Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

2020-11-09 Thread ET Commands



Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:34:06 +0100
From: Tom Pfeifer 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting -
(Chapel of rest)


I appreciate amenity=place_of_mourning.

tom



What's wrong with funeral_home?  I've seen that term used several times 
in this discussion, and it's religion-agnostic.


Mark


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


Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Re: Feature Proposal - Voting, - (Chapel of rest)

2020-11-04 Thread ET Commands



Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 23:25:43 +
From: Paul Allen 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Re: Feature Proposal - Voting
- (Chapel of rest)

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 23:20, Peter Elderson  wrote:


place_of_mourning then? Just like place_of_worship?


I could live with that.

--
Paul




I would prefer something a little more specific.  There are all kinds of reasons for mourning, 
death is just one.  What we're after is a place for mourning the deceased.  So 
"place_for_mourning_the_deceased" might be more accurate, if somewhat wordy.  BTW, this 
discussion sounds like it's describing what is commonly called in the U. S. a "funeral 
home."


Mark


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


Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-16 Thread ET Commands



Message: 1
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 11:22:11 +0100
From: François Lacombe 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards


Hi all,

My 2 cts : key actuator and especially actuator=hydraulic_cyclinder or
pneumatic_cylinder values are suitable for movable bollards (pchtt
noise when bollards go up and down means actuator=pneumatic_cylinder for
instance)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:actuator

bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me.

All the best

François



My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests 
"irremovable."  However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are 
ultimately removable, so maybe more appropriate values would be 
"retractable" and "non-retractable."


Mark


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


Re: [Tagging] Trunk VS primary

2019-12-27 Thread ET Commands



Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 19:39:19 +0100
From: yo paseopor 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,


First problem for classifications is the reason of the classification. What
is this reason: administrative laws (with their political facts to keep in
mind) or physical conditions (the best for the performance of the vehicles
you would have in this road)?

Second problem is the reality of the country: If you are in the country
with the biggest budget in motorways you will be sure some secondary will
have two lane roads and bridges without crossings. If you are in a country
major part of your population will not have assured every day's meal main
road would be an asphalted road or sand track.

But the number of grade classifications are the same wherever you go: four
to six grades
(1-trunk,2-primary,3-secondary,4-tertiary,5-unclassified,6-track) .
My option would be a physical classification based on the state of the
country. Only motorway would be apart of this classification because a
motorway is the same here than in other countries.

Here in Europe you can find the administrative grades at the reference of
the road (N- ,Regional- , Province- in Spain; N-, D- in France; B , L in
Austria; ...).

In a country like Spain trunk would be a road with 100 km/h medium speed
and no crossings at the same level with restriction for cycles .
In a country like Zambia or Congo trunk would be the best conditions road
you can find in that country , so only local community people (or people
who live in that country) would know what are the best conditions you can
find in their country.
In a country like Spain unclassified would be the municipality asphalted
tracks, with no more than 3 meters width (for one car).
In a country like Zambia or Congo unclassified would be the worst condition
road you can find in that country (but not track), so only local community
people (or people who live in that country) would know what are the worst
conditions you can find in their country.

I know Spain because I am Spaniard and I travel through Europe , so I think
in the European Union things would be similar. Local communitters can
explain in this list what are the best and the worst conditions for the
roads in their countries and their opinion about the other grades. I don't
have any knowledge about Zambia or Congo so I think other people would have
more knowledge than I can have about their countries.

What are your opinions? What do you think?
Salut i mapes (Health and Maps)
yopaseopor



There is at least one more type of road classification to consider:  
functional classification.


This idea of there being several ways of classifying roads was discussed 
over ten years ago in the discussion areas of different wiki topics 
dealing with this issue.  Has anyone involved in this discussion ever 
looked at them?  The topic has already been debated ad infinitum.  There 
was no consensus then and there won't be one now.  There can never be a 
consensus unless we agree on the basis for classifying roads, because 
these different methods are orthogonal.  Since OSM has no top authority, 
and everyone has a different opinion on what basis they would like to 
see roads classified on, this debate has no solution.


This is one of several topics that keeps popping up on the list from 
time to time.  After many words are exchanged, people get frustrated and 
the topic eventually dies down and goes away, only to be resurrected at 
a later date by someone who is not familiar with the history of what has 
gone on before.  Then the cycle starts all over again.


Sorry to be so negative, but this is what I've observed in the years 
I've been involved with OSM.


Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables)

2019-08-30 Thread ET Commands



Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:31:25 -0400
From: "Nita S." 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of
farm buildings (stables)


Around here those are called poll-barns. They are usually constructed with
utility poles ( or similar ) a roof truss system, and corrugated/galvanized
metal sheets. They cover farm equipment, feed storage, and sometimes
animals.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:02 AM Paul Allen  wrote:



On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:


On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen  wrote:

more happy pigs to be found here (supposedly)

https://www.naturalpigfarming.com/low%20res%2060/IMG_1385.jpg


And that is a pig pen.  But, according to some, also a pig sty.  An
enclosure rather than a building.


This time, I'd go sty, although pen would also be OK.


In common parlance that could be a sty or a pen.  However, I don't think
you'd map it as
building=sty (or even building=pen) because it's not a building.



The one's I've seen in farmyards have had a rudimentary roof in one
corner, with the rest being dirt or mud!


The bit of roof could be building=sty (a bit of a stretch, though).  I'd
be tempted to make it
building=roof.  Especially as that's how somebody might map it if seen
from the road but
no pigs were around at the time.


--
Paul



Don't you mean "pole barns?"

Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] Multiple values in isced:level

2019-08-04 Thread ET Commands



Ask any two people on this list their opinion on any matter and you will
get THREE opinions.
At least.

--
Paul



+1000


Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

2019-06-01 Thread ET Commands



Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 10:01:13 +0200
From: bkil 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in


[...]


Also, currently I see each of your replies as a new message thread,
unrelated to one another. Could you please use message threading (I thought
that clicking on the 'reply' button would have done the right thing)?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/message-threading-thunderbird



Thanks for pointing me to the Thunderbird support site.

I get my mailing list messages in digest form.  When I want to reply to 
a message, I strip out all the other messages from the digest except the 
one I'm replying to.  Not sure message threading would help me.


Also, thanks to everyone who took the time to send me their comments 
about tagging "occupied" buildings.


Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

2019-05-29 Thread ET Commands



Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 20:46:28 +0100
From: Paul Allen 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands  wrote:

My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact.  For example, I can

see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
lot.  I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
but I have no idea what they do there.


Sorry, but you cannot surmise that people work there.  Even if you do a
ground survey,
it may not be possible to make that determination unless you get close
enough.

Sure, large office buildings of relatively recent construction tend to have
a distinctive style
("Lego plain with large windows").  And they often have a large car park.
But...

England changed its planning rules in 2013 to allow the conversion of
office blocks and
industrial buildings into homes without having to apply for planning
permission (often
a lengthy and expensive process, with permission frequently being denied).
The outcome,
given the economic downturn, was predictable.  There are a lot of buildings
that, using
aerial imagery and your criteria, would be mapped as offices but which are
not.

Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48031661

--
Paul



Fair enough.  But in the area where I map in the United States, I would 
bet that using my criteria I would be correct 95% of the time, if not more.


Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

2019-05-29 Thread ET Commands



Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 12:47:37 +0100
From: Paul Allen 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 10:51, bkil  wrote:


By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag
these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I
looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building , on
the fence and in WLAN and PAN in the air and tried to research these on the
net. Based on the result, I can usually add a few POI's or companies there
and even adjust the surrounding landuse. If nothing turns up, it is
probably not a building of public interest.


My approach is that if it's not obvious, I don't tag it.  Because there
could be a reason it's not
obvious.  That reason being they don't want the general public to know they
operate at that
location.

For example, a one-man-and-a-dog company may operate from home.  It's the
correspondence
address, it's listed with the appropriate authority as a company address,
but they don't want
people turning up at their door because it's not the kind of business where
they interact with
customers/clients/whatever.  So address details only (house name/number,
etc.), not company
name.

We need to be wary of the EU's GDPR.  The company name for small businesses
may be
a person's name: "Fred Bloggs, Accountant."  You may now be telling people
where Fred Bloggs
lives if he works from home.  Not a problem if there's a sign outside
saying "Fred Bloggs,
Accountant."   Probably not a problem if he has a web page giving his
address.  More of a problem
if you have to ferret the information out.  A big problem if you get the
information from the WLAN.

Bottom line: if a company makes it clear that they operate at a given
location then we can map it.
If they do not make it clear they operate at that location then we
shouldn't map it.

--
Paul



I agree with everything you said, but I'm not considering these types of 
situations.  I'm only considering buildings where it's obvious they are 
only used as a place of employment, and not a residence.  Mainly I'm 
thinking of buildings visible in aerial photos.


Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

2019-05-29 Thread ET Commands



Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200
From: bkil 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would
need more information to see what we could gain from it.

landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do
we need to tag this on a building resolution?



Because landuse is for the entire property a building sits on, not the 
building itself.




What data consumers did you have in mind?



Mapmakers.



What common interest does this annotation serve?



It allows you to symbolize "occupied" buildings differently from 
"unoccupied" ones.




What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the
building in working hours for a given amount of time and declare it
occupied if I see any person entering or leaving, and mark it unoccupied
otherwise? Or is it enough if I see indirect indications, such as open
windows (what is they are motorized and remote controlled), lighting (some
leave it always on for security)?

Is it enough if I see a resident through the window? How do I know if the
person is not merely a guard or an intermittent maintenance personal?



My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact.  For example, I can 
see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking 
lot.  I can surmise that several or many people work in the building, 
but I have no idea what they do there.




If a storage building complex is only occupied by a guard (supervised=* /
surveillance:type=guard), do you consider it occupied?



No.



Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied
intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this?



Note that my question was in reference to buildings people work in, not 
live in.




Note that we usually do not add fixme kind of tagging for the sole purpose
of marking the absence of regular information, as by definition, a blank
map is missing an infinite amount of information and we would definitely
not like to store so many fixme's.



I was not advocating the use of fixme's.  Knowing that a building is 
"occupied" is having more knowledge than simply knowing that a building 
exists.  It is not necessary to know everything about a feature in order 
to map it.  OpenStreetMap will never be "complete," because there will 
always be more information that can be added to features.




Although I acknowledge it is sometimes easy to distinguish abandoned
buildings, especially if it is missing furniture, doors or windows, but we
have life cycles for that.



True.  But abandoned buildings are not the only buildings that people do 
not work in.  An example is storage buildings.


[...]

Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

2019-05-29 Thread ET Commands



Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 20:24:54 -0400
From: Kevin Kenny 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc  wrote:

following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look

I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer isn't likely
to be able to do much with any invented tagging for the partial
information - a note is about as good as any kind of structured data
here.


But the invented tagging is easy to symbolize on a map, whereas the note 
could have to do with something totally unrelated to the use of the 
building.


Mark




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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

2019-05-29 Thread ET Commands



Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 17:05:14 +
From: marc marc 
To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :

building=occupied

building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-look building with a residential use, is still a
industrial-look and is mapped with :
building=industrial building:use=residential

following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better


[...]


I like that.

Mark



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


Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

2019-05-26 Thread ET Commands



Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 01:11:08 +0200
From: Frederik Ramm 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM


[...]

People have a right to be treated with respect, but that does not mean
that we need to extend US American style courtesy to everyone because US
Americans have the narrowest definition of what counts as respectful.


[...]


Be careful.  As a citizen of the US I find your remark offensive.  Yes, 
some Americans believe the way you describe, but not all.  I am one of 
them.  Please do not lump all of us together.


Mark



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


[Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

2019-05-23 Thread ET Commands
In the course of my mapping I sometimes encounter buildings that I know 
people work in, but I don't know what kind of business is being 
conducted in the building.  These buildings could contain offices, or 
medical facilities, or factories, or warehouses, or retail, or just 
about anything else, other than storage buildings or abandoned buildings 
or something like that, where people are not normally present.  (Of 
course this is somewhat subjective, I realize.)  To distinguish these 
buildings from the ones that are tagged with "building=yes" I like to 
use a different tag.  I have been using "building=occupied" for lack of 
a better tag.  This tag, of course, is meant to be temporary until 
someone determines the proper nature of the use of the building.  In the 
meantime, this helps to distinguish "occupied" buildings on maps from 
generic ones.  What do you think?


Mark


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