Re: [Tagging] Wall gardens as ways?

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I made a proposal for facade gardens some time back, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Facade_garden
There was quite a bit of discussion here and on its talk page, but I never
really followed up on it.
Facade garden is really for tiny gardens adjacent to the front wall,
whereas vertical gardens take as little as possible ground space (or
usually none at all) and as much as possible vertical space.


Op wo 1 mrt. 2023 07:24 schreef Graeme Fitzpatrick :

> We were discussing this article earlier:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-28/urban-nature-sydney-developers-incentives-rooftop-gardens-green/102030006
> & I wondered if we even have a way of mapping wall gardens?
>
> Turns out that yes we do (Of course! :-)): leisure=garden +
> garden:type=green_wall, used 22 times, but also another 38 "facade_garden",
> which may be the same thing?
>
> However https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type says that it
> can't be used for ways though?
>
> It would probably make sense to change this so it can be used as a way as
> well?
>
> Thoughts or concerns?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] cable:ferry

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

This article https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dferry mentions
ferry:cable=yes as a reaction ferry -  a specific type of cable ferry.
While the article has a picture of a non-reaction cable ferry, it offers no
tagging suggestion for that. So I'm guessing that in practice, there is no
tag for reaction ferry at all, and the wiki definition of ferry:cable
should be changed.

-- 
Joost Schouppe
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Unverfied Edits, Reverting Tags

[joost schouppe]

Clay,

While I do agree that this person seems to be more interested in "proving
to the world that they are right" than in actually productively working
towards a solution, I do not think this kind of language is welcome in this
forum. OpenStreetMap should be better than that. Consider that people from
quite different backgrounds than your own will be able to read this for
years to come - and it might weigh in to their decision whether or not to
participate.

Best,
Joost

Op ma 12 okt. 2020 om 17:50 schreef Clay Smalley :

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:31 AM Hartmut Holzgraefe <
> hartmut.holzgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-10-12 15:51, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
>> > DWG and the foundation, are not in the verification and editing
>> > business, so who is ?, under penalty of banning.
>>
>>
>> context?
>>
>
> He got banned for being a dick:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3979
>
> He's probably just complaining that I'm reverting his edits for a second
> time. It's getting old.
>
> -Clay
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=schoolyard

[joost schouppe]

Ah, yes, in smaller schools or schools in dense areas that might be the
case. It came up here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38911304
It's rather large; has kindergarten up to high school education; not all
areas are available for students during breaks; areas are designated for
some students based on their grade.

Op ma 31 aug. 2020 om 11:51 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> It's been a while that I have been to school, but from memory, as well as
> from the current situation I see from my kids at their school, the school
> grounds are basically the same as the "Pausenhof". E.g. in my school,
> pupils had their respective spaces according to age groups or maybe
> classes, and basically all the available space was distributed.
>
> Maybe that's different from your experience (I could imagine teacher's
> parking being excluded, for example).
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=schoolyard

[joost schouppe]

Hi Martin,

I stumbled upon the page when looking for something better than
leisure=playground for the concrete slabs that are used for recess and are
called "speelplaats" ("square for playing") in Dutch. I've added some links
to that page, which made you notice. I hadn't noticed myself that it's a
relatively recent page and that it's actually just a draft. That said, the
tag seems a good fit for "speelplaats", which seems to be the exact
equivalent of the German "Schulhof" which is described in the Discussion
section.

So quite different from "the rest of the schoolground" (students would
often be explicitly forbidden to stray from the designated speelplaats
during recess). And sure, you could have some classes there: for example
sometimes sports classes would be there, as there are many sports you can
do on a large paved area.


Op ma 31 aug. 2020 om 10:43 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> I just discovered someone has added leisure=schoolyard to the wiki. It is
> not completely clear to me how to apply this tag, is there a difference
> between the school grounds minus the buildings and the schoolyard? Which
> parts have to be excluded from a schoolyard? Does it only apply to spaces
> that are exclusively used for leisure or does it include outdoor areas
> where education will occasionally take place?
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> sent from a phone
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

[joost schouppe]

> > So putting the Dutch and Belgian thing together but not the German, that
> doesn't make much sense.
>
>
> I read this as a suggestion for a third alternative tag?
>
>
N!

:)

Just saying that there's similar concepts that could have had the same main
tag (and different clarifying tags or country-based defaults explained on
the wiki)  or could have had different tags with exact implications; and
that we wound up with a random combination of the two.

As long as cyclestreet is clearly "marketed" as "a tag that has different
implications in different countries", then there really is no practical
issue. The weirdest thing to happen would be if now, say, Finland would use
bicycle_road for something really different than the German logic.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

[joost schouppe]

Well, in the Netherlands cyclestreet seems to be a "suggestional" traffic
sign. In Belgium cyclestreet it has a clear legal meaning. In Germany
bicycle_road has a clear (but quite different) legal meaning. So putting
the Dutch and Belgian thing together but not the German, that doesn't make
much sense. There's plenty of discussion on the Dutch forum about this. A
fundamental remark: "apps that use the original German definition will see
the road as forbidden for cars unless otherwise tagged", which does not
make sense in Belgium or Holland.

See e.g.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63473
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=709379#p709379
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:The_Netherlands_roads_tagging


Op wo 26 aug. 2020 om 08:51 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> I am curious is there any difference in practical use of this two tags.
>
> Aug 25, 2020, 12:13 by vosc...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi,
> I have come across a new (to me) street sign In Italy:
> https://italy-cycling-guide.info/tips-advice/riding-in-italy/
> The road is a one-lane residential road on which bicycles and pedestrians
> can circulate.
> I don't know the legal status, however (I am inquiring).
>
> In that contest I have noticed that we have two wiki pages defining two
> tags, which seem to be describing nearly the same concept:
> bicycle_road <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_road>
> created 14:54, 7 August 2010
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:bicycle_road&oldid=512933>
> ‎
> cyclestreet
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:cyclestreet>
> created 09:58, 9 May 2018
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:cyclestreet&oldid=1607471>‎
>
>
> The main difference, as I understand it, is that the bicycle road is for
> bicycles only, unless there are additional signs, whereas
> on a cycle street "cars are also allowed. However, this car use is limited
> by the character and layout of the cyclestreet"
>
> To make the confusion perfect, both wiki pages use the same (German) road
> sign as illustration for the situation in Germany.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_244_-_Beginn_der_Fahrradstra%C3%9Fe,_StVO_1997.svg
>
> Taginfo:
> bicycle_road=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle_road%3Dyes> 7906
> cyclestreet=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cyclestreet%3Dyes> 4076
>
> Volker
> Padova, Italy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

[joost schouppe]

Hi Volker,

I tried to clarify the German bit on the cyclestreet page. It wasn't clear
enough that the German section on cyclestreet had as point to say: "in
Germany cyclestreet=* does not exist, they have bicycle_road instead".
These two concepts maybe could have had the same tag from the start with
just slightly different implications.

Op di 25 aug. 2020 om 12:15 schreef Volker Schmidt :

> Hi,
> I have come across a new (to me) street sign In Italy:
> https://italy-cycling-guide.info/tips-advice/riding-in-italy/
> The road is a one-lane residential road on which bicycles and pedestrians
> can circulate.
> I don't know the legal status, however (I am inquiring).
>
> In that contest I have noticed that we have two wiki pages defining two
> tags, which seem to be describing nearly the same concept:
> bicycle_road <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_road>
> created 14:54, 7 August 2010
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:bicycle_road&oldid=512933>‎
>
> cyclestreet
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:cyclestreet>
> created 09:58, 9 May 2018
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:cyclestreet&oldid=1607471>‎
>
>
> The main difference, as I understand it, is that the bicycle road is for
> bicycles only, unless there are additional signs, whereas
> on a cycle street "cars are also allowed. However, this car use is limited
> by the character and layout of the cyclestreet"
>
> To make the confusion perfect, both wiki pages use the same (German) road
> sign as illustration for the situation in Germany.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_244_-_Beginn_der_Fahrradstra%C3%9Fe,_StVO_1997.svg
>
> Taginfo:
> bicycle_road=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle_road%3Dyes> 7906
> cyclestreet=yes
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cyclestreet%3Dyes> 4076
>
> Volker
> Padova, Italy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

[joost schouppe]

Thanks Joseph,

I think that is a good idea. Even if the "form" is not really orchard-like,
the "function" absolutely is. And the key is already in use and documented.
I'll go with this for now.

Op do 30 jul. 2020 om 16:41 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> A landuse=orchard is any area of perennial shrubs and trees which is used
> to produce food. In the tropics this tag is used for bananas tea and
> coffee, and oil date palms, all of which are not exactly “orchards” in the
> British sense. This was proposed in the original vote.
>
> So if Wikipedia is correct that  “ The three main products from a forest
> garden are fruit, nuts and green leafy vegetables
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_vegetable>.“ it is probably mainly
> landuse=orchard + landuse=farmland as a secondary use.
>
> I also see that these are called a “huerto familiar” in Mexico, which
> literally means “family orchard”.
>
> Perhaps landuse=orchard + orchard=forest_garden would work?
>
> Note that we previously discussed a similar issue with areas that are used
> as orchards + pasture in Spain, if I recall
>
> Since almost any 2 types of agricultural land can be combined, it might be
> better to think about a wholistic solution, since as a way to tag the
> secondary landuse or secondary vegetation of a certain area.
>
> - Joseph
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:22 AM Justin Tracey  wrote:
>
>> On 2020-07-30 7:40 a.m., Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me.
>>>
>>
>> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part
>> orchard,
>> was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll
>> change it.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Forest gardens are definitely not orchards. For one, they're designed to
>> resemble (or be) natural ecologies as much as possible, and therefore look
>> very different; and two, most of the food in them doesn't actually come
>> from the trees (or rather, doesn't come directly from the trees -- again,
>> the point is to be a healthy ecology), so they function and operate very
>> differently.
>>
>>
>>  - Justin
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me. I've looked into both the
wiki and the tagging archives, but it all turned up dry. Anyone aware of
previous discussions or relevant documentation?

For context, I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening
https://communityfoodforests.com/community-food-forests-map/

Best,
Joost Schouppe
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[joost schouppe]

Thanks for all the replies.

Just a note on verifiability; always assuming they are waymarked:

- for car routes, it's pretty obvious whether it's part of a functional
network (say A8 or E40) or a pretty network (with a nice name and a
roundabout layout)
- for cycle networks, in the cases I know, the operator has clear vision
documents as to the purpose of the network (recreation VS commuting VS
mountainbiking). When this information is not available in a
straightforward way, or it just doesn't have a specific function, you just
don't add the possible subtag.

This in itself is an argument for creating a subtag rather than new values
of the existing main classification. Since the function of the routes
overlaps between both cycle and car routes, I think I'd prefer a tag that
can be used on all route relations.

Joost

Op ma 13 jan. 2020 23:13 schreef Volker Schmidt :

> Bicycle or hiking routes in OSM that are not trailblazed have one big
> drawback: they confuse data end users (they are looking for the signs, and
> if there are none, think they have taken the wrong turn.
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 19:21 brad,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>> Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
>> facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
>> ministries.
>>
>> Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
>> visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
>> loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> I think this is an overreaction.There are many routes that meet the
>> wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or
>> marked.I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, but
>> that is only a minor annoyance.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
>>> trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of
>>> France.
>>> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
>>> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>>>
>>> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
>>> intersection of those routes ?
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
>>> I doubt that.
>>>
>>> This is how the Wiki define a route:
>>> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
>>> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
>>> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
>>> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>>>
>>> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
>>> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
>>> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
>>> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>>>
>>> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>>>
>>> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> >
>>> > >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am
>>> all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
>>> manageable.
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
>>> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
>>> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
>>> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
>>> > owned a car for 9 years.
>>> >
>>> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
>>> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
>>> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>>> >
>>> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
>>> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
>>> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>>> >
>>> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
>>> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
>>> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
>>> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
>>> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
>>> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
>>> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
>>> > tell them apart.
>>> >
>>> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
>>> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
>>> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
>>> > are more for commut

[Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Has there been any previous discussion regarding tagging recreational
versus functional routes?

Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes
for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in
France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in
Belgium we have a very dense "node network" for cycling for fun, but those
routes aren't exactly interesting for commuting. On the other hand, we have
"cycle highways" which can be boring and focus on actually getting
somewhere.

In the case of cars, the lack of clarity prevents mapping. In the case of
cycling, it would be really useful for routers to be able to differentiate.

Similar differences might exist for bus (fpr example for hop-on/hop-off
tourist buses in cities) and maybe even for walking.

I think maybe another optional tag for route relations might be useful,
perhaps just function=recreational/practical or something.

-- 
Joost Schouppe
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] maxstay=0

[joost schouppe]

SInce there was no reaction to my wiki edit, and noone gave Matheusz a good
reason, I've removed all the maxstay:conditional=0 @ (Su,PH) references
from the Wiki.

Op ma 15 jul. 2019 om 21:33 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

>
>
>
> 15 Jul 2019, 13:33 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi,
>
> The most common value for maxstay=* is 0. There is no guidance on the wiki
> on how to interpret this. However, the below is used to explain that you
> cannot use the parking on Sunday and public holidays.
>
> maxstay:conditional=0 @ (Su,PH)
>
> Is there any good reason for not using access:conditional for this case?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] maxstay=0

[joost schouppe]

Thanks Marc, my searching skills failed me again it seems.

I've added a little section about maxtay=0 to the wiki.

Op ma 15 jul. 2019 om 15:21 schreef marc marc :

> Hello,
>
> Le 15.07.19 à 13:33, joost schouppe a écrit :
> > The most common value for maxstay=* is 0.
>
> we had this discussion a few weeks ago.
> I have retained 3 different usecases:
> - there is no panel: unsigned=maxstay
> - it is forbidden to stay, only stop : maxstay=load-unload
> - it is permitted to stay for an unlimited period
> of time maxstay=unlimited
>
> not documented before use, the values 0 and not are ambiguous
> and will require a survey to know their exact meaning.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] maxstay=0

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

The most common value for maxstay=* is 0. There is no guidance on the wiki
on how to interpret this. However, the below is used to explain that you
cannot use the parking on Sunday and public holidays.

maxstay:conditional=0 @ (Su,PH)

Looking at the data around me, I think maxstay=0 is used by mappers to say
there is no signposted maxstay. So that would be synonymous with saying it
is "default". Which we generally don't map. So I would just remove them in
my area.

However, we could also chose to say "maxstay=0" actually does mean
"default". After all, it is what mappers seem to do. But that would mean
the above conditional example is wrong.
That doesn't really matter, since:

a) it makes no sense, this should be a conditional access tag instead and
we should remove these examples from the wiki
b) there are only a very few uses worldwide of this logic

Am I reading this right? Am I missing something? What do you think is the
best solution: defining maxstay=0 as "you can stay for exactly no time at
all" and making most of the existing data wrong? Or saying maxstay=0 means
maxstay=default and should hence not be mapped at all in most cases?

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shared planter where you can harvest for free

[joost schouppe]

I like your suggestion, Jason.

Also, indeed I meant the operator of this specific thing is a person, not
"let's change the definition of operator=*" :)

Op vr 5 jul. 2019 21:28 schreef Jmapb via Tagging :

> On 7/5/2019 3:08 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> I read joost's comment as "The operator of this map object is a specific
> private citizen"
> not as a redefinition of "operator."
>
> Hah, probably. Regardless, I do think that Les Incroyables
> Comestibles/Incredible Edibles fits better under the brand key, or maybe
> network, than operator -- because it sounds like the organization simply
> organizes, and does not actually do the upkeep.
>
> Anyway, my suggestion for these free produce spots would be
> amenity=public_produce, similar to amenity=public_bookcase.
>
> Jason
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shared planter where you can harvest for free

[joost schouppe]

Thanks for the help!

I wouldn't want to lose the "Les Incroyables Comestibles" info, so as to be
able to group them by project. But maybe brand=* is the better tag for
that. Operator is actually "a specific private citizen", so that'd be
operator:type=private or maybe community if it is actually run by several
people together.
Allotments is indeed similar. If miniature zoos are permitted, maybe these
are really tiny allotments. I don't really like it though, as it directly
contradicts the first sentence of the wiki.


Op do 4 jul. 2019 om 22:41 schreef LeTopographeFou <
letopographe...@gmail.com>:

> This makes me think of two already used tags but I'm not sure I would use
> them on planters as they describe large lands:
>
>- landuse=allotments (
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dallotments) (but
>they imply some parcel assignment)
>- garden:type=community (
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type) (with this one
>you are close to what you are looking for, but it's not a garden...
>
> Yours,
>
> LeTopographeFou
>
> Le 04/07/2019 à 08:59, joost schouppe a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I stumbled upon some planters that are privately operated, on public
> domain, contain nothing but vegetables, and are meant for anyone passing by
> to help themselves. They are part of a project called "Incredible edibles"
> or "Incroyables comestibles". Here's an example:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/joostjakob?lat=50.6903739&lng=4.2589972&z=17&pKey=9sx6_zLDzHbXL8om62LfEg&focus=photo
>
> I went with this:
>
> man_made=planter
> self_service=yes
> fee=no
> operator=Les Incroyables Comestibles
>
> But it doesn't really grasp the concept IMHO. Any suggestions?
>
> When looking for other examples, I found a Google MyMaps and several umap
> instances with local gardens. Showing this community that you can "simply
> map them in OpenStreetMap" would be nice. But first a data model!
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] shared planter where you can harvest for free

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I stumbled upon some planters that are privately operated, on public
domain, contain nothing but vegetables, and are meant for anyone passing by
to help themselves. They are part of a project called "Incredible edibles"
or "Incroyables comestibles". Here's an example:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/joostjakob?lat=50.6903739&lng=4.2589972&z=17&pKey=9sx6_zLDzHbXL8om62LfEg&focus=photo

I went with this:

man_made=planter
self_service=yes
fee=no
operator=Les Incroyables Comestibles

But it doesn't really grasp the concept IMHO. Any suggestions?

When looking for other examples, I found a Google MyMaps and several umap
instances with local gardens. Showing this community that you can "simply
map them in OpenStreetMap" would be nice. But first a data model!

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] micromapping complex level_crossing

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Has anyone of you seen a good example of a micromapped complex level
crossing?

We tried to map this place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5864959767
But that is explicitly not how the wiki says it should be done:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:light

There are some mapillary images available for the area.

Given how much we like trains, I'm surprised I didn't find a solution
straight away, so I'm probably missing something.

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[joost schouppe]

Op ma 30 jul. 2018 16:07 schreef Anton Klim :

> Is there a reason to add access tags to the way, when you have a barrier
> node that should already hold these tags (lift gate, bollard)?
> Seems over complicated.
>

Then it might indeed not be necessary. These are very often not mapped or
not even there in many cases in my area.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[joost schouppe]

So I think I can safely conclude that driveway does not imply any access
restrictions by itself, and that a private or destination tag is to be
welcomed, depending on the context. But it only really mathers if the way
is connected to the road network in two places.
I'll adapt the wiki to explicitly state that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] default access tag for driveways

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

The wiki does not explicitly state what the default assumed tagging is for
highway=service + service=driveway. I've seen it used mostly as the private
entrance to a house, i.e. the bit of road you use to connect the edge of
your property to wherever you leave your car. People usually would not put
up a sign "private" because it's just obvious to anyone.
In rare cases, the owner will explictly put a sign up. In other rare cases,
you are actually allowed to enter because there is some right of way.

In this context, it seems obvious that the implied tag should be
access=private (or destination at the most liberal). You would only add
"private" if there is signage, and only something else if there is a right
of way or something.

But maybe this is not obvious in other countries or for other uses of the
driveway tag? In any case, it seems some routers will allow cyclist to go
through driveways without an access tag, and that is (in how I've seen it
used a lot) problematic. Not setting the default to private or destination,
forces the mapper to explicitly add the tag, which might be considered
wrong if it is not signposted...

Either way, the wiki could use more guidance about the access tag for this
specific road type.

(this has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't find something
relevant)

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pruning (tree management styel)

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I've added topiary and espalier to the proposal. But I don't think the list
should be exhaustive in the proposal, so I've added a "user defined" value
too.

Thanks to m!dgard, the suggested values are now in a pretty table.

I'm not convinced of the pruning cycle subtag. Is it what should happen?
What actually happens? And if so, how are we to know?

Now that we've included espalier, pruning=* also includes a style which is
shaped as much by "training" (forcing branches to grow in a particular
direction) as by "pruning" (cutting branches). I don't think that is an
important distinction from a mapping point of view, so I think we can
ignore this.

2018-06-11 1:33 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> Photos are available for OSM use  .. look on the branches (pun) of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruning  for photos.
>
> Comments;
>
> This would also apply to an area, landcover=trees/tree/tree_row and shrubs.
> Oh and orchards and vineyards - they are all regularly pruned .. might be
> a default value on these of yes.
>
> Another value for pruning is topiary.
>
> Another sub tag could be pruning:cycle=* for the expected cycle of pruning
> .. usually a year?
>
>
> On 10/06/18 21:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Can you add some images? Even if not present on Wikimedia Commons yet it
> should be possible
> to make some photos.
>
> 10. Jun 2018 12:46 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi,
>
> I created a proposal for mapping the style of how trees are pruned (or not
> pruned). I made it because I want to be able to map pollards ("knotted
> willows"), which are siginificant landscape elements in my area. But it's
> written in such a way that it can easily be extended towards other tree
> styles.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pruning
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

[joost schouppe]

Nobody but me voted yet, so I did some more cleaning of the page. There was
still a mention of potty_area and there were some suggested extra tags that
are unnecessary because they already exist in some form.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

[joost schouppe]

I've removed the reference to "pets", however in the real world dog toilets
are the actual thing and any pet willing to use it is allowed. So I' don't
really see the problem.

The four options could be moved somewhere else; I just left them for
reference. What should I do with them? I'd hate to just delete it.

I could not find a decent open licensed picture, but here's a not-so-good
Mapillary shot:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.851731&lng=4.343399&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=QXnwWxC2cNEp2fGim9PEvQ&x=0.4984805493143327&y=0.6635432755750141&zoom=0

And here's a decent random picture I found:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2420/844/320/Hondentoilet.jpg

If anyone finds something better, let me know or add it yourself.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I took the very old proposal for a tag for dog toilets and would like to
start the vote to tag them as amenity=dog_toilet. The proposal was
previously discussed a few times, so you can see this as a very late RFV
after those.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_Poop_Area

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pruning (tree management styel)

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I created a proposal for mapping the style of how trees are pruned (or not
pruned). I made it because I want to be able to map pollards ("knotted
willows"), which are siginificant landscape elements in my area. But it's
written in such a way that it can easily be extended towards other tree
styles.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pruning

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

[joost schouppe]

>
> I still haven't heard of a procedure to vote on tag A over tag B, so I've
>> invented my own. You can vote here:
>>
>> https://framadate.org/ApOlIj5ePZvrTjz8
>>
>
> Misses a "none of the above" option.
>
>
In your honour, I have not just added it, I have called that option
Something Else
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

[joost schouppe]

Some of the most used historical tags are for things that are just old, not
necessarily disused or with another use than the original one. Wayside
cross and shrine, monuments, memorials, castles etc. It just seems to
signify a special relationship with history, not much more than that.

But then there is the conflict with other historic tags a road might have.

On the other hand, if cutting does not imply "constructed" it seems like
the perfect fit. But the wiki for cutting seems to imply this ("an
excavated section").
Also, cutting can be defined as left/right/both, which is kind of possible
for sunken lanes too.

So that makes me think of a third solution, where we use a dedicated tag
sunken_lane=yes. This could then be seen as a fine-tuning of cutting. Data
consumers would then have to look for a subtag to decide what kind of
cutting it is. Or we could define it as "do not use it together"; say if
you combine it, it would mean "a former sunken lane that has now been
artificially cut". Doing this would also make it possible to add a
left/right value for cases where the sunken lane is very asymmetrical.
But that would mean an entirely new tag.

In all, I think I like historic=sunken_lane best. In the cases where two
values apply, well, that's just part of a bigger issue we'll have to deal
with somewhere else.

As for the word hollow_way, seems there is still some discussion about
that, so we now have six options :)

I still haven't heard of a procedure to vote on tag A over tag B, so I've
invented my own. You can vote here:

https://framadate.org/ApOlIj5ePZvrTjz8

I'll adapt the proposal to whatever wins and put that up for a vote.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Hollow way is probably a germanism; it's what sunken lanes are literally
called in Dutch too. I absolutely agree that we should stick to British
English for tags, wherever possible. So if we change the proposal to
historic=sunken_lane, then we're all set for voting, right?

Almost all the hollow_way's in Germany seem to have been made in one go
(looking at taghistory.raifer.tech), so I think that means there's a decent
chance for a relatively massive change operation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] reviving hollow way

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

The proposal for historic=hollow_way has been in RFC since 2009. There are
now 4500 objects tagged this way. The main alternative cutting=hollow_way
has less than 50 occurences. Other alternatives seem to have been
abandoned. Can we just move this to RFV or do we need to restart the
discussion first?

Proposal page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hollow_way


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] how to map a fr:talus?

[joost schouppe]

I'm not entirely sure this is what you have in mind, but in the cases where
it is associated with roads, I've seen historic=hollow_way (when the slope
is caused by the fact that there's an old road), and "embankment" or
"cutting" when the slope is deliberatly constructed. In other cases, I've
seen what I think you describe mapped as natural=cliff, which is obviously
wrong, but does get the message accross. For example where sand or rock was
quarried this is common to see on the map. I'm hoping someone has seen
better ideas.

2017-11-23 16:48 GMT+01:00 André Pirard :

> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for how to map what is called in French a talus
> <http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/talus> (Google's translation).
> I would call this a 1.8m simple step running for some reason for several
> 100s meters across meadows.
> Steep slope. There are "top of slope" and "bottom of slope" lines. Rest is
> perfectly flat either side.
> It might be the remnants of a old canal's bank whose other side would have
> been eroded by the often overflowing nearby river.
> A "talus" made of plain ground is often frequent at one side of a path or
> track.
> According to the wiki, it's not a "scree" nor a "shingle". It's much less
> matter specific.
> So what?
> I'll use "scree" unless/until I hear of better for a French talus.
>
> Cheers
>
> André.
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[joost schouppe]

Hi Adam,

This thread came into existance after questions to use from people actually
working with the emergency services to improve routing for them. There is a
real issue to solve. Basically, emergency services can often ignore many
laws of traffic, but there are some exceptions. Especially in the case of
barriers there is a lot of room for confusion. They might be an actual
unmovable physical barrier, or something that certain services can operate.

2017-10-31 11:44 GMT+01:00 Adam Snape :

> Might access tags for emergency service personnel be a solution for a
> non-existant problem? Are there really many places which the emergency
> services are explicitly legally prohibited from accessing?
>
> Adam
>
> On 31 October 2017 at 09:00, joost schouppe 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mateusz,
>>
>> Of course a single bad link is not enough. I also didn't realize how many
>> objects are already tagged with emergency=yes.
>>
>> I've never liked the way access is implied on all the specific tags,
>> where we write access:bicycle as bicycle. IMHO, it makes the tagging scheme
>> more complicated to understand for a new mapper.
>> Since emergency can be used in two different ways, it makes it harder to
>> get an idea of what values are used in the access sence and which in the
>> amenity sense. Theoretically, you could have a road which has both some
>> sensible emergency-amenity AND emergency-access. I haven't seen many of
>> those though, e.g. I guess you could consider a road also tagged as an
>> ambulance_station or a coastal_defence as simple mistakes.
>>
>> Looking at the values used in the context of emergency, I do think
>> there's need for some decent documentation. The general access values don't
>> mention things like ambulance, fire_fighters, fire_truck etc.). In the
>> spirit of other access tags, I suppose these should rather be ambulance=yes
>> instead of emergency=ambulance.
>>
>> 2017-10-31 9:26 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>>
>>> *separate section for meaning
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Oct 2017 8:24 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Single bad link on wiki is not a good reason for mass edit worldwide,
>>> changing all editors, changing all data consumers, changing habits of all
>>> users using this tag, introducing confusing and unusual prefix (it is not
>>> like OSM tagging scheme requires more confusing things) and changing all
>>> pages on wiki describing this tag.
>>>
>>> Just fix the bad link, separate section four meaning as an access tag
>>> makes sense.
>>>
>>> On 30 Oct 2017 11:08 a.m., "joost schouppe" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On the access page, there is a described use for emergency=* . However,
>>>> when you click through, you get to a page to a tag that describes all sorts
>>>> of amenities related to emergency.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be a reason to retag emergency when related to access as the
>>>> implied tag access:emergency=*, and then make a new wiki page about
>>>> access:emergency ? Or would it be enough to add a section to the
>>>> emergency=* wiki page to explain that it can ALSO be used as an implied
>>>> access:emergency tag?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joost Schouppe
>>>> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
>>>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>>>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joost Schouppe
>> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[joost schouppe]

Hi Mateusz,

Of course a single bad link is not enough. I also didn't realize how many
objects are already tagged with emergency=yes.

I've never liked the way access is implied on all the specific tags, where
we write access:bicycle as bicycle. IMHO, it makes the tagging scheme more
complicated to understand for a new mapper.
Since emergency can be used in two different ways, it makes it harder to
get an idea of what values are used in the access sence and which in the
amenity sense. Theoretically, you could have a road which has both some
sensible emergency-amenity AND emergency-access. I haven't seen many of
those though, e.g. I guess you could consider a road also tagged as an
ambulance_station or a coastal_defence as simple mistakes.

Looking at the values used in the context of emergency, I do think there's
need for some decent documentation. The general access values don't mention
things like ambulance, fire_fighters, fire_truck etc.). In the spirit of
other access tags, I suppose these should rather be ambulance=yes instead
of emergency=ambulance.

2017-10-31 9:26 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> *separate section for meaning
>
>
> On 31 Oct 2017 8:24 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" 
> wrote:
>
> Single bad link on wiki is not a good reason for mass edit worldwide,
> changing all editors, changing all data consumers, changing habits of all
> users using this tag, introducing confusing and unusual prefix (it is not
> like OSM tagging scheme requires more confusing things) and changing all
> pages on wiki describing this tag.
>
> Just fix the bad link, separate section four meaning as an access tag
> makes sense.
>
> On 30 Oct 2017 11:08 a.m., "joost schouppe" 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On the access page, there is a described use for emergency=* . However,
>> when you click through, you get to a page to a tag that describes all sorts
>> of amenities related to emergency.
>>
>> Would this be a reason to retag emergency when related to access as the
>> implied tag access:emergency=*, and then make a new wiki page about
>> access:emergency ? Or would it be enough to add a section to the
>> emergency=* wiki page to explain that it can ALSO be used as an implied
>> access:emergency tag?
>>
>> --
>> Joost Schouppe
>> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

On the access page, there is a described use for emergency=* . However,
when you click through, you get to a page to a tag that describes all sorts
of amenities related to emergency.

Would this be a reason to retag emergency when related to access as the
implied tag access:emergency=*, and then make a new wiki page about
access:emergency ? Or would it be enough to add a section to the
emergency=* wiki page to explain that it can ALSO be used as an implied
access:emergency tag?

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[joost schouppe]

I mentioned two different situations where access=permit would also be the
most logical tag:

- access to a Low Emission Zone

- access to certain roads in cities (e.g. this road is accesible to certain
motor_vehicle if they ask for a permit:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25728312)

It would be nice if a definition of permit would not monopolize it for use
on trails only. Once this gets used, people will use it for more than just
that.

Second point is that while access=permit will solve a rendering issue, it
will not solve the current routing issue. Noone will change the value of a
road to motor_vehicle=permit right now, because routing will just be
allowed.

A solution where we start of with an extra, specialised tag could
documented as being synonymous with *=permit. Routers could implement this
first. Then, when they have done so, we can formalize *=permit and use our
special tag to find objects that should be migrated to the *=permit tagging
style.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[joost schouppe]

Kevin,

What I wanted to make clear before is that you are not the only one who
thinks access=permit could be useful. Also, don't make the mistake of
conflating tagging and OSM-in-general opinion.

That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of
us, one of us, one of us") maybe does not like an extra value for the
access key, I see no reason why you would need to use another database.
There are very many things which are not mapped by just one key, but by
many keys combined. You just need a key to classify WHY a thing has a
certain access key. I see someone already suggested
permit=registration_at_entry/registration_offsite/online/lottery. That
could work as a subtag: access:permit=*, foot:permit=*. You could then
simply tag it as *:permit=yes meaning "there is some permitting process in
place". That would save you the hassle of defining all the many different
permitting schemes. It would of course best be extended with some
information about the difficulty of the process (on arrival, in advance and
simple, in advance and complicated) and contact information. That would
also be quite useful to extend the limited model now used on Low Emission
Zones (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dlow_emission_zone). It
would certainly be better then the now-used access=green_sticker_germany :)

I couldn't bring myself to read the previous discussion, I'm sorry if I'm
repeating something said before.

-- 
Joost
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[joost schouppe]

> Is access by permit not permissive access?

No. According to the wiki permissive means "Open to general traffic until
such time as the owner revokes the permission which they are legally
allowed to do at any time in the future.", while permit means almost the
opposite: "closed except for people who do something special".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[joost schouppe]

In Gent, Belgium, they would also have liked to use access=permit. There
are some new situations there where you need a local government permit to
pass certain "breakpoints" within the city. In the end, they used
access=private because it was the tagging style that would be most useful
to people using current routing software. But it is quite weird to put
something as "private" when it's a public body that gives you the permit to
use it. Still, it is true that the owner needs to give you an individual
permission, so it doesn't actually conflict with the wiki definition of
private.

Current tagging is quite confusing, as it doesn't really take into account
ownership. If you have an operater tag, it becomes more logical.
operator=private (this is a private road) does not imply access=private
access=private does not imply operator="some private person"
operator="city governement" does not imply access cannot be private.

While that means you can get arount the need for access=permit, it makes
for counterintuitive tagging. For a data consumer, it would be nice to know
if there's a procedure in place to gain access, or you just have to ask
some person.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] electrical cattle grid

[joost schouppe]

My dog agrees it's evil (I didn't know these things existed until the poor
beast walked on it).

barrier=cattle_grid + cattle_grid=electric is almost exactly what I used,
so that sounds reasonable
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] electrical cattle grid

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I don't seem to be able to find an alternative for the electrical
equivalent to barrier=cattle_grid. So basically some metal plating on the
ground, which give electrical shocks to barefeet animals (and humans).

Any ideas?

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion

[joost schouppe]

>
> Tagging is done in British-English, if the word used in the tagging
>> means something else in your language, too bad.
>
>
> I personally totally disagree with this opinion. You are confusing
> signifier and signified. We all use English (I would not say the British
> one, as soccer is an existing value, despite football has been created in
> UK) because it is the current lingua franca. But we cannot map the whole
> world with tagging concepts related only to the UK context. We need to be
> firstly generic.
>

I'm sorry if this is completely missing the point of what you were trying
to say. If so, please elaborate and ignore the following.

That tagging is done in British-English is not an opinion, but a statement
of fact. In the OSM universe, the signifier almost always tells something
about the signified. And it does this based on the British-English
definition of the concept. This can be quite confusing for people
elsewhere. A naive approach would be to look at the tag amenity=cafe and
thinking this applies to the things you call café in your own language. In
Flemish Dutch however, you have to ignore the fact that "amenity=cafe"
sounds a lot like café, because in our use of the word, it clearly means
amenity=pub. This is the basic reason we have a wiki, and the reason why
editors (especially  those oriented to inexperienced mappers) have user
interfaces where the tags are hidden behind localised descriptions.

So in fact the relation between signifier and signified is not necesary at
all. We could as well write blob=26, if we have user interfaces describing
what that means. In some cases, mappers have stretched the meaning of tags
in such a way that the original relation between signifier and signified
has been largely lost. A good example would be village_green. But that is
not necessarily a problem, as it is the wiki that explains what a thing is,
and not just the tag.

Of course nobody is saying we should only map things where a
British-English word can be found.

-- 
Joost Schouppe
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] many tiny zoo

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

A mapper in my area added several tiny zoo's:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49005889?#map=19/50.74418/4.28134

They are probably some enclosures where you can see animals, but these are
just some cages in an otherwise non-zoo leisure area. I think zoo is
obviously wrong, but I find the wiki page for tourism=zoo not entirely
clear on that. I'm thinking of adding a clarification that a zoo is for a
larger area with primary function being a zoo, which may contain one or
more enclosures.

But then attraction=animal (which doesn't need a tourism=attraction tag?!)
is defined as something within a zoo.

So here I'm left confused...

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] knotted willows

[joost schouppe]

Considering that there are several management styles for individual trees,
we could have something like

tree:managament=pollard

Other values might be none (allowed to grow free), copicce (pruned almost
to the ground), espalier (pruned into a flat vertical surface), etc.

tree:management:operator=* could then be used to indicate who is keeping
the tree pruned.

Maybe tree:pruning_style would be more logical?

2017-02-11 13:34 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Zenker :

> Hi,
>
> * joost schouppe  [170211 09:43]:
> > One of the defining small landscape elements in Flanders (and probably
> many
> > rural areas in Europe) is the "knotted willow". I'm not sure if this is
> the
> > right term in English, in Dutch "knotwilg" really is a thing.
>
> > How would you tag such a thing? (I could not find any previous
> discussions
> > anywhere)
>
> > natural=tree
> > genus=Salix
> > +
> > management_style=knotted
>
> > Or something like that?
>
> > Apparently there's two words in Dutch:
> > - knotwilg: knotted at about 2 meters high
> > - grienden: knotted at a hight of maximum 50 cm
>
> apparently english has words for these managements styles:
> - "knotwilg" would be called "Pollarding"
> - "grienden" would be called "Coppicing"
>
> Wikipedia has pages on both.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] knotted willows

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

One of the defining small landscape elements in Flanders (and probably many
rural areas in Europe) is the "knotted willow". I'm not sure if this is the
right term in English, in Dutch "knotwilg" really is a thing.

How would you tag such a thing? (I could not find any previous discussions
anywhere)

natural=tree
genus=Salix
+
management_style=knotted

Or something like that?

Apparently there's two words in Dutch:
- knotwilg: knotted at about 2 meters high
- grienden: knotted at a hight of maximum 50 cm



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - dog toilets

[joost schouppe]

I got some more comments off-list (and some of them tried mailing this list
without being a member, but there seems to be no admin around to allow
their contribution).

Is it possible to have a vote on number 1 (amenity=dog_toilet) -versus-
number 4 (amenity=pet_toilet)? Most people I contacted off list seemed to
be thinking that kind of choice is what we'd be voting on, not first
choosing the best way of tagging, then voting on whether or not it's a good
idea to use the tag at all.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non-geometrical ways in boundary relations

[joost schouppe]

Isn't the admin_centre just an imaginary point? They tend to be in a
logical place, but that might as well be the church or the geographical
center (at least in current mapping in Belgium).

Also, often it isn't actually "administrative", because we mapped the
"Deelgemeenten" (part-community?) which don't actually exist anymore in a
legal sense (though everyone knows where they are and they are marked on
official signs...)

2017-01-26 14:35 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :

> On 26.01.2017 14:00, Dave F wrote:
>
>> admin_centre added to a town/villages place node is sufficient as local
>> authorities often use multiple buildings.
>>
>
> If that is a solution to your situations, fine. It is insufficient for
> mine.
>
> On 26/01/2017 11:46, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There is no logical reason why this townhall should not be added to
>>> the boundary relation as a way. That was proposed on the wiki
>>> discussion page a few months ago.
>>>
>>
>
> _______
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - dog toilets

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

There were some previous discussions on how we could tag designated areas
for dogs to urinate/defecate. They are quite common, but unfortunately
there are many different tags going around for lack of documentation.

I have added a section to an old proposal page with these options (also
links to the previous discussions I know of here). I'm not sure how we can
get the comments here to translate to reducing the proposal to just one
tagging option? Maybe have a pre-vote?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_Poop_Area

Description:
This is an area designated for pets (dogs) urinate and excrete. Unlike
dog_park label, the main objective of the area is not that dogs play. It is
usually small and fenced areas, but can also just be a designated patch of
grass by the side of the road. It is known as pee-can in some countries.



Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] zero waste

[joost schouppe]

While this all makes sense, I wonder why something like fair_trade doesn't
follows that logic too. So, for example, certification:oxfam=yes for shops
selling fair trade products certified by Oxfam. Which leads me to think
that we need a double subtag (oh dear):

certification:waste_policy:zero-waste.org=yes
certification:fair_trade:oxfam=yes

And also that some kind of "general waste policy" tag is needed.

Anyway, we're meeting someone who works with one of these organisations
soon, maybe some new info that can help us here will come from that.

BTW, the certification wiki page could use a little love:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/certification

2017-01-18 19:39 GMT+01:00 Éric Gillet :

> 2017-01-17 17:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>>
>> > On 17 Jan 2017, at 13:50, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>> >
>> > certification:zero-waste.org=yes
>>
>>
>> +1
>
>
> +1
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=fuel

[joost schouppe]

2017-01-18 15:33 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :

> This tag started out being for a very specific type of shop that sells
> only one item, motor fuel, in small volume containers. There is a need to
> keep shops of this type separate from large full-service facilities that
> sell motor fuel in quantities large enough to refill cars or trucks. lt has
> now been expanded to include other types of fuel like kerosene and even
> charcoal. Fine. That's logical and sensible.
>
> But if you want to rework the tagging structure to handle such borderline
> cases as fuel shops that also sell bread, then I feel that would be
> defeating the original purpose of this tag. Where will these additions and
> modifications stop? A logical but not particularly useful extension of that
> reasoning might involve redefining the entire structure of the shop tag
> hierarchy by using shop=yes, bread=yes, Crest_brand_toothpaste=yes,
> fuel:diesel=yes, knitting_supplies=yes, etc. etc.
>

Well, I for one like to take a middle ground between what works now and
what we will probably need in the future.

Vending machines are mapped entirely according to this model, using
vending:*=* . By the logic we used for shop=*, it should have been
amenity=bread_vending_machine or amenity=vending_machine + bread=yes. The
vending:* tagging style makes it easier to process all sorts of data, and
easily allows further extension.

I wouldn't say we should change shop tagging styles to that. I was merely
taking the stated position that fuel shops should follow that structure to
its logical conclusion. And I'm starting to think we might actually have to
consider it to avoid ever further cluttering of the shop types.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=fuel

[joost schouppe]

> There are general stores (shop= ) that sell fuel too ...

Well, that goes for any product and any shop. While your suggestion does
make sense, we already have a long list of shop types. No one made this
particular suggestion during the fuel-shop discussion (unless I'm mistaken).

But it is true that it might have been more logical to only use shop=[shop
type] for shops that sell a range of products that people have an idea of
(e.g. diy, supermarket). Any shop that specializes in just one product (or
an unusual combination of things) could then be tagged with shop=yes +
sells (or vending:*=*?) to specify what you can buy there. That would have
made tagging specialty stores a lot easier i guess. You could then add
stuff like vending:bread=no to supermarkets if their range excludes
something you would expect (in stead of tagging every little thing they
sell with a positive).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] zero waste

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

We had an OSM meetup at a bar yesterday, and while we were able to add
several tags [1], we didn't find any documentation on how to tag their
"zero waste" policy. I think it's self evident what that means.

I'm thinking we could create a tag like zero_waste=yes . It also seems like
there are some certification organisations around [2], so maybe we need
zero_waste=official or zero_waste=certified or something like that? And
also something like zero_waste:certification or zero_waste:ref .

1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4284192891
2: https://uszwbc.org/certification/facilities/certification-program/

-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] shop=fuel

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Some time back, there was a largish discussion about shops that sell fuel,
but are definitely not a fuel station.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/023102.html

Of course, there was no consensus, but most people seemed to agree that a
new tag was needed. Also, there was no tag available for shops that sell
other kinds of fuels, like charcoal or heating oil. So I created this wiki
page:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfuel

I also added the tag to the main shop page too.
Hope this doesn't infuriate anyone. Feel free to edit the page of course.

Something I did note during the edits: the description for shop=gas is
completely contradictory on the shop=* and the shop=gas page. One implies
"technical" gas, the other gas as a cooking fuel. I would suggest dropping
shop=gas (or only keep it for "technical" gas), and just use a subtag
instead:

shop=fuel + fuel:[whatever gas]=yes



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] dog toilets

[joost schouppe]

Upon further thought on this subject which doubtlessly keeps all of you out
of your sleep, here's a short analysis with my conclusion:

dog_toilet:
plus: it is very clear what it means, even for non-native speakers
min: * we would need cat_toilet, hamster_toilet etc over time.
* technically, a toilet is something to sit down on, made out of porcelain
with a flushing system etc. So technically, a dog "toilet" isn't a toilet.

potty_area:
plus: easily expandable to show which animals are welcomed
min: it's eufemistic babytalk, not as descriptive, especially for
non-native speakers

pet_relief_area:
plus: easily expandable
min: "relief" is very eufemistic, and doesn't even show up in many
dictionaries as associated with defecation. Non-natives might easily think
this is something completely different

So I would like to propose a completely new value: amenity=pet_toilet.
It is as descriptive as the best here, but easily expandable. It is a place
where pets go to the toilet. Obviously they don't have a sit-down toilet.
But "going to the toilet" is a very common euphemism - to the degree that
there are eufemisms to not having to utter the word toilet (going to the
bathroom).

Implied would be dog=designated, as most of these things are built for dogs
only. Of course better to add the tag.
Other pets could be added with cat=yes, etc. Maybe even toddler=permissive
for that Japanese example :)


[1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37176813

2016-11-10 9:37 GMT+01:00 joost schouppe :

> Thanks for the link John!
>
> Pet relief areas as described in the OPs mail are exactly "dog toilet".
> The the discussion went everywhere :)
>
> Maybe amenity=pet_relief_area is the better tag: it's just as descriptive
> as amenity=dog_toilet, but can be expanded to indicate which animals can
> use it. I think we can safely say that amenity=potty_area is the least
> preferable.
>
> The only edge case I saw in the previous thread is where there isn't
> really any infrastructure, it's more like a suggested area to let your
> animals do their thing. But I suppose an extra tag would do there?
>
> 2016-11-10 1:19 GMT+01:00 John Willis :
>
>>
>> On 9 Nov 2016, at 11:24 PM, joost schouppe 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Many cities have special little areas which are specifically meant to be
>> used as a toilet area for dogs.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like "pet relief areas" you find on motorways. Getting the dog out
>> of the car is usually to let them "get relief" by taking a poo. Sounds like
>> a similar place. Our nearby rest area has statues of dogs and cats peeing
>> in a small grassy area.
>> https://goo.gl/maps/gdArtdfbxcB2
>>
>> This tag was discussed on the mailing list last year , but I cannot
>> remember what came of it.
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-May/024673.html
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

[joost schouppe]

Absolutely agree that access=destination is wrong here.

I also like the idea of using an external dataset. Actually, the similarity
with an altitude model is quite interesting. You could use an existing
router that takes elevation data and replace it with crime data. Converting
crime statistics to something that looks like an altitude model is
straightforward with a GIS tool. Or someone could make a website (probably
exist already) to collect opinions on security by neighborhood, then
convert to an altitude model. Crime being quite concentrated (in my city
80% of all registered violent crime is concentrated in just 16% of the
city), a router wouldn't have much trouble avoiding the higher places.

2016-11-16 11:36 GMT+01:00 Rory McCann :

> I don't think tagging access=destination is a good idea. The access tag
> is used for the legal restrictions for a road. access=destination means
> you can only legally go on the road if your destination is on it. A
> router won't route you down a road that it thinks you (legally) can't go
> down. Tagging that way will stop the router routing you on it, but for
> the wrong reason. You're "tagging for the router".
>
> Many countries use access=destination to mean this, I suppose the
> Brazilian community could use the tag in a different way, but it'd
> usually better for us all to use the same tag/values. 🙂
>
> There are some possible solutions to your problem:
>
> Are slums/flavelas (sp?) tagged/mapped in OSM? If so, a router may be
> able to downgrade roads that are near a slum by looking at what's nearby.
>
> Do the roads in slums have any common physical properties? Like always
> being narrow, with no footpaths, lower speed limits, etc? You could map
> those attributes, and a router might be able take them into account. (A
> narrow road with pedestrians walking on it, and a low speed limit might
> be downgraded compared to a more straighter, easier-to-drive road).
>
> The idea of using an external dataset to inform routing isn't new. Some
> bicycle routers use external elevation data to not route people up and
> then down a hill. Perhaps there's a dataset of crime/damgerous areas you
> could combine with OSM data to make a better router.
>
> However I don't know if any/many routers currently support this kind of
> features. So people might just want to keep using the routers they have
> and "fix" them.
>
>
> On 16/11/16 02:04, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> > It's the second time that we are having a major discussion here in
> > Brazil, on how to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas.
> > For example, some people consider slums and other communities as
> > dangerous (since there is a risk of being robbed or even killed) and
> > would like to don't have the router creating a route through them,
> > using "access=destination" in every street located in such places for
> > this, for example.
> >
> > Since they can't find another tag to indicate those "dangerous"
> > places, they argue that access=destination is valid for this case.
> >
> > Other group (including me) find that this is wrong: we should not tag
> > streets considered dangerous in OSM (specially when "dangerous" is
> > subjective).
> > We also think that access=destination is being wrongly used for this.
> >
> > Since we can't reach a consensus on this, we would like to hear some
> > opinions and suggestions on how to handle such problem, please.
> >
> > I had one idea where such data should be kept outside OSM, and
> > inserted in some post-processing phase (for example, tag every highway
> > that is inside these areas with any needed/wanted property).
> >
> > Comments, please?
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] dog toilets

[joost schouppe]

Thanks for the link John!

Pet relief areas as described in the OPs mail are exactly "dog toilet". The
the discussion went everywhere :)

Maybe amenity=pet_relief_area is the better tag: it's just as descriptive
as amenity=dog_toilet, but can be expanded to indicate which animals can
use it. I think we can safely say that amenity=potty_area is the least
preferable.

The only edge case I saw in the previous thread is where there isn't really
any infrastructure, it's more like a suggested area to let your animals do
their thing. But I suppose an extra tag would do there?

2016-11-10 1:19 GMT+01:00 John Willis :

>
> On 9 Nov 2016, at 11:24 PM, joost schouppe 
> wrote:
>
> Many cities have special little areas which are specifically meant to be
> used as a toilet area for dogs.
>
>
> Sounds like "pet relief areas" you find on motorways. Getting the dog out
> of the car is usually to let them "get relief" by taking a poo. Sounds like
> a similar place. Our nearby rest area has statues of dogs and cats peeing
> in a small grassy area.
> https://goo.gl/maps/gdArtdfbxcB2
>
> This tag was discussed on the mailing list last year , but I cannot
> remember what came of it.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-May/024673.html
>
> Javbw
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] dog toilets

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Many cities have special little areas which are specifically meant to be
used as a toilet area for dogs.

They look like this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2420/844/320/Hondentoilet.jpg

There is a proposal for this:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_Poop_Area

It proposes amenity=potty_area (used about 50 times) . But there is also
the (more descripitve?) tag dog_toilet (used about 30 times).

It should be pretty straightforward to merge these two tags. But before
starting to contact people, I'd like to hear your opinion on the merits of
both tags.


-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] non-temporary usage of highway=road

[joost schouppe]

Just had a quick look here in Belgium: we have over a 1000 ways with this
tag.

This makes it easy to count in your area of interest:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/iBC
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

[joost schouppe]

It wouldn't be hard to prove if this conversation is in the public domain.

In the original question, the data use looks much more direct than using it
as a source for directed surveying. And it does look like even this is
expressly forbidden by the user terms of the mentioned website.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

[joost schouppe]

Dave, well, as I implied, no, I'm not sure.

Janko started a thread in legal-talk where you can expect more
knowledgeable answers. Simon Poole answered, basically, "it depends". Which
I think is correct, as Martin's answer also explains.

Andre Angels, your comment was really uncalled for.

2016-09-21 12:05 GMT+02:00 Dave F :

>
> On 21/09/2016 07:51, joost schouppe wrote:
>
>>
>> Using copyrighted material to spot errors in OSM is still copyright
>> violation (well, a specialist in copyright should confirm that).
>>
>
> Hmm... Are you sure? I (& I'm sure others as well) use UK OS maps to spot
> features missing from OSM & then use those maps to navigate to them so they
> can be surveyed. Do you consider that a violation?
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin)

[joost schouppe]

André,

This isn't about you - this is about project integrity. One lawsuit for
copyright infringement could be enough to kill the project. Or we could get
our data users into serious problems. Whether or not you are an excellent
mapper is not the question. It is just not something we can take chances
with.

When you ask if you should tag copyrighted material as a source, I think we
can safely assume that you're talking about using that material as a
source. Which is never OK.

I find it ironical that you are shocked by a warning about how serious this
is, and in the same message refer to the DWG as vandals. Of course they
break things, but that's only because they're too busy saving us from
larger problems than a few broken relations. But how can you be so
sensitive when it comes to you and so insensitive when it comes to others?

Using copyrighted material to spot errors in OSM is still copyright
violation (well, a specialist in copyright should confirm that). If I
understand correctly what you are trying to do, then you don't even need to
do that. There are tools around which check for things like 'short section
of lower  classification within a larger section of higher classification'.


Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] using Michelin's road classification (was: Routing in Liège)

[joost schouppe]

>
> I did not investigate further (I'm short sighted indeed) but I suggest
> that anyone contesting an OSM route compared it with the same routing by
> Michelin, tried to find an explanation by comparing my overpass
> 
> with the Michelin map
> 
> (my "Michelin info" message helps the wise JOSM users too), and asked
> people with local knowledge if they know better than Michelin.
>
> Last point is what source:???=Michelin ??? to use to prevent a StijnRR or
> like arbitrarily destructing well thought out tagging without notifying the
> author. I suggest source:highway=
> https://
> viamichelin.be/web/Cartes-plans 2016 2016.
>


You can't just use Michelin as a source. It is copyrighted data. The site
explicitly states you are only allowed to use their content for personal
use.
 So source:classification=michelin is probably a good idea, makes it easier
to revert.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] Michelin info

[joost schouppe]

Maybe we can talk publicly about doing something similar with open
data?(wegenregister, GRB, etc.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] reviving an abandoned proposal

[joost schouppe]

I messed up: I thought I checked all the variants mentioned in the article,
but I missed the main proposal somehow. As it's used already a couple of
100 times, I'll just adapt the article as you suggest, to reflect the
in-use character.

2016-07-21 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 21 lug 2016, alle ore 10:31, Tom Pfeifer <
> t.pfei...@computer.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > However, as this is just a value for the historic tag, and it is used
> 580x already, you could
> > check some of these exiting taggings if they follow the same meaning,
> and document the value
> > as being 'in use'.
>
>
> +1, this is one of the many cases, where back in 2012 wiki user Kstaden
> [1] has changed all open proposals (with no activity for some months) to
> abandoned, regardless of the tags being in use or not. I'd switch the
> proposal to draft or proposed again, ideally issuing an rfc to check
> whether there are problems, with the aim to then set it to active.
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> [1] it was hundreds and it was almost the only thing he did in the osm
> wiki:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kstaden&target=Kstaden
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

[joost schouppe]

We have a somewhat similar problem in Belgium: a lot of historical paths
are by law open to everyone, however they are private property. So the road
is private, but the access is not. It would then not make sense to put an
access=private tag, as the owner has no right to allow or restrict access.
However, you do want to give this info to data consumers, as owners often
put a sign "private property" to scare people off. Hence something like
property=private + access=yes would be useful.

Maybe a bit off topic, but it might help the thinking process on this issue.

2016-07-21 3:56 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :

> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
>
>> Yep. I asked a similar question at
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-February/028504.html
>> but there was no particular consensus.
>>
>> access=permit seems to have moderate usage (slightly more than =license,
>> which is in any case misspelled) so I'd go for that.
>
>
> You've just demonstrated that this is a recurring issue. "You have to get
> permission, but permission will not ordinarily be refused" is a common
> situation here in the US. What's the process for modifying the 'accepted'
> set of values? (I presume that simply wikifying it would be regarded as
> vandalism.)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] reviving an abandoned proposal

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

There is an abandoned proposal about tagging hollow ways [1]. How does one
go about reviving it?

Reviving abandoned proposals in general does not seem to be explained in
the wiki [2] (but I'm not the best at reading doc). I would want to adapt
the proposal with the input from the discussion. Is it OK to just adapt the
existing page, or is there a point at which it really becomes a new
proposal?

I avoided any content about the proposal itself in this message, so as to
keep the discussion focused. If you can't help yourself, please start a new
thread about the example itself :)


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hollow_way
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] do aerodromes need a relation?

[joost schouppe]

> About your proposed use of a relation with a label as node: This is
> strongly opposed by map style editors and the "label" role was removed
> by me from the (proposed) site relation because of this.
>

I was unaware of this. Thanks for clearing that up.
Can you refer me to the arguments for this? When the centroid of a service
polygon is very far from the place of actual service (like a reception at a
hotel might be), joining this information in a relation looks useful to me.
But probably not using the label function, rather as the actual thing
you're pointing at.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] do aerodromes need a relation?

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

Currently, the main airport of Brussels (yes, that one) is mapped two
times. once as a node, once as a way. I noticed because the node has a
silly name.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370594935
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26608229

The wiki for aerodromes suggests looking at the mapping of Munich airport.
It also has a node and a way that live in separate worlds. Shouldn't most
tags live in a relation, with the node as a label (similar to
administrative boundaries)?

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> | Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob> | Wordpress
<https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

[joost schouppe]

Dave,

I rented out my own house with AirBnB once, and do not keep a sign out. I
would definitely not appreciate my house being marked on a map as a
guesthouse because of that. However, as you got the data from a survey, I
don't see a problem in those cases.

Only a main tag like guesthouse if it is clearly marked as such. I would
personally look into a solution like adding something in the line of
 externalid:airbnb=12345 and website:airbnb=http://airbnb.com/property=12345
.  As far as I know there's no proposition for a generalized external id of
things. Wikidata is used for that, but that's just one of many providers in
my opinion. I once wrote a diary entry about the possible use of such a
tagging style:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/diary/34328
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[joost schouppe]

Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes
tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not the
hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define organically
grown blocks.

There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is
undocumented and maybe overly precise.

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> | Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob> | Wordpress
<https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "you pick" farms and related fruit stands

[joost schouppe]

farm:pick_your_own=yes makes most sense to me. I used the tag for the
second time in the whole database [1]. Is this really all we have of these
things, or are there some other proposititions in use?


[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/397702013

2016-02-14 2:35 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel :

>
> johnw  writes:
>
> > Usually, the farm consists of the orchards, greenhouses, and other
> > areas that are used a farmland year-round, A gift shop that usually is
> > a a roadside stand or small shop (shop=farm) which is open when
> > in-season, but the entire place is usually a singularly named
> > thing. The area where I live is covered with strawberries, tangerines,
> > and apples - and almost all of the rural farms jammed up in the
> > mountains offer this “pick it yourself” service at the farm, usually
> > operated from the gift shop.
>
> We have many of these in the US.   They are first and foremost farms,
> and often sell already picked fruit or flowers, and also let you pick,
> often by selling you an empty bag for a set price.
>
> > How do I tag this kind of farm that is also a seasonal “you-pick”
> > place? The small building that is a shop is easy, but trying to convey
> > that there is a public “you-pick” while in season is very difficult,
> > without making the whole farm seem like it is a shopping mall
> > (landuse=retail seems really wrong).
>
> as you suggest, landuse=retail is wrong.  It's a farm, and farm's also
> sell produce, instead of it being a retail facility that obtains goods
> From others.  And I don't see why pick-your-own would be any different
> From already-picked.  The only real difference there is whether a farm
> worker has put apples in a bag that you can pick up and pay for vs
> paying for an empty bag and a license to fill it from the orchard.  So I
> don't think the pick-your-own notion is very important to the kind of
> place it is, although I understand that it can be important to some map
> users who are looking for the pick-your-own experience for their
> children.  Around me, there are places that are only pick-your-own
> (mostly apples), partially (and varying depending on season and type of
> food) and none.  Except for buying empty bags, they feel similar in most
> other respects.
>
> I think that some sort of farm:pick_your_own=yes tag is in order, as an
> additional tag on the property, or perhaps the farmstand.  It should be
> an annotation, not a replacement of the farm -- it's really just a minor
> variation in how the fruit/flowers/etc. are sold.
>
> Perhaps this would go with a list of food type sold already picked, and
> a PYO list, and for each seasons.  That is getting too complicated; a
> farm:pick_your_own=yes tag seems very helpful compared to the
> complexity, and I'm not sure beyond that.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> | Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob> | Wordpress
<https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a salt flat

[joost schouppe]

I don't think a landuse tag is sensible, as the salt flats I have in mind
(look up some images of Salar de Uyuni to get an impression) are definitely
not something human centered. However, it might be a good tag for some of
the smaller  areas where salt is actually harvested.

The combination of natural=water , intermittant=yes and salt=yes sounds
reasonable. I do think it is a bit confusing as the saltiness is more a
property of the lake bed when it dries out than of the water when it is
filled. Maybe adding that geological=salt_pan could clarify this enough.

I don't see how the natural=desert would be wrong because of the outline
not coinciding with the deserts' end. In fact, you could argue that the
desert does end at the salt's edge; there is a very sudden shift in
vegetation and barren-ness there. The "islands" within it are really like
oasis in the desert. But even if the argument does hold, why couldn't there
be a natural=desert / desert=salt surrounded by natural=desert /desert=sand
?

In South Americe, these things are just called Salar, or "salted". That's
for a reason: the salt is as much the defining feature here as water is in
a lake or tree cover in a wood. So natural=salt_flat might be worthy of
existing.

2015-09-30 0:39 GMT+02:00 André Pirard :

> On 2015-09-29 17:29, joost schouppe wrote :
>
> Hi,
>
> I haven't found much about the subject. A salt flat is a large deposit of
> salt. They are usually where a river ends in the middle of a desert. Or
> where a valley is completely surrounded by mountains, leaving no way out
> for any water. So salt starts accumulating as salty waters evaporate. Some
> of them rarely see any water, others are inundated every year or might be
> under water a lot of the time. Because they tend to be dry most of the
> time, and plants tend to dislike pure salt, they tend to look like a desert.
>
> How should one tag such a thing? I've seen three very different ideas:
>
> You might find some inspiration by searching for "marais salant
> <https://www.google.be/search?&q=openstreetmap+marais+salant>", which is
> French for similar areas, but fitted for salt production.  The discussions
> will take you further to tags as salt_pond, natural=wetland and the like.
> As salt is cheap, this is just 2 ¢. €¢.
>
> André.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> | Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob> | Wordpress
<https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] how to tag a salt flat

[joost schouppe]

Hi,

I haven't found much about the subject. A salt flat is a large deposit of
salt. They are usually where a river ends in the middle of a desert. Or
where a valley is completely surrounded by mountains, leaving no way out
for any water. So salt starts accumulating as salty waters evaporate. Some
of them rarely see any water, others are inundated every year or might be
under water a lot of the time. Because they tend to be dry most of the
time, and plants tend to dislike pure salt, they tend to look like a desert.

How should one tag such a thing? I've seen three very different ideas:

- they are a kind of desert, which happens to inundate from time to time.
Hence natural=desert and desert=salt. This seems to be the most popular
option (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32082629 and
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bJb )
- they are a kind of lake, which happens to be dry most of the time. Rarely
this is combined with water=salt_lake (for example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1290108#map=10/-19.3280/-68.1139)
- they are a kind of wetland, which happens to be completely devoid of
vegetation (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dwetland#Salt_plains_.2B_intermittent_salt_lakes
 )

-- 
Joost @
Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> | Reddit
<https://www.reddit.com/u/joostjakob> | Wordpress
<https://joostschouppe.wordpress.com/>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging