 'Issues', 'Spreads', and possibly 'Sinks' as > verbs in the third person singular, rather than plural nouns. > Tha

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 13:31, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I guess that what we have is another case of two (in reality three) > tagging practices for (nearly) the same thing. > Yep. My increasingly-fallible memory may be letting me down here, but I have a vague recollection of bridge:name being int

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons wrote: Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 21:24, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. > However, it is a "term of the art." It's what it's called out in the real world, so is likely to be used in the media. As with many phrases in colloquial English, the sum is greater than the p

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 22:20, Peter Elderson wrote: > The British really call bench construction "architecture"? Amazing. > >From the wikipedia article I provided a link to earlier: "Hostile architecture is an urban-design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to purposefully guid

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 00:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Or benches which are right away designed to not let you even sit > comfortably, like the Rome bus stops: > > > https://www.quotidianodiragusa.com/cache/2013/12/1386445483-0-roma-auto-impazzita-si-schianta-contro-la-fermata-del-bus-5-fer

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 00:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > great you mention it, also quite common in Rome are inside corners of > buildings filled with masonry (typically up to 1,5m) so people do not > urinate (not a recent feature, most look as if they were hundreds of years > old). And in th

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 01:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 24. Aug 2020, at 01:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > It's hostile to public urinators. > > agreed, but isn’t publicly urinating an offense anyway? In most jurisdictions. So is sleeping on a pu

Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Off list. > It looks like you accidentally Bcc'd the list. If not, then Gmail has some serious problems. If not a Gmail problem then I have serious mental problems and think I'm somebody else. > > This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING T

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:06, Thibault Molleman wrote: > Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from > Commons just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles". > The commons isn't quite that arbitrary. They allow images which are of interest, but "of interest

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 12:17, Thibault Molleman wrote: the main use case for having multiple images on one node was for example a store, and you've just taken random images of the store (like you have on Google maps and other map apps) You may get pushback from the "OSM is not a gazetteer" crowd

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 14:52, Thibault Molleman wrote: > Does it being on osm have enough justification for them to keep it though? > "it's not a wikimedia project, so it doesn't matter to us if it's linked > on osm or not" > They make use of OSM data to create their own maps, so there is reason

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose > > "hosts content that is useful for educational purposes. > This means cont

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as > out of scope. > That's true. But the spectre of it happening is raised whenever people mention using wikimedia images. What

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 19:39, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > In practice you need horrific image quality, > to the point of unasibility for deletion to > succeed > So maybe the chance of deletion is low enough that we can drop the argument that "wikimedia might delete it" when discussing using wik

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 11:20, bkil wrote: > > I don't feel it's fair to overload Commons by shifting the costs of all of > our street level imagery to them. > It would be unfair to Commons by treating them as an alternative to Mapillary or OpenStreetCam. Also pretty much against their policy, a

Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 17:19, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 27/08/2020 17:04, Richard Welty wrote: > > "fairgrounds" is more of an American rather than a British English way > of referring to these sorts of things, I think. As is fair. Without further qualification, I'd interpret "fair" as a (temp

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 16:10, dktue wrote: > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance > > From that wikie page, under "Rendering" Surveillance is rendered on: - https://sunders.uber.space/ (with info pop ups, even with a live image if URL provided

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:13, bkil wrote: > I also raised this question some years ago on the talk page but went with > the flow and continued to tag webcams with contact:webcam=*. I think it > makes more sense if you see a static gallery of a venue specified under > contact:flickr=*, prerecorded

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 20:40, bkil wrote: > "contact" can mean one-way contact, as in "on what channel does this POI > broadcast information for us?" Note that except contact:email, most > other links are also used oneway in 99% of the time. > In my dialect of English there is an expectation that

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 14:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > drinking_water:signed=no ? > Ambiguous. It might have a sign that says nothing about the legality. drinking_water:legal=unsigned? drinking_water:legal=unknown? -- Paul __

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 20:01, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Historic=anchor would be an anchor from a historic ship displayed as a > public memorial. An example: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arizona_anchor_bolin_plaza.JPG > Sounds like a memorial to me. So maybe historic=memorial + memorial

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 21:05, Janko Mihelić wrote: > pon, 7. ruj 2020. u 21:28 Paul Allen napisao je: > >> Sounds like a memorial to me. So maybe historic=memorial + >> memorial=anchor. >> > > Anchors are often not a memorial, just an anchor put somewhere because it

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 21:54, Janko Mihelić wrote: > pon, 7. ruj 2020. u 22:15 Paul Allen napisao je: > >> In that case it would not be historic, just a random anchor put there >> because >> it looks pretty. Possibly tourism=artwork, but I'm not sure what would

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >