Re: [Tagging] Is there any tagging scheme for carillons already?

2020-05-06 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Paul, this thread is not trying to convince you to go tag carillions. It's
to figure out how to tag them, for people that *do *want to tag them and
would find that useful. If it's not your thing that's fine, just sit this
one out. Cheers, Brad

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:28 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 19:59, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I understand you are mostly interested in visual aspects, but OSM doesn’t
>> have to limit itself to this, IMHO carillons are mostly about music so
>> whether you can see them is not so important.
>>
>
> Already covered under attraction=carillon.  I don't have a problem with
> that,
> or with similar non-visual POIs like concert halls, theatres, etc.  They're
> of interest to a relatively large group of people.  People want to know
> about
> these things.
>
> > I don't think we need to tag the fact that a carillon is in a church
>> bell tower,
>> > or how many bells it has.  We distinguish between a bell tower and a
>> clock
>> > tower because they are visibly very different and constitute landmarks .
>> > Other than that, we don't need to know what is inside.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>
> Others within OSM disagree with both of us and think lots of things
> that we both agree are useful have no business being represented on
> a map.  I take a different view to them: if it is useful to more than a
> very tiny minority of people then it can and should be mapped.  "Useful"
> includes using it as a landmark for navigation or to confirm that
> you really are where you think you are (so inscriptions on plaques
> are useful because there could be more than one plaque in
> the area where you are and the one you're stood in front may
> not be the one you think it is).  "Useful" includes people wanting
> to find a POI of that particular type, or finding a specific
> POI.  "Useful" includes opening hours so you don't waste
> time going somewhere that isn't open that day.
>
> How many people care if a church clock escapement uses a pendulum
> or is electronic?  How many people care if a church has four bells or five?
> How many people care if the church bells are rung by tugging on
> ropes or by a carillon?  The answer to that last question is not many,
> unless it performs frequently and regularly so they could plan an
> excursion to hear it.
>
> I don't think tagging carillons in churches is important at this time.
> There are still plenty of things to map that are of far more interest
> to far more people.  But if somebody thinks it is really important
> I won't oppose it, because "any tag you like" means there's no way
> for any of us to stop it happening, the best we can hope for is to
> guide the choice of tags to be sensible.  So you write a proposal
> and I won't vote against it unless I think the key and/or value
> you propose is flawed.  I might even vote for it.  But I think it
> will be applicable to such a small number of POIs and be of
> interest to such a tiny fraction of mappers and users that it's
> not worth the effort.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Waterway tributary role

2019-04-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Seems like this is essentially replaced by the destination key?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:24 PM marc marc  wrote:

> Le 11.04.19 à 12:48, Eugene Podshivalov a écrit :
>
> > I could not find any reference on the wiki.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frodrigo/Relation:Waterway
> ___
> 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] historic=archaeological_site with site_type=rock_art, rock_painting definitions

2019-04-01 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:55 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 06:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Within OSM 'we' could adopt that rock_art is where both carving and
>> painting are used together? That would distinguish it from either of the
>> above.
>>
>>
>> There are some 22 uses of site_type=rock_art, I think most of them would
>> go to either site_type=rock_painting or site_type=petroglyph only
>> leaving a very few of this type.
>>
>
> Site_type=* is a subtag of historic=*.  Both are largely the demesne of
> the mapper Lutz because
> they were defined by him for use on his historic place project:
> http://gk.historic.place/
>
> I'm not saying he is the ultimate arbiter of those tags, because OSM is
> anarchic and nobody
> controls anything.  However, his project is the only carto I know of where
> those tags are
> rendered.  You are free to add any site_type you wish, even without prior
> discussion here,
> but if you want them to be rendered anywhere it's best to get in touch
> with Lutz and discuss
> it with him.
>
> BTW, I don't know if Lutz is male or female but trying to rewrite the
> above in gender-neutral
> language is difficult.
>
> Not too bad to rewrite really :)

Site_type=* is a subtag of historic=*.  Both are largely the demesne of the
mapper Lutz because
the tags were defined by them for use on their historic place project:
http://gk.historic.place/

I'm not saying Lutz is the ultimate arbiter of those tags, because OSM is
anarchic and nobody
controls anything.  However, the historic place project is the only carto I
know of where those tags are
rendered. You are free to add any site_type you wish, even without prior
discussion here,
but if you want the tags to be rendered anywhere it's best to get in touch
with Lutz and discuss
it with them.
Cheers, Brad



> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions

2019-03-29 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:14 PM Steven Estes  wrote:

> Sorry, I was confused.  It looks the tag format would be
> aeroway=holding_position:type=runway.
>

I think you have a typo here, in practice this would be two separate
key/value tags: aeroway=holding_position and holding_position:type=runway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2018-06-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Just an FYI, pet/service animal "relief areas" are now required in US
airports of a certain size. That's probably why the four places tagged
amenity=pet_relief_area are in US airports. See
http://petfriendlytravel.com/airports

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:08 AM, José G Moya Y.  wrote:

> Thank you!
>
> Regards,
>
> José
>
> El lun., 11 de junio de 2018 7:59, 
> escribió:
>
>> There is already:
>>
>>
>>
>> amenity=waste_basket + waste=dog_excrement
>>
>>
>>
>> often co-located with a:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dexcrement_bags
>>
>>
>>
>> Tagging of collection bags and bins should probably make use of existing
>> tags for such features instead of adding new ones.
>>
>>
>>
>> Same in regards to availability of water, though I haven’t looked into
>> what if any existing tags are already used for that.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* José G Moya Y. 
>> *Sent:* Monday, 11 June 2018 15:49
>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area
>> (dog_toilet)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Just a question. I think someone else (or maybe myself) asked it on a
>> previous discussion. You provide means to tag collection bags and bins.
>>
>> How do we tag when we only have the bins (but not a dedicated poop area)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings from Madrid,
>>
>>
>>
>> José Moya
>>
>>
>>
>> El lun., 11 de junio de 2018 0:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
>> escribió:
>>
>> On 11/06/18 02:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. Jun 2018 14:50 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>>
>> 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 edited page to describe them as considered and rejected alternatives.
>>
>>
>> I would move them (all the detail) to the 'discussion page' to remove
>> clutter. Leave a comment on it on the main page referring to the discussion
>> page if they want more info.
>>
>> ___
>> 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 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] Outdoor tribunes/ seating steps

2018-03-20 Thread Brad Neuhauser
The tags amenity=theatre, theatre:type=amphi is used for this:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/theatre%3Atype=amphi

Kind of clunky, but at least doesn't assume it's a building.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Tomasz Wójcik  wrote:

> I think there is a problem with outdoor tribunes/ seating steps correct
> tagging.
>
> - leisure=stadium tag is for whole complex, not only for stadium (it
> includes side pitches, parking etc.)
> - building=stadium tag is for stadium as a building (in OSM we assume that
> building is a construction, where we can enter "inside" it)
> - building=grandstand tag is for tribunes, but there is assumption, that
> it's kind of a building (as building=* these areas are rendered like any
> other building, which is suggesting, that there is classic building or roof
> in this place)
>
> Looking at tribunes/ seating steps in amphitheatres or parks etc., they
> absolutely aren't a buildings. Examples:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/
> Amfiteatr_-_Przemyśl1.jpg/800px-Amfiteatr_-_Przemyśl1.jpg
>
> http://www.nagawki.pl/gallery/Amfiteatr.jpg
>
> https://d-nm.ppstatic.pl/kadr/k/r/fd/dd/57bf29eda3e82_o,
> size,933x0,q,70,h,a2d028.jpg
>
>
> I think we need separate tag for them.
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging fraction house numbers?

2018-03-12 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I found it hard to pull out usage of "1/2" through taginfo, but was able to
search for usage of the UTF-8 version (½):
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%C2%BD#values It's used very few
times (~200) and many are by the same user, which seems like more argument
against using UTF-8.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:17 AM, James  wrote:

> so far the fractions I've seen are ½ and ¾ and ¼. On phones it's very easy
> to input fraction in unicode(press and hold the numerical value of the
> numerator: 1 for ½, ¼ or 2 for ⅔), but I agree that dealing with Bom of
> UTF-8 usually ends up being messed up and is why I'm asking what the norm
> for OSM is
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 12:04 PM Vladimír Slávik, 
> wrote:
>
>> Technical: Unicode will be hard to manipulate by hand without a table of
>> characters/symbols to copy from. Subsequent editors or users down the chain
>> of tools will break it. Most prominently, search may break, because users
>> will not know how to input 1/2. (Oh look, I just didn't, either...).
>>
>> Is it common to have more complicated fractions? Here we append letters
>> to do the same, and I have seen places where they had to go all the way to
>> "h" - which would be 1/8 for you? Or 8/8? Does unicode even have 8/8? I
>> haven't been able to find a decisive answer.
>> -- Původní e-mail --
>> Od: James 
>> Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> Datum: 12. 3. 2018 16:46:40
>> Předmět: [Tagging] Tagging fraction house numbers?
>>
>> https://i.imgur.com/eigT5hX_d.jpg?maxwidth=640=thumb;
>> fidelity=medium
>>
>> How should this be tagged in housenumber? Using unicode ( ½ ) or ASCII(
>> 1/2 )?
>>
>> ___
>> 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 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] Tagging for an American Wild & Scenic river

2018-02-02 Thread Brad Neuhauser
"Wild and Scenic River" is specifically mentioned on the wiki as
boundary=protected_area, protect_class=5. Look at the table for
nature-protected areas
,
and scroll down to the US section. Cheers, Brad

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> On 3 February 2018 at 12:00, Kevin Kenny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Dave Swarthout 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I asked this question last week of the OSM Help community:

 I'm looking for tagging that will indicate that a particular river in
 the United States is a "Wild and Scenic River" as defined by the Wild &
 Scenic Rivers Act. I have searched with Overpass for waterway=* that also
 has a scenic=yes tag but it turned up no results. Can anyone provide some
 guidance and/or examples?

 Like you, I know of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
>>> designations.
>>> Like you, I lack a good way to tag them.
>>> If nobody else has come up with anything - and do let's also ask on
>>> talk-us,
>>> since this is a peculiarly American designation - then let's invent
>>> something
>>> and Wikify it.
>>>
>>> Without knowing the details of just what a "Wild Scenic" river is, could
>> you use the nature=conservation tag in conjunction with waterway=?
>>
>
> Wild and Scenic Rivers are linear protected areas designated by statute in
> the US.  https://www.rivers.gov/
>
> Designating the waterway itself is a good start, but Wild and Scenic
> Rivers (also Recreational Rivers in New York State) generally also have
> associated corridors that should have some sort of boundary=protected_area
> (and we can debate what protect_class might be appropriate) associated with
> them.
>
> I'm aware of several rivers that are so designated that I've visited, but
> I've not done the necessary research to figure out how to represent them
> and their corridors. The Federal program has downloadable Public Domain
> data on its web site that I have not examined.
>
> My home state of New York actually has very few of them that are Federally
> designated - the Delaware, on the Pennsylvania line. This is because the
> State anticipated the Federal government and came up with its own
> designations http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/32739.html and came up with
> its own program to administer them http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6033.html
> .
>
> The Federal program is not universally loved: https://www.flickr.com/
> photos/66934423@N00/10605220
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Unofficial name change of "Lake Calhoun" in Minneapolis, Minnesota

2017-06-08 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Hi I live in Minneapolis and am excited for this change. For Clifford and
whoever else is interested, here's an article that has the Dakota
pronunciation for Bde Maka Ska and some other area lakes:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/10/14/bdemakaska-lake-calhoun

Locally there's been an increasing awareness of the indigenous land we are
living on--for example see this map the city did with some of the
indigenous place names within Minneapolis:
https://streets.mn/2017/06/05/map-monday-dakota-and-ojibwe-place-names-in-minneapolis/
As an OSM tie-in, I've been adding Dakota (name:dak) and Ojibwe (name:oj)
names for some physical features in Minnesota.

Cheers,
Brad (aka neuhausr)

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Tom Hardy  wrote:
>
>> Huh.  That one flew right by me.  Noted.  Now I have to learn to
>> pronounce it.
>
>
> Me too. Next time I'm in Minneapolis I don't want to see like a tourist
> and pronounce it incorrectly.
>
> FYI - We "renamed" our county because the original person was also a slave
> owner. Fortunately we went from being named after William R. King to Martin
> Luther King, Jr. So King County became King County. Much easier.
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

2017-03-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Two issues:

1) Recommended OSM tagging for place=* on smaller settlements is on the
wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural
You can see it's based mainly on population and is not directly correlated
to the form of government. Seems like admin_level=* is the place for levels
of government--see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level  (Ft
Montgomery has a population of about 1500, so I'd agree with Martin to tag
it as place=village.)

2) The rendering of labels for places varies. If you take a look at the
area on the four map layers on osm.org, a Fort Montgomery label appears 0,
1, or 2 times. So tag for what it is, not for rendering.

Brad


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a side note, your example Fort Montgomery, NY, to me doesn't look like
>> a hamlet, there's an elementary school, shops, a fire department, gas
>> station, hotel, cafe, sports grounds, and a significant amount of houses, I
>> would consider calling this a village.
>>
>
> Local convention in New York is to follow the legal definitions. Fort
> Montgomery is legally a hamlet.  New York has a few 'hamlets' that are
> actually small cities. (Levittown, population about 52,000, is the largest
> of these.) Villages, towns, and cities are incorporated places with their
> own local governments. Hamlets have no local government other than the
> township and county that they're in.
>
> ___
> 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] Snowmobile routes

2016-09-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Minnesota has a bunch too.
http://dnr.state.mn.us/snowmobiling/interactive_map/index.html  I'm sure
it's the same for other states. I personally don't snowmobile but have just
noticed many ways tagged in OSM since they sometimes follow bike routes. :)

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree that route=snowmobile makes more sense. Since there were exactly
> zero uses of the tag in the US, I missed it entirely. (Then again, I don't
> know how many jurisdictions have numbered snowmobile routes overlaid on the
> highway and trail networks!)
>
> Are we agreed, then, on the following?
>
>- roles should be the same as for route=road
>- name, network and ref should be filled in where available. In
>general, either a name or a network/ref pair is expected.
>- US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary are
>reasonable choices for the network
>
> If I don't hear cries and screams, expect a proposal on the Wiki at some
> point. (I also haven't abandoned access=permit, just gotten sidetracked on
> some actual mapping and haven't got back to it yet.)
>
> Incidentally, US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary
> form an extensive network of about 15000 km. There's a route map at
> http://www.nysnowmobilewebmap.com/webmap/ The numbered routes are in red
> (corridor) and orange (secondary). Blue are un-numbered routes belonging to
> local clubs. The underlying GIS data that were used for that map are free
> for us to use, but I do NOT propose an import because they don't meet my
> standards of data quality. Just to begin with, they are digitized at an
> inappropriately small scale.
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> It may not be "officially recognized" but route=snowmobile is used some
>> [0], and IMHO makes a lot more sense than route=road!
>>
>> [0] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=snowmobile
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I thought sure that I had raised this question before, but a quick troll
>>> through the archives doesn't seem to show it.
>>>
>>> New York State has an extensive network of designated snowmobile routes,
>>> intended to be long-distance continuous paths. In some cases, they follow
>>> highways, or logging roads on state land. In other cases, the state offers
>>> grants to private landowners to maintain the route, funded out of
>>> snowmobile registration fees. (At least that's my understanding of how the
>>> system works. I'm not a snowmobilist). Except where the route is groomed
>>> alongside a highway (or sometimes on the highway - not all our roads are
>>> open to motor vehicles in winter), other motor vehicles are ordinarily
>>> forbidden.
>>>
>>> These routes are marked with a highway shield, with reassurance markers
>>> at intervals. There are even two tiers of routes: 'corridor' and
>>> 'secondary'. Both are long-distance routes, so they are not appropriate for
>>> the name=* field on a track or path. (Example: Haul Road No. 1 in the Dutch
>>> Settlement State Forest is blazed for both the New York Long Path
>>> (route=hiking) and Snowmobile Corridor Route 7B. A highway shield on a
>>> snowmobile route looks like https://flic.kr/p/nPeMwe.
>>>
>>> We don't (yet?) have a 'route=snowmobile' officially recognized. What I
>>> used recently when a hike (gathering map data for something else) took me
>>> for a while on a snowmobile corridor was 'route=road
>>> network=US:NY:snowmobile:corridor ref=7B'. (If it had been a secondary
>>> route, it would of course have been US:NY:snowmobile:secondary.) I feel a
>>> little uncomfortable about route=road, which seems to be tailored for motor
>>> vehicles, but the tagging would be in all ways the same - type, network,
>>> route, ref are all there, and even most of the roles are possible (there
>>> are link trails, for instance, providing access to nearby highways, or
>>> places where a route splits into a one-way pair).
>>>
>>> Does this sound plausible?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 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] Snowmobile routes

2016-09-26 Thread Brad Neuhauser
It may not be "officially recognized" but route=snowmobile is used some
[0], and IMHO makes a lot more sense than route=road!

[0] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/route=snowmobile

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> I thought sure that I had raised this question before, but a quick troll
> through the archives doesn't seem to show it.
>
> New York State has an extensive network of designated snowmobile routes,
> intended to be long-distance continuous paths. In some cases, they follow
> highways, or logging roads on state land. In other cases, the state offers
> grants to private landowners to maintain the route, funded out of
> snowmobile registration fees. (At least that's my understanding of how the
> system works. I'm not a snowmobilist). Except where the route is groomed
> alongside a highway (or sometimes on the highway - not all our roads are
> open to motor vehicles in winter), other motor vehicles are ordinarily
> forbidden.
>
> These routes are marked with a highway shield, with reassurance markers at
> intervals. There are even two tiers of routes: 'corridor' and 'secondary'.
> Both are long-distance routes, so they are not appropriate for the name=*
> field on a track or path. (Example: Haul Road No. 1 in the Dutch Settlement
> State Forest is blazed for both the New York Long Path (route=hiking) and
> Snowmobile Corridor Route 7B. A highway shield on a snowmobile route looks
> like https://flic.kr/p/nPeMwe.
>
> We don't (yet?) have a 'route=snowmobile' officially recognized. What I
> used recently when a hike (gathering map data for something else) took me
> for a while on a snowmobile corridor was 'route=road
> network=US:NY:snowmobile:corridor ref=7B'. (If it had been a secondary
> route, it would of course have been US:NY:snowmobile:secondary.) I feel a
> little uncomfortable about route=road, which seems to be tailored for motor
> vehicles, but the tagging would be in all ways the same - type, network,
> route, ref are all there, and even most of the roles are possible (there
> are link trails, for instance, providing access to nearby highways, or
> places where a route splits into a one-way pair).
>
> Does this sound plausible?
>
> ___
> 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] Turn Lane Tagging?

2016-06-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> On 2016-06-11 23:11, Tijmen Stam wrote:
>>
>> On 11-06-16 04:16, James Mast wrote:
>>>
 I've been using the "turn:lanes:*=none;slight_right" &
 "slight_left;none" tags to indicate which side a new lane has been added
 on a highway when going from 1 to 2 lanes (sometimes
 "slight_left;slight_right" if the original lane is centered between the
 two new lanes).  How else are people to properly identify which side the
 new lane is being added to?

>>>
>>> NOO!
>>>
>>> That's what the transit:-tag is for:
>>> 
>>>
>>
> On 11-06-16 23:22, Colin Smale wrote:
> > I assume "transition" is meant, and not "transit"...
>


> c) nope, the wiki clearly states the "transit" key and that's what the
> Lane and road attributes reacts to. I think transition would've been better
> too.
>

You mean, the *proposal* on the wiki (that has mainly been edited by one
person, and that has not even been voted on) states that "transit" is the
key. So, in fact now would be a *perfect* time to change the key to
something that 1) makes better sense in vernacular English and 2) won't
have a chance to be confused with transit in the sense of "public transit"
or "mass transit". (note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Transit
even redirects to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Model railroad exhibition/show

2016-05-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Subtagging tourism=attraction seems reasonable to me, such as
tourism=attraction, attraction=model_railway

There is a bit of usage of club=model_railway
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=model_railway#values

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Tijmen Stam  wrote:

> Is there a proper tag for a model railroad layout open to the public?
> I am talking about small-scale, non-ridable layouts inside a building, and
> am thinking about a leisure= tag on a node.
> I explicitly do NOT want to layout the entire rail.
>
> Examples:
> http://www.train-miniature-gaillacois.fr/crbst_9.html (very outdated site)
> http://www.miniatur-wunderland.com/ (which is tagged with the generic
> tourism=attraction)
>
> Tijmen
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging airport approach aid systems

2015-11-05 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Hi, I've been the person updating the aeroway=navigationaid wikipage over
the past year or two, so I messaged geozeisig about the "Please use
airmark=beacon instead" banner. It sounds like the German OSM community
came up with the airmark=beacon scheme, and it is more fully documented on
the German version of the page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:airmark%3Dbeacon

We agree it would be good to come up with one scheme if possible, rather
than parallel schemes. I've put together a table comparing the schemes at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:aeroway%3Dnavigationaid. Any
input there or on the tagging list is welcome!

Thanks, Brad (neuhausr)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:45 AM, David Marchal  wrote:

> Hello, there.
>
> I'm trying to map some approach aid systems on a local airport, but I have
> trouble choosing the correct tags: the wiki mentions aeroway=navigationaid,
> and navigationaid=* to precise type, but this page has a banner telling to
> use airmark=beacon, an almost empty page with no instruction to precise the
> type of aid; the airmark tag wiki page is also empty. How should I map the
> approach aid systems? Which landuse should I use for the underlying land,
> as this land is only maintained for the approach aid system, nothing else?
>
> Hoping you can help me,
>
> Regards.
> ___
> 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] How to tag cricket nets?

2015-09-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
There is a different approach that some have taken to use the sport as the
key and indicate it is a practice area via the value, for example:

golf=driving_range (sometimes on its own, sometimes with sport=golf,
leisure=golf_course and/or leisure=pitch) [0] [1]
baseball=batting_cage (usually with leisure=pitch, sport=baseball) [2]

[0]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Details_within_a_golf_course
[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/golf=driving_range
[2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/baseball=batting_cage

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On 29 September 2015 at 13:55, Kieron Thwaites 
> wrote:
>
>> Out of all of the below suggestions, I prefer:
>>
>> leisure:practice=*
>> sport=*
>>
>> This, to me, is the most backwards-compatible option, as you could retain
>> a
>> leisure=* tag on the object.  It also gives scope to tag indoor cricket
>> nets
>> (the larger cricket clubs and major cricket stadiums have these) --
>> something
>> like leisure:practice=fitness_centre; sport=cricket would work there.
>>
>
> So for cricket nets,
>
> leisure=pitch (they are still a kind of pitch)
> sport=cricket (they are related to the sport of cricket)
> leisure:practice=nets (they are practice pitches, of type nets)
>
> ___
> 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] To mark as covered, or to not mark as covered?

2015-05-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:09:56PM -0500, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
  If this is like many fuel stations, it's probably just a roof with no
  walls. Typically, I've seen those tagged building=roof. In that case, the
  covered=* tag seems redundant.

 true, but I consider building=roof somewhat poor as the roof isn't
 usually floating in the air but there are pylons, sometimws one or
 more walls and often a building attached.

 Richard

 does it make a difference whether the roof is attached to walls (or a
building), or whether it's on pylons? the wiki for building=roof says it
can be used when a structure is open on at least 2 sides, which would seem
to include a structure with no walls.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] To mark as covered, or to not mark as covered?

2015-05-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
If this is like many fuel stations, it's probably just a roof with no
walls. Typically, I've seen those tagged building=roof. In that case, the
covered=* tag seems redundant.

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Bryan Housel br...@7thposition.com
wrote:

 Isn’t that exactly the situation that `covered` is for - so that
 validators don’t raise a warning about the way passing through a building?
 (I don’t use this tag myself, but I assumed that’s why it exists).


  On May 28, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 
  Here is another excessively mapped covered tag:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182529550
 
  ___
  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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

2015-05-12 Thread Brad Neuhauser
We're kind of circling back to the discussion from 2013. For example, see
this talk page about the failed bread bakery proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal/bread_bakery

IIRC, the main thing that came out of that was it became clear that
different cultures have very different expectations of what goods they
would find at a bakery.

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2015-05-11 17:10 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:

 In my experience, most places that sell pastries would be better tagged
 as bakery. Even if they only sell pastries (ie no bread), they do have to
 bake them, right? :)



 I wouldn't tag a place as bakery which doesn't sell bread. This is also in
 line with the osm wiki:

 A *bakery* is a shop selling bread. Bakeries normally bake fresh bread
 on the premises. Normally also sell pastries, cakes, etc. Often do fresh
 sandwiches or baguettes. Often do decorated cakes.
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dbakery



 Besides that I am not really happy with the definition there, as it is
 very Britain / central European (German) centric. Baguettes or decorated
 cakes are particular kind of baked goods that won't be found all around
 the world in bakeries.

 The main purpose of a bakery is to make and sell bread.
 Whether they also sell pizza, or what kind of bread they sell, whether
 they also sell sweets, coca cola, milk, flowers, sunglasses or olive oil is
 secondary and should not (IMHO) appear in the main definition.

 Cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 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] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

2015-05-11 Thread Brad Neuhauser
In my experience, most places that sell pastries would be better tagged as
bakery. Even if they only sell pastries (ie no bread), they do have to bake
them, right? :)

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:43 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On 11/05/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
  I believe there is some overlap between the shop values
 
  confectionery
  pastry
  candy
  sweets
 
  shop=confectionery is used much more often than the other 3 (10K vs. 300
  vs. 100 vs. 50) and is likely covering all of these, but is quite
 generic.
  For the very reason it can be used for both: pastry (baker's confections)
  and candy (sugar confections), it is often less useful IMHO (at least
  without subtag, which is currently not documented). often, because in
  some countries these tend to be distinct shops, but in other contexts
 there
  might be shops that are offering both kind.
 
  If you are looking for sugar confections or baker's confections, finding
 a
  shop that only sells the other variant of confections will not be helpful
  but rather a big annoyance.
 
  From previous discussions on this matter I believe to remember that
  pastry is actually not covering the entire subset of baker's
 confections,
  so the term might be less appropriate.
 
  sweets is not very specific neither, is not defined in the wiki and can
  maybe cover both, candy and pastry, or might be a synonym for candy/sugar
  confections (I am not sure about this, would be nice to hear what the
  natives say). It also doesn't seem to add any additional information with
  respect to confectionery, so I would suggest to deprecate its use
  completely.
 
  I think we could deal with this situation in several ways:
 
  a) use confectionery, pastry and candy as competing top-level tags and
  suggest to be the most specific where possible (i.e. aim to have only
 mixed
  shops tagged with the generic confectionery tag and recommend the more
  specific pastry and candy tags where applicable).
 
  b) recommend to only use confectionery as the main top level tag and use
  subtags like bakers_confectionery=yes and/or sugar_confectionery=yes to
  make the distinction
 
  c) your suggestion here
 
  Personally I favor b). What do you think?

 My initial reaction was there's no overlap between pastry and
 confectionery, they are totally different things. Some cultural
 background: in France, shops selling candys are very rare, but shops
 selling pastries are very common because bread shops are everywhere
 and usually also sell pastries and danishes. Pastry-only shops are
 quite rare. See also shop=patisserie (62 uses).

 But using shop=confectionery and refining that into raw sug^W^Wsubtags
 makes sense too.

 For the subtag itself, I'm not a fan of FOO_confectionery=yes: I think
 that confectionery=FOO follows established tag-creation best practices
 better. It's used a bit in the db already. And if one needs to tag
 multiple types, either confectionery=FOO;BAR or
 confectionery:FOO=yes confectgionery:BAR=yes works for me (but I
 prefer the later).

 ___
 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] Tagging of historic=monument

2015-05-07 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

 There is confusion between monument and memorial ... suggest follow the
 definitions under the OSM tag historic .. where
 monument is large ... as in you can walk inside it, over it.
 memorial is small .. say a plaque

 As far as I can tell, the distinction is about size, but vague words like
small and large used, and the examples given are at the extreme ends
(building vs. plaque). People need more guidelines to know where the
dividing line is in the middle. For example, is there a certain height (3m?
5m? 10m?) where a tower or pillar changes from memorial to monument? Or a
certain amount of area (10 sq m? 25? 100?) something covers to change from
memorial to monument?

By way of example, on the historic=memorial page, there is a photo of a
stone cross over 5m tall which could certainly fit the way monument is
defined on that page An object, especially large and made of stone, built
to remember and show respect to a person or group of people

I don't especially care where the line is, but if people are concerned
about mistagging then this should be clarified.

Thanks, Brad
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Tag: shop: hifi

2015-05-01 Thread Brad Neuhauser
shop=hifi has almost 6000 uses, so it must fill a need for some people.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=hifi

If hifi is too specific for you, you could always use shop=electronics.

Also, there is this note on the hifi wiki page regarding hifi vs.
electronics:
The suggested distinction is that a shop=electronics shop is primarily
focused on consumer electronics, and may sell hi-fi components, but is not
focused on them and not a meeting point for audiophiles, However that's
quite a subtle and subjective distinction, and something which may be
better represented as a property tag of a shop=electronics

(side note: looking at a random assortment in the UK, I do see some hifi
that might be mistagged--for example, I'd expect HMV to be tagged as
shop=music not shop=hifi?)

Cheers, Brad

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com
wrote:

 Hi,

 Somewhere else in OSM world, 'hifi shops' has been mentioned. I take this
 to mean in connection with 'musical entertainment systems' such as 'radio',
 CD players and other audio reproduction electronics. As such, I feel the
 term 'hifi' is too 'narrow' and inadequate for the range of equipment that
 can perform this function. I think a good example is Richer Sounds
 http://www.richersounds.com/ - looking at their horizontal top menu:

 Hi-Fi
 TV  Home Cinema
 Speakers
 Streaming, Wireless  Multi-room
 Systems
 Portable Audio
 Headphones
 Gaming
 Accessories  Furniture
 Clearance
 Installations
 Tech Blog


 Hence I wonder if a more appropriate tag for such shops can be found ?

 --
 Mike.
 @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction -
 For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
 via *the area's premier website - *

 *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family,
 property  pets*

 TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail

 ___
 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] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

2015-04-30 Thread Brad Neuhauser
+1 on addr:unit or ref over addr:housenumber. I think ref makes more sense
than addr:unit on remote/isolated pitches (ie hike-in sites, not drive-in).

In addition, I've seen cases where individual pitches are named instead of
numbered. It's not mentioned, but to clarify, I'm assuming that would just
use name

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 30/04/2015 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

  On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:

  That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me.

  When rendering lags tagging behavior, there is that temptation.


 Rendering will always lag behind tagging.

 If tagging is to be rendered then adding another tag to have it rendered
 will lead to the original tag being ignored by renders .. Catch 22.

  Also, it's more likely to be rendered if the tagging is well-defined and
sensible. If the tagging is awkwardly trying to fit into a particular
rendering, or overly complicated, it's probably not going to be used by
mappers long-term.

I think detailed renderings of campgrounds sounds like a perfect case for a
specialized map, maybe on a new map, or added to one of these:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM-based_services#Biking.2C_Geocaching.2C_Hiking.2C_Sport
So I wouldn't sweat whether it's rendered right now or not, someone is
going to scratch that itch.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting Shooting Range

2015-04-13 Thread Brad Neuhauser


 Usually we have names for the area where things take place (pitch, track,
 pool) and the sport (sport=*)

 A range is one of those places. Usually there are no mixed ranges (archery
 and rifles, etc) are separate

 So leisure=range + sport=archery for an archery range or sport=shooting
 for a shooting range.

 I've usually seen leisure=pitch used with archery. Scanning through the
few features tagged with leisure=range, they appear to all be shooting
ranges.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting Shooting Range

2015-04-13 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I get your, er, point, although I don't think you would want to randomly
wander into a batting cage or hockey rink in the middle of practice either.
:)

The bigger issue is there are over 1300 sport=archery tags, and both on the
wiki and in actual usage, leisure=pitch (or sports_centre) is what's used
with them, not range. Maybe there's a distinction one could make for range,
but frankly, archery is the tag that'll let people know there are likely to
be arrows flying around.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:19 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:





 I've usually seen leisure=pitch used with archery. Scanning through the
 few features tagged with leisure=range, they appear to all be shooting
 ranges.



 The only big difference between them is the noise level and the length of
 the projectile. They both have designated stands for the person, the
 no-mans land of the range, targets of various forms, and some kind of
 projectile containment system (high walls, steel plate, dirt bank, etc).

 There are quite a few archery ranges (on school grounds) here in Japan,
 and I sure as hell never want to accidentally go on one thinking it is a
 pitch.

 A 3m long traditional bow looks like it could put a practice arrow through
 my body.

 It has the word range in its title for a reason.

 ___
 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] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

2015-03-17 Thread Brad Neuhauser
 We always recommend that all natural and cultural features are tagged as
 per OSM Wiki  only add Seamark tags where there is a non-coincident
 definition and the nautical definition is of special navigational
 importance.

 Locks  their gates do not fall into that category  so we do not
 recommend using Seamark tags for these objects. Where you may find them is
 probably where data has been imported from S57 ENC charts  the importer
 has not re-tagged (or double tagged) them.

 That's good to know, thanks! However, I don't see any such recommendation
on the gate page that was referenced above (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Gates), or on other
OpenSeaMap tagging pages (ie
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Seamark_Objects). Is there
something I'm missing?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

2015-03-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser


 For boat navigation purposes this should be crosslinked:
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Gates


Isn't it the other way around? That is, the people who tagged
seagate:category:gate=lock (24 objects) should be making sure to also tag
waterway=lock_gate (15K objects), not vice versa.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

2015-03-12 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I'm wondering, there seems to be potential overlap with
tourism=information. From what is written on the reception desk page, it
seems like the main difference is that the tag reception_desk also controls
access to a site, and a reception desk which only gives information may as
well be tagged tourism=information. Is that accurate?

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:

 - It's not simple at all. Using amenity
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity=* for this makes it
 impossible to combine it with such POIs. Also why amenity at all? For me
 it looks like a I didn't find anything better, I mean amenity
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity=reception_desk
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dreception_desk can't
 even stand on its owm.

 with which POI should this be combined _on the same object_? I mean,
 this is a tag for a reception desk, obviously it can be combined with
 other amenities by putting it inside them, but you won't have many
 objects that are at the same time a reception desk and don't know,
 toilets? An example why this is a problem would help to understand the
 reservation.


 Look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity and tell me those
 don't have reception desks.

 And you can't put them inside and amenity if it's just a node of a
 building like for example many doctors. By adding *=reception_desk to such
 a node it would be clear that someone did not just put a random node
 somewhere on the building, but that the doctor is actually there.

 Also what about receptions at big companies, factories etc. where you
 often also have a gate. Do you just use the tag for that? Is reception_DESK
 really fitting?

 http://bavaria-werkschutz.de/cms/files/img/header-teaser/Werkschutz.jpg

 __
 openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎



 ___
 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] Canopy radius for natural=tree

2015-02-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
diameter crown also doesn't appear to be vernacular English,
unfortunately. Crown diameter or crown spread seem to be more widely
used.  For example, see
http://www.treeterms.co.uk/definitions/crown-diameter, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_crown_measurement#Crown_Spread_Methodologies

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 24/02/2015 5:09 AM, althio wrote:

 From usage at
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=tree#combinations

 I will suggest you look into:
 145 135 diameter_crown
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/diameter_crown=*


 Missing documentation in the wiki?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dtree#Size

 The suggestion there is tree_spread .. also undocumented.

 diameter_crown looks to be used by JOSM ... pity they did not document it.

 ___
 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] Practice pitch?

2015-02-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Personally I'd probably include leisure=pitch. Maybe for some people, the
batting cage is the game? :)

I think baseball=batting_cage makes sense (like golf's driving range). The
golf example doesn't make clear whether it'd be best to include the sport
tag too. I'm inclined to include sport=baseball too, then one query could
get baseball diamonds as well as batting cages.

Cheers,
Brad

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:24 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:

 Here is the location of the batting cage business I started mapping (they
 have a small cafe inside of the main building)
 Across the big street is a driving range.
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.35556/139.04995

 Baseball=? brought up the batting cages tag in iD, so I used that. But is
 that really a pitch?

 Javbw

 On Feb 22, 2015, at 9:12 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:

 I’m trying to tag businesses in Japan, and 2 common sports businesses I
 have seen are Golf Driving Ranges  - giant netted monstrosities that are
 everywhere all over Japan. I mean everywhere - there are tons of them.
 They are not part of a golf course, just a stand-alone business on a hill,
 in a field, or occasionally on top of buildings in big towns.  They are
 often the tallest structure in a rural town.

 The next is batting cages - small areas with enclosed pitching machines,
 arranged linearly like a driving range, but with pitching machines and a
 much smaller enclosed area. there are several just in my little town.

 I saw there is a golf=driving_range - so I was tagging the driving range
 itself as a pitch and then the (sometimes 2-3 story) building that you
 drive from, and then finally on the commercial landuse sports=golf +
 golf=driving_range. (this is where the fence=net came up).

 There are also a lot of batting practice places - the national sport of
 Japan is baseball, and a common High school sport, so there are a lot of
 commercial (and occasionally some private) batting cages.

 They are not part of a greater sports complex, but a business you go just
 to practice batting.  There are usually pitching practice cages at baseball
 fields as well.

 I was trying to figure out how to tag a batting cage business today.

 I found an old proposal for “practice pitch”

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Practice_pitch


 which might be good to revisit and approve, as these facilities are
 clearly not for the playing, but rather the practice of a specific aspect
 of the sport.  I feel kinda guilty tagging a drivng range or a batting
 practice netted area as a “pitch” because only the ball collection machines
 go there - but it is also clearly where the practice is happening.


 If this approach isn’t correct, please let me know how to tag a baseball
 batting practice business.

 Otherwise I will try to clean up this proposal for RFC and voting.


 javbw.

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


Re: [Tagging] tag for portages?

2015-02-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Thanks for the feedback! portage=* was my initial instinct, but I was
starting to second guess after finding the other tags. Cheers, Brad

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
wrote:

 This seems like a good place for highway=path + portage=yes
 Because these are definitely still paths (and sometimes coincident with a
 land based path).

 whitewater=portage_way seems overly specific, as does canoe=portage.

 ___
 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] tag for portages?

2015-02-22 Thread Brad Neuhauser
The portages I'm talking about, people carry their canoe as they walk along
the trail, so those things aren't relevant. You seem to be talking about
something different--can you expand on what you mean?

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:

 How about adding the side ?

 portage=left/right/both
 portage:left=*

 Are there any major differences in construction/use ?
 I know wooden portages but there might be other material.

 Any thoughts how to deal with mircromapping, e.g. adding the portage as
 own object next to a path. What tags should remain on the highway ?

 Cheers fly

 Am 22.02.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Brad Neuhauser:
  Thanks for the feedback! portage=* was my initial instinct, but I was
  starting to second guess after finding the other tags. Cheers, Brad
 
  On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
  wrote:
 
  This seems like a good place for highway=path + portage=yes
  Because these are definitely still paths (and sometimes coincident with
 a
  land based path).
 
  whitewater=portage_way seems overly specific, as does canoe=portage.
 


 ___
 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] tag for portages?

2015-02-21 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Hi, I'd like to add some tags for canoe portages (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portage) in wilderness areas. These would be
trails tagged highway=path plus some tag to designate that they're used for
portaging between lakes. I have found three different tags that are
currently used to tag portages (there may be others?), and am wondering if
anyone has recommendations about what would be best.

1) portage=* (223 objects)  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/portage
2) whitewater=portage_way (227 objects)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/whitewater=portage_way
3) canoe=portage  (67 object)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/canoe=portage

Cheers,
Brad
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

2015-02-20 Thread Brad Neuhauser
The maze/labyrinth distinction is there. When I hear of modern labyrinths,
it's usually in the context of religious/spiritual uses (since there's only
one way, it lends itself to a walking meditation). Mazes are generally like
a recreational puzzle, where you're trying to find your way.  Whether
that's different enough for a separate tag, or just a subtag, I'm not sure.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Some forms of mazes and labyrinths

 1.
 - part of or entire garden (often of a castle or stately home or similarly
 representative building), like this one:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Longleat_maze.jpg
 or this one:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Hedge_Maze,_St_Louis_Botanical_Gardens_%28St_Louis,_Missouri_-_June_2003%29.jpg

 These are typically permanent and do last more than a few weeks

 IMHO could be a garden:style
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification


 Not sure if this should comprise stone mazes when put in similar context,
 e.g. Donnafugata Castle:

 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5_VDLUa6b-A/T4LEVS-CuAI/Bxk/9qCCsJ9iyCM/s1600/P1110213.JPG

 or in this Chinese garden:

 http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/ruine-labyrinth-china-peking-yuanmingyuan-18665768.jpg



 2.  seasonal stand alone labyrinths, often made of corn, typical in
 southern Germany but also elsewhere, e.g.
 http://www.maislabyrinth-eutingen.de/bilder?page=2

 one suggestion could be
 amenity=maze as these are dedicated mazes.



 3. Finger labyrinth, engraved mazes

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#mediaviewer/File:Duomo_Lucca_cathedrale_Lucques_labyrinthe.jpg

 maybe tourism=artwork and subtype(s)?



 4. Labyrinth mosaics and floor pavings
 E.g. in portugal, Conimbriga

 http://www.bilder-reiseberichte.de/labyrinthe/bilder/conimbriga-portugal-03-51.jpg
 Or in France, Chartre

 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#mediaviewer/File:Labyrinth_at_Chartres_Cathedral.JPG

 ___

 FWIW, I have assumed in my contributions that maze and labyrinth would
 be exchangeable (indeed in German they are), but the English wikipedia
 suggests they are not (they claim: maze=several ways through, labyrinth:
 just one way).

 cheers
 Martin

 ___
 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] length=

2015-01-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Quick note: for milestones, the tag used is distance, not length. There's a
wiki page with all unit tags if you're into that sort of thing:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Just FYI, at OSM-PL people map highway milestones - as nodes near
 highways - which is less prone to error due to people editing
 geometry..
 The map: http://osmapa.pl/konkursy/pikietaz/

 Michał

 ___
 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] Adding water=fishpond to the wiki

2015-01-04 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Have you looked at what tagging people are using (if any) within
landuse=aquaculture and/or landuse=fishfarm areas?

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

 2015-01-04 20:25 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com:

 But we have also yet an existing tag water=pond for ponds. We would
 have to change the defination for this tag from “a pond”
  to “a pond – but not if this is a pond that serves for fishing” –
 sounds complicate …


 A pond is the same as a lake - only smaller. A fishpond isn't used for
 fishing. It's used for farming fish. You can often recognize them from
 satellite imagery. Here's an example:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.5208/16.9470




 ___
 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] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Saturday, January 3, 2015, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 
  Not sure why a church / temple/ shrine/ mosque landuse would be drawn
 any differently than an office park or a retail shop.

 This could get interesting. St Matthew Lutheran in Beaverton, OR has a Les
 Schwab Tire Center on it's property.

Makes sense if they're...holy rollers. rimshot

Sorry, couldn't resist.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

2014-12-17 Thread Brad Neuhauser

 About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
 playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no
 experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me
 amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would
 have in a mall.


I know this tag has been at times contentious in the past, due to cultural
and linguistic issues, but some people at least are starting to use
amenity=childcare. According to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dchildcare, it's for a
place where amenity=kindergarten doesn't seem appropriate, for example
because there's no educational component. I think staffed child care at
malls (or at Ikea) would be a case where this would apply.

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


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

2014-12-17 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Sorry, the German examples don't mean much to me. Do the examples below
show what you're proposing?

name=Chicago, admin_title=city, admin_level...
name=California, admin_title=state, admin_level

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:

 This is about a new attribute for administrative devisions.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/admin_title

 --
 Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
 Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

 ___
 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] natural=bay as nodes are evil

2014-10-30 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I think this appears to be the reference Richard mentioned:
http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
  Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could
  you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ?
 
  This guy did it :
 
 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg
 
  I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish
 coast...

 note that the big bodies of water such as the bay of biscay have been
 defined
 by the international hydropgraphic organization, wikipedia provides the
 link.

 Those definitions should be probably mapped, but most likely with a
 special tag
 rather than our natural=bay because their definition of gulf of mexico is
 obviously
 not compatible with our definition of bay (refering to the sentence
 fragment in Cuba,
 through this island to the meridian of 83°W which includes a landmas to
 the
 definition)

 Richard

 ___
 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] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

2014-10-21 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I agree with Matthjis--I don't see much of a clearly defined and widely
agreed on difference between the two. Given that, and the small usage of
shopping_centre, I agree with should deprecate shopping_centre.

Cheers, Brad

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 The third is functionally an esplanade (far, far more people walk it than
 drive it), and it's official name is the Portland Mall.  Originally it only
 had bus lanes on it, but Portland being too cheap to install bus traps and
 not exactly having the most rigorous enforcement decided to add a third
 lane about six years ago for through and left turning cars as well to
 prevent interfering with transit service.

 On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Paul,

 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall your first two examples
 are malls, the third one would not be a mall.

 Volker

 On 21 October 2014 07:57, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 I'm thinking this is a shopping mall
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Eaton_Centre_HDR_style.jpg,
 and this is a shopping center
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Strip_Mall_Troy.jpg.
 Not to be confused with a mall http://i.imgur.com/MDVBYKF.jpg.

 On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Matthijs Melissen 
 i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:

 Dear all,

 We have currently two tags with a closely related, if not identical,
 meaning: shop=mall (26 643 instances) and shop=shopping_centre (182
 instances).

 Is there a difference between these two tags, or should we deprecate
 shop=shopping_centre in favour of shop=mall?

 -- Matthijs

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



 ___
 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] service= tag confusion

2014-10-20 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I see from the page history that I added service=* to the wiki page, but
I'm sorry to say I cannot remember exactly why. :( While service=* is
definitely in use with car repair shops, it does seem to create the
possibility of confusion. I'd be happy to at least change the wording to
indicate this, or remove it if that's the consensus.

EDIT: looking into this further, service=tyres|dealer|parts|repair, which
are the largest usage of the car repair-service tags (500-1800 uses,
depending), all have wiki redirects to the Russian shop=car page (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU%3ATag%3Ashop%3Dcar). In looking at
the service=tyres map on taginfo, the majority of usage is in Russia too
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=tyres#map  Does anyone know
someone who could bring this up on the Russian talk list? (or can read the
Russian wiki page?)

As for alternatives, some people have used car_repair=* but Martin's idea,
though complex, would better allow multiple values.

Cheers,
Brad

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2014-10-20 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com:

 Is service a valid tag to use with shop=car_repair, and the wiki page for
 service is deficient?  Or is the wiki page for shop=car_repair in error?



 Maybe using the service namespace to create more specific tags would be
 more inline with the current tagging scheme, like it is done for bicycle
 repair (etc.) service:
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Abicycle

 i.e.
 service:car:*=*
 (or service:motorcar ?)

 FWIW, I do not recall the naked service subtag being proposed or
 discussed for car repair businesses.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 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] Problems with historic=tomb

2014-10-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grave

The proposal states it is mainly for [graves] without historic value
And, it doesn't recommend using relation=person ;)

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:00 AM, sabas88 saba...@gmail.com wrote:



 2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

 It seems that are serious problems with this tag, is there somebody
 interested in
 this topic who want to make a better proposal?

 (1) This tag can not be used on the same object as
 historic=archaeological_site -
 despite the fact that many archaeological sites are excavated tombs.

 (2) There is no clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be
 in future used to
 describe any grave. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same
 happened with natural=tree - originally defined as lone or significant
 tree.

 (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further
 encuraging using this tag in way other than defined.


 There are used these two
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tomb
 and
 http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/cemetery=grave#overview

 The first is a structured proposal, the second is just used


 see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dtomb

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


Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

2014-10-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
responses inline

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:

 In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grave

 The proposal states it is mainly for [graves] without historic value



 Thank you for pointing to this. It seems strange to add the grave:
 prefix to all keys, e.g. ref, inscription etc. because typically you
 can get this context by the object to which a tag is applied to. If this
 context is not clear from the mapping than this is usually a sign that
 there is some problem in the mapping (several entities mixed up into one
 osm object).

 I just noticed it when a user in my area tagged a couple graves this way.
I agree that all the grave: seems unnecessary. In particular, name, ref,
inscription, and memorial could probably all be used as-is. I put a note on
the Discussion page. Do people tag birth/death dates along with
historic=tomb?


 I do not understand the mainly for graves without historic value part.
 Does this exclude graves with historic value, or is it simply a hint that
 there are far more graves for ordinary people than there are for famous
 ones?

 I don't know, but my guess would be it was in counterpoint to the note
that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's
burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for
ordinary graves or would a different tag be better?


 cheers,
 Martin

 PS: Usage of the cemetery=grave tag should be discouraged: single graves
 aren't subtypes of cemeteries (and we shouldn't encourage different tagging
 schemes for graves on cemeteries and graves on churchyards, at least IMHO).

 +1

Cheers, Brad
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

2014-10-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
 I do not understand the mainly for graves without historic value part.
 Does this exclude graves with historic value, or is it simply a hint that
 there are far more graves for ordinary people than there are for famous
 ones?



 I don't know, but my guess would be it was in counterpoint to the note
 that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's
 burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for
 ordinary graves or would a different tag be better?



 I'm not a native English speaker, but to me it seems strange. What do you
think? I thought that an ordinary grave (a wooden coffin in a hole dug into
the earth) won't qualify as tomb and that there was some structure
required for a tomb. I don't like tomb=tombstone because I'd see the
tombstone (that's the same as a headstone, isn't it?) as part of a tomb or
grave, but not as a subtype for the tomb as a whole in a way that the other
values like pyramid, rock-cut tomb or tumulus are.


As a native English speaker, I agree, tomb seems very different than an
ordinary grave with a tombstone. From looking at wikipedia, the difference
mainly seems to be that a tomb has a structure containing the remains,
whereas with a grave, the remains are buried underground. So in that sense,
tomb=tombstone seems even more odd.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural

2014-10-07 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Hi Martin, regarding the wiki page, I'm assuming you're talking about
Frankthetankk's edits? I'm not seeing what the issue is. Could you clarify
what change you see as disputable? Thanks, Brad

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:

 snip

 Additionally I have spotted that recently a user has decided to group the
 features according to his interpretation:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:naturalaction=history

 I believe that this new grouping is disputable and propose to revert this
 change.
 ---


 Please comment.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 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] tagging for graves?

2014-10-01 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Thanks for the reply Martin, I'd seen you weighing in on this on the wiki.

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:


 2014-09-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:

 Hi all,

 I noticed a user adding some individual grave sites of ordinary people
 and am wondering what the recommended tagging is, if any. Here are some
 things I could find being used (are there others?):

- cemetery=grave [1] taginfo: 726 uses



 this seems bad tagging to me, because a grave is not a type of cemetery.



I agree--should there be a stronger statement against using this on the
wiki page? (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dcemetery)
Or maybe send ceyockey a message?



- grave=* [2] taginfo: 17 uses



 could be OK, what are the values?



For the little actual usage, it's mostly grave=yes. There are many (maybe
too many?) additional tagging values on the proposal page I linked to.



- historic=tomb, tomb=* [3] taginfo: 3087 uses total, of which 1778
are tomb=tombstone (but the wiki notes this is only for important or
well-known persons)



 IMHO you could use this for all kind of people, if the tagging makes sense
 at all in this way. Not sure if tomb is a word suitable for an ordinary
 grave, I have originally introduced this tag for more significant
 structures like tumuli in etruscan necropoles or rock-cut tombs or
 columbariums or mausoleums or pyramids. tomb=tombstone might also be
 strange tagging because a tombstone is not a subtype of a tomb, or is it?
 Someone has added this to the tomb page but without further notice on the
 mailing lists. If tomb is a suitable term, I think the value should be
 something like ordinary_grave or grave and not tombstone which is
 really a part of a tomb/grave and not a type of tomb itself.

 Tomb sounds a little odd in English for a regular grave. But, clearly
people are searching for something to use.


I did some looking via overpass for the three tag schemes I mentioned
above, and even for the first two (cemetery=grave and grave=*) most graves
seem to be well-known figures, with many of them also tagged historic=*.
So, it doesn't help much to get at what to do for the grave of an ordinary
person.

The vast majority of grave tags seem to be in Germany. Has there been any
sort of discussion of this on the DE list?

Thanks,
Brad

cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 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] How to tag a landmark clock

2014-09-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
How about man_made=tower instead of historic=tower? You could also add
start_date=1903 to show the age.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:

 How should this clock:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_Clock

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/187104810

 be tagged? It's a notable landmark, but not a memorial.

 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

 ___
 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] leisure=common

2014-08-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
So is leisure=common supposed to be distinct from landuse=village_green?
Your search makes it seem like you're talking about the same thing.


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
  I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the
  pages you posted.

 It was in the map features page for years : An area where the
 public can walk anywhere (UK) 

 I guess it is also used in US. I found some examples :

 https://www.google.fr/search?safe=offhl=frsite=imghptbm=ischsa=1q=village+commonoq=village+commongs_l=img.3...11667.13247.0.13578.8.7.0.0.0.0.476.476.4-1.1.00...1c.1.52.img..8.0.0.cFS7KjyXTyo

 If you don't know what village common is then don't use it. If we
 start to delete all vague definitions in the wiki, we should better
 start with smoothness :-)

 Pieren

 ___
 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] Religious landuse?

2014-07-18 Thread Brad Neuhauser
As we all know, rendering is different from tagging. If people want to
change how place_of_worship is rendered, that's a different issue for a
different venue. This is about how to tag the data.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that
 amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody
 is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly
 on the main osm style. The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is
 always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area
 (like for schools).


 +1. I've always ignored the fact that the main rendering draws
 amenity=place_of_worship in a really dark color and I tag the whole church
 grounds as amenity=place_of_worship and tag the church building itself with
 building=church. This is similar to how I tag the whole school grounds with
 amenity=school.

 I remember a discussion about a proposed tag landuse=institutional or
 similar for things like these earlier this year:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dinstitutional
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-March/016842.html

 ___
 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] Religious landuse?

2014-07-18 Thread Brad Neuhauser

 Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with place_of_worship
 only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping.


I hear what you're saying, but with a tag that's used 600K times (on 226K
ways), we have to look at actual usage for part of our guidance. *Totally*
unscientific, but I used overpass turbo to zoom in on multiple areas around
the world and look at ways that are tagged amenity=place_of_worship, and
the vast majority appeared to be building outlines. Using it for the
grounds seems like an outlier. (if someone else wants to do more robust
research, I'd be happy to see it! :)  So, while using place of worship for
the grounds may be correct in certain case, in the majority of cases, the
common usage seems to leave a question about how to tag the grounds.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm not sure church grounds is a place of worship. People don't usually
 worship God in an organized manner besides the church.


 There are actually a lot of churches where I am where the Catholic 14
 Stations of the Cross are spread throughout the church grounds and these
 are spots where churchgoers pray the Way of the Cross.

 Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with place_of_worship
 only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping.

 ___
 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] Religious landuse?

2014-07-18 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Cool, thanks for the examples!  To clarify, I didn't say that method was
invalid, I was saying that it didn't look very common to me. From what you
sent, it appears I may be wrong about that. :)

So, it looks like there are two distinct approaches to using the
amenity=place_of_worship tag: 1) limiting it to the place of worship itself
usually a building, and 2) using it for the entire grounds a la
amenity=school. To circle back to the point of this thread, the question is
if someone follows method 1, what is the recommended way to tag the
grounds? There is usage and wiki documentation of landuse=religious. Martin
also mentioned putting religion=* and operator=* (and maybe other tags that
apply, like amenity=monastery for a monastery) on a way around the area.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com
wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with
 place_of_worship only being tagged for the actual specific object where
 one does worshiping.


 I hear what you're saying, but with a tag that's used 600K times (on 226K
 ways), we have to look at actual usage for part of our guidance. *Totally*
 unscientific, but I used overpass turbo to zoom in on multiple areas around
 the world and look at ways that are tagged amenity=place_of_worship, and
 the vast majority appeared to be building outlines. Using it for the
 grounds seems like an outlier. (if someone else wants to do more robust
 research, I'd be happy to see it! :)  So, while using place of worship for
 the grounds may be correct in certain case, in the majority of cases, the
 common usage seems to leave a question about how to tag the grounds.


 Places where the grounds are tagged with amenity=place_of_worship and not
 just the main building:

 Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
 Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
 Singapore: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
 Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
 Bangalore, India: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
 Bangkok, Thailand: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gn

 I don't know which areas around the world you have looked at but from my
 point of view, tagging the grounds is clearly not an outlier method of
 tagging but is completely valid.


 ___
 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] Religious landuse?

2014-07-17 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Schools are an interesting case for comparison, as on the surface they seem
similar.  But here's where I see the distinction: many times the entire
school grounds is used for school activities (including things like
building, playground, sports pitch, parking, etc). But with place of
worship, it is usually just one area of a grounds (often a building) that
is used for worship. Yet, other activities related to that religious
community may take place in the grounds, and that's what we're trying to
figure out here. Maybe it's the phrasing of place of worship that's part
of the issue--it's very specific!

Martin brought up amenity=monastery--it sounds like that might work for
John's case in Japan. But there are other cases. To take an extreme
example, some churches in the US have large campuses. This one near
Memphis is bigger than some schools, and includes a gym and baseball
fields! http://tinyurl.com/ns6or8m  What to do here? I would say that it
doesn't make sense to tag the whole area as place of worship, that's
factually incorrect. So, if people are opposed to landuse=religious, what
would you recommend for a case like this? The only other option I can think
of might be to put an operator and/or religion tag on other mapped features
in the area, but that seems less than ideal.

Brad


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:



  Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:46 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
 
  The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is
  always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area
  (like for schools).


 In the Christian religion (which is where I happen to map, don't know
 about other religions) I use this tag on the sacred ground, which might
 extend to the churchyard, an oratory, or some outdoor space around the
 church, but often wouldn't comprise a kindergarten or some administration
 facility of the church, so I don't think place of worship can be used for
 this context. For monasteries I use amenity=monastery and put pow only on
 the churches and chapels...

 Agree that place of worship shouldn't render as a building

 cheers,
 Martin
 ___
 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] Religious landuse?

2014-07-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I don't know what John's example is, but it would make sense to me to
include the private residence if it is a place where people who are part of
the religious community live, for example a parsonage or a dormitory of a
monastery.  Regarding gardens, they may have a religious purpose
(meditation and reflection, or include a labyrinth) but not be a place of
worship.


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:



  Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
 
  Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple
 building, bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple
 certainly is a place of worship, the garden is not.


 Could you expand the idea that the private residence or the public garden
 should be landuse = religious ? Is this based on ownership by a religious
 institution, or are there more connections?

 cheers,
 Martin
 ___
 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] Rendering change: buildings within highway areas

2014-07-09 Thread Brad Neuhauser
MapQuest Open seems to have a good compromise in this case--the tunnel is
rendered above the buildings, but is partly transparent (to allow the user
to see other features) and has more prominent dashed casing (to indicate it
is below-ground).


On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl
 wrote:

 On 9 July 2014 16:29, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
  We get increasing feedbacks on my local list that the new rendering
  rule is counter-intuitive (to not say that it is considered as a bug).
  Now roads are rendered on top of buildings even when roads are really
  under buildings or underground (tunnels). Why not when your primary
  interest is for roads, but it's not so nice when your interest is
  buildings ;-)
 
  Examples:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/47.61190/-122.33067
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/43.28450/5.38016
 
  This is now clearly a map style oriented for transport and the result
  is more abstractive than previously where the z order reflected more
  the real world. We can blame Google for many things but, at least,
  they render tunnels below the buildings... If you don't like
  buildings, than make it frankly and remove them completely from the
  style.

 Thank you for your feedback. It seems none of the solutions is really
 ideal. I think the old rendering was not perfect either. Here you can
 compare them: http://bl.ocks.org/tyrasd/raw/6164696/#16.00/43.2856/5.3814
 Rendering order is still work in progress, so we might decide to move
 things around again later. Suggestions are welcome.

 -- Matthijs

 ___
 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] tree shrines

2014-07-09 Thread Brad Neuhauser
In the US, most of these sort of things are markers where people died in
accidents. Wikipedia calls them roadside memorials (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_memorial), and I guess that might be
the most common term in the US.

Shrine, to my ears, has a different, more specifically religious
connotation than these memorials--see the examples at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine  I wouldn't use shrine to describe a
marker where someone died unless it was a saint, or it was for people who
literally worshiped ancestors.



On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:

 Wayside shrines and crosses are quite common here in Austria, and probably
 in other parts of Europe too. They are mounted on posts (or pillars,
 walls...) made of various materials (wood, stone...), or on trees. When
 mounted on trees, I use a tag combination of historic=wayside_cross (or
 _shrine) with natural=tree + species=* etc. and (if applicable) name=*. I
 mapped a lot of these that way.

 Therefore I felt kind of annoyed when someone created a wiki page for the
 new and apparently synonymous tag historic=tree_shrine and immediately
 added
 it to the map features without any preceeding usage or discussion. I
 contacted him, but we didn't achieve a consensus.

 In order to untangle that tagging issue, I would like to ask native English
 speakers for their understanding of terms:

 - How do you call a cross at a tree?
 - How do you call a picture of a saint, or other shrine-like object, at a
 tree?
 - Is the term tree shrine common?
 - Is it considered a subset of the term wayside shrine, i.e. can you
 refer
 to a tree shrine as a wayside shrine?

 If we come to the conclusion that tree shrine is the correct term and
 that
 we therefore ought to tag them as historic=tree_shrine, some further
 questions arise:

 - Does it apply to crosses as well, or only to pictures and alike?
 - Does historic=tree_shrine imply natural=tree?
 - Is name=* the name of the tree or the name of the shrine/picture/cross?
 What if they differ?
 - Is start_date the birthdate of the tree or the date the shrine was made?

 --
 Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
 Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

 ___
 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] tree shrines

2014-07-09 Thread Brad Neuhauser
What Jesse said. :)  Including that they're often relatively temporary.
That might explain why there are so few in the US compared to Europe?

I'd seen this discussion before and thought it was kind of obscure, then
just looked at taginfo and was surprised by how many there are--wow!  I'd
seen many of these small shrines in Japan but didn't know it was such a big
thing in Europe.

45K wayside_cross:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=wayside_cross#map
23K wayside_shrine:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=wayside_shrine#map



On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Jesse Crawford je...@jbcrawford.us wrote:


 On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 To clarify, by these, you mean historic=wayside_cross, correct?
 Or does historic=tree_shrine has the same meaning?


 I would suspect so - this is consistent with my area as well, where these
 features are called descansos (a Spanish word) and usually take the form
 of crosses in the freeway median/shoulder. The use of descanso is probably
 unusual in the non-Southwestern US, so I would concer with
 roadside_memorial as a tag for these.

 That said, I do not know how valuable it is to map them. They are a big
 part of the culture in this area and so tend to be both elaborate and
 permanent, but in other parts of the US where I have lived they were often
 simple and temporary, not useful features for navigation. Their usefulness
 likely varies significantly with culture.

 Jesse B. Crawford
 Student, Information Technology
 New Mexico Inst. of Mining  Tech

 jcrawf...@cs.nmt.edu | je...@jbcrawford.us
 http://cs.nmt.edu/~jcrawford | http://jbcrawford.us

 ___
 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] Fireplace, Fire Pit, BBQ Grill

2014-06-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I would agree with Martin and disagree with John there. I guess I have a
broader definition of fire pit/ring as something that exists mainly to
contain a fire on the ground, and which may or may not be used for cooking.
I'd call the Grillplatz image a fire pit or ring. A fire ring could just
be a ring of rocks on the ground. Portable metal fire pits are even
commonly sold in the US for backyard use. (ie
www.homedepot.com/b/Outdoors-Outdoor-Heating-Fire-Pits/N-5yc1vZc6na)

This is typical of fire rings you'll find at many campsites in the US:
http://albanyeatsblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/p1000817.jpg

Regarding BBQ grill, the most common type of public grills in the US
(especially in parks) are metal structures on sunken posts, like the
examples here https://www.google.com/search?q=park+grilltbm=isch

Brad


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:33 AM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'd call that a barbecue, as it's above ground.

 __John
 On 23 Jun 2014 13:37, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:

  a fire pit would be sunken into the ground


 Could that also sometimes (often?) be used for BBQ?

 What would you call this: http://www.grillplatzverzeichnis.de/
 images/Grillplatzbilder/Grillplatz-NaturSportPark.jpg
 __
 openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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


Re: [Tagging] Fireplace, Fire Pit, BBQ Grill

2014-06-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I get what you're saying, but I think fire_site would be too generic. What
about using fire_ring instead? Whether it's dug into the ground or not,
made of metal or stone, etc, these are usually circular.

On the other hand, leisure=firepit has over 800 uses, while fire_site and
fire_ring have zero. Rather than introducing other tags, would it be better
to just better define and document what firepit should be used for?



On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2014-06-23 16:22 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:

 I would agree with Martin and disagree with John there. I guess I have a
 broader definition of fire pit/ring as something that exists mainly to
 contain a fire on the ground, and which may or may not be used for cooking.



 what about fire_site, would that be a suitable neutral / structure
 independent term which could avoid misinterpretation? Or is this too
 generic and won't imply any kind of dedicated structure (i.e. it would say
 that there is a spot where a fire had been / could be lit, but it won't say
 that the place is suitable to do so)? I somehow do agree with John that
 literally a fire pit should be dug into the ground.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 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] Fireplace, Fire Pit, BBQ Grill

2014-06-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I see how calling those firepits contradicts the *literal* meaning of the
word, but just the same, there seems to be pretty widespread usage of the
word in that way, at least in the US. If someone in the UK could comment
about usage there, that might be helpful.

Maybe it could still work, e.g. the picture above was found searching for
 Feuergrube (literally translation for fire pit) and somehow could be
 called a pit even if the whole structure is raised above ground, as the
 inside (where you make the fire) is lower than the external wall.


Yes, it seems like the name firepit is as much an indication of the
function the structure serves as the specific makeup of the structure
itself.


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:


 2014-06-23 17:08 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:

 I get what you're saying, but I think fire_site would be too generic. What
 about using fire_ring instead?



 I would not suggest to do so, because not all places like this are
 circular, there are also square ones, and the problem would remain the same
 (a specific word describing a specific thing where indeed a broader use
 case is intended).

 e.g.
 http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcooledeko.de%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Fdesign-im-hinterhof-originell-stilvoll-extravagant-feuergrube.jpgimgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcooledeko.de%2Fgartengestaltung%2Fcooles-design-im-hinterhof-gartengestaltung.htmlh=450w=600tbnid=HOOBNd0LKW9osM%3Azoom=1docid=JQFfg5yLz8cozMei=y0yoU8eSBsbMygPKgoGoBwtbm=ischclient=firefox-aved=0CCAQMygBMAEiact=rcuact=3dur=2127page=1start=0ndsp=24




 On the other hand, leisure=firepit has over 800 uses, while fire_site and
 fire_ring have zero. Rather than introducing other tags, would it be better
 to just better define and document what firepit should be used for?



 the problem with this is, that even with very good definitions, as long as
 they contradict the literal meaning of the word, it will not work well and
 will come back sooner or later to this list here ;-)
 Calling something that is actually raised above ground a pit will
 probably not be liked by anybody understanding the word pit

 Maybe it could still work, e.g. the picture above was found searching for
 Feuergrube (literally translation for fire pit) and somehow could be
 called a pit even if the whole structure is raised above ground, as the
 inside (where you make the fire) is lower than the external wall.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 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] Landuse=civic_admin

2014-03-18 Thread Brad Neuhauser
It might be good to see if any of these ideas are in use, despite lack of
documentation. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landuse

A couple potentially useful tags I noticed scanning through the list of
landuse=* values were
1) landuse=religious has 1100 uses
2) landuse=school and landuse=education both have hundreds of uses--might
be good to recommend one or the other?
3) landuse=leisure is used more often than landuse=recreation right now
(477 v. 62)
4) interestingly, landuse=institution is not used at all, but
landuse=institutional a bit (68 uses)

Among the other landuse=* values, there might be some ideas to pick up on,
or others which we'd like to avoid.

Cheers,
Brad


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:38 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:


 On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2014-03-16 23:11 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:

 I'd like to clarify what I said before that landuse=civic_admin would be
 useful. It would be useful for  tagging the only the compounds where
 government offices are located (townhall, courthouse, etc.). I am not
 suggesting that schools and hospitals would use the same
 landuse=civic_admin tag.


 +1, I agree that we COULD have some new landuse values, there is a lot of
 stuff that isn't yet covered by

 the well introduced landuses, including:


 This is a great post of yours. It really got me thinking about solving
 this, and this civic_admin stuff.

 Just thinking while typing here. in hindsight, landuse=institution is
 really useful with a subtag after typing all this.

 About half of these tags can be covered with landuse=institution.


 churches and other religion related areas



 landuse=institution + institution= religion (or straight landuse=religion)

  there are a lot of religious areas in Japan that have a really big area
 with a lot of little, unnamed buildings, gardens, event areas, and other
 stuff to go with the main shrines. Moreover, the shrines themselves have
 separate names - but the complex has it's own big famous name as well (Ex:
 Asakusa in Tokyo) - so a separate landuse for religion is a great tag.
 Also: we need to update the icons for the religions in -carto as well
 (there is no Japanese buddhist symbol, for example, and the shinto one is
 overly detailed compared to the others).


 theatres and cinemas,

 restaurants and nightclubs


 landuse=retail amenity=restaurant/cinema/discotek (sp)  *or*
 landuse=entertainment + entertainment=[type].

 also mixes into institution=arts_centre. To me the line is live people
 performance and commerical art (cinema)  is in entertainment, and exibition
 of cultural art (art gallery/ museum) is in institution, but I dunno.

 This overlaps into a lot of different tagging systems. Hopefully subtags
 can unify it without the need for retagging.  This is a messy problem.

 mixed use (like you'll find for instance in the centre of the typical
 european city)


 Shops downstairs, residential upstairs, right?

 landuse=urban_mixed_use  (as opposed to a mixed use business park
 [retail+commercial])

 courthouses


 Jails  Prisons too?  landuse=institution + institution=judicial The
 police side is mentioned below.

 parliaments and city counsels (and the levels in between) as well as
 supranational decision making


 Landuse=institution + institution=civic_assembly

  it could cover everything from a city council to the UN building.

 institutions

 museums


 Landuse=institution + institution=museum / gallery / arts_centre *or*
  tourism=museum or proposed  =art gallery / amenity=arts_centre ...


 hospitals and clinics



 landuse=institution + institution=medical (or, of course Landuse=medical),
 as opposed to hospital. would cover chiropractic clinics, pharmacies,
 dentists, orthodontists, maybe even veterinary. existing amenity= or shop=
 would would work fine, or use medical= subtag.  using the institution here
 here seems weak though.

 public administration (with and without public access)


 landuse=institution + institution=civic_office

 this would solve all my civic_admin troubles. could cover the white
 house down to townhalls and all the depts in between.


 It's brother would be landuse=institution institution=civic_service(s)?+
 existing amenity of choice,

 public services like police, fire, plow stations, (ambulance 'station'
 too?) border patrol, immigration, park ranger stations, customs areas, the
 fruit and vegetable check areas on the highways between states (in the US),
  Some of these are privately operated, but it is for the public good.


 universities and schools and colleges


 landuse=institution + institution=education (or straight
 Landuse=education). covers just about everything, from a preschool to
 driving school to flight school to Jukus (private tutoring schools - cram
 schools like kumon or EFL schools) - where we really wouldn't want it
 tagged as amenity=school (I don't think). education=[type] also a
 possibility. 

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

2013-10-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Instead of soft play, what about indoor play (or indoor play
area/centre)?

1) it seems to be used as a catch all sometimes, even in the UK (ie -
http://www.timeout.com/london/events/indoor-play-centres-in-london or
http://www.dayoutwiththekids.co.uk/things-to-do-family/Northampton/Indoor-Play-Areas
)
2) it is broad enough to cover all of these sort of places, since some
indoor play areas may only have some actual soft play equipment meant for
younger kids/toddlers  (or, if you are only meaning the actual areas that
have the soft play equipment, then that might be different)
3) it might make more sense for those outside the UK who don't use the term
soft play much

Brad


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Dominic Hosler dominichos...@gmail.comwrote:

 Due to child protection, you are generally not allowed to take
 pictures inside the soft-play centres. Also, any official pictures are
 copyrighted.

 In the proposal, I linked to a few websites of some soft play centres,
 where they have pictures, I hoped this would be fine.

 Soft play is as Jonathan said, padding not inflatables.

 Thanks,
 Dom

 On 23 October 2013 14:31, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 
 
  Would they qualify as soft play?
 
 
  No, that's a bouncy castle. Soft play is padding, not inflatables.
 
 
  ___
  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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)

2013-09-30 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Just FYI, they are becoming more common in public places (offices, malls,
airports, schools, etc) in the US.


On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

 On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:59 +0200, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
  On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
  Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the
  way we tag
  in OSM and it is often misleading.
 
 
  We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for example mtb, bmx, hgv,
  psv, url, rcn.

 Those are mostly familiar terms, where the abbreviation is better known
 than the actual words. BMX and URL in particular. I do not know MTB or
 RCN are however.
 
 
  In this particular case, I think more people have familiarity with the
  abbreviation than with the full term, so I see here nothing wrong with
  sticking to the abbreviation. Or are you proposing to start using
  uniform_resource_locator as well?

 Outside of the medical profession I doubt anyone has  heard the term
 AED. I certainly hadn't until I saw it in this thread. There may be some
 familiarity with them within factories, we have some at work. Then again
 I work for a large company with a strong health and safety culture, and
 a large number of employees to split the cost over.

 Outside of factories and the like, they are still very rare. I know of
 one, in Loppington, a small North Shropshire village, but thats because
 I am an observant mapper. It has a numerical keylock on it, so imagine
 that maybe you phone 999 and ask for the code?

 I have never seen one anywhere else, and yes I have looked and keep my
 eyes open. Most people will not be aware such things even exist.

 Phil (trigpoint)


 ___
 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] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
man_made=pipeline, pipeline=qanat?  This is similar to how the aqueduct
page proposes to tag modern aqueducts, but qanats seem a distinct type of
structure from aqueducts due to the vertical wells.  (And I agree with
John's point that it is not really like a pipeline, but I'd argue that OSM
often uses terms in a non-literal way to group related features)

Brad


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think this is quite a unique structure that can't be described with
 canal. Especially if the main reason is rendering. Canals are not used
 for drinking water, the concept is entirely different. If I had to use
 anything, I would use aqueducthttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aqueduct,
 but I would rather use waterway=qanat.

 Janko



 ___
 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] School and training

2013-09-06 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Two big counter-examples to your argument are restaurants and places of
worship:  If I'm looking for a [Chinese restaurant or Catholic church] I
am not interested in finding also a [pizza restaurant or Synagogue]

That said, what you're proposing (separate amenity tags for different types
of other schools) seems to be what's happening anyway, albeit slowly.
Here's the top amenity tags with a value including school (from
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=amenity#values, searching for
values with school):

school546360
driving_school3851
preschool225
dancing_school174
ski_school112
school;place_of_worship92
music_school65
language_school40
prep_school35
dance_school19
School18
school;kindergarten12
place_of_worship;school10
schoolyard10
couching_school8
pre_school8
riding_school8
boarding_school6
kindergarten;school6
nursery_school6
diving_school5
musical_school5
private_school5
professional_school5
sport_school5
art_school4
school (historic)4
tuition_school4

And it goes on like that with things like cooking, dog, aviation, sailing,
art, etc schools.  So if this seems like the way forward, it would at least
be good to document a list of values people can refer to.

Also, fwiw, amenity=tutoring is used 15 times and amenity=tutor 9 times.

Brad


On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:


 2013/9/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com

 -1

 Can't we use a different key like education or training and then use
 subkeys ?

 I do not like to find a new amenity=* for each kind of educational
 service or training.




 What would be the benefit? If I'm looking for a language school I am not
 interested in finding also dancing schools or driving schools or diving
 schools, or chess training or basketball training. They also do have almost
 nothing in common. We don't follow this approach for most other tags
 neither (e.g. highway=road, road=primary or amenity=shop, shop=grocery).
 This subtagging idea comes up from time to time, but there is really not
 much benefit IMHO if the objects are completely different. Subtags should
 be used to distinguish similar features, e.g. for which language they offer
 courses, but training is really too generic to give any reasonable
 results if standing alone.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] School and training

2013-09-06 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I think you misunderstood my transition to a second point (maybe That
said was not a clear enough pivot).  The list was showing what is in the
wild right now, and that things like
amenity=ski_school/dance_school/language_school/driving_school/riding_school/etc
are in use now, at least in a limited way.  I thought that's what you were
advocating for?  If not, please clarify.  Brad


On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2013/9/6 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com

 Two big counter-examples to your argument are restaurants and places of
 worship:  If I'm looking for a [Chinese restaurant or Catholic church] I
 am not interested in finding also a [pizza restaurant or Synagogue]



 yes, but still it would be a restaurant or a place of worship, while a
 language school has very few in common with a skiing school or a driving
 school.


 school546360
 driving_school3851



 these two are also documented, something we should try for the rest as
 well.



 preschool225



 not a school IMHO ;-)

 ...


 And it goes on like that with things like cooking, dog, aviation, sailing,
 art, etc schools.  So if this seems like the way forward, it would at least
 be good to document a list of values people can refer to.


 +1, documentation is desirable, not sure if a common list does make a lot
 of sense. Would you also include a school of dolphins? ;-) Sorry for the
 groaner, but what I intend is that only because part of the word is
 school doesn't necessarily mean that they belong to the same group of
 stuff.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Ace Hardware

2013-08-30 Thread Brad Neuhauser


  I don't like the co-op tag because normally co-op has the connotation
 that the user of the store is a co-op member, not that the store is at a
 higher level.

 i agree. a coop tag used in this manner will lead to confusion and
 mistagging.

 +1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (man_made=silo)

2013-08-20 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Sorry I wasn't clear, Pieren, I meant man_made=silo is in general use
(20K uses).  I'm not sure what you mean about silo=*.  Cheers, Brad


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Brad Neuhauser
 brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:

  My understanding is that tags in general use don't need a vote.

 I see one use of silo=* in taginfo which is not something I would
 call general use...

 The tags name=name of the facility and operator shouldn't go on
 the silos themselves but on the polygon surrounding the whole
 facility.

 Pieren

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] road side

2013-08-19 Thread Brad Neuhauser
for better or worse, shoulder has ~1500 uses, verge has zero.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=shoulder


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote:

 On Aug 19, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:

 
  Sounds like you mean the shoulder. See
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shoulder
 
  It should usually be tagged as an attribute on the highway, not mapped
 as a separate way or area.
 
  Craig
 

 +1

 Except that I think in the UK they might call it the verge so we might
 have a dialect issue.

 -Tod
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (man_made=silo)

2013-08-19 Thread Brad Neuhauser
My understanding is that tags in general use don't need a vote.  Assuming
that's correct, I've updated the man_made=silo page with info from the
proposal.  (Although from taginfo, few existing silos have additional tags)

Brad


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:

 Unless there is a objection, I'd like to bring to quick vote this already
 discussed proposal:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsilo
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Silo
 This tag has 20,000+ uses, and appears well established.  Giving is a
 proper wiki page
 makes editor integration nicer.

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us-nps] Feature Proposal - RFC - ranger_station

2013-08-12 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Thomas, you say the tag should apply to facilities housing law enforcement
and/or visitor assistant services  but then say it shouldn't be used on
facilities that do not include a law enforcement function.  This seems
contradictory, unless you didn't really mean that or.

Also, does this law enforcement function really apply to all park rangers,
or just those in certain jurisdictions or levels of government?  I could
easily see this tag used in national, state, and county parks.

Brad


On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Thomas Colson thomas_col...@nps.gov wrote:

 I’d update the definition to state facilities housing law enforcement
 and/or visitor assistant services such as those commonly found in National
 Parks, Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and State Parks. Tag should not be used
 on facilities that do not include a law enforcement function such as
 information kiosks or campground registration offices. In most cases, a
 single structure will house many of these services.

 ** **

 Current text only references national parks. 

 ** **

 ** **

 ** **

 *From:* Clifford Snow [mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:42 PM
 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools;
 talk-us-...@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us-nps] [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
 ranger_station

 ** **

 ** **

 On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
 wrote:

 After reading the discussion and incorporating what I could, I am moving**
 **


 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dranger_station
 

 to the next step.  Please comment per voting procedures, here or on the
 talk page.


 I like your proposal. It would simplify mapping in parks with dedicated
 ranger stations. Since there are 59 National Parks on our radar, each with
 a least one ranger station, often more, the feature will be used throughout
 the US. 

 ** **

 A Wikipedia search list over 6,000 results for ranger stations. The first
 few pages appear to be sites that should be mapped.

 ** **

 -- 

 Clifford

 ** **

 OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] historic=vicarage

2013-08-02 Thread Brad Neuhauser
FWIW, rectory seems to be the main wikipedia entry for these sorts of
buildings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectory  That page also has some
description of what denomination/region tends to use what term.  I notice
in the talk page there that someone suggested clergy house would be a
more neutral term.


On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, René Kirchhoff rene-kirchh...@arcor.dewrote:

 Mein Vorschlag:

 heritage=*
 historic=yes (sofern wirklich historisch)
 building=*
 description=*

 http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/CheckTheMonuments
 http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Historische_Objekte
 Gruß René

 2013/8/2 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com

 I'm currently mapping the protected monuments in Belgium. One of the
 buildings you encounter are vicarages. I looked at taginfo, but couldn't
 find an appropriate tag.

 What should I use ?

 historic = vicarage

 or parsonage
 or rectory
 or presbytery ?

 It's for roman-catholic pastors in case that matters.

 Should I add some disused tag as well ?

 m


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=bakery, bread_bakery, confectionery

2013-06-26 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Based on voting thus far, this is a non-starter, mostly based on the new
bread_bakery tag.  I think there would be a lot more support if it only
proposed to 1) clarify the confectionery tag, and 2) add the Types of
Bakery Goods tags.  Brad


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Martin Koppenhöfer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:



 Am 26.06.2013 um 00:00 schrieb Murry McEntire murry.mcent...@gmail.com:

  A proposal for improving the current misleading definitions and misuse
 of bakery and confectionery; and a requested separation of bread bakeries
 from bakeries of other bakery goods, is now open for voting.


 IMHO your conclusions seem US-centric. Most of what is currently tagged as
 bakery will probably produce and sell bread and often also sweet bakery
 products, and adopting your proposal, those would all have to be retagged
 (including lots of tools to be changed, think of the pretzel icon) when the
 problem is actually with the tag confectionery (which some people use in
 accordance with the wiki for kinds of bakeries rather than for candy and
 chocolate shops). Instead of inventing a tag for bread bakeries we'd rather
 need a tag for bakeries that don't sell bread but sweet bakery products.

 Cheers,
 Martin
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=bakery, bread_bakery, confectionery

2013-06-26 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I usually find a variety of breads, rolls, muffins, croissants, pastries
etc at bakeries here in the US, but it could be I like European-style
bakeries :)  Brad


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 2013/6/26 Murry McEntire murry.mcent...@gmail.com

 This proposal is being recalled from voting as the split of bakery types
 at the shop level is obviously a no-go. A modified version of the proposal
 that does not split bakery at the shop level will be put out for vote
 shortly.




 IMHO it is good to split at the shop level (as this meets with what is
 there in (at least the European) reality). Problem was your proposed move
 to a new value for a bakery which does bake bread. This seems at least
 strange to a European for whom it is a given to find different kind of
 bread (and similar like buns, rolls, croissants, pretzels, ...) in a
 bakery. This move would have required to retag almost all bakeries in OSM,
 I guess.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag apartments in a building that is multiuse

2013-06-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Bryce, this is entirely a rendering issue.  Map creators can (and always to
some degree do) select to display only features with certain tags, or that
have names, or are of a certain size, etc, depending on their audience and
what they're trying to show.  For example, notable buildings for tourists
seeing the sights will be different than for locals going on errands or out
for a dinner and drink.  That's why there's so many different renderings.  (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services)  If you have
a vision for a new look, maybe you need to come up with a new one! :)  If
you want to propose changes to the Mapnik style, I think you want to
submit issues here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/

Brad


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:

 While we're on the subject of building tagging:

 Prior to major building outline imports, OSM tended to contain mostly
 important or notable building outlines. People might do a business
 district, or the largest buildings in town, or the church, or zoo... but
 few did every house and garden shed.

 Now we have cities with all the buildings: notable and not.

 Is there a criteria or tag we could apply, allowing less cluttered maps to
 be made, yet still retain the concept of notable buildings that still
 show up on a reasonable human scale map?

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] pastry and confectionery

2013-06-02 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Umm, what's wrong with shop=bakery?

On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 I'd like to advertise the tag shop=pastry for places that sell (and
 usually produce) sweet bakery products pastry, cakes, biscuits, strudel
 etc. opposed to what usually is referred to as confectionery (candies,
 sweets).

 IMHO these are two quite distinct places and I don't think its a good idea
 to mix them up like the page of shop=confectionery currently suggests to
 do: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dconfectionery  (a shop
 selling sweets and pastry).

 cheers,
 Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] pastry and confectionery

2013-06-02 Thread Brad Neuhauser
To me, wikipedia captures well the English usage of bakery:

A *bakery* (or *baker's shop*) is an
establishmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment which
produces and sells flour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour-based food
baked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baking in an
ovenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oven such
as bread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread,
cakeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cake
, pastries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastries, and
pieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pies
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakery
There are not the distinct types as there seem to be in German.  What about
adding an optional bread=yes/no, pastry=yes/no etc to shop=bakery?  That
allows the differentiation in German without distorting the common meaning
of the English word.

Brad

On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Andreas Labres wrote:

 On 02.06.13 19:11, Murry McEntire wrote:
  I do see bakery (baked goods) and confectionery (candy, chocolates)

 You have to differentiate baked goods between bread and viennoiseries
 (=Bäckerei) vs cakes/desserts (=Feinbäckerei, =pâtisserie). Both are
 (different)
 craftsmanships. And you have to differentiate those from a store that
 sells sweets.

 Of course things often mix up, then you have to decide what prevails.

 /al

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org javascript:;
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Fast Food Restaurants

2013-05-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser

 When I write software to get the label of an object, I always use
 brand or operator over name.

 How does this work for something like a school, where the name is the
individual school's name, but the school district is the operator?

Brad
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Bridges redux

2013-05-10 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Friday, May 10, 2013, Martin Vonwald wrote:

 2013/5/10 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net javascript:_e({},
 'cvml', 'rich...@systemed.net');

 OSM's most valuable resource is mappers. We should therefore optimise
 tagging schemes for ease of mapping.


 +1

 +1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Surge tank

2013-04-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
 Le vendredi 19 avril 2013, Pieren a écrit :

 I would not create a special page for this but just enhance the current
 wiki about man_made=pipeline (in type=water section).


 If I introduce a new tag, a new tag descriptive page is mandatory.

 If a page explain what is a pipeline system, of course I would improve it
 without create a dedicated page about surge tanks.
 But it doesn't seem to exist: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pipeline

 As you just showed, a new wiki page for each tag isn't mandatory, though
it may be a good idea so that others can understand and use the tag.  Tags
without wiki pages may get used quite a bit (like pipeline - see
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/pipeline#overview) and tags on the
wiki may hardly get used (ie
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Dfalles).  Useful tags will
tend to get used even if they're not on the wiki.

That being said, since it is being used now, I started a key=pipeline page
now, so that we can document the usage.  I hope you'll expand on it!
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:pipeline

Cheers, Brad
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Landuse vs Place - conversation at talk-key-landuse in wiki

2013-02-15 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I would disagree that place=neighbourhood implies landuse=residential: I
know of neighborhoods that are mostly industrial or commercial landuse.
 Brad

On Friday, February 15, 2013, wrote:

 This is a posting on the wiki which I've responded to --
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:landuse#Landuse.3D_-vs-_Place.3D

 The text of my input, for discussion:

 My opinion on this is that _place=neighborhood_ implies
 _landuse=residential_ but not vice versa. In that case, if one has
 information on a particular area having a name and a boundary which allows
 one to refer to it as a named place, then neighborhood would be preferred.
 For instance, a relation of _type=boundary_ and _border_type=subdivision_ I
 created at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2674522 ;
 _place=neighborhood_ is on the label node, but it might just as well (maybe
 better) been put on the relation so that rendering like that via WIWOSM
 would show a boundary instead of a node. I'm glad to hear people's
 opposition to or support for this opinion. --Ceyockey (talk) 12:23, 15
 February 2013 (UTC)

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org javascript:;
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

2013-02-04 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Doug,

Since you're pretty knowledgable about this topic, it'd probably also be
good if you could flesh out the harbor:LOCODE page on the wiki (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:harbour:LOCODE).  It's part of this
big harbour proposal: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Harbour

Cheers, Brad

PS--one side question: shouldn't LOCODE be locode (that is, lowercase)?
that's how iata and icao are handled for aerodromes...

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM, doug.fra...@tarisoga.com wrote:

 Followup to my post:
 I am here at the London OSM Hack Weekend and spoke to someone who
 explained to me the larger issues and questions about importing / updating
 metadata like LOCODEs that can't be surveyed - i.e. data where managing the
 process of keeping it current may be troublesome.
 I agree with everything he explained and so now I don't think updating the
 LOCODEs that are present, etc would be the best idea.  Letting the existing
 tags die off sounds like the best idea.
 But locodes are assigned to harbours and they are surveyable, can be
 verified by the public, all that sort of thing.  So the UN list could be
 used to update or verify that cities have appropriate harbour tags
 associated with them.  IIRC, Long Beach (or LA) was one test case I looked
 at and it didn't have a tag that i'd expected.
 So now my idea is to check the harbour tags against the UN data (this
 could also be done for rail stations) and then determine how much data is
 missing and what ought to be improved.
 A related idea is that port terminals (for commercial shipping) are
 becoming prominent features (e.g. they are getting their own locodes) and
 perhaps a new tag harbour:terminal (like harbour:pier) could be created for
 handling this data.  Container terminals are physical features and won't
 arbitrarily change, so they aren't metadata like LOCODEs.
 If anyone has any feedback, I'd appreciate it.  I don't plan on doing
 anything until I fully understand the details of all this, so I can write
 it all up, etc.
 doug

 [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM writes:

 Hi everyone,
 This is a duplicate of a email I sent to the Tagging list:
 The company I work for deals with shipping ports, UN LOCODEs, and
 shipping schedules - I had hoped to use OSM to correlate geographical type
 info and LOCODEs.  The problem has become messier than I ever thought, and
 unfortunately OSM does not have much in the way of LOCODE related data.
 At this point, we have a well maintained list of LOCODEs and other such
 data that I keep track with the UN list as it is updated.  So I thought
 it'd be useful to put all that into OSM and clean up the handful of LOCODE
 tags that I have seen in OSM.  This list also includes IATA data and some
 other port type info - everything has been gleaned from public data sources
 like the UN, so I'm sure there are no license related issues.  I'm also
 confident of the accuracy since I'm the one responsible for maintaining the
 data.
 I will write up a feature proposal on the wiki to outline the details,
 but first I wanted to see if there were any comments or advice people might
 have.  I do plan to automate the updates - none of this is map data per se,
 but just tags, so I assume there won't be any real complications. So I will
 read all about the guidelines around automation.
 The questions I had are:
 1) the UN provides geographical coordinates of these LOCODEs, typically
 the city center.  Is there any standard that OSM adheres to regarding the
 location of cities?  Anyone have any pointers to info I should read?
 2) alternative place names - the UN provides some data and we have data
 from other sources.  The data is good, but is there any consensus on this
 topic about how OSM ought to operate?
 3) locations/cities not in OSM at all - adding these in is a separate
 task entirely so I will leave that till I understand OSM better.  But if
 someone could point me in the right direction, that'd be great.
 Thanks
 doug
 __**_
 Imports mailing list
 impo...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/importshttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Follow-up on Time Domains

2013-01-23 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I don't think three letters is quite as universal as you think.  It's also
really common in English to use M,T,W,T,F,S,S (in context) or
M,Tu,W,Th,F,Sa,Su or variations.  Since we have a defacto OSM standard with
two letters (the opening_hours key has over 100K uses), and it's
unambiguous, this seems like a case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
  It shouldn't be too hard to make a JOSM add-on that converts 3 letters
 into
  2. So that's no problem.

 You seem to be not seeing the point.

 Two letter days of the week (DOW) may be standard in German, and
 that's fine. But the tags we use in OSM are in English. They aren't in
 an abstracted system which we then render- we use English and then
 codify from there. It's what many software projects do, and it's what
 we do.

 So then we must ask What is the standard way of representing a day of
 the week in English?. The way is to look at a standard, such as the
 locale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locale)

 So if you look at your locale from a *nix system- you will see the
 abday, and you will see unicode encoded strings that show the day of
 the week.

 Since that is a pain to look at, we can use Python to help us:

  import time
  time.strftime(%a)
 'Wed'

 If you aren't familiar with Python (or the C it borrows from),
 strftime prints out the time, and I've given it the parameter to
 display the shortened day of the week, according the locale (in my
 case, en_US).

 I'm not about to say that whether we use three letters or two is the
 end of the world, but I will say that we should strive to use things
 that are standard- things that are defined elsewhere. Doing so will
 make it easier for folks to use the software, but also easier for
 programmers to have something they expect.

 - Serge

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] cycleway Tagging and Wiki-Page

2013-01-16 Thread Brad Neuhauser
To me, the Schutzstreifen example should be tagged a bike lane.

This page discusses an example of what I'd see as the shared lane (see
photo at bottom of page)...
http://www.bikewalktwincities.org/news-events/news/biking-walking-and-blogging-what-bicyclists-may-use-full-lane


(tl;dr: by state law in Minnesota (and I'm assuming other places), cars are
legally supposed to share the road with bikes, the signage just reinforces
that for both drivers and cyclists.)

...which matches up exactly with what it says on the wiki.

Regarding sharrow, the wiki says it means the same as shared lane, but
may have different signage.  Maybe they should be merged in the wiki (ie in
the shared lane description add includes sharrows)

The Minneapolis chart of bike markings actually uses the sharrow sign as an
example of shared lane:
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/WCMS1P-083213   Also, if you look
at these examples, the lanes with dashed lines are areas where vehicles may
be merging in or through the bike lane (ie for turning near an
intersection)--the dashed lines are there more for the cars than the bikes.

Nowhere on the cycleway wiki page does it discuss bikes being required to
use bike lanes.  I'm not sure how you'd tag that if it were the case.

Brad

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Balgofil balgo...@gmx.net wrote:

 
  Judging from the description, shared_lane means that there are bike
  markings on the side of the road, but no full lane. We have something
  like that here: usually a bike symbol with a metre or so of dotted
  line next to it.
 
 Here is an image of a Schutzstreifen:

 http://www.hamburg.adfc.de/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpicfile=uploads%2Fpics%2Ff28ud_Gustav-Fr-Str_neu.jpgmd5=d21bd0aa86be5ac56961e505d9fe8305436db5a4parameters%5B0%5D=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ2h0IjtzOjQ6IjYwparameters%5B1%5D=MG0iO3M6NzoiYm9keVRhZyI7czo0MToiPGJvZHkgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbjowOyBiparameters%5B2%5D=YWNrZ3JvdW5kOiNmZmY7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiPGEgaHJlZj0iamF2parameters%5B3%5D=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D

 So is that the same marking as a shared_lane?

 
  I take it you meant:
  Radfahrstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=designated
  Schutzstreifen: cycleway=lane, cycleway:bicycle=yes
 
  That seems sensible, and follows all the existing semantics. What
  backward-compatibility does it break?

 The cyclemap and velomap interpret cycleway=lane as the bicycle have
 to move on that lane. So its mandatory. But with the new tagging the
 useage is stated by cycleway:bicycle=designated|yes. And it is only
 implicit documented on the wiki. I will fix that if we come to a
 conclusion on this thread.
 
  The English is a bit unclear. As shared_lane... here means Used the
  same way as shared_lane. This seems like a pretty dumb tag:
  cycleway=sharrow has exactly the same meaning and function as
  cycleway=shared_lane except the marking on the ground happens to look
  like a chevron.

 Hm, so should it be deleted from the wiki-page?


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag a trailer_park ?

2012-07-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I'd agree, it definitely doesn't look like a trailer park or camp site.
Landuse=residential would cover it without you having to get into
wordsmithing.  There was some discussion on extending landuse=residential
with residential=* tags:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:landuse#Refining_landuse.3Dresidential

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.uswrote:



 On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Werner Poppele popp...@hm.edu wrote:

 In the US [1] I found some trailer parks tagged landuse=trailer_park. Is
 that ok ? Any other recommendations ? The tag tourism=camp_site seems to be
 not quite correct IMHO.

 taginfo
 landuse=trailer_park8
 amenity=trailer_park23
 tourism=camp_site   40196

 WernerP

 [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.6209lon=-117.6951zoom=17

 This looks like a Mobile Home Park (MHP), of which there is only one
 landuse=mobile_home_park  tag in use.  I would recommend not using
 trailer_park and it's not a camp_site.  It could also be a gated_community
 (25 in use) but I couldn't tell from the bing image if it was a actual
 gated community.  Additionally it could be a retirement community for those
 over 55.

 --
 Clifford

 I have promised to cut down on my swearing and drinking, which I have.
  Unfortunately, this has left me dim-witted and nearly speechless. Adapted
 from *The Lion* by Nelson DeMille

 -or-

 If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
  Albert Einstein


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] reservoir_type=tailings

2012-06-14 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I've only heard tailings used to refer to the waste from mining.

Regarding wastewater treatment, I'm assuming other reservoir_types
discussed were things like sedimentation and aeration?

Brad

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Today we had a discussion on talk-de how to map the different pools
 and reservoirs in a wastewater treatment plant. One of the tags that
 came up was reservoir_type=tailings, referenced from this page:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir

 It is not completely clear, if this tag really was intended for
 specific baisins inside a wasterwater treatment plant, or if this is a
 feature in conjunction with mining (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mining ). Maybe
 we should be more specific here in the wording? IMHO we should try to
 find a definition to put into the wiki which is in line with current
 use of this tag in OSM.

 I also noticed that NHD uses the word tailings pond for the SHP keys
 43604 and 43605:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Hydrography_Dataset
 for Reservoir (Disposal-Tailings Pond Earthen) and Reservoir
 (Disposal-Tailings Pond Unspecified)

 Cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] addr

2012-05-08 Thread Brad Neuhauser
But in the US the administrative municipality for an address may be
different than the city that is used for mailing to that address, which is
regulated by the US Post Office (and I think tied to zip code).  For
example, residences in villages or towns may have a larger city/town nearby
as their mail city.  Also, residences that are near the border of two
cities may live within the boundaries of one, but have their mailing
address be the other, due to where their post office is.


 In Virginia (US State), towns are governed by larger administrative
 bodies, namely counties.  Cities, on the other hand, are independent of
 counties and on the same level in the administrative hierarchy as counties,
 even though they may be completely surrounded by a particular county.

 --
 John F. Eldredge --  j...@jfeldredge.com
 Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
 to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Coffee Roasting

2011-12-14 Thread Brad Neuhauser
You could also add coffee_roasting=yes to cafes if they roast their own
beans?

BTW, the proposed feature page is misspelled: needs another F

Cheers, Brad

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.dewrote:

 :D
 working on maps software for the blind I like that.
 Feel free to work on these tags, we will comment, where we find issues and
 remarks.

 regards
 Peter

 Am 14.12.2011 13:43, schrieb Erik Johansson:

  On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 13:12, Volker Schmidtvosc...@gmail.com  wrote:

 ... and what about the bigger roasters, that do not sell their products
 to
 the consumer, but you can smell them from miles downwind. They are
 factories, I suppose, but what is the tag? land_use=industrial and then
 the
 name of the factory.

 I see a new tag comming:  Coffee roaster: smellines=nice,  paper
 plant: smelliness=horrible

 Or seriously you could add odor:industrial=cofee roaster/paper plant
 I'll add some odor:waste=sewer..

 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Explain sport=multi

2011-12-08 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Another outdoors example is at a park or school where there is a field
which is used for various sports--soccer, baseball, football, etc (even ice
hockey when they create a rink for the winter)--at different times.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.dewrote:

 Hi.
 I would use it for sports facilities not dedicated to specific sports.
 If you look at a typical sports stadium not dedicated to a soccer team,
 you often have the running lane around, a sandbox for jumping, a facility
 to do high jumps, probably even facilities for shot-put and so on.
 Of course it's possible to map this in more detail and to get every single
 field separated with distinct sport=* tags, but for the overall facility
 and/or for an initial, rough mapping, sport=multi is fine for me.

 Indoors you very often have gyms, where different colored lines mark
 different kinds of sport fields, like basketball, soccer, badminton,
 volleyball and more. But on top of that other sports usually are done here
 by schools or other people - like gymnastics, dancing, aerobics or others.
 So multi is most often better than a list of the specific sport types done
 currently.

 It's different for gyms operated by a specific sports club - like a soccer
 club or a martial arts community, using the gym dedicated to the specific
 sports done within that community.

 regards
 Peter

 Am 08.12.2011 14:09, schrieb Erik Johansson:

  On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 13:53, Tobias Knerro...@tobias-knerr.de  wrote:

 Erik Johansson wrote:

 sport=multi is very well used but have no description in the wiki. Is
 there anyone that uses this tag?

 For some reason I get the feeling this is at least when I see it used
 as a shorthand for multiple values on a sport key

 I'd use sport=multi on a typical gym that can be used for essentially
 every kind of (indoor) sport.

  So you just use this for _indoor_ sport activities, so it can be
 everything from just an indoor  leisure=pitch to something with lots
 of small rooms for different sports like dojos for Aikido/Judo and
 spinnings setups?

 I've seen it used on out door arenas.



 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Wide steps

2011-10-07 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.dewrote:

 Am 07.10.2011 20:18, schrieb David Earl:


  The additional highway:steps would stay at separate ways on top of the
 area.


 This shouldn't be necessary, any more than any other highway area. It's
 like putting a node for parking in the middle of a parking area.

 I don't see how you are able to tag the direction (up/down) of the steps on
 an area, so yes, the additional traditional way IS necessary.
 The direction of steps is highly relevant for several reasons:
 * Steps going upwards are no dangerous place for children - they cannot
 fall down with their bikes etc.
 * For blind people steps upwards are an obstacle easily detectable by the
 blind mans stick; stairs down are more dangerous and more difficult.
 * A good bicycle routing application could be configurable to allow stairs
 downwards e.g. for mountain bikes, while avoiding stairs upwards, as these
 are more difficult to use by bike.

 This double-tagging seems sensible. At least it would be analogous to using
the riverbank area for wide rivers, but still maintaining a river way
for network/flow direction purposes.  Brad


 regards
 Peter


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb - quarter - neighbourhood

2011-09-28 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Martin, I'm not sure the NYC example is helping.  You mentioned this was
discussed on the German mailing list--can you give some other examples from
Germany (or whereever) about how this might be used?  Thanks, Brad

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 2011/9/28 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com:
  On 9/27/2011 8:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
  How? What's wrong with all of the sub-Manhattan entities being
  place=neighborhood?


 not sure if there is something wrong there, so you could (as local
 mapper) decide to do it like this. In other parts of the world mappers
 have expressed the desire to have this hierarchy (they identified 3
 levels necessary for their area), that's the reason for the quarter
 proposal.


  Maybe quarter would be the best tag for the boroughs,
  but it seems like a horrible term for something that's not literally a
  quarter of the city.



 A borough is an administrative entity and therefore already
 represented with admin_level and boundary.

 Generally you shouldn't interpretate the tags literally but see them
 as a code, where the actual meaning is by (our=OSM) definition
 (generally in the wiki). It does not make sense to have one tag for
 quarters and one for sestieres http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestiere .

 An osm-suburb is not a (suburb=in suburbia).

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=quarter, Parts of settlements, proposed hierarchy: suburb - quarter - neighbourhood

2011-09-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser
Based on earlier discussions of place=suburb [1], I think it's good to start
from an understanding that suburb as used in OSM does not match the common
understanding of suburb in the US. [2]

That said, I don't yet see the need for quarter.  Both suburb and
neighborhood are vaguely defined as it is, so I'm not sure how another
vaguely defined term thrown into the mix helps.  Or, to ask a related
question, why can't neighborhoods overlap and/or be contained within each
other?

Brad

[1] ie
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-August/008438.html
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-August/008438.html[2]
Kind
of drives me nuts, personally, but it's got tens of thousands of uses in
OSM, so it is what it is.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 9/27/2011 1:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 For example, in New York City, there are five well-defined boroughs (which
 coincide with counties, a sub-state-level division). Presumably these
 would
 be your quarters.



 na, those would be the suburbs. Currently they are tagged as hamlets ;-)


 There's no way anyone would call Manhattan a suburb.


 You are suggesting that we are lacking another level, right? This
 could be dealt with in different ways.


 No, I'm suggesting that neighborhoods should not have levels. They are
 simply amorphous blobs with no fixed hierarchy. Different organizations,
 e.g. the city or realtors, may attempt to define a number of neighborhoods
 that don't overlap, and hence are at the same level, but these are bound to
 be arbitrarily chosen and don't always match what residents will call their
 neighborhoods.


 There could indeed be a place=subdivision for those smallest entities.
 Please tell me, I am not familiar with American urbanism.


 A subdivision is a piece of land for which a plat has been filed. A
 neighborhood, even one of these small ones, may comprise numerous
 subdivisions, or may be part of a single larger one.

 In the suburbs, a neighborhood is generally a single subdivision (or more
 properly several with similar names, e.g. Foo Phase I, Foo Phase II, etc.).
 The term subdivision is typically used in the U.S. to refer to these
 suburban residential subdivisions. Outside the suburbs it rarely has any use
 except when dealing with official records, e.g. property deeds.


 __**_
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood

2011-08-31 Thread Brad Neuhauser
First off, I like this proposal too and think it's a long time coming.

But, some references made me go and read the place=suburb wiki page again,
and that tag seems very similar, so can that distinction be clarified?  That
is, why would one choose suburb over city/town/village or neighbourhood?
The distinctive thing about suburb as far as I can tell is that it's an
area located outside a city center, and this distinction is pretty much
self-evident from the map itself.  Maybe there's a particular country or
culture where suburb makes more sense.

Thanks, Brad

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 2011/8/31 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
  Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
  On 31/08/2011 02:04, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
   I encourage use of this type of tag /primarily/ on /nodes/.
   The boundaries in most case are far too fluid to use this on areas.
  I tend to agree with Bryce. Quite often in the UK there are
  disagreements where suburbs/neighbourhoods boundaries occur.
  There's also boundary creep
  when residents can address their property
  as being in an adjacent area when it's perceived to be a bit posher.
  The same situations occur in the USA.


 well, the proposal states that mapping as a node is fine. From a data
 user point of view I'd prefer areas because they allow to estimate the
 size (even if the boundaries might be fluid and not exact), but it's
 the mappers that decide which representation is the best.


   Neighborhood names can also shift over time.


 sure, everything changes. That's also one of the strengths of OSM (to
 cope with that).


   My neighborhood shows up on maps as Murray Heights, probably dating
 back to the original real-estate development in the 1950's.  In the 19 years
 I have lived here, I have never heard anyone call it by that name, but I
 have heard it referred to by the names of the two larger, adjacent
 neighborhoods.


 so I guess in OSM your neighbourhood will get a different name then on
 maps.


 Cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?

2011-07-01 Thread Brad Neuhauser
just an FYI, one hyphenated tag still on the wiki  in use is
amenity=parking, parking=multi-storey

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
  2011/6/30 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
  Yes and no. It's true that we use underscores simply because we
  substitute spaces with underscores. But there's actually a precedent
  for substituting an underscore for a hyphen and this is the tag for
  specifying power sub-stations (created back in 2007):
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsub_station
 
  well, the correct spelling is substation ;-)

 Besides, the fact that someone made a mistake back in 2007 is not a
 good reason to make a similar mistake today.  There's no good reason
 to replace hyphens with underscores.

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?

2011-06-06 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I think it'd make sense to broaden the definition:

Sleeping and living quarters provided by an institution for (large numbers
of) people associated with that institution.  For example, housing for
university students.

Not sure if the large numbers of helps or hurts, thus the parentheses.
This broader definition could also be used for other similar things, like
military barracks.

To take it a step further, something like residence_hall might be a better
term than dormitory, but since it's got hundreds of uses already, just
changing the definition might be enough!

Brad

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:18 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:

 2011/6/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
  On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:10 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
  dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
  I have at least 2 problems with this definition:
 
  1. It doesn't seem to be a British English term (at least not with
  this definition)
  2. It seems to exclude the use for monasteries
  (3. It was introduced without discussion or proposal)
 
  I'd agree with this - it's a fairly broad term but with a narrow
  definition. If it's really restricted to tertiary student
  accommodation, a name like student_accommodation might have been
  better.


 thing is: shall we continue to go with this narrow definition, or
 would it be better to widen the use case (already tagged objects will
 not be affected, if the new definition fully comprises them).


  The dormitories you're trying to tag, are these open to the public?


 Sometimes they might accomodate guests, but generally they are either
 halls for the community to sleep in or will have a typology with a
 corridor and small indivual cells for the monks/nuns to sleep.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?

2011-06-06 Thread Brad Neuhauser
why not just stick with building=residential then?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:55 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:

 2011/6/6 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:
  I think it'd make sense to broaden the definition:
  Sleeping and living quarters provided by an institution for (large
 numbers
  of) people associated with that institution.  For example, housing for
  university students.


 in the case of a monastery it is not a quarter but a single building
 or part of a building. Also large numbers is not correct for many
 monasteries so I'd prefer to do without. Maybe for my case
 building=dormitorium would be better suited then the ambiguous
 dormitory.


  Not sure if the large numbers of helps or hurts, thus the parentheses.


 yes, I'd do without.


  This broader definition could also be used for other similar things, like
  military barracks.


 Why? This would introduce another imprecision, I'd either use a very
 generic building=residential or simply building=barracks for
 military barracks (they are indeed a proper architectural typology)


  To take it a step further, something like residence_hall might be a
 better
  term than dormitory, but since it's got hundreds of uses already, just
  changing the definition might be enough!


 +1, for the student's living space residence_hall would have been a
 better approach. Maybe we could still switch.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?

2011-06-06 Thread Brad Neuhauser
If you want to split that hair, sleeping_quarters would be a lot more
clear in English than dormitorium.  From your earlier comment on quarters,
it sounds like you might be confused by this term, but quarters can apply
to a single structure or part of a structure.  (for example, crew's quarters
on a ship)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:20 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 2011/6/6 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:
  why not just stick with building=residential then?


 actually in the case of a monastery I would prefer dormitory because
 it is a dedicated place for sleeping, not for living. There are other
 buildings for other aspects of residential in a monastery from which
 I would like to separate the dormitorium.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare

2011-05-09 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I  notice the suggested rendering is similar to schools.  Don't know about
other areas, but in the US, many childcare centers are run out of private
homes, so that rendering might seem a little strange.  Maybe in that case a
node is a better choice.

Also, if you really want to get into the details of capacity and age, in the
US there are sometimes limits on # of children in an age range, depending on
the ratio of staff to children. Again, don't know how this might differ
elsewhere.

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
  2011/5/8 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com:
  The biggest issue I see is that this feature seems already be covered
  by the social facility feature:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Social_facility
  Have a look at the subkey social_facility:for=child  e.g. daycare
  center for children

 That page has a not so nice undertone of help the poor, so I'm
 reluctant to tag my amenity=kindergarten as a social_facility even
 though it really is a social facility. So maybe I should help to
 expand it to be more about social and less about social outreach,
 but I would still tag most daycares as kindergarten:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten

 Obviously it's hard to describe daycare since it varies so much from
 country to country, but the proposals don't seem to touch many of the
 aspects brought up when you asked for comments the last time.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/tagging@openstreetmap.org/msg07353.html

 open_hours is not even usefull to map around here since it can mean so
 many different things.

 amenity=kindergarten
 religion=scientology
 age=1-6

 /Erik.

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - daycare

2011-04-21 Thread Brad Neuhauser
adult day care might be taken care of by social_facility=outreach?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:

 On 4/21/11 7:46 PM, Craig Wallace wrote:

 On 21/04/2011 16:13, Flaimo wrote:

 created a proposal for amenity=daycare:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/daycare

 more information on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daycare


 day care is a very vague and ambiguous term. I assumed it referred to
 care of elderly or disabled people etc.
 As the proposal seems it refers to specifically child care, it would be
 better to specify that in the tag name. So amenity=child_care or something.

 Also, it needs to clarify how this is different from amenity=kindergarten.
 Is it just for after-school care / care of school-age children?

 typically, day care for children in the US can start with infants, and
 kindergarden
 is usually a single year for 5 year olds between day care and primary
 school.
 kindergarden might be offered by a daycare for their oldest children, or by
 primary schools for children who will be attending 1st grade.

 there are also day cares for adults/disabled in the US, which probably
 could be
 factored in.

 richard



 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site

2011-04-15 Thread Brad Neuhauser
I think Josh's joke does get to a serious answer to your question: I don't
think you should use the word that describes the worker, but the word that
describes the work.  However, I see that in the craft=* space (is this where
you're heading with this Martin?) most of the tags do describe the person
doing the work rather than the kind of work they do (ie - carpenter not
carpentry, photographer not photography, etc. although there are also cases
like pottery instead of potter).

About steel worker, I would imagine that as a person working in a steel
mill, who might also be called a foundry worker.  The other case you mention
could be called a framer, although carpenter or just construction worker
might be more common.

Brad

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 2011/4/15 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
  I feel so confused... of course you aren't talking about mapping
 people ??


 Let's say I am tagging people offering services. I am less interested
 in the man working in the steel mill, I am interested in the word for
 constructing supporting/structural steel buildings.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


  1   2   >