Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

2020-12-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-12-13 21:53, Peter Elderson wrote: > Just to clarify: >> crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing > when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing? > > when applied to a highway=cycleway, does the tag imply priority for cyclists,

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-12-01 11:14, Warin wrote: > The differences are less than 10m. (The points of the green track are where > data exists, the straight lines between those points simply connect the > measured points. ) > > The 'simplify way' in JOSM is normal set for a maximum difference of 3m as a >

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-18 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-11-18 21:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high > water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. Sorry to pick nits, but tides can be higher than MHWS; the "mean" implies a long-term average, which will

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-10-25 15:47, Allroads wrote: > All landuse what is used for legally public roads, laid down in a zoning plan > by the Government "bestemmingsplan" should be called landuse=highway no, > because the content of a bestemmingsplan is what is politically desired and > legally permitted, it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

2020-10-21 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: > I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit > of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea. > > I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any > sources that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity:source

2020-09-29 Thread Colin Smale
Hi Lukas, You do realise that all electricity is the same, irrespective of how it is generated? The "greenness" or otherwise is not determined by the connection, but by the subscription/contract that the consumer has with their supplier. UNLESS they have a standalone generating capability,

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-18 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-18 22:39, Clay Smalley wrote: > If you > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:51 PM Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2020-08-18 20:55, Clay Smalley wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26 AM Colin Smale wrote: > There are two use cases here: one is "what is

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-18 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-18 20:55, Clay Smalley wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26 AM Colin Smale wrote: > >> There are two use cases here: one is "what is the address of this building >> (or whatever)" and the other is the reverse situation: "where can I find &

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-18 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-18 16:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 18. Aug 2020, at 05:34, Paul White wrote: >> >> I wanted to raise a concern about tagging house numbers on a building using >> a hyphen to denote the address range (e.g 33-55 Main Street). > It's their address, and I

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-16 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-17 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 16. Aug 2020, at 15:26, dktue wrote: > >> Ok, then I'm going to edit the wiki [1] now. >> >> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station > > sorry for this late comment, but maybe it would be

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-16 Thread Colin Smale
Nope You can't have a mid terminal, by definition. And as "terminal" is used with similar semantics to "station" here, if you start with aerialway:station you don't need to include "terminal" or "station" in the value as well. That web page doesn't refer at all to the "top station" or the

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-15 Thread Colin Smale
riately. > [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26746748 > [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/293382166 > > Am 15.08.2020 um 15:03 schrieb Colin Smale: > > It seems we can't even agree on what question to ask an "expert". @dktue I > think you started this discuss

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-15 Thread Colin Smale
It seems we can't even agree on what question to ask an "expert". @dktue I think you started this discussion... What was your intention at the time? Was it "how do we identify top/bottom stations on a cable car"? If you ask an "expert" you might get an answer involving the project numbers for the

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-15 Thread Colin Smale
Yes, I object to the specific values, as I (and others) said earlier. The use of "base" and "head" is not intuitive and will lead to confusion and errors amongst non-fluent English speakers. More basic words like "top" and "bottom", or maybe "upper" and "lower", are preferable. You can/should

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-14 Thread Colin Smale
We really should avoid words like "usually. " If there exceptions to the elevation critérium, or if other factors are significant in working out the correct value, then this also needs documenting... On 14 August 2020 17:05:37 CEST, dktue wrote: >Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai: >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-14 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-14 13:55, dktue wrote: > Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale: > > On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote: > Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: Base / mid / head? I'm definitely open > for that! :-) OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-14 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote: > Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: > >> Base / mid / head? > I'm definitely open for that! :-) OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the semantics? What sentence would go in the wiki to describe a) when to use the value and b) what the

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-13 19:41, Yves wrote: > If top, middle, bottom have a meaning for the OP, I'm not sure it's really > general, counter-examples have been given. It's not the OP's private project, there is a reason why this is being debated in public. > To avoid confusion with elevation, what would

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

2020-08-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-13 18:35, Werner.Haag@leitstelle.tirol wrote: > Hi, > > in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a user to > distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and lower stations. > That´s not possible at the moment in OSM. Elevation (ele tag) may be

Re: [Tagging] Aerialway stations

2020-08-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-13 14:49, dktue wrote: > I think it's easy for a mapper to determine if a station is a bottom_station > or a upper_station even if he doesn't know the exact elevation. I would advise against such generalisations - it depends so much on the circumstances and the mapper in question.

Re: [Tagging] Aerialway stations

2020-08-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-13 14:07, dktue wrote: > I think that it's quite hard for data consumers (again: think of an > overpass-query to find all mid-stations) to determine which role a station > has. Like Martin said: Why not just solve the (huge!) special case of > mountain aerialways where we really

Re: [Tagging] Aerialway stations

2020-08-12 Thread Colin Smale
So what is wrong with ele=* on the stations and the topography of the line? Completely (for OSM purposes) objective and uncontroversial. The data consumer/renderer can make their own mind up about nomenclature. Many of these lifts go up to go down, or go down to go up, as they cross ridges and

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-07 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 07 August 2020, Colin Smale wrote: > >> The word "ocean" is already subjective... [...] > > Oh please. Not again another attempt to deflect into a discussion of > language semantics Completely the oth

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-07 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-07 12:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Aug 7, 2020, 11:36 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > > On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > That digital maps have - based on the precedent set by > Google - almost universally ignored this fact does not change it. > > You

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-07 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-07 09:27, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> I concur with a lot of your observations and like you i had essentially >> given up on the idea of the coastline representing meaningful >> information in the long term. But considering this is a very sad >> conclusion which essentially means

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-04 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-04 22:46, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:54, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as >> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries. > > I suspect the answer is contained within the question. We have

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-04 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-04 17:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > +1, similarly in Italy, the baseline is defined through (relatively few) > coordinates in a law, which is located always on the most outer points of the > land or on islands, it has few to do with the coastline. For example the Gulf > of

Re: [Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?

2020-08-04 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-08-04 10:06, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community if you > could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a reason as > mandatory. Is it because this feature shouldn't be mapped, is it because > there is an alternative

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)

2020-08-02 Thread Colin Smale
Hi Garry, On 2020-06-13 18:49, Garry Keenor wrote: > Also, there are only 2 networks that I can identify worldwide that are 4th > rail, and I've tagged them both already. :-) You may have missed one I just discovered that the LIM lines of SkyTrain (Vancouver) have some kind of 4-rail

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-07-30 15:05, Alan Mackie wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 13:35, Colin Smale wrote: > >> On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:You might not like it, but the EU >> is already a super-state that acts as one, with a federation of states >> below. I know the

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote: > >> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes >> of a governmental administrative body - with the executive, parliament >> and justicial branch

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-07-30 12:26, Alan Mackie wrote: > IMO the logic behind putting the EU as admin_level=1 would have meant that > the United States of America, the USSR and Australia would have been made > admin_level=1 when they were formed from their preceding entities (if OSM had > existed at those

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

2020-06-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-06-13 18:58, Garry Keenor wrote: > Colin, > > Thanks for your comments. > > I want to clear one very important thing up. The tag electrified=* is > currently being used in OSM to define the *contact system* in use, not the > power supply. All railway electrification systems require

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

2020-06-11 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-06-11 13:36, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Peter Neale via Tagging > wrote: > >> ...or (almost getting serious now) we could just assume that, if the 3rd >> rail is mentioned, then the 1st and 2nd must be there (otherwise it wouldn't >> be 3rd rail) and, if the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

2020-06-11 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-06-11 13:28, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote: > At the risk of being called pedantic, or frivolous, surely it should be, > "1st+2nd+3rd+4th rail" (after all, it won't work without the 1st and 2nd > rails)! > > ...or (almost getting serious now) we could just assume that, if the 3rd rail

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Colin Smale)

2020-06-11 Thread Colin Smale
Hi Garry, thanks for your reply. I am pleased to hear that the "related issues" are already on the radar and I am more than happy to see them in a following proposal. One thought about 3rd_rail/4th_rail vs 3rail/4rail: The term "4th rail" is actually semantically incorrect, and should really be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

2020-06-09 Thread Colin Smale
When I just checked around Gunnersbury I noticed that someone is already retagging the London Underground to electrified=4th_rail so this discussion is probably already irrelevant On 2020-06-09 23:12, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Am 09/06/2020 um 15.36 schrieb Co

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

2020-06-09 Thread Colin Smale
Great idea. Not sure about using "3rd" and "4th" though - it's a bit tightly coupled to the English language and possibly prone to error. Wouldn't "3rail" and "4rail" fit the bill? Actually, as electrified=rail is so widely used at present, how about making that explicitly "3rd rail" and

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-06-01 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-06-01 15:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:49 AM Colin Smale wrote: > >> IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which case >> they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here? > > Some do. The only one of New York'

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-06-01 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-06-01 02:49, Kevin Kenny wrote: > I don't map special-purpose administrative districts, of which New > York has a whole menagerie. I don't object if others do, but don't try > to fit them into the boundary=administrative hierarchy. They don't > go. In New York, the admin_levels are as

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-06-01 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-06-01 08:14, Kovoschiz wrote: >> would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g. > `boundary=administrative + administrative=police` > > New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed > for these

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-29 15:46, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale wrote: > >> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit >> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has >> an absolut

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-29 14:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the >> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you >> ca

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale wrote: > [lengthy snip] > >> You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be >> unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-29 12:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale > : > > On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > Here's an example for such a situation: > (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_hom

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your >> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass >> over your land to fulfil his legal duty. > > Sure. But ac

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-28 Thread Colin Smale
Hi Arne, On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to >> claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the >> immediate and ex

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-27 08:17, Arne Johannessen wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 26, > 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery > services? > My uncle has farm, with clearly private

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

2020-05-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-26 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > >> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding >>

Re: [Tagging] any valid usage of admin_level=1 ?

2020-05-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-25 14:58, Marc M. wrote: > Hello, > > following a small thread on irc, I have review 20 usage of admin_level=1 > all are mistakes, often by new mapper > for ex https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779838275 > is there a case of real use of admin_level=1? > wiki only said that UE isn't a

Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples

2020-05-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-25 10:39, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:48:20AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> Wrong tagging is not interesting by itself. >> >> I was looking for real-world situation where >> >> (1) there is some seemingly good overcomplicated tagging >>

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-25 07:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is > discussed on the Tagging mailing list: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-05-14 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-14 14:07, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 12:58, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >>> On 14. May 2020, at 13:16, Paul Allen wrote: >>> >>> It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be made as >>> to >>> whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-05-14 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-14 13:15, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 11:21, Colin Smale wrote: > > [Sub-divisions of health boards in Wales] > >> I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are. > > Yes, But that doesn't mean they're making the information public. I ha

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-05-14 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-14 11:49, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:39, Colin Smale wrote: > >> In the UK there are multiple hierarchies of geographic areas, for widely >> differing purposes, that frequently (but not always and not necessarily) >> share borders. Fo

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-05-14 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-14 04:02, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Agreed with Phake, any boundary that's used for administrative purposes could > be included, that's what I understand from > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative. That > doesn't mean that each area needs to have it's own

Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

2020-05-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-13 10:20, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 5/12/20 17:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> I'd really like somebody to come up with simple definitions of >> >> mappers, >> >> data consumers / customers, >> >> users? > > I'd consider "user" and "data consumer" to be the same thing (but

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

2020-05-12 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-12 12:58, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 11:43, Sören alias Valor Naram > wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's why >> I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But mappers >> are not

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-08 18:01, Greg Troxel wrote: > I think we now know that the existing datums don't differ much from WGS84 > except Belgium, and given the EVRF2007 datum, it seems clear that Belgium now > will have that and the old one, differing by 2m. > Hence the thing we need to know, we don't, in

Re: [Tagging] Voting procedures

2020-05-08 Thread Colin Smale
The subject of a vote should not be amendable. All the discussions, debates, consideration of alternatives etc should be BEFORE the proposal is put to the vote. If a vote fails, THEN the proposal might be amended and submitted again - but this has to be subject to some time constraints such as not

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-08 14:09, Greg Troxel wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > Am Fr., 8. Mai 2020 um 03:22 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > > 3) Look up the data sheet and mark it as ele:datum=NGVD29 or > ele:datum=NAVD88 as it turns out. > IIRR, in another mail, you wrote that the difference between

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

2020-05-06 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-06 17:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > what are the requirements, do you require the sound coming from actual bells, > or would a recording of bells playing from loudspeakers qualify as well? > Midi-generated sounds? Sorry to nit-pick, but Midi doesn't generate sounds, it commands

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-04 09:10, Peter Elderson wrote: > Thanks for explaining why my android phone says I am at +38m (+/- 3) in my > backyard when in fact it is at Dutch sea level -4.4m. GPS receivers, including Android phones, should adjust the GPS WSG84 height to "sea level". But the vertical accuracy

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-03 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-05-03 13:05, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Martin > I am not an expert, but it looks as if the Wiki page Key:ele [1] is not > up-to-date. > I thought that WGS84 uses the EGM96 Geoid, named "WGS84 EGM96 Geoid". Hence > there should be no difference between WGS84 and EGM96 elevations. > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Urgent Care

2020-04-05 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-04-05 21:16, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 05/04/2020 16:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:Can someone confirm if > "urgent_care" makes sense in British English, > rather than "walk-in" or something else? > > I'm English, and I would not know what "urgent_care" meant. After reading the > wiki

Re: [Tagging] Sorting waterway relations?

2020-02-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-02-27 10:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > 27 Feb 2020, 09:55 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > >> If it was semantically important, we should be scanning for and flagging up >> waterways with out-of-order ways.The fact that we are not, shows that the >> ordering of the ways is not

Re: [Tagging] Sorting waterway relations?

2020-02-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-02-27 01:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > When you make or sort a relation of type=waterway, do you check if the > source or mouth of the river is first on the list of ways? > > Another user just suggested that the spring/source of the waterway > should start the list, then the mouth of the

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

2020-01-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-27 13:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 13:11 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale > : > >> OSM clearly associates coastline with high water: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline >> >> If the admin boundaries are very cl

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

2020-01-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-27 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale > : > >> However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example >> admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as >> admini

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

2020-01-27 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-27 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways, in particular with > respect to osm-carto. Historically, the recommendation was to add the lowest > admin_level additionally to the ways that are part of admin relations (to > help

Re: [Tagging] distance_from_road tag

2020-01-15 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-15 14:05, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Wednesday, 15 January 2020, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-01-15 13:52, Lionel > Giard wrote: > > Yes this is something you can do with any distance algorithm in available in > any GIS tool. That's not something that i would ever map a

Re: [Tagging] distance_from_road tag

2020-01-15 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-15 13:52, Lionel Giard wrote: > Yes this is something you can do with any distance algorithm in available in > any GIS tool. That's not something that i would ever map as it would vary > with any geometry change of the ways between the road the point you measure, > added to the fact

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

2020-01-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-13 12:18, European Water Project wrote: > Hello, > > 1) > free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers is > very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers as > free_water=yes This model is used for many other tags in OSM. One of

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-13 09:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging > : > >> Do you have a suggestion Martin? > > maybe a generic > > amenity=bottle_return_machine ? Why limit it to bottles? We don't do that with vending machines; Why do it

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

2020-01-13 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-13 10:18, European Water Project wrote: > Dear All, > > I thought this subject could wait, but it is becoming pressing early than I > expected. > > As part of our project (and that of similar non-profits - most of which are > not open data but nevertheless great organisations),

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-07 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-07 22:21, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 21:00, Colin Smale wrote: > >> So if I am now more explicit about my intention to help this discussion >> towards a conclusion. > > Actually, you sorta hijacked a discussion about wh

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-07 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-07 21:14, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:42, Colin Smale wrote: > >> I'm glad you said "probably", because it is of course not always true. And >> these edge cases are what we need to accommodate. Limiting the discussion to >> just h

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-07 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-07 20:04, Paul Allen wrote: >> But why do we need to have the full street address on the building at all? > > To identify it. In the UK, house number or name, plus postcode is sufficient > to > uniquely identify it. People, however, still find other information useful. > Such as

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-05 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-05 21:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale wrote: > > The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not be > used. > > They are frequently called "rev

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-05 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-05 16:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > I would characterize them completely differently, nothing is sold, and you > don't get a discount coupon but rather a receipt to get back your deposit. > The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - brand:

2020-01-05 Thread Colin Smale
Jake, could I ask you to state what country/state you are referring to? These practices are likely to be different across the world. For example, some countries (such as the Netherlands where I am now) have a pseudo-mandatory system where the retailers pretty much have an obligation to facilitate

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2020-01-01 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-01 02:04, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:16, Colin Smale wrote:What > do you consider a definition of "duty free" or "duty free shop" > that would be useful to a OSM data consumer? > Which OSM data consumer? > > Just a remi

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2019-12-31 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-01-01 00:54, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 18:48, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Just to be clear: in the situation I am referring to, an article priced at >> GBP120 in such a mixed shop is GBP120 net to an exporting passenger, but >> GBP100 n

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2019-12-31 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-12-31 23:55, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 17:37, Colin Smale wrote: On > 2019-12-31 23:04, Hauke Stieler wrote: that's true, the EU is one special > case here. But would the status of a > traveler influence the tagging schema of "duty_free=*

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2019-12-31 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-12-31 23:04, Hauke Stieler wrote: > Hi, > > that's true, the EU is one special case here. But would the status of a > traveler influence the tagging schema of "duty_free=*" in your opinion? The EU is only a special case because there are multiple countries within a single customs area

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2019-12-31 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-12-26 06:14, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > However, in airports, there are pointedly "duty free" shops for (all) > travelers. that have no ability to collect taxes for any purchase, so > shop=gifts + duty_free=designated might be a good way to do it for these > specialty shops in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

2019-11-11 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-11-11 09:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > >> On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out >>> that there aren't any scooters in the "mofa"-class

Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

2019-10-29 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-10-29 02:43, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > There is also a proposal to map the mean low spring tide line, the > lowest tide line along the coast: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dmean_low_water_springs > - so the estuary could end at the point where this

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

2019-10-29 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-10-29 01:21, Paul Allen wrote: > I have an innate dislike of such countrification on a global map. It's > better than > hijacking tags without adding a country code ("The rest of the world uses X=Y > to mean > Z but in my country X=Y means W"), but only marginally so. The problem

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Colin Smale
I would suggest it is not necessary to replace the simple node with a circular way. I think it is perfectly acceptable if it is considered as a simple turn instead of negotiating a roundabout, from a routing perspective. An instruction to turn right at the junction would not be improved by an

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-10-11 11:09, Snusmumriken wrote: > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws > in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So > he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine > tells him what he can do. That may

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

2019-10-09 Thread Colin Smale
I would just like to make a point about mileages/kilometrages. Physically marked positions (e.g. a milestone or a sign with an address) can not be replaced by, or derived from, the actual distance along the road. These distances are not constant. Roads get diverted, split, recombined etc which

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Colin Smale via Tagging
On 2019-10-08 21:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging > wrote: > >> In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. >> But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then >&

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Colin Smale via Tagging
On 2019-10-08 13:25, Valor Naram wrote: > A short summary of what we have so far: > - Deprecation of `contact:phone` has some advantages: Key `phone` is used far > more often, Key `phone` is shorter to write and better to find in word > completion functions of editors like iD, Data users don't

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

2019-10-01 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-10-01 08:18, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 08:15:37PM -0600, Jorge Aguirre wrote: > >> Throughouthe entire Latin American region and some other parts of >> the world, it is quite common to find the kilometer (Km.) information, >> as may be found on the

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

2019-09-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-09-25 21:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > before number portability was introduced, a landline was more connected to a > place than to a person/business, while mobile phones always have been > personal. Big companies may be different, but places with small businesses > often keep the

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

2019-09-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-09-25 20:51, Paul Allen wrote: > What Colin suggested was that PERHAPS we need to deal with the situation > where the > phone has one number when dialled from within the same country but a > different number > when dialled internationally. What he failed to notice is that the wiki >

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

2019-09-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-09-25 18:02, Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 17:00, Valor Naram wrote: > >> We should not talk any longer about charging plans (which provider and when >> will apply different charges to whom) because we're difting off --> going >> Off-Topic. > > It is very much on topic

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

2019-09-25 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-09-25 16:08, Paul Allen wrote: > In the UK, people can tell that from the area code. What about the cases where calls to customers on the same provider are free? In general you have no way of knowing who is on which provider. And thanks to number portability it is getting shuffled at a

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

2019-09-24 Thread Colin Smale
On 2019-09-24 13:15, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote: > So the distinction of mobile and landline is a problem. Is there any > possibility to distinct between landline and mobile also in Italy? I don't understand why it would be necessary to make that distinction. What I want to know, is which

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >