Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

BTW, here in Venice patients are almost always transported by emergency personnel on "a chair with handles" (/a chair-stretcher... I don't know if there is an English name for that.../). The reason is that normal stretchers would not pass through most buildings narrow and steep stairs. Should

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just allowed > to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a red > light, but if they cause an accident by doing so, the driver will be charged > (& they have

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> I would tag max weight, I would not tag emergency=no. > > +1, it will not exclude all kinds of emergency services anyway, only those in > vehicles that are too

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 11:20, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> Though in all cases when I used it I should be using emergency=designated >> (road was signed as firefighter access road or main ambulance access at >> the hospital). > > ... and that's a different story, because this is valuable

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 2. Mar 2019, at 02:18, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> >> Should I tag every street wide enough for a chair to pass with >> "emergency=yes"? > no because emergency is an access key (legal access), so „wide enou

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by s...@smz.it: > > I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency vehicles > are *legally *not allowed to go... > > And if there isn't such a place, why do we need ""? > > And if we don't have such

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 2019-03-04 11:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Do not counter this with "not sufficiently relevant for mapping", as you'll > see people will likely tag it ;-) Personally I counter this for lack of observability/verifiability. From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability "At

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-02 14:15, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put >> near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles >> are

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-03-03 00:49, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 02:05:46 +0100 > Sergio Manzi wrote: > >> On 2019-03-02 01:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> sent from a phone >>> >>>> On 1. Mar 2019, at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny >>>>

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

And so? I'm also quite sure that less than 1% of mappers will spontaneously encode opening_hours=* according to what we prescribe in the wiki [1], but nonethelss that's what we expect they should do. What's your point? Sergio [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours On

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

Maybe not a such bad idea, after all, but probably unfeasible. Ever since technology has given us powerfull but potentially dangerous tools (/steam engine, cars, firearms, electricity, the radio, surgery, drugs, airplanes, etc, etc.../) society, conscious of the dangers associate to such

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

Perfect! NIH syndrome [1] anybody? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here On 2019-02-20 13:42, Colin Smale wrote: > Lets be clear, the storage format can (and should) be decoupled from the > display format. What is stored in the database can easily (assuming it is > sufficiently

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Thanks Greg,  Warin and Marc, I stand corrected on this: "unclassified" is a class of roads and an unclassified road is a "road". Ooops... my tongue just got twisted!  :-) Sergio On 2019-02-21 02:01, Greg Troxel wrote: > But it doesn't mean that in the UK. It means "in the national road >

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 2019-03-06 08:46, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 3/6/19 3:31 AM, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas >> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna). >> >> Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I

Re: [Tagging] tagging laboratories

I agree with Volker and I also woul like to underline how in Italian we use the sister word "laboratorio" (/both com from the Latin "labor, "work"/) for some craftmanship activity: we call a "laboratorio" also the places where a goldsmith or an orthodontic mechanic performs their craft, and the

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Sorry, my answer was meant to regard the "common replacement" (topic of the thread) more than the situation described by Marián for which "playground" is probably OK... On 2019-03-05 11:48, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Hi! > > On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny w

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

On 2019-03-05 12:48, Marián Kyral wrote: > > -- Původní e-mail -- > Od: Mateusz Konieczny > Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Datum: 5. 3. 2019 12:35:28 > Předmět: Re: [Tagging] leisure=common replacement for public areas with some > trees > > > > > > Mar 5,

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 2019-03-05 10:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use > This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I > see it" test. > > man_made=antenna +

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

Hi! On 2019-03-05 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Mar 5, 2019, 9:00 AM by mky...@email.cz: > > Typically a small areas in the city between apartment buildings. These > areas are not official parks, gardens or grass. It is just a green accessible > for everoyne. So we can say it is a

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote: > On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: >> On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use >> This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I >> see it" test. >> >>

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 2019-03-05 23:48, Warin wrote: > On 05/03/19 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> >> On 2019-03-05 11:14, Warin wrote: >> >>> On 05/03/19 20:08, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: >>>> On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: >>>>> https://

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 2019-03-06 03:20, Warin wrote: > On 06/03/19 12:38, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> Also, if on the other hand you don't expect all TV antennas to be mapped, >> what will be the value of such fragmentary and sparse information? "/Cui >> prodest/"? Who is going to benef

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

P.S. a note to Andy Townsend: We are not at "/the price of fish/" yet, but we're rapidly closing in...    :-) On 2019-02-26 19:19, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Exactly! And in Venice there is an official designation of roads accordingly > to their availability in case of exc

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 2019-02-26 15:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien > mailto:fernando.treb...@gmail.com>>: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi <mailto:s...@smz.it>> wrote: > I think the offici

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

gt; Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <mailto:s...@smz.it>>: > > ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334 > > All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same lev

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

azas, and I think many of the narrower alleys (some are narrower > than the width of a car) could be highway=footway with no damage to > map readability. > > [1] http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4259181423_586509d152.jpg > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:40 AM Sergio Manzi wrote: >>

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Hello Mark, I'm not willing to criticize your contribution, at all, but your preamble, "/Here in Washington State .../", was food for thought about the fact that sometimes (/often?/) we are affected by cultural bias here: the definition of features like highways may differ a lot depending in

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

This is easy to answer: "We want to make the best map data set of the world" Sergio On 2019-02-20 23:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Is OSM supposed to be for a tight, dedicated group of expert mappers trying > to create the best, most accurate, technically-perfect map the World has ever

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

in the US but very little time in the UK.../). I think the car_repair vs. vehicle_maintenance (or is it vehicle*_s_*_maintenance??) issue to be a little bit more important, thus... Cheers, Sergio On 2019-03-10 19:07, Andy Townsend wrote: > > On 10/03/2019 16:02, Sergio Manzi wrote: &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

One more, sorry: instead of "car_repair", why not "vehicles_maintenance"? Have a look here (/out of curiosity.../): https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g15895645/nypd-fleet-mechanics/ Cheers, Sergio On 2019-03-10 17:02, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Jan, after a quick look

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Jan, after a quick look at your proposal I have a couple of minor comments: 1) You're using "operator=*" to identify the particular police force to which a feature is related. That's in line with what we do in several other situations, but as we are talking about police, wouldn't be "corps=*"

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

> > Keep in mind that currently, it is possible to give the same information with > tower:type=suspension. > As explained in the rationale, :type suffix is meaningless and gather too > much possibilities to be usable. > > Hope it's clearer > > François > > Le 

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

conductors under the insulator sets? Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow pointing to the object of this tag? TIA, Sergio On 2019-03-10 17:54, François Lacombe wrote: > Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here > > Le sam. 9 m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On 2019-03-11 00:02, Warin wrote: > On 11/03/19 09:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen wrote: >>> >>> Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military >>> will need to be >>> figured out at some point. >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On 2019-03-11 04:05, Warin wrote: > On 11/03/19 10:29, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> >> In Italy there are five main, state-wide, police corps: >> >> * /Polizia di Stato/: a civil organization with civil jurisdiction (/with >> several different branches

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On 2019-03-11 00:33, Sergio Manzi wrote: > On 2019-03-11 00:30, Jan S wrote: >> How about police=detention as a more generic term then? > Nice! > > Sergio And this makes me think that maybe we could find something better for our ~10.000 "amenity=prison" (/go tell them

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On 2019-03-11 00:30, Jan S wrote: > How about police=detention as a more generic term then? Nice! Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On 2019-03-11 03:44, Warin wrote: > On 11/03/19 10:39, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> On 2019-03-11 00:33, Sergio Manzi wrote: >>> On 2019-03-11 00:30, Jan S wrote: >>>> How about police=detention as a more generic term then? >>> Nice! >>> >>> Serg

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

BTW, what I incorrectly (/I knew it was wrong!/) named a "branch" of the tower is correctly named a "crossarm". See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform=466-08-12 Cheers! Sergio On 2019-03-10 23:02, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > François, &g

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted data. > That creates the high quality. That's totally inaccurate. The reality is that OSM is based on imported data, augmented by locally sourced information (/of ///sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 15:44, Sergio Manzi wrote: > On 2019-03-13 15:27, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> >> >> Mar 13, 2019, 12:53 PM by s...@smz.it: >> >> On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >>> I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on loca

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

If a "/superroute/" has an official status (/like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20773/), I'm all-in for that. If instead it is something "/invented/" by the mapper, than I'm all-against it. Can you please provide more information/examples/context? Sergio On 2019-03-13

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 15:27, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Mar 13, 2019, 12:53 PM by s...@smz.it: > > On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted >> data. That creates the high quality. > > That's totally inaccurate. >

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 12:54 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <mailto:s...@smz.it>>: > > On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted >> da

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote: > I also think that, as you correctly pointed out, both me and *Peter*, (/I > guess.../) forgot about "armchair mapping" which is neither "import" nor > "locally sourced" and probably represent a huge amount of data

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 19:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:45, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > Have mappers walked along the whole world coastlines? Have they descended > all world's rivers by canoe? > > No, these are exampl

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 20:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 13. Mar 2019, at 16:34, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > >> ... an example of massively imported data (/which I agree with, btw.../): >> https://blogs.bing.com/maps/2018-06/microsoft-releases-1

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-08 17:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> On 7. Mar 2019, at 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: >> >> How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting? > > what does babysitting mean? Ages 0-3? > > Cheers, Martin >

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-07 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting? I think it should be something in the lines of "service:babysitting=yes" unless we already have something different in use... Cheers! Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi all > > The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received > all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps > > It is not restricted to power

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi all > > The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received > all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps > > It is not restricted to

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm > are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf Another tasteless and vile joke. Not that I was expecting anything better from you, Martin:

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com: > > you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users > > 6000 users? How you know that? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landcover says: "Objects with this key were last edited

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

On 2019-03-08 01:39, Warin wrote: > On 08/03/19 10:40, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments >>> received all along past weeks.

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

+1! On 2019-03-07 19:02, Richard Welty wrote: > i think OSM should stick to mapping what is legal. first responders > frequentlhy have permission to ignore the restrictions that apply > to normal motorists, but they usually have relevant policies that > probably don't belong in OSM proper and

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it. >> Here we should be getting the best tags > +1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

Thanks for the numbers, for explaining and for the link, Christoph. Apreciated! Sergio On 2019-03-12 00:19, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Monday 11 March 2019, Peter Elderson wrote: >> Sorry, 2000. > IIRC the saying is "two wrongs does not make a right". > > Original use of tags with the

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On 2019-02-16 14:46, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > Calculated value may differ from the official one ... Official according to whom? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile#cite_note-length-1 : /"The length of the Nile is usually said to be about 6,650 km (4,130 mi), but reported values lie

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Currently, and AFAIK, relations are the *only* solution for modeling situations like the one you described... On 2019-02-17 00:40, Anton Klim wrote: > not sure if relations are a good fix though smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On 2019-02-17 12:55, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > It will work but only if the entire river from its spring to mouth is drawn > precisely enough, all relation roles are labeled properly and nobody breaks > the labeling by intent or mistake some day. That's as old as data processing: "/garbage

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Hi Stephan! Yes, a relation can be made up of a relation: no problem with that, AFAIK. In your particular case, anyway, I'm afraid there is something wrong: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1937535 (name=MuseumsQuartier) is tagged as "building=yes" and also with

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Stephan, can you point to any such object in OSM where you find that ambiguity? I have the feeling that we could possibly discover a violation of the "One feature, one OSM element" principle [1] in there... Sergio [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element On

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

Then why don't you submit a paper to the CNFG (http://www.cnfg.fr/) and correct the Wikipadia articles? Sergio On 2019-02-16 23:07, marc marc wrote: > Le 16.02.19 à 22:32, Sergio Manzi a écrit : >> A static value for a river length in OSM, without any information about >> its

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

_date. > > Anton Klim > >> 16 февр. 2019 г., в 21:40, Sergio Manzi написал(а): >> >> Stephan, can you point to any such object in OSM where you find that >> ambiguity? >> >> I have the feeling that we could possibly discover a violation of the "

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

TBH, I'm all with you (/and maybe I'm seen as an eccentric too.../) and I see the tagging of waterways length as egregiously useless. Beside, I smell a lack of verifiability [1] in this waterways property: I'm not a geographer, by far, but in the years I made up my mind that this is one of

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

Sorry for the typo: of course Wikip_*a*_dia was meant to be Wikip_*e*_dia! On 2019-02-16 23:15, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Then why don't you submit a paper to the CNFG (http://www.cnfg.fr/) and > correct the Wikipadia articles? > > Sergio > > > On 2019-02-16 23:07, marc marc wr

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Yeah. The "/other/" solution could be to "/namespace everything/", so you could tag building:whatever_property_key_you_want and amenity:whatever_property_key_you_want, applied to the very same object. But we're probably too late for that and apparently many seems to hate this latter solution.

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

(/just point to a Wikipedia article to get this information/) Personally I'm leaning to propse to deprecate the usage of this key and subject that to a vote. What is the process for that? Sergio On 2019-02-17 14:07, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 15:18, Sergio Manzi <

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On 2019-02-18 15:58, Dave F via Tagging wrote: >> Different tagging will not remove the non-consensus. > > What consensus will it remove? Misunderstanding the meaning of a tag is not > consensual. Different tags allows the specifying of varying objects/attributes (not removing) (the non

Re: [Tagging] Micronations

" era, after the "fake news" one... Sergio On 2019-02-09 21:16, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 19:48, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > But, yes, "there is /something/ out there": Google too report the > existen

Re: [Tagging] Micronations

The thing is quite obviously fruit of immagination, creativity, and/or delusion: there surely isn't out there such a concoction of toll booths (/many of them/), bunkers, town halls, dams, towers, campgrounds, etc. The creator's name too, "landhahaha", is also an hint for a probable vandalism.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail. Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to express their opinion. You can dissent, but the tone of your mail is definitely rude and divisive. Think twice. Regards, Sergio On 2019-02-14 12:45, Paul Allen wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

/she express* (/mind you, not for the way he/she express it.../). On 2019-02-14 14:02, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:34, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail. > > That is your right.  Even if you

Re: [Tagging] Micronations

There is something really wrong going on around that bogus micronation: more than half of Harmony Way (from the crossing with Allens Lane to the one with Mont Vernon Avenue) has disappeared, leaving many other ways isolated (e.g. Rose Avenue and Walnut Hills Drive). Beside, the f..ing thing is

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

On 2019-02-15 17:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Sergio Manzi wrote: >> I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail. >> Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to >> express >> their opinion. > They do, but if the opinion is off-topic a

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Actually building:buildyear is of much more widespread use than building:start_date: * https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Abuildyear -> 2051 objects * https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Astart_date -> 163 objects that's a 12.6:1 proportion... The key

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

+1! On 2019-02-15 00:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally > prohibited from walking along this road?” > > If so, use foot=no smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

+1!! :-) On 2019-02-05 21:57, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed! I hadn't seen it before, and > it's hilarious! > > (Unless we have a rule that the Wiki shall be devoid of the least > indication that mappers have a sense of humour...) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

done! On 2019-02-05 22:47, Richard wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:25:34PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote: >> Another +1 >> >> That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to >> be labeled for deletion. >> >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed >

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

"/ad hoc/" (for this)  signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes. "/extempore/" (or more correctly "/ex tempore/", "from the time") means something done without preparation or forethought, as if

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

d. Cheers, Sergio On 2019-02-07 14:48, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 13:23, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > "/ad hoc/" (for this)  signifies a solution designed for a specific > problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to b

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

+1 this! On 2019-02-20 01:45, Andrew Errington wrote: > Already handled by ISO8601: > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Durations > > I think any discussion of dates and times should start by asking if we could > apply ISO8601 to the problem at hand. For example the other thread about

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:soft_storey

Thank-you very much, Stefano: very nice job! I hope you don't mind: I made some very minor adjustements to the wording, but of course you can revert them if you do not agree... Cheers, Sergio On 2019-01-24 09:53, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > Hello folks, > > I put together a proposal page after

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Yes, great descriptions! My only marginal objection is for canal: why don't you ditch (pun intended...) the "/used to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation, //irrigation or land drainage purposes/" clause? Are there any other "/Large man-made open flow (free flow vs

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

I'm pretty sure that's the case in UK, but are you willing to bet on all drains (/e.g. industrial/) of the world being lined? On 2019-02-01 23:22, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:09, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > If you think it is importan

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Right in these days you can read in the Italian newspapers of an industry having contaminated with industrial sewage an area inhabited by 300.000... And let's not get started with what we /"westerns" /normally call "the third world"... So, how do you tag drains which are not lined? On

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

If you think it is important to differentiate between lined vs. unlined minor waterways (/and I'm not objecting to that/), I guess the best option would be to use a specific tag (lined=* ?) IMHO relying on the tagger knowledge of the OSM dictionary semantic subtleties (/which sometimes happen

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

I know, that's why I asked for a good one... On 2019-02-02 01:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Dictionary.com usually provides definitions in American English, so it > wouldn’t be a good source. > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 8:35 AM Sergio Manzi <mailto:s...@smz.it>> wrote: &g

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

urse, as a ditch or trench. 2. a natural watercourse modified to increase its flow of water. On 2019-02-01 23:46, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:43, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > So, how do you tag drains which are not lined? > > > Ditch.

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Thank-you for confirming that, Mark. Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading English words with meanings they do not have in *any *dictionary (be it AmE, BrE, CaE, or whatever). Both the "ditch" and "drain" words *can *be used to describe certain features in

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-13 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > It would just be good if there was only  place that these discussions on new > proposals took place. I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

On 2019-03-11 18:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 11, 2019, 6:44 PM by s...@smz.it: > > On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com >> : >> >> you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

On 2019-03-12 00:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 11, 2019, 11:38 PM by s...@smz.it: > > On 2019-03-11 18:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> Mar 11, 2019, 6:44 PM by s...@smz.it : >> >> On 2019-03-11 18:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >>> Mar 11, 2019, 4:32

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

On 2019-03-14 01:28, Warin wrote: > Think best to separate it from the present opening hours. > > Perhaps   opening_hours:persian=* (example - where the Persian calendar is in > use).??? Good idea! Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 00:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals” > > 臘‍♂️ > > I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry > were excluded from this cabal of illuminati.  > > [guilty as charged ☺️] All

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > > I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to > form a hidden, underground, group of motivated

<    1   2