Re: [Tagging] road accident memorials

[Craig Wallace]

On 2023-06-10 20:57, Greg Troxel wrote:

Anne-Karoline Distel  writes:


I would say that memorial:cause=traffic_accident would leave the options
open whether the victim intended to die or not.

OK but IMHO traffic_crash is better.  'accident' is an assertion of no
blame, and there are messy issues of bad luck and negligence.   crash is
objectively what happened.


Or "Road traffic collision". That is now the preferred, official term, 
used by the police and government etc (in the UK).



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

Re: [Tagging] drones

[Craig Wallace]

On 2023-02-10 11:43, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:


What do people think about a key like drone? I'm thinking of heritage 
sites/ tourist attractions, of course. I noticed on a Welsh heritage 
site that they had an icon for all the amenities and permissions, and 
they had one for "Drones not allowed". Obviously, we could add 
drone=no to every airport as well, but that's not my main concern.


In Ireland, drones are not allowed over Office of Public Works sites, 
unless you're the photographer for the National Monuments Service. Or 
maybe an archaeologist with special license for a dig. But as a drone 
pilot, you might not know whether a site is OPW or not.


I don't have a drone myself, I'm just not sure if this would be useful 
or not. There are 9 uses so far 
.


Note the rules for drones may depend on whether you are taking 
off/landing, or just flying it over.
eg in the UK, the landowner could ban you from using a drone while on 
their land. But you could stand outside their land, and fly it above 
(assuming you follow the other rules for line of sight, and keeping away 
from people etc).


Whereas airports have specific laws, which ban you from flying above 
them. Or within 5km of the airport.


And may also depend on the type/size of drone. eg less restrictions if 
it weighs less than 250g.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

[Craig Wallace]

On 2023-01-03 12:51, Philip Barnes wrote:
Shops selling wool are commonly referred to as wool shops so why not 
shop=wool?


Yarn doesn't seem very intuitive to me as a native English speaker.


Nowadays, a lot of yarn is acrylic, or polyester, or cotton, or some 
other materials, or a mixture.

It is not necessarily made of wool. Especially the cheaper stuff.



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

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

[Craig Wallace]

On 2019-09-30 12:38, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny > wrote:



Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary,


That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the 
wikipedia
page.  Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought 
that was
a semi-official designation.  I now realize these things are arbitrary 
lists and
that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls.  Even if 
no more

lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and
pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world.


Yes, Munros are a somewhat arbitrary list. There is no specific 
definition of prominence, and what counts as a separate mountain. There 
is also a list of "Munro Tops" for the minor summits.


But the official Munro list is now maintained by the Scottish 
Mountaineering Club. And the list has been around for over 120 years, 
with hundreds of books, websites and apps published about them, and even 
a TV show. It is rather different to you just making up a list of summits.


Though maybe there are issues with some of the more obscure hill lists, 
which ones are worth adding to OSM. And possible copyright issues. If 
someone makes up a list to try and sell a book, is that list copyright, 
and can it be added to OSM?


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Craig Wallace]

On 2018-06-18 21:00, Bryan Housel wrote:

*Proposal:*
I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s 
superfluous.  If the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` 
you know it’s a booth.  Then we’re not repurposing the `covered=*` for 
a thing that it doesn’t normally do in other situations and isn’t 
documented on the main `covered` page.


Thoughts?
Booth is a rubbish name for a tag. It is an obscure, American term. Many 
things could be a booth, eg a shop, or a photo booth, or a ticket booth.
In UK English, it is a "telephone box". If you want to tag a telephone 
box, why not a tag for man_made=telephone_box?


It actually tells you what it is. You can add extra tags for the 
specific style or model if you care about that.


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

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

[Craig Wallace]

On 2018-05-25 19:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I forgot how many different objects qualified, I now listed  some


"It includes for example food trucks that are not permanently staying 
in one place,


products sold from cart, portable table, tent, or by somebody holding 
products for sale."



at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/street_vendor%3Dyes#Rationale


There's also mobile banks or mobile libraries in some places. ie a van 
that stops in particular places, usually with a regular timetable.

Would be good to map them in some way. They are not really "street vendors".



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

Re: [Tagging] Culverts and Fords

[Craig Wallace]

On 2018-02-28 23:21, Vao Matua wrote:

François

I don't have an example.  I was trying to think of an example where 
layer would be needed for a stream/road crossing.  A pipe would 
probably be a better example.


Sorry to cause a distraction.

My real question is "Why not allow tunnel=culvert to be a node?"

Emmor


If 2 ways share a node, then they must be connected to each other. ie on 
the same layer. So one can't be above/below the other. A road and a 
stream crossing on the same layer is a ford.
If you tag the shared node as a tunnel, then you don't know which way 
goes through the tunnel.  Does the stream go through a tunnel, or does 
the road go through a tunnel, or both?


It is much more useful to map tunnels/bridges as a way. If you know 
there is a tunnel, but don't know how long the tunnel is, you can 
estimate it. ie based on the width of the road. You can add a note to 
say the exact length/position is estimated.


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

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-11-20 23:47, Warin wrote:

Hi,

There have been attempts in the past to add sub tags to
man_made=survey_point
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point

To me there are 2 'types'. they are quite different;

Triangulation (or 'trig point') that are visible over quite some distance (say 
over 2 km),
used to triangulate a position without having to go to the mark. Usually a pole 
standing on top of a rise/hill.

Benchmarks that are visible on the surface but cannot be sighted at any 
distance. They can be small brass plaques fastened to the ground or engraved 
into stone.
These are used by surveyors by placing a tripod over the mark, thus have to be 
locally approached.

If consideration is given to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29

then expanding survey_point in a similar manner could be

survey_point:configuration=triangulation/benchmark

I use 'configuration' rather then 'type' or 'category' as it is more specific 
as to what is meant.

Any thoughts?
Are there any other configurations?
It would be useful to tag the physical style of the survey point. ie the 
size and shape and what it  is made of. Is it a pillar, or just a metal 
plate or bolt on the ground. This would tell you whether it is an 
obvious landmark or not.


Tagging what the survey point is used for is a separate thing. ie 
triangulation, or a benchmark. Nowadays most trig points are redundant, 
so they are not actually used for any sort of survey work. Though in the 
UK there are some still maintained as "passive stations", plus a few 
"active stations" (with a GPS receiver).
Note there are some "Fundamental Benchmarks", which are a small stone 
pillar.


Some of the common types in the UK: http://trigpointing.uk/wiki/Types

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag "agricultural centers"

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-09-27 23:45, Kevin Kenny wrote:

I think my earlier posting on this subject got lost.

The Wiki shows 'shop=agrarian' whose definition seems to fit.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dagrarian

(The name stinks, but it's there. I'd call it a 'feed and seed store' 
or a 'farm equipment dealer' depending on whether the specialty is 
feed, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, etc., or tractors, combines, etc.)
Yes, "agrarian" is a rubbish name for this. Sounds like it is based on a 
mistranslation.
It would rarely be called this in English. Agrarian is usually more of 
an obscure political/economic concept.


Would make more sense just to call it shop=agricultural. With subtags 
for seed, fertilizer, tools etc


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

Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody 
adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor 
would it remove name tags from existing trees.


But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the preset? 
if it is not relevant for that particular tree, just leave it blank.
Yes it is the minority of trees, but I think there are quite a few trees 
that have some sort of name. And it is often of historic interest, so 
worth recording it.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-07-04 14:49, Mark Bradley wrote:
In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but 
according to the convention of OSM using British English, I would 
defer to the word "pylon."

In British English, yes the general public usually call them 'pylons'.
But this is not used by professionals or engineers etc. The electricity 
companies nearly always refer to them as 'towers' (or more specifically 
'transmission towers').

So I think 'tower' is the correct term in British English anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] The direction=* tag

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-03-16 04:13, Tod Fitch wrote:

The “direction” tag [1] has different uses that seem disjoint to me.

 2. To specify direction (clockwise/counterclockwise) around a
roundabout (not sure why this is needed as it should be apparent
from local laws or specified with a “oneway=yes”).


This tag is used for mini-roundabouts, which are usually mapped as 
nodes. So you can't tag it with oneway.
Yes, maybe it is obvious from local laws, but is it practical for 
routing software and renderers to figure out what laws apply to a 
particular roundabout? And there may be a few exceptions, with 
mini-roundabouts which go in the opposite direction to the local defaults.

Though maybe it should be a more specific tag, eg roundabout:direction


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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Craig Wallace]

On 2016-10-21 14:07, Greg Troxel wrote:


Craig Wallace <craig...@fastmail.fm> writes:


I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife,
not to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the
purposes of conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it
is not a nature reserve.


I think you are off here.  Nature is complicated, and "preserving
nature" is too.  There's a long tradition of wildlife management areas
where hunting is allowed (subject to seasons and limits, set by state
wildlife biologists).  In these, while deer and geese are taken, the
area remains natural, and the vegetation is somewhat protected from
overbrowsing by deer.  And, killing individual deer is not bad for the
species.  Around me, and I'm sure around Kevin, as soon as there are
areas that aren't paved over, there are too many deer compared to
historical norms.  Around me, "Wildlife Management Areas" don't feel
different from "Conservation Areas", except that there are a few weeks
you should be wearing orange or avoiding them.

I am near a federal Wildlife Refuge -- and deer hunting is allowed, in
order to keep the population somewhat under control and protect the
vegetation and other species.


Yes, a nature reserve may allow some hunting, to control numbers of 
particular species.


But that is different from an area is managed primarily to benefit 
hunting. eg if they are keeping deer numbers artificially high (feeding 
over winter, or breeding), just to allow as many as possible to be shot. 
Despite the damage this causes to vegetation and other wildlife.


And these hunting areas often have misleading names. eg they claim to be 
a 'reserve', when its more like a farm.



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

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Craig Wallace]

On 2016-10-20 16:33, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Since nobody else has stepped forward to answer this, as far as I can
tell, let me take a whack at it:

I think that the best tagging for a hunting reserve that the current
renderer knows about is 'leisure=nature_reserve". That's how the state
wildlife management areas in New York, the State Game Lands in
Pennsylvania, and so on are tagged. 'Nature reserves' encompass a lot of
things.


I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife, not 
to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the purposes of 
conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it is not a nature 
reserve.
Yes, it is rendered on the map, but this an example of tagging 
(incorrectly) for the renderer.




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

Re: [Tagging] Abusing name tags on type=route

[Craig Wallace]

On 2016-09-18 16:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 07:11, Michael Tsang > ha scritto:


How should we cope with the situation like this



use the "note" key


Or the "description" key, if it is something that may be useful for the 
end user, ie displaying in an app.



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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Craig Wallace]

On 2016-02-15 09:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2016-02-15 10:36 GMT+01:00 Steve Doerr >:

So, in my opinion, are the Van Gogh Museum and Rijksmuseum: were it
not for the element 'museum' in their names, we would think of these
as art galleries, not museums.


I'm not sure for the Van Gogh Museum, but I am sure for the Rijksmuseum
(because I have been there), that it is correctly named "museum" and not
"gallery", because they do expose a lot of furniture, and the word
"gallery" is reserved for paintings (and maybe sculptures). Maybe the
Van Gogh Museum does deal with van Gogh's life and not just with his
work, what would explain the term museum for this.


In UK English, a 'gallery' can display all sorts of art, not just 
paintings. So it could include sculpture or furniture etc. Assuming the 
furniture is displayed because of its artistic value, not just because 
it is old.


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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-12-15 22:41, Matthijs Melissen wrote:


In addition, it seems that the swimming pool tags are used for two
different things: the pool itself, and the entire building/area
(including showers, cafe, etc.).

Would it be useful and possible to resolve this ambiguity? We
currently have leisure=water_park, but it seems to more focussed on
recreational swimming with water slides etc. Does it make sense to use
leisure=water_park for indoor swimming pools that are focussed on
swimming lessons or speed swimming as well? If not, should we use
another tag for such facilities? Any other suggestions to resolve the
ambiguity?


There's also the question of sports centres, which may include a 
swimming pool, along with facilities for other sports, ie sports hall, 
gym/fitness centre, climbing wall etc.
If the swimming pool is in a separate part of the building, and has its 
own name etc, then it makes sense to map it separately. But what if it 
is mixed in with other facilities, and shares the same changing rooms?

Or a swimming pool within a hotel, or a school?

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

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-11-20 16:33, Dave Swarthout wrote:

No. That change would not be okay.

AFAIK the correct tagging scenario is

highway=traffic_calming
traffic_calming=bump (or chicane, or other types as stated in the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming)

This is a hierarchical system of tagging that works well in other
situations. I suppose you could make an argument for using only the last
one but that needs a full discussion first.


Is the tag highway=traffic_calming documented anywhere?
There is no mention of it on the Key:traffic_calming wiki page that you 
linked to.



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-11-06 13:44, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Andy Townsend > wrote:

Obviously in places where a road can have multiple equivalent
references (such as the US) route relations perfect sense (as does
figuring out which routes are actually signed on which bits of road)
but in places where there's only one real ref per piece of tarmac
(such as the UK) there's no need to force mappers to start
maintaining relations as well as just recording the reference.


Well, I believe impetus for route relations was Sustrans networks.
These tags went from the ways to relations years ago already, so call me
skeptical that there's no multiplexes in the UK (especially since
without any real effort inside 30 seconds, just randomly scrolling by
hand to the UK, I see that the A24 and RCN CS7 are multiplexed).  I
honestly don't see why we should be treating tags related to route=road
any different than we're already treating route=bicycle.


There's not really any 'multiplexes' in the UK.
There are a few places where A roads appear to overlap.for a short 
distance. But its really one road number disappearing, while the other 
continues. So each section of road will only have one official number, 
and only one of the road numbers will be signposted.


Yes, cycle routes do follow numbered roads. But that doesn't change the 
number of the road, it still only has one main ref. If you asked someone 
cycling along there, they would still say they are on the A24.



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

Re: [Tagging] Unmarked opening hours

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-10-17 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:


Agreed. Why would you add a tag when you don't know a value to assign? N


In addition, concerning the signed:opening_hours=yes/no, there is no
need to assign more tags to describe a lack of information about the
first one.


The point is, it is useful information for surveying.
eg if I see a shop missing an opening hours tag, I would want to visit 
it, to check what the hours are. But if they are not displayed anywhere, 
then that survey trip is a waste of my time and effort.
If I know the hours are not signed, it means I would have to use other 
methods, eg ask the staff, or phone them up, or check their website etc. 
Or sit there all day, and watch what time it actually opens...




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

Re: [Tagging] post_box:type values, meter in particular

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-10-15 20:54, Holger Mappt wrote:

Hi,

The post_box:type Wiki page [1] was created two months ago and the key
was added to the JOSM preset recently [2]. That means that the values
show up in Launchpad for translation. The "meter" type in particular is
hard to translate as it is not clear for non-UK citizens like me what
that type refers to. The Wiki page states that post_box:type is about
the physical style (size/shape) of the post box, but "meter" refers to
the type of mail the post box is intended for. What would be the value
if there is a pillar box for meter mail in some country? Any ideas how
this can be improved? There is no word for "meter" in my language and
the translation would be either incomprehensible or too long.

Holger

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:post_box:type
[2] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11933


In the UK, meter mail postboxes are usually a different physical 
size/shape. ie they are rectangular, and usually bigger than a standard 
postbox. And a larger aperture for posting mail, which may be locked at 
times.
So I think they would be considered as different to pillar boxes. I'm 
not sure if they have an official/common name or not. Sometimes known as 
a "business mail post box".


Note there are also proposed tags for what mail is accepted by a 
postbox. See 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_post_box

ie mail:stamped / mail:meter / mail:1st_class / mail:2nd_class

So for a postbox that only accepts meter mail, you could tag it as 
mail:stamped=no, mail:meter=yes. So that could be used along with the 
tag for post_box:type


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

Re: [Tagging] Airport power and USB stations

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-06-10 07:44, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

Here's a writeup on a Duck tag for this feature:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Device_Charging_Station
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3539479319/history

I strongly feel that amenity=charging_station is fully entrenched as a
vehicle charging station, and thus a new tag is needed.
Using
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:power_supply#Tag_values_for_type_of_sockets
might work well, as long
as the top level tag is new.


Why does everything have to be a 'station'? A station is a place where 
trains stop, not where you plug your phone in. Plus it makes the tag 
unnecessarily verbose, and more prone to errors.

Simpler to just tag amenity=device_charging

I would agree it is very different to places where you charge your car, 
so should be a separate tag. And maybe that tag should be changed to 
amenity=vehicle_charging or similar.


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

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-04-23 18:01, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:31 AM, p...@trigpoint.me.uk
mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

That makes much more sense,  and as you say, maps the physical
characteristics.
The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be
aware of.
Phil (trigpoint )


But the letter codes are exactly what's printed in huge letters right on
the extinguisher.
That makes them easily verifiable, and instantly localized since you'd
tag what's on the ground in your country.

Class A


In the UK, the class is not printed huge letters. They main thing they 
are labelled with is the contents of the extinguisher, with a coloured 
stripe. ie red for water, blue for powder, black for CO2.


Some fire extinguishers also give more detailed specifications for the 
class etc. But this is usually not very obvious, you would have to look 
closely to spot it.
Note a fire extinguisher can be suitable for several classes of fire, 
and it may give a rating for each. eg the specification might say: 8A 
55B 75F


I think it is worth tagging both the materials in the extinguisher, and 
the class/rating where it is known. And probably worth using different 
tags for the class in each country.


eg something like this:
fire_extinguisher:material=water
fire_extinguisher:class:uk=8A 55B 75F



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-04-17 07:39, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:


If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS,
would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12?

In practice that would also require:

 addr:housenumber=12
 addr:street=[unnamed service road]


They are not really housenumbers. The campsite as a whole might have an 
address with housenumber, street etc, but each pitch doesn't.
Better to use addr:unit for the number/name/reference of each pitch. As 
its says on the wiki, addr:unit is for The number, letter, or name of a 
single unit or flat that exists within a larger complex.


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

Re: [Tagging] Defining genre for public bookcases

[Craig Wallace]

On 2014-12-27 17:34, Guillaume Pratte wrote:


This could give:

   literature:genre=science-fiction
   literature:genre=mystery
   literature:genre=cookbook
   literature:genre=comedy
   …

What do you think?


I think 'literature' is not the best word for this.
Yes, literature can refer to any written works. But it often has a more 
restricted definition. eg from 
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/literature
written artistic works, especially those with a high and lasting 
artistic value:
So that would exclude cookbooks for example, as well as many fiction 
books if they don't have enough 'artistic value'.


I suggest keeping it simple, ie tag it as book:genre

This tag could also be used for bookshops or libraries that specialise 
in a particular genre.
I notice there is already a tag for books, which has some use: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:books

But that seems to be more about the type of books, not the genre.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common

[Craig Wallace]

On 2014-08-28 16:01, Pieren wrote:

I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn
from the wiki map features in the middle of the summer. If it's a UK
specific tag, then move it to a special UK map features page/table, no
?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:leisure
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon


I think leisure=common is an unhelpful tag, so should be depreceated.

In the UK, a common or common land is a legal definition. Historically, 
it was about the right to graze animals or collect firewood there. Not 
just a right to walk across it.
Many places which were once commons are not any more, even if they still 
have 'common' in the name. eg Clapham Common in London - you wouldn't be 
allowed to graze a herd of cows there.


There have been some more recent laws, eg Commons Act 2006, which 
registered some common land in England. Not sure what difference the 
actually makes, what rights or protection does it give?


More useful to tag what the land actually is, and what it is used for. 
eg most of the London commons could be tagged as leisure=park or 
natural=woodland etc.
If it has a specific legal designation, then add some sort of 
designation tag.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] man_made=pipeline - is onewayness implied?

[Craig Wallace]

On 2014-06-22 10:08, Pieren wrote:

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:


Better use an own tag like flow_direction=forward/backward/both/none or
similar. This way we will cover all three cases mentioned below.


Where is the difference between flow_direction=forward/backward and
oneway=yes ? or flow_direction=both and oneway=no ? About
flow_direction=none, then you water stream/canal/pipe is not a water
stream/pipe/canal (change the primary tag).


The oneway=yes tag is an access restriction, ie which direction you are 
legally allowed to travel along that way. Whereas the flow is what 
direction the water is physically moving. So it makes sense to use 
separate tags for these.


A river may be flowing downstream, but it is usually legal to travel by 
boat in the opposite direction. Or a canal has no flow, but boats can 
travel in either direction.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Gritting routes

[Craig Wallace]

On 2014-03-23 22:07, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi All,

I have some winter gritting/salting routes that I am trying to work out
how best to tag them. I was thinking of creating a route relation, but I
may need to add some new roles:

* forward:grit implies the gritting truck grits this road whilst
travelling in the direction of the way.
* forward:travel implies the gritting truck drives along the direction
of the way but does NOT grit it.

Is this ok?


What is the point in mapping roads where the gritter drives, if it is 
not gritting there? How is that useful for anyone?
It is useful for drivers to know whether or not a road will be gritted, 
but it doesn't matter what order the roads are gritted, or where the 
truck goes before or after.


I suspect most of these routes are not really fixed, different drivers 
could cover the roads in a different order if they wanted to.


Comparing it to bus routes, you only map where the bus is actually 
carrying or picking up passengers, not where it is driving empty to and 
from the depot.



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

Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

[Craig Wallace]

On 2013-10-17 09:52, Pieren wrote:

Could someone explain the difference between tourism=guest_house and
tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?
Both are suggested here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dguest_house
but only guest_house is really documented in the wiki.

In taginfo, we find 527 tourism=bed_and_breakfast and 32382
tourism=guest_house (accidentally, taginfo says Guest house and
BedBreakfast for tourism=guest_house)


In UK terms, they are much the same thing. Some places refer to 
themselves as BBs, some as guest houses, sometimes both.
Usually a BB would be smaller, ie one or two rooms, with the owner also 
living in the house, and doing most of the work. Whereas a guesthouse 
may be bigger, more like a hotel, and more staff etc. But I have seen 
plenty of small places calling themselves guesthouses. I don't think 
there is any legal distinction.


So it makes sense to tag both as tourism=guest_house. Plus tag the 
number of rooms/beds to indicate how big it is.



I'm asking because in France we do have a diffence when guests are in
an independent building (gîte [1]), usually for at least a week or a
week-end, or just special bedrooms (bedbreakfast) as guests in
private homes. So, I'm looking if we could reuse the two existing tags
or if I should create a sub-tag like tourism=guest_house +
guest_house=bed_and_breakfast or
guest_house=whatever_in_an_independent_building


If its a separate building (with self-catering), I wouldn't call it a 
guest house. That's more like tourism=chalet.
Though maybe a more generic term for holiday chalets/cottages/apartments 
etc would be good. And some way of distinguishing a single holiday house 
to rent, from a larger 'holiday park'.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] road side

[Craig Wallace]

On 2013-08-19 00:24, André Pirard wrote:

Hi,

There are many wiki articles mentioning the road side and tagging what's
on it, e. g.parking.
But I couldn't find how to tag a plain road side itself.
It is not part of the roadway (chaussée) but it's part of the public
highway (voie publique).
Often in gravel, It is not a parking where cars are invited but cars may
stop on it.
It may be as wide as the roadway, often expropriated in a plan to widen
the road.  It's an area.
Hence, the private properties are far recessed, also because roads are
drawn thinner than real.
The problem is that private driveways have to be connected to the
roadway through it.
That means, that those areas must be tagged as car passable.  If the
roadway is:
highway=secondary
name=itsname
What must be the tagging of those areas?
Just the same,maybe?  With
area=yes
But what about routing that shouldn't go through it except to/from the
properties?
Any deterrent precaution?

Under what article should this explanation be found?


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

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

Re: [Tagging] road side

[Craig Wallace]

On 2013-08-19 14:37, Tod Fitch 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.


Shoulder is a fairly common term in the UK.
Usually as in hard shoulder, ie a paved lane at the side of a 
motorway, which you are not allowed to drive on or park on, except for 
emergencies.

See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_%28road%29

A verge is quite different - usually a grassy area, next to the road. 
And may be rather rough, with bumps, holes, ditches, or obstructed with 
bushes or trees. So probably not a good idea to drive or park on it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_verge

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name

[Craig Wallace]

On 2013-08-17 16:47, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:


Maybe we should try a completely different approach. We could draw
a way along the approximate center line of the feature and tag it
with name=*, topo_feature=mountain_range|ridge|valley|...
A renderer that wants to display the name should draw it along that
way with the length of the way giving a hint about the size of the
feature.


This is already done for ridges, with natural=ridge. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dridge

It is used a bit. Not sure if any renderers show it.

I think something similar could be used for valleys.

It won't really work for mountain ranges, as they are often not linear.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Observations on use of the diet: tag

[Craig Wallace]

On 2013-06-28 14:36, fly wrote:

On 26.06.2013 02:29, Murry McEntire wrote:


If tags are added to diet=*, I believe lactose_free is in common use
whereas lacto_free is not so much. Also consider that a product made
with lactose removed dairy would accurately be lactose_free but not
lacto_free. Lactose content, not dairy origin,  is the important tag for
those with lactose intolerance. Is Lactofree being a brand name any
reason to avoid likenesses (lacto_free) in OSM tags?


First of all: There is a difference between lacto_free and lactose_free.

The first is about milk in general where as the second one is only about
the sugar of the milk.

My conclusion is that we need both:
1. lacto_free is more on the same level as the vegetarian/vegan diets.
2. You find lactose free milk products (lactose_free=yes but lacto_free=no)
3. There are people who are intolerant against the lactic acid of
certain animals but not against lactose.


Yes, maybe it is useful to have separate tags. But similar names should 
be avoided, as they will get confused.

I suggest naming the tag dairy_free instead of lacto_free.
That is much clearer as to what it is. In UK English, most people know 
what a dairy product is, not many would know what lacto means.



I did not find any brand name, so far.


Lactofree is a UK brand for lactose-free milk and cheese etc. So it 
would be classed as lactose_free=yes, but lacto_free=no. Which is 
just going to cause confusion, as above.


Craig

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

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

[Craig Wallace]

On 2013-06-23 20:54, Bryce Nesbitt 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?


On the 'Standard' Mapnik style, buildings tagged with building=house are 
rendered with a paler colour, so less prominent.
This should probably also include some other less notable building 
types, eg building=shed.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

[Craig Wallace]

On 09/02/2013 12:54, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 23:25 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:


Err, that's what the signs are for... :)

There are plenty of places where it is possible to cross between England
and Wales where there are no signs. I am less familiar with the Scottish
border, but other than it being a physical border (mountains) I imagine
it is similar.

But within Great Britain the rules are the same. I deliberately avoided
United Kingdom. I know Northern Ireland has slightly different rules
such as lower speed limits for recently qualified drivers.


Powers to set speed limits have now been devolved, so the Scottish 
government could change the speed limit if they wanted. So far it looks 
like there's no plans to do so.


If there is any change, I'm sure it will be clearly signposted, both at 
the border and within Scotland.
Also a few other things devolved, eg the drink-driving limit. It looks 
like that will be reduced in Scotland soon.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] agglomération

[Craig Wallace]

On 26/11/2012 11:25, Philip Barnes wrote:

  I think that is very country specific, not something that can be
tagged worldwide.

In the UK, beyond speed limits, there are no rule differences between
urban and rural roads.

However you have me curious, how do you see the rules as different?


In the UK there are rules about using dipped headlights in built-up 
areas, plus not using the horn overnight.

Not sure if there's any other rules.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=escape_lane

[Craig Wallace]

On 12/10/2012 16:38, José Juan Sánchez del Arco wrote:

I have updated an old proposal, relating to highways, escape lanes for
trucks and cars alongside motorways to stop them. Please visit the
proposal page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/escape_lane


I think this is just a special type of service road, so would be best 
tagged as highway=service, plus something like service=escape_lane.

Plus appropriate tags for surface= and access= etc.

According to Taginfo, service=escape_lane is already used 87 times.

I think this is better than inventing a new highway tag, which won't be 
understood by any software / renderers etc.


Craig


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=kennel)

[Craig Wallace]

On 13/09/2012 10:13, Andrew Errington wrote:

Off the top of my head we have 'stables', 'kennels' and 'cattery'.  Each name
is very specific.  Also, they are not limited to welfare (lost, abandoned or
abused animals), there are commercial businesses which look after animals
while their owners go on vacation.  Since they generally look after the same
kind of animal (not mixed), this should be indicated by the tag, i.e.
amenity=kennels, amenity=stables, amenity=cattery


Not necessarily - many of the places I know will look after a mix of 
animals. Usually dogs and cats, sometimes also smaller animals, eg 
rabbits, guinea pigs etc. Though this may vary by country/area, but I 
think a mixture of animals is pretty common in the UK.
So I think a more generic tag would be best for this, eg 
amenity=animal_boarding, plus tags for what animals are looked after.


Plus that avoids confusion with kennels used for other purposes, eg 
breeding, or a group of working dogs.


  For the welfare situation I suppose we could have 
amenity=animal_shelter, or

animal_sanctuary.  These generally do have a mix of animals, but of course
dogs and cats are most common.  There are also specialist shelters for birds,
seals, otters etc., but probably animal_shelter would cover those too.


Yes, animal shelters / animal rescue places are a different thing, so 
should have their own tag. amenity=animal_shelter makes sense for this.


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

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

[Craig Wallace]

On 26/08/2012 08:42, Markus Lindholm wrote:

Also, no one has offered any other solution to the routing issue. The
divider tag has been proposed, but I think it has been demonstrated
not to work, as routing decision are made on the node and not on the
line.


Where has it been demonstrated not to work? What do you mean by routing 
decision are made on the node and not on the line?
Yes, the divider tag is probably not supported by any current routing 
software. But it would not be too hard to modify the software to allow 
for it.



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

Re: [Tagging] Update of article highway=mini_roundabout

[Craig Wallace]

On 27/05/2012 15:03, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 13:43 -0400, Anthony wrote:

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Martin Vonwaldimagic@gmail.com  wrote:

I'll just want to let you know, that I reworked the article about
mini-roundabouts and want to update it within the next days. You can
find it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/Werkstatt


If there is only a single vehicle, or two vehicles traveling in
opposite directions, it is common to drive straight across the middle
rather than going around.

Isn't this illegal?

Don't think so. The definition of a mini-roundabout is that it is
traversable, and making it illegal to then traverse it would be silly.


It is illegal in the UK (unless you are driving a large vehicle).
From the Highway Code, rule 188. 
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/travelandtransport/highwaycode/dg_070338


Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. 
All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles 
which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less 
space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at 
mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this.


[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36  TSRGD regs 10(1)  16(1)]

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop=bag shop=haberdashery in wiki map features page

[Craig Wallace]

On 13/05/2012 18:37, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote:

Since Haberdashery doesn't have it's own wiki page an(d) is quite an complicated 
word may I ask:
Wtf is it?
.. And why on earth would we use it (over luggage or bag(s), which are 
understood by pretty much anyone)?


I think you are confusing things - shop=bag and shop=haberdashery are 
two separate tags.


A haberdashery is a shop that sells materials for sewing, ie thread, 
needles, buttons etc.
Though Wiktionary says a haberdashery can also be a shop selling men's 
clothing, so probably best to avoid the term if it is ambiguous. 
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haberdashery


Maybe something like shop=sewing would be clearer?
Or maybe a more general tag, that could also include shops selling 
things for knitting, quilting, embroidery etc.

Possibly something like shop=craft_materials ?

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

Re: [Tagging] gym as an amenity value

[Craig Wallace]

On 09/03/2012 10:04, Erik Johansson wrote:

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 18:16, Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm  wrote:


The term gym is ambiguous, as it can also mean gymnasium. ie a place at a
school for sports, or a place for doing gymnastics etc.
I think its best to avoid the term for tagging.

I would suggest a tag of something like fitness_centre or fitness_club,
which are clearer what they mean. Also, it should probably be under the key
for leisure, not amenity.

So a tag of leisure=fitness_centre or leisure=fitness_club


You mean: leisure=sport_centre


I think a fitness centre is a bit different to a sports centre.
A fitness centre usually has facilities for weight lifting, and exercise 
machines, treadmills etc.
Whereas a sports centre is usually larger, and has games halls, pitches 
etc. Though a lot of sports centres also include some sort of fitness 
centre within them.


So I think some sort of different tagging would be useful. Maybe fitness 
centres/gyms could be tagged as leisure=sports_centre + sport=fitness ?


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

Re: [Tagging] gym as an amenity value

[Craig Wallace]

On 08/03/2012 16:54, Clifford Snow wrote:

I do not see gym listed as a value for the tag amenity.  I would like to
see it as a recognized key value for amenity.  Taginfo,
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity
shows 644 gym, 8 Gym and some forms of health_club.

Gym is defined as A membership organization that provides a range of
facilities designed to improve and maintain physical fitness and
health.  In my town of Seattle, neighborhoods have numerous gyms that
fit the definition.

What is the correct process to get gym approved.  I'd also like to see
it added to potlatch2.  I have found a public domain icon that could be
used.

Any suggestions on how to proceed would be appreciated.


The term gym is ambiguous, as it can also mean gymnasium. ie a place 
at a school for sports, or a place for doing gymnastics etc.

I think its best to avoid the term for tagging.

I would suggest a tag of something like fitness_centre or 
fitness_club, which are clearer what they mean. Also, it should 
probably be under the key for leisure, not amenity.


So a tag of leisure=fitness_centre or leisure=fitness_club

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

Re: [Tagging] Named gates

[Craig Wallace]

On 01/08/2011 13:12, Josh Doe wrote:

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com
mailto:bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sander Deryckere
sander...@gmail.com mailto:sander...@gmail.com wrote: But
  there's no reason to change the tagging in my view. Just make a
ticket and
  see if the mapnik team is willing to render those.

Right, tag for database, not for render.


I've created a ticket for this:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3943


It would help if the ticket had some map links to examples of named gates.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking

[Craig Wallace]

On 16/07/2011 15:27, Steve Bennett wrote:

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse
li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk  wrote:

highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than
highway=footway on its own would.


The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal maintenance.

highway=path, path=hiking:
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/12000/nahled/hiking-path-1-238412973779541Zf.jpg

highway=footway:
http://www.freefoto.com/images/808/12/808_12_2972---Footpath-through-Strid-Wood_web.jpg?k=Footpath+through+Strid+Wood

This distinction exists and is meaningful. The question is whether
this is a good way to express it.


There are plenty of hiking paths that are well constructed, and not 
rough or narrow. So I don't think path=hiking is very useful at 
specifying that difference.
Also, some rough / narrow paths might be used for mountain biking or 
horse riding etc, not just hiking.


What about something equivalent to tracktype? ie with numbers/grades. So 
your first photo could be grade 4 or 5, and the second photo grade 1.



Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative

[Craig Wallace]

On 23/05/2011 12:15, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote:

I'm suggesting that we remove the language on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden which recommends
leisure=garden for tagging private residential gardens. The talk page
entry is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden
and I welcome your comments!

This mini-proposal suggests A) removing the language from the first and
second English-language paragraph describing residential gardens, and B)
suggesting

 landuse=residential
 residential=garden

as an alternative tagging scheme. My rationale for doing this:


I agree with all this for not using leisure=garden.

Though I think it would be simpler to just tag them as 
residential=garden, without the landuse tag.
Usually you would have landuse=residential around the whole area, then 
map individual gardens and houses etc within that.


No need to use two tags when one will say just as much.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - daycare

[Craig Wallace]

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?


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks

[Craig Wallace]

On 01/02/2011 12:11, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

To tag obelisks I suggest

man_made=obelisk

an alternative could be

historic=obelisk

but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be
an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization
and historic:period they could still be clearly distinguished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk

example for a not so old Obelisk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Myanmar-Yangon-Independence_Monument_in_Mahabandoola_park.jpg

Are there any objections? Otherwise I'll set up a proposal.


As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of 
monument or memorial.
So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or 
historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.

Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ?

There's quite a few other monument/memorial styles that would be useful 
to tag, eg statue, fountain, spire etc.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks

[Craig Wallace]

On 01/02/2011 13:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2011/2/1 Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm:

As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
monument or memorial.
So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ?



This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and
towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes
of monument. Indeed the tag historic=monument is very vague and
therefor not very useful IMHO.


I don't think churches / temples are really monuments, at least that's 
not their primary purpose. That purpose is to provide a place of 
worship. I think a tower can be a monument (and tagged as such), if that 
is why it was built.



There's quite a few other monument/memorial styles that would be useful to
tag, eg statue, fountain, spire etc.



Can you expand on the difference between memorial and monument? AFAIK
a monument states that an object is monumental = big, bigger then
human scale. Memorial is instead referring to a structure errected to
remind about someone/something. In OSM they are exclusive (you cannot
use both). I have the feeling that these 2 tags are broken by design,
but they are very useful, because beeing so generic you can use them
for lots of stuff ;-)


I think both monument and memorial are (usually) for structures in 
memory of something.
The difference is more about the relative importance - ie if its the 
most important one in the country, and famous etc, then its a monument. 
If its just for a fairly local event or single person, then its a memorial.
So not so much about the physical size, though monuments are usually 
bigger than memorials.


Though its true that this is poorly defined, its not always clear 
whether to tag something as a monument or memorial.



Maybe it would be better to use them as flags? Describe the features
with some tags, and add monument=yes (for monumental stuff) or
memorial=yes (for stuff to remind about something). It could also be
memorial=first_world_war (or memorial:topic=first_world_war)


I think its best to have one generic tag, for any structure in memory of 
something/someone, eg historic=memorial.
Then use extra tags to specify what it is in memory of 
(memorial:topic=), plus the physical style (statue, obelisk). Maybe also 
a tag for the relative importance/significance, eg is it just a village 
memorial, or is it of national importance.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecated features - highway=disused

[Craig Wallace]

On 21/12/2010 20:17, Wyo wrote:

Craig Wallace wrote:

I think using disused=yes is a very bad idea.
It will break all of the existing renderers/applications that don't know


Here is a sample of a disused canal which doesn't break at all. I don't think it
would break with highways. If you use highway=disused you loose the information
what highway it was. E.g. a motorway or a path?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.79577lon=7.40601zoom=16layers=M


There is a rule in the Mapnik stylesheet specifically for 
waterway=canal, disused=yes.
There is no such rules for highways or anything else. So for example 
something tagged as highway=motorway, disused=yes will still be rendered 
as a normal motorway. Which means it does break things.


Yes, the Mapnik stylesheet could be changed to handle this for all 
highway types, and all amenities, and all shops etc. But it would make 
the stylesheets much more complicated.
This has been an open bug for over 2 years: 
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1085


And then there are hundreds of other applications using OSM data, which 
would all need to be modified to fix this.


Also, I suggested tagging disused things as something like 
highway:disused=motorway, then you don't lose information on what type 
of highway it was.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecated features - highway=disused

[Craig Wallace]

On 20/12/2010 22:23, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote:

I came across http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Disused_road 
today.  I applied the proposal page template, indicating that the proposal had 
been obsoleted, as noted in the commentary on the page.  Looking at the tag 
info for highway (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/highway), I see that 
there are presently 88 instances of highway=disused.

Would you support addition of highway=discussed to 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features as:
* Date: (date of agreement here)
* Old Key/Value: highway=disused
* Suggested Replacement: highway=*  disused=yes  access=yes (no implied)
* Reason: creation of general disused key

The main problem I see with this proposal is the indication at key:disused that 
the use of the key implies access=no, which is not necessarily true in the case 
of a highway which is disused.  Could this be circumvented by the inclusion of 
the 'access=yes' recommendation in the suggested replacement?

Thanks for considering this. --ceyockey 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ceyockey)


I think using disused=yes is a very bad idea.
It will break all of the existing renderers/applications that don't know 
about that key, as they will show disused roads as normal roads, or use 
them for routing etc.
It means any routing application has to check for two different tags (or 
even more if you get things like abandoned=yes, construction=yes etc), 
before knowing whether the road is usable or not.


So I think disused=yes should be deprecated.
I think a better option would be a kind of namespace thing. eg something 
like highway:disused=primary etc.
Then that will be safely ignored by any applications that don't 
know/care about these roads.


There's a useful page here which summarizes some of this, and the 
pros/cons of different options: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Editing road layouts that have bus routes

[Craig Wallace]

On 15/12/2010 15:31, Laurence Penney wrote:

The other day I tidied up a road junction near where I live in Bristol, moving 
nodes and deleting a way with the aid of Bing imagery. I found it more 
problematic than I expected because of a bus route that went along the road - 
the deleted way seems to have confused things.

Here are the two ways, between which was the deleted way:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4301896
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/37354486

The two relations (one in each direction) look ok here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/273877
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/168190

But in JOSM there are now dozens of entries forward=incomplete, backward=incomplete, 
forward_stop=incomplete.

1. I'd be very grateful if a bus route expert could check the above.
2. Is there a bus route animator anywhere that could visualize whether the 
route is ok?


When JOSM says they are incomplete, it just means those parts of the 
relation haven't been downloaded. So use the Download members option, 
and it will download all of them.
You can then select the relation (double click on it in the list of the 
relations), which will highlight it on the map. Then you can check it, 
and see if it looks correct.
I'm no bus route expert, but that section appears to be correct, as far 
as I can tell.


There is a relation analyzer, that can be helpful for finding gaps in 
relations. Though it doesn't show it clearly if it has separate parts 
with different roles, eg forward/backward. See 
http://ra.osmsurround.org/ and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation_Analyzer


I don't know if there are any better tools for this.

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

Re: [Tagging] Bus depot?

[Craig Wallace]

On 14/12/2010 23:43, Dave F. wrote:

Hi

How are bus depots being tagged? These are places where bus are stored,
say overnight, when not in use.

I've looked on taginfo  there was only one use of bus_depot, so I
assume it's being tagged differently, but not sure how.


There was some discussion of this a few months back: 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-September/thread.html#4539
There seemed to be agreement for some sort of depot tag, but less 
agreement over whether it should be amenity=depot or highway=depot or 
landuse=depot etc.


I think it is a quite different thing from parking, as it usually 
includes facilities for refuelling or repairing the buses etc. Plus 
there's roads depots which might also store tools, equipment, salt, 
gravel etc.


landuse=garages also seems to be a much more specific thing, for 
individual garage buildings, probably rented/used by different people etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] Charity tagging

[Craig Wallace]

On 06/12/2010 19:19, Laurence Penney wrote:

The whole point of the social_facility, as described on the wiki, is
clearly around helping people at that place. Charity shops such as
Oxfam and British Heart Foundation - even if they have broad aims of
social justice - just don't fit into this at all. And RSPCA shops?
They explicitly have nothing to do with helping people, yet seem to
call for very similar tagging as the other kinds of charity shop.

I accept that my suggestion about suppliers is more appealing to the
taxonomist than for the average user, so... how about this for an
Oxfam bookshop?

shop=books

 shop:charity=yes


- or for an RSPCA general second hand shop:

shop=second_hand

 shop:charity=yes

Or another idea would be to tag them with something like operator:type 
or similar. eg:


shop=books
operator=Oxfam
operator:type=charity

This could be expanded for a wide variety of other operator types - 
there are many organisations that provide worthwhile services, but are

not registered charities.
eg you could tag as operator:type=social_enterprise or 
operator:type=workers_cooperative or operator:type=government etc.


Also, I'm not sure about just tagging generic charity shops as
shop=second_hand. They may mostly sell second hand goods, but they often
have a range of new things as well, eg food or craft stuff.
I think shop=second_hand is more for a place like Cash Converters etc,
charity shops are a quite distinct thing from that.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?

[Craig Wallace]

On 14/11/2010 19:30, Ulf Lamping wrote:


BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could
be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural
and/or landuse.


I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest.
eg if I see an area of trees, I don't know whether or not it is 
natural or managed. Best to just have a tag that says this land is 
covered with trees. Then you can add extra tags for how managed it is 
(if you know that), plus tag what type of trees it is, and what it is 
used for etc.


So I think a tag of something like landcover=trees would be very useful.

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

Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?

[Craig Wallace]

On 14/11/2010 20:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2010/11/14 Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm:

BTW: There was exactly *no* good example, which real world problem could
be solved with landcover that can't be done with: surface, natural
and/or landuse.


I think it would help with the mess of natural=wood vs landuse=forest.
eg if I see an area of trees, I don't know whether or not it is natural or
managed. Best to just have a tag that says this land is covered with
trees. Then you can add extra tags for how managed it is (if you know that),
plus tag what type of trees it is, and what it is used for etc.

So I think a tag of something like landcover=trees would be very useful.



I'm actually already doing this: landcover=tree. There is already 2545
entities of them in the db. You could still use a different surface
there by the way, so it is not superfluous.
Also landcover=scree, grass, ice, sand
are good values IMHO. Probably we should simply start using them.


I think it would make more sense to use the plural, ie landcover=trees. 
As it for tagging an area covered by a number of trees, and would avoid 
confusion with natural=tree, which is for tagging individual trees.


Plus you would usually say something like this land is covered by 
trees, with the plural. All of your other suggested values are 
basically uncountable, so work in this way.


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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for arboretum

[Craig Wallace]

On 11/11/2010 02:18, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net  wrote:

perhaps:

landuse=botanical_garden
collection=arboretum|fruticetum|viticetum|pinetum|...


I'd prefer keeping landuse values at a minimum, and using subtags
where necessary. For example landuse=residential something=apartments,
not landuse=apartments. Would landuse=conservation work for an
arboretum?


'Conservation' is often not the main purpose of an arboretum (or botanic 
garden).


Conservation is very vague and ambiguous word anyway, it doesn't 
actually tell you much about what is there, or what the land is used for.


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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for arboretum

[Craig Wallace]

On 10/11/2010 22:01, Richard Welty wrote:

i'm currently doing the boundaries for the Pine Hollow Arboretum south
of Albany NY.

none of the current landuse/natural tags seem quite appropriate.
landuse=forest
and natural= wood are closest, but i'd hesitate to use either without a
subtype
tag indicating that it's specifically an arboretum (denoting a site
where trees in
a natural setting, not necessarily local to the site, may be viewed.)

an arboretum sort of sits in the middle between the two classifications,
it's managed in a limited way in that there are intentional plantings of
interesting trees, but the management is limited in that dead trees
may not be cleared, etc.

i'm using landuse=forest for now, but would like to invite discussion
of which main tag is really appropriate and what subtype tag might be used.


Wouldn't it be covered by leisure=garden? ie Place where flowers and 
other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for 
scientific purposes.
Its just it specifically focuses on trees, as opposed to flowers or 
other plants.
Maybe with a subtag to specify it is an arboretum? There is a proposal 
for extra tags for garden types: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification


Though I do think that landuse=forest vs natural=wood is a mess. Better 
to just use one tag for any area covered by trees, then use extra tags 
for whether it is 'natural' or managed, what it is used for, and what 
types of trees etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

[Craig Wallace]

On 22/10/2010 17:14, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com  wrote:

We could hijack the trail page (given that trail to native speakers
implies what I want to express)


Not really; see the rails to trails movement.


Yes, trail is an even more ambiguous word than path. It can refer to 
just about anything that isn't a paved road. So it might be a forest 
track, or a hiking path, or a mountain bike trail etc. And it might be 
an official, signposted route or it might not.

See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail

So best to avoid using trail, as people will assume it applies many 
different things.


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

Re: [Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?

[Craig Wallace]

On 23/10/2010 01:00, Alan Mintz wrote:

In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an
organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation
from municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for
help and information, networking with other business owners, representing
businesses in addressing the city, sometimes informal arbitration, etc.
There are only a handful of existing tags with the name [Cc]hamber [oO]f
[Cc]ommerce, with no consistent tagging.

Any objection to amenity=chamber_of_commerce ?


I think its not really an amenity, it would fit better as some sort of 
office - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office


Maybe office=chamber_of_commerce ? Or something more generic, like 
office=business_association ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?

[Craig Wallace]

On 17/10/2010 11:40, Richard Weait wrote:


And if service=drive_thru is to be revised, perhaps drive_thru=yes/no
from Map Features should follow the same plan.

Also redirecting drive_thru=yes to drive_in seems very wrong.  A drive
through and a drive in are very different in my experience.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:drive_thruredirect=no


Yes, it seems key:drive_thru was recently added to Map Features (and a 
few other pages), without any proposal or discussion. I agree that it 
makes sense for it to be consistent spelling with service=drive-through 
/ service=drive_through.


And it is different thing to key:drive_in, so it should have a separate 
page.


I'm not too fussed whether it has a hyphen or an underscore, so long as 
one is agreed upon. FWIW the Wikipedia article uses a hyphen, as do a 
couple of dictionaries I checked.


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

Re: [Tagging] Country names

[Craig Wallace]

On 14/10/2010 14:36, Andrew Errington wrote:


So, when we get a renderer that can render name:ko + (name:en) we can delete
all name=* which have been typed in that form and then rename name:ko=* to
name=*


No, this would not be helpful. Because then how do you know what 
language the name tag is in?
More useful to leave the name:ko tag as it is. Though you could copy 
(not rename) the name:ko tag to the name tag if you want.


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

Re: [Tagging] Country names

[Craig Wallace]

On 14/10/2010 14:51, Peter Körner wrote:


To render a German map there are two possibilities:
1. render name:de if it exists, name otherwise
2. render name if its identical to name:de, name (name:de) otherwise

name does hereby refer to the local name ((how do the people that live
there call their country).

This works for all the places that have only one local name. 1. is waht
we currently render on the TS and it would be easy to set up 2., but it
would not look nice because the name tag sometimes already contains
brackets.


But what if you want to render a map with only German names, no other 
(local) languages?
The obvious answer is to only render the name:de tag, but the problem 
with this is places that don't have name:de set, and just have a 
name. You don't know whether the name tag is in German or in some 
other language.
You could assume what language name is in, based on country 
boundaries, but that makes things much more complicated. And there might 
be several common languages within one country.


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

Re: [Tagging] Successful proposal

[Craig Wallace]

On 13/10/2010 15:04, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

what about removing highway=byway from the mapfeatures? It is used
less then 2000 times (which is very little for highway), and it is
UK-only, so IMHO no reason at all to be listed on the main features
page, could be moved to mapfeatures UK.


Yes, I agree with that, byway is really England and Wales specific.
And I think its generally deprecated there anyway - its more useful to 
just tag them as highway=path/track/service etc, plus 
designation=restricted_byway or designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic as 
appropriate.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types

[Craig Wallace]

On 20/09/2010 19:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Hi,

I'm asking for comments to the new barrier types listed here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types


Shouldn't barrier=curb use the UK spelling, ie kerb?

Also, I don't see the need for barrier=swing_gate. It is just a specific 
type of gate, so would be better as a subtag of barrier=gate.


And rope and chain are effectively the same thing, it would be simpler 
as a single barrier tag, with a subtag to specify what material its made of.


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

Re: [Tagging] Vacant shop tagging...

[Craig Wallace]

On 16/08/2010 11:11, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2010/8/16 Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm:

On 15/08/2010 22:30, John Smith wrote:

I'm not sure this is the best way to do things, what do others think?

If its vacant, then its not a shop, so shouldn't be tagged as such.


IMHO a shop is a shop because it is officially commercial space (and
not residential), it has a separate entrance (usually from the
street), it has appropriate windows, etc. Of course there might be
exceptions, but I think you get it.


I disagree. A shop is by definition a place selling products or 
services. And if its empty its not doing that.
Yes, it might still be commercial space, so within an area of 
landuse=retail or whatever, but its not a shop.



ie use a separate namespace, so tag it something like disused:shop=yes
Then it can be easily ignored by applications that just want to show
currently existing shops, or rendered differently etc.


that's a good idea as well, and very versatile.


Yes, plus it would allow tagging other disused things. eg 
disused:amenity= for things like cafes, pubs, postboxes, phoneboxes etc, 
which I think would be useful.
Or you could tag what sort of disused shop it is (or was). eg 
disused:shop=supermarket or whatever.


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging farmers markets?

[Craig Wallace]

On 17/08/2010 01:43, Richard Welty wrote:

   i don't see an obvious tag in the system.

i'm not talking about shop=farm, where the shop is
physically located at the farm, but about places where
one or more producers come together to sell. some are
intermittant (and would need schedule tags), but others
are somewhat permanent.


amenity=marketplace would seem to cover that. With the opening hours tag 
for the times it is there.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmarketplace

Though it doesn't specify that its specifically a farmers market, maybe 
an additional tag for that?
Though what is the definition of a farmers market anyway? Is it just 
for farmers / producers?


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging farmers markets?

[Craig Wallace]

On 17/08/2010 03:09, Richard Welty wrote:


ok, but how about a physical building named Ryan's Farmers Market
where i presume
(i haven't been inside, i just saw it for the first time today) the
produce is from local
farmers, but it's a conventional brick-and-mortar store with normal
hours.


amenity=marketplace + building=yes, if it is actually an indoor market, 
ie with individual stalls selling their own products etc.


Though from what you describe, it sounds more like its just one shop - 
ie all operated by the same company, and with just one set of checkouts 
etc - but just calling itself a farmers market?
In which case, I would suggest tagging it as shop=greengrocer (if its 
mostly fruit and vegetables), or maybe shop=supermarket if it has a 
wider range of products.
Or maybe shop=food if it sells a range of foods (though that tag is 
currently undocumented).


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

Re: [Tagging] Vacant shop tagging...

[Craig Wallace]

On 15/08/2010 22:30, John Smith wrote:

I'm not sure this is the best way to do things, what do others think?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:shopoldid=517645diff=next


If its vacant, then its not a shop, so shouldn't be tagged as such. 
Otherwise it will show up on applications / renderers that show anything 
tagged as shop=* with a shop icon.


Found this page on the wiki, which has a summary of some of the ideas 
for tagging disused features etc: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts


I think the best option is the one it describes as key-status = 
value.

ie use a separate namespace, so tag it something like disused:shop=yes
Then it can be easily ignored by applications that just want to show 
currently existing shops, or rendered differently etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?

[Craig Wallace]

On 26/07/2010 11:30, Richard Mann wrote:

winery: no such word in en_gb, we just use vineyard for the whole
operation (though of course we don't do these things on the same scale
as Australia). Unless you're going to distinguish between shop=winery
and shop=vineyard, I'd use the more generic term in the tagging
system.


I think winery is a fairly common and well known word in the UK. I known 
of a few places near me that call themselves placename Winery.
Its not necessarily associated with a vineyard - where the grapes are 
grown (vineyard), is often nowhere near where the wine is made and sold 
(winery). Some of my local wineries make fruit/berry based wines, so 
don't have a vineyard at all.


I think tourism=winery is the best option.
You could also have tourism=brewery and tourism=distillery for those 
places that have visitor centres/shops.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Route relation

[Craig Wallace]

On 10/07/2010 11:29, Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:

Hi
my first try with relations
i am tying to make a route relations
it is relation 1027135, it is some way segments with 3 bus stops
i keep getting validation errors in JOSOM
error: Role stop unknown
error: Role route unknown
dont know what this means, and how to fix it
can comeone look at it and give a clue
thanks
LiFo


Its not a validation error, its just a validation warning. Not 
everything that JOSM warns about is necessarily incorrect.

As the JOSM startpage says:
Roles defined in presets are now used. This may result in unexpected 
validator warnings for relations not yet know to JOSM.


If you give the ways that make up the route a blank role, the validator 
will accept that. It seems the presets expect the stop members to be 
numbered, eg stop_1, stop_2 etc, but that shouldn't be necessary.


So I think your route relation is correct as per the wiki guidance. I 
think the JOSM presets could be altered a bit to not warn about these 
things.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?

[Craig Wallace]

On 29/06/2010 16:40, Jason Cunningham wrote:

And I'm about to edit it back to sport=association_football.

The use of soccer should never have crept in to OSM. I've made it clear
that I think the use of soccer will be very controversial in the UK. I
could never participate in a project that labelled my teams football
ground as sport=soccer. A vast number of British 'football' supporters
will feel far stronger about this than me, and I believe it would lead
to a serious and continuous vandalism of OSM.


This is quite simply nonsense, to put it politely. The majority of 
British football fans don't really care about this. Soccer may be seen 
as an Americanism, but not insulting at all. I think association 
football is more likely to be seen as an old fashioned and upper class 
term.
You are the only one in this thread to claim that soccer is insulting. 
Please cite some sources for this vast number that will feel strongly 
about this.


And the word soccer won't actually displayed anywhere anyway, except 
in particular renderings.
So I don't see how thousands of football supporters are actually going 
to see the sport=soccer tag at all, unless they are editing the map. And 
you could translate / localize the editor to en_GB if you want...


Craig


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

Re: [Tagging] 'name' variation tags standardisation

[Craig Wallace]

On 25/06/2010 13:04, y...@o2.pl wrote:

Now there is a good trend to use colon in key names. Maybe we should
move these tags below?

int_name -  name:international
nat_name -  name:national
reg_name -  name:regional
loc_name -  name:local
old_name -  name:old
alt_name -  name:alt or name:alternative
official_name -  name:official

But then we can have structures like that: name:official:de/ru/etc.

What do you think about it?


But how do you know whether the part after the colon is a language code 
or a type of name?

eg alt is the ISO 639-2 code for Southern Altai.
This will make things more complicated for data processors, eg how do 
you just extract all names that have a name in more than one language?


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] 'name' variation tags standardisation

[Craig Wallace]

On 25/06/2010 16:36, Alex Mauer wrote:

On 06/25/2010 10:24 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:

But how do you know whether the part after the colon is a language code
or a type of name?
eg alt is the ISO 639-2 code for Southern Altai.


Does openstreetmap use the ISO 639-2 codes?  It looks to me like it uses
ISO 639-1.


From the multilingual names page: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names


People seem to generally agree on using name:code=*  where code is a 
language's ISO 639-1 code, or ISO 639-2 if an ISO 639-1 code doesn't exist.


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

Re: [Tagging] Builders' Merchants - Timber Merchant

[Craig Wallace]

On 24/06/2010 14:47, John Smith wrote:

On 24 June 2010 23:14, aellaw_ence@ntlworld.com  wrote:

Still, I was hoping for a better word than yard.


What was wrong with Liz's suggestion?


shop = supplies
supplies = 
timber/concrete/building/bricks/landscaping/electrical/plumbing/mechanical/agricultural/metal


shop=supplies is meaningless. Every shop supplies something.

What about something like shop=industrial_supplies ?
That seems to be a fairly common name for these sorts of places around here.

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

Re: [Tagging] Builders' Merchants - Timber Merchant

[Craig Wallace]

On 24/06/2010 15:37, John Smith wrote:

On 25 June 2010 00:34, Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm  wrote:

shop=supplies is meaningless. Every shop supplies something.

What about something like shop=industrial_supplies ?
That seems to be a fairly common name for these sorts of places around here.


so we're back to building_supplies, construction_supplies and now
industrial_supplies... :)


Industrial supplies is a more generic term, which can include builder's 
merchants, or timber yards, or agricultural supplies, or a variety of 
other industries.
So a tag shop=industrial_supplies can cover all of these, plus an 
appropriate sub-tag to specify what sort.


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=services

[Craig Wallace]

On 27/05/2010 22:09, Liz wrote:
 rest area has been redirected to highway=services with a note to a Wikipedia
 entry.
 The wikipedia entry is huge and after much scrolling down the page it becomes
 quite obvious that Rest Area has many meanings on highways worldwide.
 While highway=services is well explained, redirecting other phrases to the
 same point is not justified.
 Rest Area signed on highways near me merely means that there is room to pull
 off the road and park. Next available facility is a bin for garbage, sometimes
 a picnic table, but it certainly does not mean highway=services.
 rest_area has not been used for anything in OSM (yet) so directing it to a
 particular tag is inappropriate.

In the UK, these would usually be known as a lay-by.
It may just be a space to pull over and park, or it may be more 
separated, with trees/grass between it and the road. And as you say, it 
may also have a bin or a picnic table, and maybe a burger van in the 
busier lay-bys.

I've been thinking about the best way of tagging these. I've noticed 
quite a few of them near me have been tagged as amenity=parking, which 
is accurate, in that it is a place to park. Maybe also worth an extra 
tag to specify what sort of parking it is, eg parking=lay-by ?
Some of them are also mapped with a short way tagged as highway=service 
(not highway=services !), to connect it to the main road.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] More tagging questions

[Craig Wallace]

On 07/05/2010 21:09, Jonas Minnberg wrote:

 In Sweden we have special barriers in the ground that only larger
 vehicles can pass, meant to allow buses but not normal cars - is there a
 tag for such a thing or should I make one up?

barrier=bus_trap
it's listed on the Key:barrier page, but without any description. Though 
I assume its for something like a bus trap, as described on Wikipedia: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_trap

 Is there a a good way to define the area covered by school grounds? The
 examples and documentation about education tags seems to only apply to
 nodes or individual buildings - I would like something like
 landuse=school, which would also be a good place to put the name of the
 school.

The tag amenity=school is intended for the whole area of the school and 
its grounds. You can also map the school buildings, sports pitches etc 
within this.
This is clearly stated on this page: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool
So I'm not sure which examples or documentation you are referring to.

 Should the cliff-tag be used even for smaller drops? I've seen it used
 in residential areas where bare rock can be seen, but where the
 height-difference is small enough to jump up on it without using your hands.

Maybe, I don't know if there's any better tag for that. You can also 
specify how high it is with the height=* tag.


Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)

[Craig Wallace]

On 06/05/2010 13:49, Jonas Minnberg wrote:

 Ok so I keep running into these; green areas visible on satellite
 imagery that are tagged as parks but aren't really.

 My first instinct was to remove them, but that was mostly met
 with skepticism and alternative tag suggestions. So  I am thinking of
 inventing a couple of new tags for this:

 landuse=lawn (For smaller areas of kept grass that are
 either inaccessible or not meant to - you know - picnic on or similar).

 landuse=yard (For private backyards etc, usually inaccessible, even if
 they may look park-like on the satellite).

I think yard is a rather vague word, as it could also be a farmyard, 
industrial yard, courtyard, shipyard etc.

What about landuse=curtilage
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage
This is the official / legal term for the enclosed area around a 
dwelling. And its (usually) private, not accessible by the public.
It might include a lawn, trees/plants, a shed, a paved area etc.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Trolley)

[Craig Wallace]

On 28/04/2010 19:43, Pieren wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com
 mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:

 I agree that cart=yes would probably be the best solution.  That
 way, you avoid the confusion between different regional dialects,
 and the context would let you know whether a shopping cart, luggage
 cart, or whatever was meant.

 cart is something behind a horse, no ?
 Just to say that both tags trolley or cart depend on the context.
 Finally, it's just the question if you prefer the english or the US
 version. And what about airport_trolley (amenity=* or *=yes) for airports ?

I think luggage_trolley would be better than airport_trolley.
I think its a more common name, and they are also found in railway 
stations, bus stations, hotels, campsites etc.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Marina - mapnik render change

[Craig Wallace]

On 17/04/2010 23:41, Dave F. wrote:
 Hi
 Replies in-line:

 Sam Vekemans wrote:
 Sounds like a good change to me :)


 OK, but what do you suggest for the water part of a marina?

If its a body of standing water, then tag it as natural=water.
Most marinas will be part of a larger body of water anyway, which should 
have a way tagged as natural=water, or natural=coastline, or 
waterway=riverbank etc. So you just have to adjust that so it goes 
around the water part of the marina as well.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for more detail on leisure=playground

[Craig Wallace]

On 25/03/2010 14:11, antony.king wrote:
 Hi all,

 As a result of not being able to find public outdoor play facilities
 for my disabled child, I've started a bit of a project to collect data
 on such things. To which end, there is now a project page here:

   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AccessiblePlay

 and a page detailing a proposed schema for enhancing the
 leisure=playground tag here:

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

 Could I invite you all to take a look at the proposal and suggest any
 improvements that should be made.

So, just checking - your proposal is to just have one node node or area 
tagged as leisure=playground, then adding extra tags to that node / area 
to describe the equipment?

IMO it would be more useful to map the locations of individual play 
equipment. eg you have an area tagged as leisure=playground, and within 
that you can add nodes for the individual swings, climbing frames etc. 
Things like slides or zip wires could be mapped as ways. Plus tag these 
as accessible as appropriate.
eg tags like playground=swing, playground=climbing_frame, 
playground=slide etc

Some playgrounds can be fairly spread out across a park, so it makes 
sense to map things like the swings separately from the climbing frames 
etc. I think it would make the maps more useful (and look better).

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

[Craig Wallace]

On 27/01/2010 12:37, Matthias Julius wrote:
 Emilie Laffrayemilie.laff...@gmail.com  writes:


 What you have done looks good. I think it makes sense.

 Would you tag a business facility that is not really an office like a
 machine shop or other production facility as office=* as well?

I would use man_made=works for something that actually produces things, 
eg a factory / machine shop.
Plus additional tags to describe what it prodcues etc.

(though a large works may have offices within it, which you could map as 
well)

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

[Craig Wallace]

On 14/12/2009 09:15, Steve Bennett wrote:
 On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com  wrote:

 I disagree - from the wiki: highway=path is a route open to the
 public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more
 wheels. I think highway=path is perfect. It's plain English.
  
 Yeah, the /examples subpage is great, too. Serious question: does
 anyone use the tag this way? My concern is that renderers generally
 just look at the key (path) and render it as though it was a dirt path
 (dotted brown line). Whereas you're essentially saying they should
 look at all the tags together, and possibly render as a footway, a
 cycleway, etc. And that might be asking too much.

Yes, some renderers do. At least OpenCycleMap does anyway - it renders 
highway=path + foot=yes the same as highway=footway, and renders 
highway=path + bicycle=yes the same as highway=cycleway (and 
highway=footway + bicycle=yes is rendered the same as highway=cycleway).

I don't know if any other renderers do this. It would also be useful if 
tags like surface= etc were rendered in some way.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledgeofthe law?

[Craig Wallace]

On 14/12/2009 16:37, Mike Harris wrote:
 Well, first of all, what you describe would still be
 correctly labeled as a path.  However, I have to really
 doubt that 90% of ways tagged with path are probably
 unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian.  Maybe 90%
 are unpaved, but unpaved does not mean unsuitable for any
 traffic other than pedestrian.  And there's already a tag
 for surface=paved/unpaved.  That's my problem with the
 current usage.  We shouldn't have a tag for surface=unpaved
 and a second tag for highway=surface_probably_unpaved.

  
 100% of the paths I tag as highway=path are definitely impossible for
 anything other than pedestrians - perhaps I'm in a more rural area than you?
 E.g. undefined paths across fields interrupted by gates, stiles, etc. - or
 upland / mountain hiking trails across moorland / bog / scree / rocks. On
 these the surface changes so often with the terrain that the surface= tag,
 which I use widely in other circumstances, is not very helpful.

definitely impossible? That sounds like a challenge... I'm sure some 
people could ride (parts of it) on a mountain bike (or on a horse).
The surface tag doesn't need to exact, just the typical (or worse part?) 
for each section.
Also, it sounds like its worth using some extra tags, eg sac_scale / 
mtb:scale, especially for the upland hiking trails. Or maybe even 
smoothness.



 Unpaved is not necessarily rough - I know of plenty of cycleways / footways
 / paths / tracks that have a smooth compacted gravel surface that I would
 regards as unpaved but allows cycling at well over 20 kph (usually without a
 bell and at great peril to walkers - only kidding bike-guys - well almost
 only ... )

Yes, I agree, surface=unpaved doesn't say much about what the path is 
made of, just that its not tarmac / concrete etc. For the examples you 
describe, it would be more useful to use something like surface=gravel 
or surface=compacted.

Craig

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

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

[Craig Wallace]

On 09/12/2009 01:27, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com 
mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:


I don't see how this is beneficial. As others have said, it just
encourages tagging for the *current implementation of* the renderer,
as opposed to tagging with a long-term view.


Ok, can someone point me to the policy that says don't tag for the 
renderer? I can't find it. It keeps being quoted like a fundamental 
axiom.



See these pages:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

As that page says, its probably more acurrate to say Don't deliberately 
tag incorrectly for the renderer.


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