[Tagging] pool/billiards hall?

?? amenity=billiards amenity=pool_hall any suggestions? 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. Eldredge: 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,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

On 8/19/10 10:10 AM, Anthony wrote: And even if you add the add:street, nothing says in which town. Do you know of any houses which are in a different town from the street in their street address? in the case of the US, postal addresses are tied to post offices, not to towns. a short distanc

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=shar

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

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 ico

[Tagging] tagging farmers markets?

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. richard ___

Re: [Tagging] Dancing school

On 8/16/10 7:23 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 August 2010 09:20, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 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

Re: [Tagging] Dancing school

On 8/16/10 6:06 PM, John Smith wrote: On 17 August 2010 08:03, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 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

Re: [Tagging] Dancing school

On 8/16/10 3:33 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote: On 16 August 2010 20:22, John Smith > wrote: On 17 August 2010 05:15, Andreas Labres mailto:l...@lab.at>> wrote: > Proposal: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dancing_school I'm

Re: [Tagging] other landuse values?

On 8/14/10 1:22 PM, John Smith wrote: On 15 August 2010 03:21, Nathan Edgars II wrote: tourism=theme_park renders on Mapnik; perhaps this should be changed to amusement_park (is there really a difference other than marketing?) If one already renders, why change it? wasn't in the wiki, didn'

Re: [Tagging] other landuse values?

On 8/14/10 12:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: There seem to be a fair number of types of land use that don't fit into the landuse values given on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse. I'm going to use http://www.ocpafl.org/pls/webappI/get_codes?p_code=propuse to give examples of uses that I

Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?

On 8/9/10 9:13 PM, Liz wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: Wish there was an agriculture=* tag. Life could be simple: well living in an agricultural area I'd start with agriculture= not sure it's wise to try and tag for crop types. many farms do rotate their crops, after all. not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Fire Hydrant

On 8/6/10 6:12 PM, John Smith wrote: On 6 August 2010 21:31, Schlumpf 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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 7/27/10 11:31 PM, S.Higashi wrote: I also agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently. I'll try to write another wiki proposal page. (My first trial!) Then, which tag key should I use "emergency" or "amenity"? personally, i like the idea of moving to emergency=* there

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:. Such a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 7/27/10 8:33 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: I agree that fire hydrants and fire extinguishers should be tagged differently. While both are used for putting out fires, fire extinguishers (a) are limited to use on smaller fires, and (b) are useful by themselves, whereas you need a suitable hos

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=vi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

On 7/26/10 4:20 AM, John Smith wrote: On 26 July 2010 18:16, 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=

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 Welty 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 n

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 precedenc

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,

Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no

On 7/15/10 5:45 PM, John Smith wrote: On 16 July 2010 07:42, Richard Mann 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. richa

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 Koppenhoefer 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

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

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?

On 6/28/10 6:47 PM, John Smith wrote: On 29 June 2010 08:36, Jason Cunningham 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 Leag

Re: [Tagging] highway=services

On 5/30/10 6:21 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 30 May 2010 20:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 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_serv

Re: [Tagging] highway=services

On 5/28/10 7:54 AM, Liz wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010, John Smith wrote: > >> On 28 May 2010 21:43, Liz wrote: >> >>> This points out a serious problem with the highway=services tag >>> it is only one letter different from a very different tag. >>> John Smith will shoot me down, but this

Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps

On 5/17/10 5:38 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:54 AM, John Smith 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. >>>

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".

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 supermark

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 ___

Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US

On 5/6/10 8:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/5/6 John F. Eldredge: > >> 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 gro

[Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US

by discount store, i mean the largish stores like WalMart, Target, K Mart, etc. they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large for the value general. what are people typically using? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Taggi

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. I

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 Welty wrote: > >> crap:mega=yes >> >> as well. >> > That doesn't make any sense... > lots and lots of crap: mega crap ___ Taggi

Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe

On 5/4/10 10:34 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2010 11:58, Richard Welty wrote: > >> perhaps we need >> >> crap=yes >> > To be more effective, and less subjective, you will probably need > sub-tagging to define who it's crap too &g

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 Troxel 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

Re: [Tagging] Beaches

On 4/9/10 4:29 PM, Liz wrote: > > Interesting that the wiki writer said that all beaches were on a coastline. > Rivers here have beaches, and they have names like "Town Beach" (Tocumwal) > "Wagga Beach" (Wagga Wagga). > many towns in upstate NY have town beaches on local lakes. richard _

Re: [Tagging] New place value for single settlements (below hamlet)

On 4/5/10 6:33 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > ℳ∡ℝℸⅈℿ Koppenhoefer writes: > > >> 2010/4/6 John Smith >> >> >>> On 6 April 2010 04:12, ℳ∡ℝℸⅈℿ Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> Following recent discussion on talk-de I'm proposing a new place value >>> for >>> sing

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 diff

Re: [Tagging] US Speed Limits, truck routes, bike routes, access

On 2/26/10 5:32 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: > Several issues with relation to speed limits: > > 1. How should one tag "suggested" speeds (usually around curves) like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_W1-4.svg with > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Advisory_Curve_Speed_English_25.svg ? > Should

Re: [Tagging] ref tags and "reference routes"

On 2/5/10 8:22 AM, Richard Finegold wrote: > > You say some reference route numbers don't appear on signs. I can > think of two possibilities to explain this: > > 1) The state maintained road doesn't have a small green reference > marker. Maybe it's too short, or maybe any markers that would be > p

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?

Re: [Tagging] ref tags and "reference routes"

On 2/3/10 2:20 PM, Liz wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, 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

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&qu

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 shi

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 ro

[Tagging] ref tags and "reference routes"

by way of context, New York State and some NY counties have cases where there are roads maintained by the state or county that do not have numbered&signed route designations. these roads have numbers assigned administratively ("reference routes") that do not appear on signs. the roads in questio

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

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).

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. 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

Re: [Tagging] Race track

On 1/31/10 11:38 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 1 February 2010 02:34, Dave F. 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 th

Re: [Tagging] Race track

On 1/31/10 11:10 AM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Richard Welty mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net>> wrote: in the case of the race track example, using a way as a centerline and including width= tags should encompass what's needed. It works as long as

Re: [Tagging] Race track

On 1/31/10 10:51 AM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:46 AM, John Smith > 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 p

Re: [Tagging] Race track

On 1/31/10 10:49 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 1 February 2010 01:43, Anthony wrote: > >> Maps. If a bunch of treetops are blocking the view of a road, we'd show the >> road, not the treetops. How is that even relevant? >> > The current line of thinking almost goes so far as to map the tr

Re: [Tagging] Race track

On 1/30/10 9:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > >> Sure, but what about mapping the way *as an area*, e.g. if you want to >> accurately trace over wide vs. narrow parts of the track? I remember >> this came up a little while ago in the context

Re: [Tagging] Race track

On 1/30/10 7:03 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > How would you map a race track i.e. the road/gravel surface, as an area? > > I'm not sure about 1) tags to use and 2) how to actually indicate the > area, i.e. as it's a circuit, I'm guessing you'd need a multipolygon > relation? > most auto racing track

Re: [Tagging] Islands in Parking Lots

On 1/29/10 6:33 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Well, I have seen careless drivers park atop small trees in parking lots, but > it tends to be hard on the trees, the vehicles, or both. > > we probably shouldn't worry about ill-chosen parking. if a tree spreads out over a legitimate parking area

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 Welty 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 plante

Re: [Tagging] Islands in Parking Lots

On 1/29/10 4:31 PM, David Fawcett wrote: > I am editing a large parking lot that has curbed 'islands' in it. > There are bushes and trees planted on these islands. > > I am trying to figure out how they should be tagged, of course with an > eye on the renderer... I think that they should show up i

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 m

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

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 vehi

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 o

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats "highway=path" > very differently from "highway=footway". It seems to mean "walking > track with unmade surface". > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.77494&lon=-73.81625&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF t

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 1/5/10 6:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer > wrote: highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter. Each to their own, but I'd prefer: highway=cycleway+designation=o

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] NY Bicycle Routes

[i'm new to the tagging discussion, just joined, please bear with me] On 11/1/09 7:13 PM, Adam Glauser wrote: > Sam's message has me somewhat confused as to who said what. In terms > of cycling tagging in North America, where the legal framework is > fairly similar* most places, my approach has

<    1   2   3   4   5