Re: [Tagging] wikipedia links and copy + paste in tag definitions

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hi Martin,
I am sorry but I do not agree with you.

I think that the wikipedia link is sometimes essential for non-native speakers 
and should be included. I do not believe that the defintion of let's say Kremlin
will ever change to mean something completely different.

IMHO you have chosen a bad example to illustrate your statement.
There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia definition of castle.
It fits perfectly for page castle_type=defensive
The problem was that the author has wrongly placed this definition
to the page historic=castle. But that was not a problem of Wikipedia linking.
It was just a bad edit. So I would not draw a conslusion that Wikipedia linking
is bad just from this single case.

Regards,
 Dalibor

> -Original Message-
> From: Tobias Knerr [mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de]
> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 7:11 PM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] wikipedia links and copy + paste in tag definitions
> 
> On 29.04.2017 22:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Don't link to WP, especially not in the beginning (as if their definition
> automatically was equal to ours), because even if the current state is fine, 
> we
> don't control WP and don't know how they will structure their lemmas in the
> future.
> 
> Thanks for highlighting this issue, I fully agree with you.
> 
> Some wiki editors seem to be under the false impression that a Wikipedia
> link should somehow be a standard part of any tag page. Including such links
> should be the exception, rather than the rule, and they need to be carefully
> checked and maintained in the future to make sure that they are about the
> same thing as the OSM tag.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] fiddling with memorial and memorial:type

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,
if you ask what we prefer then I vote for memorial=* keys.

Dalibor

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 1:51 AM
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] fiddling with memorial and memorial:type
> 
> I have noticed some recent wiki-fiddling with tags under the memorial:type
> key. A user has discouraged their use and redirected people to the memorial
> key, where these values are used significantly less, e.g. plaque and obelisk.
> 
> I do agree we don't need 2 keys with the same values/categorization of
> memorial subtypes, but I think this should follow a discussion and not be
> decided unilaterally, especially if the more active tags are signed as
> discouraged.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> sent from a phone
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

[Tagging] Proposal for creating working group categories on wiki

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,

I just want to let you know that I have published the following proposal

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Proposal_for_creating_group_ca
tegories

So if you interested in wiki documentation structure, I would be pleased if
you could read it

and comment/vote on it.

 

Thank you.

  Dalibor (Chrabros)

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hi,
this is not an example of troll tagging.

Trolltag is a tag, not a value.
landuse=disused is therefore not a troll tag

landuse=something + disused=yes 
here disused=yes woudl be a trolltag as it negates another tag
and data consumer must look for this tag to see what
is the current status

See here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag

landuse=disused just does not seem nice to read
but it will cause no problems to data consumers.

 Dalibor (chrabros)

> -Original Message-
>  > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
>  > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.
> 
> Yes that is a form of troll tagging, negating the key. Thus I'd prefer 
> brownfield
> as above.
> 
> 
> tom
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] New access key for Segway needed

[Dalibor Jelínek]

OK. Many questions really.

 

What is their definition of "segway and similar"?

It is named “personal transporter with autobalancing device or similar 
technical equipment”

 

Does it include skateboards, vehicles for disabled?

Nope, they do not have that autobalancing device.

 

Do the devices have to have motors?

Aparently no.

 

Must they have pole?

must not.

 

How many wheels, what size of wheel? Do you have to stand or does it include 
devices to sit on as well? Are there limits for the motor power (i.e. are toys 
for children allowed?).

Not defined, not defined, not defined.

 

Does this apply to using them on the road, on the sidewalk, everywhere?

Everywhere. It is a same category as a walker. Depens on the road signs.

 

Can you use them on private ground?

Sure you can.

 

Can a city introduce a new vehicle group, isn't this something the country has 
to do in national law?

They believed they can but it turned out that they can not. So we had to pass a 
new country legislation because of it.

 

   Dalibor (chrabros)

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:44 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] New access key for Segway needed

 

 

2017-03-10 5:46 GMT+01:00 Dalibor Jelínek <dali...@dalibor.cz 
<mailto:dali...@dalibor.cz> >:

the center of my beautiful city of Prague has been marked in a large scale 
recently by new road signs stating

that use of Segway PT and similar devices is prohibited there.



Wow, this leads to many questions. What is their definition of "segway and 
similar"? Does it include skateboards, vehicles for disabled? Do the devices 
have to have motors? Must they have pole? How many wheels, what size of wheel? 
Do you have to stand or does it include devices to sit on as well? Are there 
limits for the motor power (i.e. are toys for children allowed?). Does this 
apply to using them on the road, on the sidewalk, everywhere? Can you use them 
on private ground? Can a city introduce a new vehicle group, isn't this 
something the country has to do in national law? 


Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

[Dalibor Jelínek]

+1
:-)

 Dalibor

> -Original Message-
> From: Wolfgang Zenker [mailto:wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:52 AM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
> 
> * Shawn K. Quinn  [170312 23:51]:
> > On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote:
> >> What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas?
> >>  That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other
> >> building that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains,
> >> and the land is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass.  In
> >> the past I have used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for
> >> redevelopment, which is often not the case.
> 
> > Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood
> > depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea?
> 
> As that land is apparently unused, how about NOT tagging any landuse at all?
> 
> Wolfgang
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Undiscussed changes for wki pages about access mode "designated".

[Dalibor Jelínek]

I slightly modified your statement on highway=path and I think it’s fine.

 

Just to clarify: there is no discussion about access=designated tag.

It is clear that this tag makes no sense.

 

The problem is that the page about access tag itself is used to define the 
values usable for all tags from access family.

So if you look up the definition for foot=* or horse=*or bicycle=* then you see 
that you are redirected to the access=* page for their values.

And there you would see that the value designated is deprecated.

Which is simply not true fot those keys.

 

This will create a confusion IMHO and I think that the previous version was OK. 
But it seems to be very hard to convince someone to think about it this way.

 

Dalibor (chrabros)

 

From: Dave Swarthout [mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:00 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Undiscussed changes for wki pages about access mode 
"designated".

 

Oops, I just went to the highway=path page for another reason and saw Verdy_p's 
NOTE about access=designated, then went back and edit the highway=path page to 
make it more consistent. I forgot this discussion was on going and tried to 
clarify that referring page.

So, what is the consensus about the tag=value: access=designated"

 

I can undo my edits easily.

 

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Andrew Hain  > wrote:

Is anyone willing to step forwards to mentor him in the hope of him becoming a 
constructive contributor?
--
Andrew 

  _  

From: Andy Townsend  >
Sent: 10 March 2017 20:29:05
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org  
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Undiscussed changes for wki pages about access mode 
"designated". 

 

On 10/03/2017 19:36, Yves wrote:
> Not saying it's not useful, but at least self-moderation should be 
> considered.

I'll try and be tactful here - let's just say that that approach has 
been suggested :)

Best Regards,

Andy


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


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





 

-- 

Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Undiscussed changes for wki pages about access mode "designated".

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,
I fully aggree that this change is undesirable.

If you want to use an access type key lets say bicycle=* then you go to this 
page for documentation
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle
and you are refered to the Key:access page for values.
And there you see that it is discouraged.
The same is true for all other access keys. They all refer to that page with 
values definitiion.

Dalibor (chrabros)

> -Original Message-
> From: Mariusz [mailto:marius...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:56 PM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Undiscussed changes for wki pages about access mode
> "designated".
> 
> W dniu 2017-03-10 o 20:25, Frederik Ramm pisze:
> >
> > As far as I can see the change you are referring to is
> >
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=re
> v
> > ision=1440112=1439975
> >
> > before that, "access=designated" wasn't even on the "Key:access" page,
> > and Verdy_p added it there:
> >
> > ''(disapproved)'' A preferred or designated route for the class of
> > traffic specified by the tag key, such as {{tag|foot|designated}}.
> > Using this value with the plain access key, {{tag|access|designated}},
> > has no meaning, and should '''not''' be used. ''(see [[#Transport mode
> > restrictions]])''
> 
> This is obviously incorrect change, as this page is about all access keys, not
> single "access" tag.
> The notation he used suggests that the value "designated" is deprecated.
> The wording is inconvenient, the strike-through font for designated is
> misleading.
> 
> > On https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated,
> > Verdy_p added a banner saying "NOTE! The exact key/value combination
> > access=designated should never appear on an object. The value
> > *=designated must be used with a specific mode of transport. Examples:
> > bicycle=designated or foot=designated." - he made this change without
> > any change comment.
> >
> > The user rafmar (you?) seems to have assumed that Verdy_p wanted to
> > discourage the use of all "designated" values, but to be fair to
> > Verdy_p, the banner explicitly says you SHOULD use the "designated"
> > value, just not with the "access" key.
> 
> I'm pretty sure he wanted discouraged only "access=designated", not
> foot=designated or bicycle=designated, but he failed.
> Unfortunately, this wiki article is for all *=designated tags, as the
> foot/bicycle/horse tag pages redirect to that page. Some changes are
> necessary, but not that kind.
> 
> > BUT in this particular case, rafmar's complaint seems to be unfounded
> > and based on a misunderstanding.
> 
> Imagine, you are beginner and want to find if it is ok to use foot=designated
> tag. What wiki page says so now?
> 
> Mariusz/rafmar
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Undiscussed changes for wki pages about access mode "designated".

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Of course it was there, he just moved it to the lower part of the table.

Dalibor (chrabros)

> -Original Message-
> From: Mariusz [mailto:marius...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:09 PM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Undiscussed changes for wki pages about access mode
> "designated".
> 
> W dniu 2017-03-10 o 20:25, Frederik Ramm pisze:
> > As far as I can see the change you are referring to is
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccess=re
> vision=1440112=1439975
> >
> > before that, "access=designated" wasn't even on the "Key:access" page,
> 
> Certainly it was.
> 
> Mariusz
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,
+1 for direction tag.

Dalibor

> -Original Message-
> From: Zecke [mailto:zecke@historic.place]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:12 PM
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?
> 
> Please note that www.historic.place displays the orientation of adits.
> As it can be seen here:
> http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-
> en.html?zoom=17=49.27361=6.9515=n2218896180=Km
> HaSaHe
> 
> We evaluate the direction tag, Please note that the direction is seen from the
> underground gallery outwards.
> 
> See also:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction
> 
> Regards,
> Carsten
> 
> Am 10.03.2017 um 14:48 schrieb Tod Fitch:
> > There are a number of abandoned adits and mine shafts in an area I’ve
> done some mapping in. When looking at old USGS topographic maps of the
> area, I’ve noticed that they used to align their symbol for an adit to show 
> its
> orientation.
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

[Tagging] New access key for Segway needed

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,

the center of my beautiful city of Prague has been marked in a large scale
recently by new road signs stating

that use of Segway PT and similar devices is prohibited there.  (Search
google - images for "zákaz segway".)

I guess that some would like to map these.

The discussion is here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#Segways

 

The obvious access key to use for me would be {{Tag|segway}}, but there is
an objection

that we should not use trademark.

Is there a generic (but usable for OSM) name for Segway-like family of
devices used in English?

Gyropode?

Hoverboard?

 

Thanks,

Dalibor (chrabros)

 

 

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=locker and amenity=luggage_locker

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Well, do we really need two proposala?

I do not see any big difference beween them.

 

Dalibor

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:14 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=locker and amenity=luggage_locker

 

I have set up 2 proposals to document usage of already in use tags (low usage 
numbers, around 100)

amenity=luggage_locker
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Luggage_locker

amenity=locker
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Locker

Please comment on the proposals (or here).

Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine and vending=public_transport_plans?

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Well, I do not agree.

As I understand it “vending” means “selling” and I do not care if

it is an item or service beeing sold.

I think that you are proposing too strict rules here.

 

Regards,

Dalibor

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:12 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine and 
vending=public_transport_plans?

 

 

2017-02-16 14:05 GMT+01:00 John Willis  >:

For rice_polishing I understand that it is vending a "service" 



I agree, that's why it doesn't fit into amenity=vending_machine, because those 
are only for things vending "items".

Cheers,

Martin

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

[Tagging] amenity=vending_machine and vending=public_transport_plans?

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,

I have tried to document the tag vending=public_transport_plans used as an
extension of amenity=vending_machine.

This tag is a part of JOSM preset for a long time so it should be
documented.

But then I have reailized that I maybe do not understand this tag correctly.

 

Do those plans mean maps?

Or is it some kind of prolongation of pre-paid transport tickets (similar to
cell phone plan)?

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dpublic_transport_plans

 

 

Similar situation is with vending=telephone_vouchers

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dtelephone_vouchers

Are these vouchers refering to pre-paid coupons for fixed phones (calling
cards)?

Or is it a machine where you can top up your prepaid cell phone?

Or both?

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Regards,

Dalibor

 

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=hop_garden

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,

there is a new tagging proposal released for tagging hop gardens

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

I would like to hear your comments.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

chrabros

 

 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=hop_garden

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hi,

well, I think why I have explained why I do not like both options

you suggest on my proposal page.

Hop garden is really not an orchard by a long shot.

 

It is true that hop yard is a subset of farmland, but the same

is true for meadow, pasture, vineyard, orchard, ... and they

have their own more precise tags. 

 

What benefit would we get if we will tag as farmland instead of hop yard?

 

Regards,

Dalibor

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 5:10 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=hop_garden

 

 

 

2014-03-05 17:02 GMT+01:00 Dalibor Jelínek dali...@dalibor.cz 
mailto:dali...@dalibor.cz :

Hello,

there is a new tagging proposal released for tagging hop gardens

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

I would like to hear your comments.

 

I won't tag this as a new main landuse class, rather use landuse=farmland (or 
maybe landuse=orchard) and add a subtag for hops, e.g. crop=hop
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crop%3Dhop

cheers,
Martin

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