Re: [Tagging] Love Hotel
On 1/7/10 7:10 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Arlindo Pereira wrote: Hi there, 5 months ago I started scratching a new tag amenity=love_hotel [1]. Since there was no recent activity, I think it's time to call your attention one more time to it and start voting. What do you think of it? The page explains itself (I think), but a love_hotel (motel in Brazil, different from motel elsewhere) is a hotel where people go exclusively to make love. The decorations, TV channels and so on are very different from a regular hotel, hence a new tag (and not specific sub-tags). amenity=motel, rates=hourly? *ducks* clean_sheets_charge=$5 ducks and runs, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 1/10/10 6:43 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 01/07/2010 09:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. If it’s for service/emergency vehicles only, I’d use highway=service. Otherwise, *_link. i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 1/11/10 11:49 AM, Anthony wrote: It may sound like access=official means official access only, but any programs which have encoded access=* and *=official will be completely confused by such a designation. i'll be using access=no for now. as far as alternatives, how about: access=authorized richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
On 1/11/10 9:11 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: The only question I have about this stuff is whether access=no has any use to mean you physically cannot get past here. If so, then it's worth having a tag like access=emergency_services to indicate that it's physically traversable, but no members of the public are allowed to use it. Which actually sounds an awful lot like access=private. emergency_services would be too strict a term, unless you can categorize speed traps and construction vehicles under the term (i wouldn't.) i think anthony's proposal access=no police=yes foo=yes ... is sensible. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Islands in Parking Lots
On 1/29/10 6:22 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i should think if you use a multipolygon, they will obviously be dropouts from the parking area. I'm not sure... isn't a tree planted in the middle of a parking area part of the parking area? if the concept is to distinguish between areas where you can park/drive, and areas where you can't, the multipolygon thing seems pretty reasonable, comparable to using it to represent lakes with islands (places you can swim/boat vs places you can't). a tree may be in a parking area, but how exactly do you propose to park on it? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On 1/31/10 10:51 AM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Again, are we trying to make a map look photo realistic? To me a map is a set of abstract ideas that express information about reality that can't be seen from photo imagery. Mapping road widths can be done by estimate based on a number of factors that are both vector and meta information, I fail to see how presenting an area will actually present any more information to a person. If they want such information and if there is aerial imagery they can just switch tile sets. in the case of the race track example, using a way as a centerline and including width= tags should encompass what's needed. i can represent escape roads, optional chicanes, pit roads, access paddock roads, etc., quite well with those tools. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On 1/31/10 11:38 AM, John Smith wrote: On 1 February 2010 02:34, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote: The width=* tag doesn't fit when you have a gradual change in width as you would do on a track. I would have thought that was the best case for Richard's suggestion, irregular shapes being the worst case. i'd be interested in examples of irregular shapes. in my experience, there are one or more straightaways which are wider, so the entries and exits have a change in width, plus irregularities due to escape roads, parking locations for emergency vehicles, etc. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On 1/31/10 12:36 PM, Dave F. wrote: John Smith wrote: On 1 February 2010 02:34, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote: The width=* tag doesn't fit when you have a gradual change in width as you would do on a track. I would have thought that was the best case for Richard's suggestion, irregular shapes being the worst case. If your referring to the Watkins Glenn configuration (Some of Richard's posts may not have come through to me) I'm understanding Richards requirements, the River/Riverbank could be the solution: Use multi-polygons for the boundaries of the track/pit lanes etc. Then add separate ways for to indicate each track configuration. this seems like it could be reasonable to me. i'll look at some of the tracks i've been pondering (watkins glen, pocono) and how it might apply. pocono supports the case that direction should be on relations, not on ways, as it is one of the tracks where certain sections might be run in either direction depending on the selected configuration for the event. i've been considering the irregularity issues, and the case that jumps out at me is from Lime Rock (lat=41.927452lon=-73.377929), at the end of the main straight where you turn right to enter big bend (turns 12), or go straight onto the escape road if you're having too much fun. unfortunately, available imagery of lime rock predates the recent repaving/reconfiguration, the pavement extensions at the uphill (lat=41.925321lon=-73.386952) need to be considered as well. and now you've got me pondering likely/potential uses for the data. there's a large can with many worms in it lurking here. who are the potential consumers? (and having written all this, i can understand arguments that much may not belong in the map) drivers: they won't get the bulk of their information but they might come to check what configuration is being used on a weekend. they will get at best cursory ideas of the line from this kind of data. on the other hand, Anthony's garmin nuvi screenshot is intriguing, as it goes directly to one of the ocular driving techniques that racers use. however, it more makes the case for having a way to integrate photos with a camera model. there is an inherent limitation here as the model of a way in the middle representing a course segment is unlikely to be on the racing line. crew/crew chiefs: entry to the facility, paddock, registration, tech, and for large rigs, how to get in/out. officials: if new to a track, they want to know where their stations are. corner workers (flag marshals to the europeans reading this want to know the flag stand locations/numbers and the turn numbers.) as a scrutineer, i worry about where the grid, pit lane, and my impound lot are located (i also worry about where the tower is, because that's full of stewards and no one wants to go there). stewards generally need all the help they can get just finding the tower. fans: facility entrance, parking, seating, concession stands and of course everyone wants to know where the clean restrooms are hidden. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Micro Mapping, was Race track
On 1/31/10 8:59 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: Interesting, but what you're really doing (if i understand you correctly) is: 1) storing a way, plus 2) storing an approximate area (in the form of width tags applied to nodes on the way, and then using some form of interpolation between nodes). The alternative is: 1) storing a way, plus 2) storing an area ...and (optionally, but preferably) relating the two with e.g. type=area; role=center; role=area [1]. i've come around to way + area. long term handling of elevation is relevant to the race track problem, here's an elevation map of watkins glen to provide more than enough rationale: http://www.na-motorsports.com/Tracks/NY/images/glen/elev.gif ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Race track
On 2/1/10 6:43 AM, Dave F. wrote: OK, as as suggestion, how about: As the track will be the entity most people would expect to see on the map, tag that as highway=raceway. Tag the way as some like highway= 'racing_line'. I looked at the image of it in nearmap you can clearly see that defined in rubber. i personally would be somewhat wary of trying to map the racing line. it may be well defined for tracks like kart tracks that principally see one type of car, but it's less so for tracks that see a variety of car tire types. If you were into mapping race tracks depending on how detailed you want to go, you could add tags like speed, gear G force to the appropriate points on that way produce a track guide. once again, varying car types. a Formula V may be open wheel just like a Formula Atlantic or a Formula 3, but speeds, gearing, etc, are not even remotely related. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ref tags and reference routes
On 2/3/10 9:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: IMHO the ref-tag describes the reference, not a sign, therefore to tag them it doesn't matter if the reference numbers are displayed laterally on signs or there is another source of getting them. Still if you say that those numbers (reference routes) are different from what we usually tag into reference, maybe a variant tag is the best. administratively, a reference route is no different from a conventional signed route number. from a practical point of view, you almost never see a reference route on a sign. what we come back to is tagging for the renderer, if we put the reference route designations in a ref tag, they'll show up in the renderers as if they were on signs, and there will be no way for logic in the renderer to ever tell when they should or shouldn't be rendered. so i guess it's don't tag for the renderer vs. don't screw the renderer over completely. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ref tags and reference routes
On 2/3/10 9:31 AM, Mike N. wrote: so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref tag or not? the wiki doesn't discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is needed? I would say no - because the ref tag can generate route shields. I would be very confused if the county road numbers began popping up as route shields. It would fit better under a separate tag, but I don't have any suggestion on a tag variant. maybe ref_admin? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ref tags and reference routes
On 2/3/10 10:29 AM, Chris Hill wrote: Richard Welty wrote: administratively, a reference route is no different from a conventional signed route number. from a practical point of view, you almost never see a reference route on a sign. what we come back to is tagging for the renderer, if we put the reference route designations in a ref tag, they'll show up in the renderers as if they were on signs, and there will be no way for logic in the renderer to ever tell when they should or shouldn't be rendered. Does the type of road make a difference? Route shields might only be shown on, say motorway, trunk and primary roads. there are a variety of cases where NY state uses the designations. here are some examples: at the southern end of I-787 (Albany NY), there is a connector that runs to the surface street grid of South Albany and to US 9W (whereas I-787 runs to the toll booths for I-87 at exit 23). it has no signed designation of its own; all the signage is to XXX. it has a reference route number of 912S. it is 0.57 miles long, and is a motorway_link grade of road. on the other hand, the Taconic State Parkway is a long route north from NYC, which is for the most part of trunk and motorway quality. the signage is all TSP or the full name spelled out. the reference route number is 987G (pretty much all of the parkways running north or east out of NYC have names and reference route numbers but no numbered signage.) south of Albany, 910A (Fuera Bush Road/Glenmont Road) is a former routing of NY 32 which is still maintained by the state. it is of secondary quality. in Tioga County, NY 962J is a reference route where for some reason the state actually did put up signage with that number; it is a case where a ref tag is clearly appropriate (there are around 4 or so such routes in the state that i know of.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ref tags and reference routes
On 2/3/10 4:33 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2010-02-03 06:19, Richard Welty wrote: ... so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref tag or not? the wiki doesn't discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is needed? I would say the question is what happens when one of these routes is adopted as a state route and then signed? If it retains the same route number as this reference route, and is then signed that way, I would say that ref is the appropriate tag. Otherwise, a separate tag seems correct, since we may ultimately have to carry both IDs. there are 4 cases i know of where, after a span of years, they put up signs which used the reference route numbers. however, these are considered mistakes by the DOT personal in the area, it's not really supposed to be done that way. state touring routes are supposed to be numbered from 1 to 899, reference routes are 900[A-Z] to 999[A-Z] the counties have their own patterns, which vary. Columbia County may some day put up a sign for CR 60 (which has a number but no signs today), but Westchester County is exceedingly unlikely to post a sign for CR 9987. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Snowshed voting
On 3/15/10 11:42 AM, Sam Vekemans wrote: Hi all, The proposal of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/snowshed is still underway, there are a couple of 'yes votes'. I think http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:covered%3Dyes is more appropriate. (and it's already different than tunnel=yes) i concur, and added my vote. i can see, however, a case for more values for covered, e.g. covered=snowshed covered=building richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New place value for single settlements (below hamlet)
On 4/5/10 6:33 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: ℳ∡ℝℸⅈℿ Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2010/4/6 John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com On 6 April 2010 04:12, ℳ∡ℝℸⅈℿ Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Following recent discussion on talk-de I'm proposing a new place value for single settlements (free standing single building, often farm, outside settlement, max. 2 households). From Map Features wiki page: place=hamlet As defined by national/state/provincial government. Generally smaller than a village, just a few houses I am aware about this. That's why I am asking for the scientific English term for single settlements (if it is not this). In German the word is Einzelsiedlung. This is not a hamlet (German Weiler, which is at least 3 households), but smaller. I also wrote this in the topic. In the US, I am not aware of the concept of a place name for a pair of houses. Where I am (New England), there is town and city, which are really the same thing but differ by form of government. Then within those there are either neighborhoods or villages, but those terms are loose because they tend not to have any legal/government standing. be careful about Town. the meaning of the term Town in NY state is distinctly different from what you describe above. in NY, outside of Cities and other incorporated entities (villages), the counties are tiled with Towns -- everything is in a town, no matter how rural. i would expect some definite state-to-state variation in what a Town is. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On 5/4/10 9:51 PM, John Smith wrote: On 5 May 2010 11:36, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Fair enough. If you judge on food quality and is food presented faster than it could reasonably be preparted then I think we're in closer agreement. My point was, we shouldn't base a tagging criteria other than operator=*, just because a company is a large mega corp or not... perhaps we need crap=yes cheers, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On 5/4/10 11:15 PM, John Smith wrote: On 5 May 2010 12:51, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net wrote: crap:mega=yes as well. That doesn't make any sense... lots and lots of crap: mega crap ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 5/5/10 9:12 AM, Jonas Minnberg wrote: Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier faster. And it makes things more consistent. probably better to address GPS clutter in the process of rendering GPS format maps in the long term. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
On 5/6/10 8:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/5/6 John F. Eldredgej...@jfeldredge.com: From my experience (in the USA), most WalMarts and KMarts only allocate a small percentage of their floor space to groceries. The so-called super WalMarts have a full range of groceries; even so, the grocery section takes up only 20 percent or so of the store. is this a proposal for est_floorspace:grocery=0.2 or for shop=supermarket, super=yes? If you think that shop=supermarket isn't sufficient I suggest to use additional tags rather than change or detailize (?) the definition of the main tag. i don't think that it would occur to a US based mapper to tag these discount stores as supermarkets, it's not intuitive to us and the wiki description of the tags wouldn't lead us there. department_store or general would be much more likely to be used (i've used department_store to date). most of these stores devote no more than 5 or 10% of their floorspace to food, and are otherwise inexpensive department stores, and i'm certainly having trouble seeing how 10% of their stock overrides the other 90% when it comes to tagging. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
On 5/6/10 9:15 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: This leads to a new proposal: discount=yes to discriminate discounters. Could be used in addition for supermarkets, department stores and maybe others. usable with any shop= where appropriate? i can see that. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
On 5/6/10 4:52 PM, Liz wrote: On Thu, 6 May 2010, Richard Welty wrote: On 5/6/10 9:15 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: This leads to a new proposal: discount=yes to discriminate discounters. Could be used in addition for supermarkets, department stores and maybe others. usable with any shop= where appropriate? i can see that. richard Even discount=yes is subjective what is sold here in this sort of shop is often cheap junk, and not a bargain Every electrical and white goods store in Au discounts because the recommended prices are inflated initially. It all looks good in the brochure. well, yes, but within the US at least, i think there's broad agreement that one tier of department store (walmart, kmart, target) is discount with respect to another (macys, pennys, nordstrom, etc.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
On 5/6/10 8:30 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: I disagree that there's broad agreement here on what stores are discount stores. I've never heard anyone in Australia refer to Kmart or Target as a discount store. I have heard this word used for, say, Crazy Clarks or Dollars and Sense. But I would have trouble objectively defining what it is, exactly, that makes Crazy Clarks a discount store. Seeing discount=yes tagged on a Target store would confuse me. well, it's hardly critial, department_store will do ok w/o the discount tag. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps
On 5/17/10 5:38 AM, Andre Engels wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:54 AM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: cautious than we need to be. Why do we consider what's written on a street sign to be a fact, but the same words written on a map to be copyrightable? And many similar examples. A map is a collection of facts, which may or may not be copyrightable depending on the jurisdiction, but a single fact most likely can't be protected by copyright, although the sign itself might be due to artistic flare of the designer etc etc etc. Even if the collection is copyrighted, that does not make its elements copyrighted. What is copyrighted in the case of such a collection, is the (result of) the selection process that decides which facts are and are not included. the other issue, of course, is when the map contains mistakes, which may be intentional on the part of the map maker. in this latter case, they are likely there to create the copyright claim. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=services
On 5/30/10 6:21 AM, John Smith wrote: On 30 May 2010 20:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: site-relation But if the intent was to get a shaded area on a map this won't work. for a shaded area, a polygon with something like landuse=highway_services or amenity=highway_services would make sense. conventional POIs inside the area can represent the available services. i guess i'd have to hear the case for site-relation, although i can kind of see something like that as generally useful. e.g., shopping centers, their landuse boundary, parking lots, stores and buildings could be grouped this way. but do we really need it? what's the use case? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
On 6/28/10 6:47 PM, John Smith wrote: On 29 June 2010 08:36, Jason Cunninghamjamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: Gridiron? I didn't know the there were so many versions of football in North America This shouldn't be surprising since 4 codes of football in Australia came from the UK/Ireland, Soccer, Rugby League/Union and Touch Football was derived from Rugby League, and a 5th (Aussie Rules) most likely has some kind of Irish roots... as a practical matter (mapping football fields), there are only two relevant ones in the North America: outdoor fields of 100 yards in length (US college pro games, outdoors), and outdoor fields of 110 yards in length (Canadian). and i see no compelling reason why we really need to distinguish between the two. in reviewing the 9/8/6 man football pages, i don't see much need to distinguish those either. maybe length/width tags indicating the size of the field, but no more than that. some (many?) of these fields get used for both north american football and soccer (no insult to UK football fans intended.) thinking on it, the potential maxlength and maxwidth values are probably interesting, as they indicate what games might be played on the surface. if it's big enough for both american football and soccer, then the only real differences are the lines on the field and nature of the goal. the arena variants are all played in large indoor multipurpose arenas, and thus probably don't deserve to be specifically tagged. the floor used for Arena football one night may be used for basketball, hockey, the circus, and ice show or a rock show on another night. the other variants, touch, flag, etc., are all pickup games that can get played on any grassy field. no tagging here. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
On 6/28/10 7:46 PM, Liz wrote: I don't have a problem with marking what sports are played where. I don't have a complaint about being accurate with tagging, but sometimes I have to prefer one use of an area over another, because we cannot parallel tag with this API. Considering the use for the data If I travel to Town X and use my Garmin machine with OSM map, can I find the cricket oval in time for the match? Will the search allow me to identify the correct destination, or will I have a choice of places which I have to check to see the correct game being played? in my experience, most fields (or complexes of fields) have names, and directions to a particular field usually invoke the name. so we should definitely be providing names for fields/arenas that have them. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging religious features (abbey, monastery, shrine), probably subtags of place of worship
On 7/7/10 2:50 PM, John Smith wrote: On 8 July 2010 04:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Recently I found that we have no documented tags for abbeys, monasteries, shrines. Do you think it would be better to put them into amenity as subtags of place of worship or would it be better to have own tags? If we go for subtags we probably will have to add also one for churches, cathedrals, etc. (what is not the worst, as this issue is raised every now and then). amenity=place_of_worship building=cathedral ? that's fine for the part that is a cathedral. a monastery will usually contain living and working areas, gardens, etc. perhaps an area with landuse=monastery richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
On 7/15/10 5:45 PM, John Smith wrote: On 16 July 2010 07:42, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: Can't find it on the wiki - do you have a ref? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:paved geez, that really should go away. surface= already serves the purpose, and is a lot more flexible. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
On 7/16/10 12:50 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: IMHO yes it's useful, because the paved/unpaved distinction is by far the most important one for roads. The problem is that surface=* is an unbounded list, so renderers potentially have to support surface=dirt, gravel, cobblestone, mud, cracked_concrete, rough, and whatever else peoples' fertile imaginations come up with. Having multiple layers of tags (ie, paved=no, surface=dirt) is much more re-use friendly. from a data modeling perspective, though, it's redundant and thus creates the opportunity for inconsistency and unresolvable error. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
On 7/17/10 8:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: This isn't a problem I have any idea how to resolve just now. My comments above were quite simple: having inconsistent paved=yes/no, and surface=xxx is not a problem, because the central authority (whatever it is) can simply define one as taking precedence over the other in the event of any inconsistency. ummm, does this type of semantic (with two inconsistent tags, one has priority) appear anywhere else in OSM? if not, this is a pretty significant change, one that really requires a proper proposal and vote. if we just discuss this and don't do anything, then the addition of unpaved will simply stand as it is right now, without the introduction of these semantics. i might add that if we're looking at the introduction of new semantics in order to make adding unpaved=yes/no ok, it's going to take a great deal to convince me. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
On 7/19/10 2:55 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i might add that if we're looking at the introduction of new semantics in order to make adding unpaved=yes/no ok, it's going to take a great deal to convince me. It's not adding new semantics, it's *articulating* the semantics that probably exist anyway. no, they don't exist. no one has apparently considered the issue before. we need to be asking ourselves: 1) are these semantics useful enough to add? 2) what are the implications of adding them? (they will directly impact rendering engines and other consumers of data.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
On 7/26/10 4:20 AM, John Smith wrote: On 26 July 2010 18:16,technikschlu...@web.de wrote: Hi, Here is a proposal for a new way to tag fire hydrants. It's more precise than the old amenity=fire_hydrant tag and there is a very active discussion on the German board: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=762 . Common hydrants can be tagged in the old way, but new ones should be use the new precise scheme. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant Don't we have enough amenity=* already? Why not use emergency=*? i like emergency=* as a way of going forward for these sorts of things. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?
On 7/26/10 7:18 AM, Dave F. wrote: On 26/07/2010 11:17, Liz wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Richard Mann wrote: Most vineyards have something similar, though not always so heavily marketed, so I think you need to find a term that's more international. Perhaps tourism=vineyard_shop or just shop=vineyard. It's not attached to the vineyard, it's attached to the *winery*. Apologies, but i live at a winery and can tell the difference. Yes, but the vast majority of us don't can't. one key reason to distinguish is that there are wine making facilities (wineries) which do not have vineyards attached; they purchase their grapes from other businesses. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
On 7/27/10 6:57 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: S. Higashi stated, earlier in the thread, that the Japanese government provided fire extinguisher stations along some residential streets, and posted a link to a photograph:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fire_extinguisher_ja.jpg. Such a fire extinguisher station would be useful to map, as you would be likely to find a fire extinguisher there. ok. i've not previously seen any sort of public fire extinguisher station, the concept is a bit new to me. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] emergency=*
On 7/28/10 8:45 AM, John Smith wrote: Did I miss anything currently being mentioned in this or the fire hydrant thread? the fire hydrant language is overly specific; out here in the sticks, we have what are called dry hydrants adjacent to ponds (there's a photo of an example associated with the original fire_hydrant proposal.) so you can have fire hydrants in the absence of municipal water supplies. other than that, it looks good. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?
On 7/29/10 6:45 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: Perhaps we need a factory_outlet tag? This is just a particular case of a factory outlet. If the factory is tagged as a winery and the shop as a factory outlet, the picture is complete. in the US, factory outlet is a term that has become much abused and no longer has its original meaning. we now have huge malls of outlets that are no where near the factories. if you introduce the term, intending its original meaning, i can guarantee that in the US at least, it'll start getting misused to represent these malls. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Fire Hydrant
On 8/6/10 6:12 PM, John Smith wrote: On 6 August 2010 21:31, Schlumpftechnikschlu...@web.de wrote: The vote for the new fire_hydrant has been started. After a long discussion about the emergency-tags we decided to let the fire hydrants in the amenity namespace, for now. Who decided this exactly? Seems the only reason that was given to leave it in this name space was because JOSM had a preset, and no one gave any software that rendered it. There was a lot of people that thought this should go under emergency, so unless there is a good reason given soon I'll just shift it back to emergency=* on the wiki. yes, i voted no because of the move back to amenity. while i understand the reluctance to switch over the existing tags in a rush, there's little reason not to start using emergency for new tags. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dancing school
On 8/16/10 6:06 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 August 2010 08:03, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: what about school=dolphins for a school of dolphins? Or hospital=tree nursery? IMHO we shouldn't create our categories/keys only based on language which might sometimes be ambiguous or misleading. So far you seem to be giving silly examples, all the school examples I gave were for people wanting, or forced to, to learn or gain experience... yes, really, that's more ridicule than an argument, Martin. not at all up to your usual high standard. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dancing school
On 8/16/10 7:23 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 August 2010 09:20, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The point was (maybe my message was too long to get this clear) that the same generic icon for schools which do general education in the morning and maybe afternoon to kids AND the same time for all other places that educate all kind of people at all times in all kind of special interests like dancing, driving, swimming, cooking, boxing, playing chess, knitting, sex, etc. is IMHO a bad idea. Ok, so don't use amenity=school, but do you agree that maybe these other schools could be still tagged as school=* instead of amenity=dance_school, amenity=driving_school etc? right, amenity=special_school or something on that order, and then subtag with school= i don't object to splitting that way, but there's no good reason to further pollute amenity when we can subtag with school= richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dancing school
On 8/16/10 8:39 PM, Andreas Labres wrote: On 17.08.10 01:29, Richard Welty wrote: amenity=special_school or something on that order, and then subtag with school= I can't see any benefit subsuming those ...schools that are no schools under one tag. They all need special icons, there is no generic icon for these. One more thing, a dancing school has more of a leisure time amusement, sometimes of practicing good behaviour, than of lerning (the steps). there are dancing schools and there are dancing schools, my daughter has gone to both. it's not a good idea to generalize something like this. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging farmers markets?
On 8/16/10 9:56 PM, Craig Wallace wrote: On 17/08/2010 01:43, Richard Welty wrote: i don't see an obvious tag in the system. i'm not talking about shop=farm, where the shop is physically located at the farm, but about places where one or more producers come together to sell. some are intermittant (and would need schedule tags), but others are somewhat permanent. amenity=marketplace would seem to cover that. With the opening hours tag for the times it is there. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmarketplace Though it doesn't specify that its specifically a farmers market, maybe an additional tag for that? Though what is the definition of a farmers market anyway? Is it just for farmers / producers? ok, but how about a physical building named Ryan's Farmers Market where i presume (i haven't been inside, i just saw it for the first time today) the produce is from local farmers, but it's a conventional brick-and-mortar store with normal hours. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for streets with sharrows?
On 8/18/10 1:22 AM, Simon Biber wrote: In light of this, I don't think the arrow part is applicable world-wide. I suggest going with the name used for the Wikipedia article, Shared lane marking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking Therefore the tagging could be cycleway=shared_lane i think cycleway=shared or shared_lane is useful, but more general than the sharrow usage. we have stretches of public road where the fact that it's a bike path is shown by posted signs, but there are no markings on the pavement whatsoever. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] craft= Proposal
On 8/24/10 8:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/25 John F. Eldredgej...@jfeldredge.com: How would you tag a restaurant that sells food for take-away, but doesn't have any tables for customers to sit and eat on the premises? For example, there is a chain of barbecue restaurants here in Nashville, TN, USA, that generally does carry-out business only. I only know of one location that has tables and seating for customers, and it is a converted building that used to be one of a different restaurant chain. I probably wouldn't tag it restaurant but food_delivery or meals_on_wheels or sth like that. um, take_out would be the normal US usage. carry_out or take_away would be ok as well. many take out places don't deliver, rendering food_delivery questionable. meals_on_wheels generally refers to not-for-profits delivering to seniors and shut-ins. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
?? office=broadcasting any other suggestions? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
On 8/27/10 1:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/27 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: ?? office=broadcasting any other suggestions? it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the technical part (studio). generally, they're part office and part studio. there are occasions where the office and the studio are disjoint, but those are rare. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pool/billiards hall?
On 8/27/10 1:16 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/27 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: ?? amenity=billiards amenity=pool_hall any suggestions? sport? leisure? it's a tradeoff. in the US, pool halls generally are a mix of pub and pool/billiards. i could see this: amenity=pub sport=pool/billiards or leisure=pool/billiards ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] now i'm completely stumped...
Weight Watchers? Dale Carnegie Training? Arthur Murray Dance Studio? some of these cases have been discussed recently w/o resolution, i know. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?
On 8/27/10 1:22 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 8/27/10 1:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/27 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: ?? office=broadcasting any other suggestions? it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the technical part (studio). generally, they're part office and part studio. there are occasions where the office and the studio are disjoint, but those are rare. i just found amenity=studio which will do, although i still thing office=broadcasting might be helpful to identify the business office side. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying x is attached to y?
On 8/30/10 9:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/29 Pierenpier...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons overlap. Yes, the topology shows what is inside or outside the polygon. And you can use the tag layer to say what is on the top of what. +1, but site-relations might still be useful in the context of power generators. There are situations where the single objects do not overlap but are side a side, for example you might have 3 generators with 3 chimneys and want to model which chimney is connected to which generator. i'd lean towards site relations being useful because i think that the computational complexity of doing lots of polygon intersections is being underestimated. yes, for small bounding boxes it's ok, but consider if you needed to do it on a larger scale, it'd make certain tasks completely unreasonable (i'm not sure what those tasks might be yet, haven't thought about it.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features
On 8/30/10 6:49 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: On 31 August 2010 08:36, John F. Eldredgej...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Also, how do you reverse a way? In JOSM, you just use Reverse way. Don't know about potlatch, but it would have to be there somewhere, or you can't get one way streets to work properly. there's a little arrow in a circle icon on the bottom left side in potlatch 1.whatever, click on it to reverse the currently selected way. the arrow generally indicates which way the selected way points, and reverses itself when clicked. note that with ways such as 270 degree exit/entrance ramps, the arrow kind of compromises on the mid way direction. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction
On 8/31/10 2:14 PM, Michael Barabanov wrote: How about a kayaker having a hard time going against oneway=yes ? :) F=ma it's not just a good idea, it's the law. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Homeless Shelter
On 9/4/10 8:44 AM, Sam Vekemans wrote: a key 'social' does work for homeless_shelter, are there any other values (that are in other keys) that would fit with this social key? i know a number of people involved in operation of various social support groups, i can poll them on the various types of facilities that exist if that would help. i know there are a number of residential facilities that focus on helping minors in difficult situations. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On 9/6/10 2:55 PM, NopMap wrote: That is not a solution. For 4 years people have done valid tagging, using the definition in the wiki for significant trees. If you change the meaning, no denotation=landmark will magically appear there, so the information gets lost. The mappers who originally contributed them have no idea that you changed the meaning on them, so nothing will happen to fix the damage. i think the situation is that the information is already lost. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On 9/10/10 4:27 PM, NopMap wrote: A few corrections are in order... Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: * Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a lone tree and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.). The wiki says: lone or significant tree and I interpret that as a prominent tree. the problem is that lone doesn't really imply that, at least not in the version of english i'm familiar with. Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: * Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the right thing (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone else that's wrong. Not quite. I have added only a few trees myself. I say this is destructive as about 2400 Mappers appear to have been doing the right thing while 75% of the bad trees are from only 3 mass imports. why are you so sure that ~2400 mappers have been doing it that way? did you poll them or something? Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to be a tagging issue as much as it is about doing the right thing. I think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are being punished by needing to retag their data. Somewhat like that. I think nullifying 4 years of work by 2400 people who are not here to voice their opinion is thoughtless, unfriendly, destructive - anything but an adequate solution. once again, how do we really know anything about those 2400 mappers and their work? it's not like they tagged all those trees with why they're important or anything like that. this is why i maintain that we have already effectively lost information. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On 9/11/10 12:06 PM, Chris Hill wrote: You have proved how skilful you are at automated edits, so please, use these powerful skills to remove the graffiti you have added to so many objects across the world. i think that he simultaneously ran this bot while announcing that he was opting out of the discussion suggests that reverting the changeset(s?) is in order. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On 9/12/10 12:29 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: If we really need a tag to indicate river flow, it can't be oneway. And if we define a tag for flow, how would you define the direction, what would be the reference ? you'd want it to work with respect to the direction of the way, as is done with oneway. a waterflow=* tag would probably look very much like oneway, with -1 for flow which is the reverse of the direction of the way. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging government garages
landuse=garage seems pretty tightly focused right now. what i'd like to tag that doesn't really fit are garages operated by various government entities, e.g. garages operated by school districts for their bus services garages operated by towns, counties, and state DOT organizations to support highway maintenance. these are the obvious ones, although there are also garages devoted to commercial vehicle fleets. anyone have any thoughts on this? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging government garages
On 9/14/10 6:41 PM, John Smith wrote: On 15 September 2010 08:39, Katie Filbertfilbe...@gmail.com wrote: I would tag them as amenity=parking + access=private + operator=New York State Department of Transortation (or whatever applicable) + name=___ (fill blank) They aren't just used to park buses etc, they're also fueling and maintenance locations... and for town/county/state facilities, they also are used to store salt (for winter), gravel, guardrail, and other materials needed for road repair maintenance. so depot really sounds ok. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - rental
On 9/17/10 10:00 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: At a guess, the combination of amenity=fuel and shop=yes means that there is a retail shop in addition to fuel sales. This most likely is what Americans call a convenience store. Typically, most of the inventory will be beer, candy, soft drinks, and cigarettes, with a small assortment of overpriced groceries. There generally won't be any produce for sale, except perhaps some fruit. Occasionally you will find a business that sells fuel, but no other merchandise, or a convenience store that doesn't sell fuel, but most often you will find a business that does both. i typically set amenity=fuel shop=convenience for these cases. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types
On 9/20/10 5:35 PM, John Smith wrote: What about water filled plastic barriers? http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/resourcesint/product-detailzqMJlfFDaQGv/China-Water-Filled-Plastic-Barrier.html They may not be permanent, but some stay in place for long periods of time. these are a variant on the Fitch Barrier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_attenuator#Fitch_Barrier Fitch barriers are often really permanent, they get used at the points where ramps separate to protect drivers who blow the decision on which ramp to take. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types
On 9/20/10 6:28 PM, John Smith wrote: On 21 September 2010 08:03, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 9/20/10 5:35 PM, John Smith wrote: What about water filled plastic barriers? http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/resourcesint/product-detailzqMJlfFDaQGv/China-Water-Filled-Plastic-Barrier.html They may not be permanent, but some stay in place for long periods of time. these are a variant on the Fitch Barrier: To me these are distinct, one is used to reduce accidents on highway exits, the other is a barrier to prevent people entering... I've rarely seen the accident prevention kind, but the barrier kind is used here very often, they some times/also use a concrete barrier that is in the same shape, these are less used because you need a fork lift or similar to lift them into place, the plastic ones can be easily moves about when there isn't any water inside. the general term is Attenuator, and in all cases, they're plastic containers filled with water or sand, and are frequently semi permanent. attenuator covers both the round Fitch barrier style and the ones that look more like New Jersey barrier such as are shown at the link in the original posting. both are used to provide for a softer collision than concrete. the spots where they are used do differ a bit. there are actually a lot of Fitch barriers in the US. while Fitch is British, i think he had moved to the US before he came up with them, and he got a lot of traction with them as a safety device here. i'll ask him for details the next time i see him. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types
On 9/21/10 2:19 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: On 21 September 2010 10:08, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: maybe you can spot a more technic term? I'm sure they have a proper name ;-) Wikipedia seems to think they're just a subset of a Jersey Barrier - mind you, even jersey barrier is a new term for me. I have no idea what the UK equivalent is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier#Plastic_Jersey_barriers Wikipedia is a little disjointed on this. Attenuator is generically used for both rail type and barrel type barriers, water filled or sand filled. Attenuator has its own wikipedia page which the Jersey Barrier page doesn't link to. concrete Jersey Barrier is frequently referred to K-rail, and that usage is broader than Wikipedia recognizes; the term K-rail is more likely to be recognized by engineers than by the public, though. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types
On 9/21/10 7:08 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/9/21 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: On 9/21/10 2:19 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: maybe you can spot a more technic term? I'm sure they have a proper name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier#Plastic_Jersey_barriers Wikipedia is a little disjointed on this. Attenuator is generically used for both rail type and barrel type barriers, water filled or sand filled. Attenuator has its own wikipedia page which the Jersey Barrier page doesn't link to. concrete Jersey Barrier is frequently referred to K-rail, and that usage is broader than Wikipedia recognizes; the term K-rail is more likely to be recognized by engineers than by the public, though. OK, sorry, in the main time I added jersey barrier, feel free to change this if you're sure that your terms are more precise / known. I also added the spikes to the proposal (without picture, everybody feel free to add it). I discovered that spikes already relinks to barrier (but is not very visible on the barrier page). i'd say jersey_barrier is fine for the concrete, it's a more commonly known term than k-rail and nobody will be confused by it. but i'd use impact attenuator for the plastic sand/water filled barriers. also, there needs to be some indication when barrier types are mapped what they're doing. jersey barrier usually lines one or both sides of a way, but sometimes it's placed as a block across a way. i'll add impact attenuator and adjust jersey barrier in a little bit on the wiki, but i'm not sure what i would propose for indicating how a barrier is installed (block vs lining a way.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] name:English, name:Español and lei sure:pitch pitch:? or sport:?
On 9/21/10 8:49 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/9/21 Eric Jarviese...@csl.com.mx: or is it?: leisure:pitch sport:baseball +1, generally this one. btw.: What do others use for swimming pools? leisure=pool? leisure=swimming_pool? leisure=pitch? leisure=pitch would be problematic. some swimming pools are suitable for competition, others are not. some are suitable for racing, but not for diving competitions. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object
On 9/22/10 6:47 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary actually had a name, e.g. X Y Border, but the river also has a different name. one of the operative theories here is that in cases of shared ways, we should be using the higher level relations that contain the ways to provide the distinction. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object
On 9/23/10 7:27 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi Richard. Never heard of that, so let me ask to clearify... On 23.09.2010 00:59, Richard Welty wrote: On 9/22/10 6:47 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: What happens if tags conflict then? For example just say the boundary actually had a name, e.g. X Y Border, but the river also has a different name. one of the operative theories here is that in cases of shared ways, we should be using the higher level relations that contain the ways to provide the distinction. Following situation: There are two shops inside the same building and the building is a node only, yet. Let's assume the position of the shops cannot be distinguished - examples can be found in discussions about e.g. post offices together with stationery shops etc. If I interpret your statement correct, you propose to tag that as follows: i'm not proposing anything about that particular situation, the original discussion was about shared ways (e.g., admin boundary and river bank, or admin boundary and highway.) furthermore, i would consider representing a building with unknown outline with a node to be a bit iffy. so no, i'm not proposing anything about how to set up relations for this Nevertheless I think, it could be a very useful scheme to generally support grouping tags together while differentiating several groups on one geometry object. using relations in this manner has potential, but the variations are far from completely worked out or agreed upon. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Re-organizing food things?
On 9/27/10 1:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: because not everyone to whom you give money to get something can be considered a retailer. Wikipedia states:In commerce, a retailer buys goods or products in large quantities from manufacturers or importers, either directly or through a wholesaler, and then sells smaller quantities to the end-user. Retail establishments are often called shops or stores. Retailers are at the end of the supply chain. the wikipedia definition is narrower than actual usage, then. i spent 4+ years as a software developer at a major US bank, and we definitely distinguished between retail banking (where customers walked up to teller windows or sat down with agents) and wholesale banking (major customers who interacted with us in a distinctly different manner.) which is certainly outside the wikipedia definition... richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office [Was: New tag value: shop=wedding]
On 9/28/10 8:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/9/28 Mike N.nice...@att.net: office=wedding_planner sounds fine to me. I agree with this. However, I have also seen a number of local shops which sell only wedding supplies (dresses, etc) but offer no wedding services. They could probably be reclassified as shop=clothes however. yes, probably a specific tag would be suitable: shop=wedding_dresses or shop=wedding_clothes. Because nobody who looks for casual clothing would want to find a specialized wedding shop, and usually who looks for a wedding shop would want to exclude normal clothing stores (or would be able to do 2 searches). true, although in general names like Flo's Bridal and The Wedding Place provide valuable clues. there is probably a need for a similar tag for maternity/baby stores. these usually carry a mix of clothes, cribs, play pens, etc. and are extremely focused places. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sports Stand
On 9/29/10 5:32 PM, Dave F. wrote: Hi Anybody recommend a tag for a structure such as this?: http://www.arenaseating.com/cm/images/products/image_sports_grandstand_3.jpg sports=stadium is definitely overkill. sports_stand; sports_seating? it's generally referred to as a grandstand, at least in the US. they can be found in venues other than strictly sporting ones, although that's what's most common. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sports Stand
On 9/29/10 6:05 PM, Dave F. wrote: On 29/09/2010 22:48, Richard Welty wrote: On 9/29/10 5:32 PM, Dave F. wrote: Hi Anybody recommend a tag for a structure such as this?: http://www.arenaseating.com/cm/images/products/image_sports_grandstand_3.jpg sports=stadium is definitely overkill. sports_stand; sports_seating? it's generally referred to as a grandstand, at least in the US. Yes, of course they are, even in the UK (a bit of brain fade) How big do bleachers get before they become grandstands? it's pretty vague, really. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential roads
On 9/30/10 4:52 AM, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com mailto:stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Probably the simplest distinction is that various programs treat unclassified as a fast country road (eg, 100+kph), and residential as a quiet residential street (eg, 50-60kph). Take your pick. Could you provide some examples of such various programs because this distinction is new for me. So it means that a slow speed road serving industrial or retail areas are for you residential roads ? My definition of residential road is following what says the wiki for roads accessing or around residential areas, indepently of the speed limits. that's the correct approach. explicit, accurate maxspeed values are best. we as mappers have no control over how the different routing systems select default speeds. we should not be making assumptions about that. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential roads
On 9/30/10 7:38 AM, Colin Smale wrote: we as mappers have no control over how the different routing systems select default speeds. we should not be making assumptions about that. Also important for routing systems is the practical speed for a road. Many country roads may have a high legal limit, but for reasons including width and curviness you may never achieve anywhere near that in practice. i have at times wanted this, when i've seen a road that was defaulted to 55mph but wasn't practical to travel at more than 40 due to broken pavement, for example. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What exactly is a greenfield?
On 10/5/10 7:15 AM, Richard Mann wrote: A greenfield site is one that is currently a field, so it should be tagged as a field until it gets built on. Nothing should ever be tagged greenfield. A brownfield site is derelict land that was something once, but is now nothing in particular until someone does something with it. A brownfield tag would therefore make some sense, though I'd probably leave it as landuse=industrial (or whatever else it was) and add further tags to say that it's derelict. i concur landuse=industrial disused=yes is pretty consistent with what is getting done now. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Successful proposal
On 10/13/10 4:24 PM, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: On Miércoles 13 Octubre 2010 20:22:49 Richard Welty escribió: On 10/13/10 2:38 PM, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: Maybe we need two separate pages, one with ALL approved features (which may be called, by the (high)way, Approved Map Features) which requires an agreed upon definition of what constitutes an Approved Map Feature. good luck with that. not that i think this is a bad idea, mind you. i just think that it may not be achievable in our lifetime, much less before the heat death of the universe. Well, there are votings in this list and in the wiki itself. That's a sound start (but many thanks for the criticism, i'm starting to see how disorganized the anarchy can be) and there are list participants who disagree quite vigorously with the current voting procedures. it may be possible to iterate towards a more effective approach to concensus, but i'm not planning on holding my breath. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Country names
On 10/14/10 7:57 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:07:57 Pieren wrote: This is exactly a good example of tagging for the renderers. What OSM needs is a lot of local contributors. And for them, it is much easier to enter only one tag for the name and this in the local language. Other conventions are just workarounds for software issues. Not really. Street signs, roadsigns and other public signage is increasingly being printed in Hangul and English. However, when we get a renderer that can render name:ko + (name:en) we can delete all name=* which have been typed in that form and then rename name:ko=* to name=* In the meantime we don't have that, so we have a workaround. The fact that I can make a map in Korea in English is the main reason I became involved in OSM. I can make (and use) a map that is useful to me and the other English-speakers I know. it's a hack, it happens to work for you, and that's ok. but it's not good practice in terms of making a generally usable database. it causes some existing renderers to do something you like, but may cause headaches for other renderers that need to break the names out. that's where some of us have a problem with the approach. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=kiosk
On 10/17/10 11:00 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: So, are you saying that a shop that was located in a kiosk building, but sold merchandise other than cigarettes, newspapers, sweets, snacks and beverages would have a tag building=kiosk, but would not have the tag shop=kiosk? what of kiosks in malls selling cheap jewelry, watches, cell phones, etc.? do they not count? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=kiosk
On 10/17/10 11:19 PM, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: Hello richard and john: If they do not sell cigarettes, newspapers, sweets, snacks and beverages they are not shop=kiosk. They are shop=jewelry or shop=boutique or shop=mobile_phone. ok, but this is going to be really error prone. novice mappers who haven't read the wiki page are going to use kiosk inappropriately per this definition. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=kiosk
On 10/18/10 4:27 AM, Richard Mann wrote: maybe: building=kiosk shop=newsagent and just leave it to local knowledge to know whether a newsagent typically sells sweets/tobacco/tickets The only one I'd have said was worth tagging individually was whether they sell bus tickets: bus_tickets=yes/no? some kiosks (in the aisleways of shopping malls) are inside buildings. kiosk=yes/no perhaps richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=kiosk
On 10/18/10 9:04 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: However, a shop, located in a kiosk, that is selling cigarettes, newspapers, sweets, snacks and beverages is not selling kiosks, so labeling it with shop=kiosk breaks the label according to the merchandise sold principle. A shop that sold kiosks would be selling the buildings to would-be business people. - this is why i'd prefer to see something like this: shop=newstand kiosk=yes as it properly breaks out the physical nature of the site from the items on sale. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=kiosk
On 10/18/10 7:23 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/19 Ulf Lampingulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Use shop=kiosk for a shop that sells kiosk like stuff. my point was that there is no kiosk like stuff precisely. we have kiosks all over the place, what they sell varies quite a lot. newstands in the US sell the stuff Ulf is calling kiosk like stuff, we expect to call then newstands, not kiosks. as i said earlier, using kiosk in the manner being suggested will be confusing and there will be errors. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 10/18/10 7:52 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: It is for this reason that I prefer underscores myself. So service=drive_through it is? that would certainly be my preference. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] emergency=fire_hydrant
On 10/18/10 8:40 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: There has been a very lengthy discussion about the emergency category - and there wasn't a clear outcome. There wasn't a consensus if the change is useful at all and it's still unclear what should be in the emergency category and what not. it looked pretty non-controversial until a small number of people started arguing loudly against it. we don't have good mechanisms to determine consensus, discussions are easily derailed by small, determined groups. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/10 3:06 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: On 10/19/2010 11:02 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: We do have highway=proposed/construction. Most of which I assume would be usable for travel, at least by construction vehicles. If highway=proposed is being used for something which is completely invisible, I think that's inappropriate. How so? highway=proposed sounds like the very definition of a “paper street”. Until construction has been started (highway=construction) there will be no physical evidence of it. Whether or not we’re interested in documenting what’s not on the ground is an entirely different question, but if we’re going to map proposed/paper streets at all, highway=proposed sounds entirely appropriate. Of course, at some point a proposal may die and there’s no need to indicate on the map where a road is *no longer* proposed. mapping proposals is pretty dicey. lots of proposals fail, and it's pretty damned hard to clean up unless someone is making it their special job to track them down and clean them up. tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned but never built. i see them from time to time. richard richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
On 10/19/10 4:22 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Some of the folks in this discussion seem to be assuming that, if a street is shown on plans but has not yet been built at the time that an OSM mapper marks the locations of the existing street, this guarantees that the street will never be built in the future. I was not aware that having OSM map streets was the kiss of death for any further development. um, no. i think we're assuming (with some justification) that proposals do sometimes die, or get reshaped, and unless a mapper is actively tracking proposals they enter, the map can end up with a surprising number of dead proposals. roads under construction sometimes end up going away; i've been watching a development make agonizingly slow progress nearby for several years. the roads show, as rough dirt, in USGS aerial imagery from 3 years ago, they're still not paved. very limited activity is going on, and if the developer goes bust, the whole thing could end up slipping backwards so easily... i've put them in as highway=construction, but i also plan to keep an eye on the whole thing as i suspect the developer is in a borderline financial state. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/10 12:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: They have to be not planned, not maintained, ground surface: they are simply there because people (or animal) use them. There might be some intersection with small paths in some cases, but usually I'd also say that paths are broader. this will lead to some confusion in the US, as we have an extensive network of maintained wilderness trails, e.g. The Applalachian Trail (2175 miles from Georgia to Maine) The Long Trail (famous in northern New England) and various others. you intend highway=trail to apply to a substantially less formal entity, but i predict that if highway=trail is there, it will be misused in the US. it'd be interesting to see if highway=trail actually appears now, and on what sorts of trails. i'd recommend some descriptive tags associated with highway=path and highway=footway to further characterize the nature of the path. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
On 10/22/10 1:18 PM, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: I've asked about this too. I can understand that name=* refers to a specific name of the particular ATM, like Lenox Square Mall ATM as you said. But where to write Banca March (bank) and where to write Servired (network)? Which one is operator=* and which one is brand=* ? for ATMs, brand and operator are likely to be the same, as what the user really wants to know is if it's his bank, or one that will hit him up with extra charges. so i'd say use the street name of the financial institution. richafrd ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] quarries in engineering
On 11/5/10 11:05 AM, Richard Mann wrote: Gravel/sand/clay come from river beds, generally. Quarries are when you blast half a hill away. But I'm not an engineer... gravel around here comes from excavating in the sides of hills that are actually piles of debris left by glaciers in a previous ice age. in the southeast US, clay comes from pretty much anywhere you use a shovel. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] quarries in engineering
On 11/5/10 3:05 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: thanks for all your comments so far. could a clay pit that is used only to excavate clay be put under quarry, or would that be missleading? I know that these are all open-cast mines, but the wikipedia entry for quarry seems somehow not precise enough when it comes to delimiting the usage. i'd consider it acceptable usage in the context of OSM. it might initially confuse someone who had never considered the question before but then there's lots of stuff in the osm wiki like that. the operative issue is that you're digging a hole or excavating the side of a hill or something to access mineral resources. that's quarrying. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] landuse for arboretum
i'm currently doing the boundaries for the Pine Hollow Arboretum south of Albany NY. none of the current landuse/natural tags seem quite appropriate. landuse=forest and natural= wood are closest, but i'd hesitate to use either without a subtype tag indicating that it's specifically an arboretum (denoting a site where trees in a natural setting, not necessarily local to the site, may be viewed.) an arboretum sort of sits in the middle between the two classifications, it's managed in a limited way in that there are intentional plantings of interesting trees, but the management is limited in that dead trees may not be cleared, etc. i'm using landuse=forest for now, but would like to invite discussion of which main tag is really appropriate and what subtype tag might be used. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse for arboretum
On 11/10/10 7:28 PM, John Smith wrote: On 11 November 2010 08:27, Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm wrote: Wouldn't it be covered by leisure=garden? ie Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes. Its just it specifically focuses on trees, as opposed to flowers or other plants. That seems wrong, they aren't for leisure so much as a preserve to make sure species of trees will survive at least in one place... arboretums can be for conservation, for education and for research. wikipedia articles are not always helpful, but the article on arboretums is pretty decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum perhaps: landuse=botanical_garden collection=arboretum|fruticetum|viticetum|pinetum|... the distinction from leisure=garden would be that botanical_gardens are more oriented towards scientific/educational usage rather than leisure. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
On 11/16/10 12:43 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: no, that would be surface as well. I'd say the distinction is between the surface and the coverage (which comprises the surface). surface=bush or tree would not make any sense IMHO. surface=asphalt is fine for the surface, the landcover would be the street which is not only the surface of the street. my attempt at clarification: surface is used where the mapped entity is man-made (or modified, e.g. dirt roads.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging no truck access in US
what are people doing for this? the truck oriented access tags in the wiki are oriented towards UK legal categories whereas i'm basically looking at a simple sign that says no trucks. the wiki would have me use goods=no hgv=no whereas truck=no seems like a logical extension of the current access tags. thanks, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US
On 11/19/10 8:27 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: It might seem a silly question, but what's a truck? You're correct that HGV in the UK has a specific legal meaning*, but does truck have one in the US? If it doesn't, would something like a Ford F-series count? What something like an El Camino? that would be up to the local ordinance, but generally pickup trucks and smaller things don't count for a no truck sign. there are way too many people using those for their personal transportation. also truck prohibitions are not intended to prevent lawn services, delivery services (UPS, Fedex, the guy with the new refrigerator) and the like from carrying out normal business. i guess you could say truck=destination even though the sign says no trucks. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US
On 11/19/10 1:25 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I agree that it makes more sense to have a separate tag for the weight limit. I would also not be surprised to find certain roads forbidden to trucks over a certain length, or forbidding trucks with tandem trailers, because the road in question doesn't have room for a vehicle that size to turn around. we already have maxweight, and weight limits are common in these parts (i suspect the county is trying to make sure that fully loaded gravel trucks are limited to state highways). i just use maxweight where it's appropriate. the no trucks sign i saw yesterday in Schenectady (on Wendell Avenue) was clearly intended to prevent big trucks from using a quiet residential street as a shortcut. there was no posted weight limit on the sign. probably if the wiki entry for hgv were revised to reflect weight limits are per applicable ordinance that'd do the job. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging no truck access in US
On 11/19/10 2:47 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 11/19/2010 07:40 AM, Richard Welty wrote: also truck prohibitions are not intended to prevent lawn services, delivery services (UPS, Fedex, the guy with the new refrigerator) and the like from carrying out normal business. This is true only if the Except Local Deliveries or similar add-on signs are used in conjunction with the No Trucks sign. this is going to vary based on local ordinance. i would be really, really shocked if Schenectady intended that UPS, Fedex, and Sears were denied access to part of Wendell Avenue for legitimate business reasons. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-storage facilities
On 12/11/10 5:19 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: So, landuse=self_storage would probably be the way to tag them, using out convention of underscores as separators. Self-storage is also the standard USA term for such facilities. From my personal experience, they typically have several different sizes of enclosed spaces available, some opening directly to the outdoors (as in the photo) and some off interior hallways. i think we want to think about this a little more. there are many of these that are standalone facilities. however, there are others which are not, but rather places that have self-storage in addition to other stuff. two examples: Mabey's Moving and Storage: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=mabey%27s+moving+and+storage,+rensselaer+nysll=43.612217,-73.740234sspn=18.599719,46.40625ie=UTF8hq=mabey%27s+moving+and+storage,hnear=Rensselaer,+New+Yorkll=42.645592,-73.708949spn=0.004617,0.01133t=hz=17 part of this complex is self storage, part of it is Mabey's dock for transfer to moving vans, part of it Mabey's offices. U-Haul Moving and Storage of Albany: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=enq=U-Haul,sll=42.6412,-73.750987sspn=0.001105,0.003854ie=UTF8t=hrq=1ev=psplit=1radius=0.12hq=U-Haul,hnear=ll=42.6412,-73.750987spn=0.001105,0.003854z=19 this location has a store for moving/storage/towing supplies, truck rental, and self-storage richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bus depot?
On 12/15/10 5:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Personally I'd go for landuse=bus_depot. but I'm open to suggestions. So landuse=* is going to be the new dumping ground? :) I had thought landuse=* was for general categories, like there is industrial activity in this area without picking out a particular item. Could we break out into a new top level tag: transport=depot, depot=bus? (Because presumably we also want tram depots, etc etc.) transportation departments have depots for highway maintenence school districts have bus depots there are commercial bus depots as well, and public transit bus depots. maybe transport is ok, but let's make sure we enumerate the choices so we're reasonably complete. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging a point of interest of sorts
in albany ny, we have one of the few surviving ones of these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nfgusedautoparts/772654479/in/set-72157605741479117/ it's not a monument or memorial (except maybe to an old record label), and tourism=attraction seems like it might be overkill -- but then, it's really the only thing under tourism that seems even remotely appropriate. anyone have any suggestions on tagging this kind of stuff? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging a point of interest of sorts
On 12/15/10 8:08 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net wrote: in albany ny, we have one of the few surviving ones of these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nfgusedautoparts/772654479/in/set-72157605741479117/ it's not a monument or memorial (except maybe to an old record label), and tourism=attraction seems like it might be overkill -- but then, it's really the only thing under tourism that seems even remotely appropriate. anyone have any suggestions on tagging this kind of stuff? Well, you didn't actually explain what it is - obviously there's more to it than just a dog on someone's roof. Nipper is fairly recognizable i thought, but maybe not so much. the dog served as the symbol of RCA Victor recordings (His Master's Voice) for many decades, and statues of Nipper were built on RCA related buildings all over the country. the RCA brand used it in advertising through the 80s (maybe into the 90s, i don't recall), but the brand has faded since GE sold it to a european electronics outfit 15 or 20 years ago. tourism=attraction seems ok to me, but a more generic tourism=landmark or something might be appropriate. it depends on what an attraction is. i'm not averse to using it, but in the US at least, an attraction is usually some place you park, maybe buy tickets, and go in a building, park, etc for a more extended experience. landmark sounds better to me than attraction for this kind of thing. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
