Re: [Tagging] Snowmobile routes

2016-09-28 Thread Erik Johansson
Here is a Swedish version of that NY snowmobile map that uses OSM data:


http://skoterleder.org/#!map/7/62.4692/17.6440
transaltes to: "snowmobile routes.org"

https://github.com/skoterleder/skoterleder.org



On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Kevin Kenny
 wrote:
> Yes, exactly. People tag the ways, but nobody's been working on creating the
> relations for the long, nearly continuous routes. (Qualifiers: In this
> country. As far as I can tell. I'd be delighted to be wrong.)
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Brad Neuhauser 
> wrote:
>>
>> Minnesota has a bunch too.
>> http://dnr.state.mn.us/snowmobiling/interactive_map/index.html  I'm sure
>> it's the same for other states. I personally don't snowmobile but have just
>> noticed many ways tagged in OSM since they sometimes follow bike routes. :)
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Kevin Kenny 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that route=snowmobile makes more sense. Since there were exactly
>>> zero uses of the tag in the US, I missed it entirely. (Then again, I don't
>>> know how many jurisdictions have numbered snowmobile routes overlaid on the
>>> highway and trail networks!)
>>>
>>> Are we agreed, then, on the following?
>>>
>>> roles should be the same as for route=road
>>> name, network and ref should be filled in where available. In general,
>>> either a name or a network/ref pair is expected.
>>> US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary are reasonable
>>> choices for the network
>>>
>>> If I don't hear cries and screams, expect a proposal on the Wiki at some
>>> point. (I also haven't abandoned access=permit, just gotten sidetracked on
>>> some actual mapping and haven't got back to it yet.)
>>>
>>> Incidentally, US:NY:snowmobile:corridor and US:NY:snowmobile:secondary
>>> form an extensive network of about 15000 km. There's a route map at
>>> http://www.nysnowmobilewebmap.com/webmap/ The numbered routes are in red
>>> (corridor) and orange (secondary). Blue are un-numbered routes belonging to
>>> local clubs. The underlying GIS data that were used for that map are free
>>> for us to use, but I do NOT propose an import because they don't meet my
>>> standards of data quality. Just to begin with, they are digitized at an
>>> inappropriately small scale.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Brad Neuhauser
>>>  wrote:

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

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

 On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Kevin Kenny
  wrote:
>
> I thought sure that I had raised this question before, but a quick
> troll through the archives doesn't seem to show it.
>
> New York State has an extensive network of designated snowmobile
> routes, intended to be long-distance continuous paths. In some cases, they
> follow highways, or logging roads on state land. In other cases, the state
> offers grants to private landowners to maintain the route, funded out of
> snowmobile registration fees. (At least that's my understanding of how the
> system works. I'm not a snowmobilist). Except where the route is groomed
> alongside a highway (or sometimes on the highway - not all our roads are
> open to motor vehicles in winter), other motor vehicles are ordinarily
> forbidden.
>
> These routes are marked with a highway shield, with reassurance markers
> at intervals. There are even two tiers of routes: 'corridor' and
> 'secondary'. Both are long-distance routes, so they are not appropriate 
> for
> the name=* field on a track or path. (Example: Haul Road No. 1 in the 
> Dutch
> Settlement State Forest is blazed for both the New York Long Path
> (route=hiking) and Snowmobile Corridor Route 7B. A highway shield on a
> snowmobile route looks like https://flic.kr/p/nPeMwe.
>
> We don't (yet?) have a 'route=snowmobile' officially recognized. What I
> used recently when a hike (gathering map data for something else) took me
> for a while on a snowmobile corridor was 'route=road
> network=US:NY:snowmobile:corridor ref=7B'. (If it had been a secondary
> route, it would of course have been US:NY:snowmobile:secondary.) I feel a
> little uncomfortable about route=road, which seems to be tailored for 
> motor
> vehicles, but the tagging would be in all ways the same - type, network,
> route, ref are all there, and even most of the roles are possible (there 
> are
> link trails, for instance, providing access to nearby highways, or places
> where a route splits into a one-way pair).
>
> Does this sound plausible?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> 

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

2015-11-11 Thread Erik Johansson
amenity=diy_tool_station
bicycle=yes
iceskates=yes
locked=yes
opening_hours=during games.

I only know of one for iceskates though, can I can't remember why it
wasn't made a generic tag, the current tag is  a bit like
subway_entrance vs entrance.




On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> amenity=bicycle_repair_station has a problem: it's attracting lots of active
> tagging
> of shops offering bicycle repair.  For example:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3772809894
> and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337421757
>
>
> That was not the intent.  amenity=bicycle_repair_station was meant for
> unattended
> tool stands, often outdoors, often 24/7, generally public.
>
> I'm seeking support for a mechanical edit to a new tag name.
> There are known automated clients of this tag, and I am in contact with
> both.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Removal of amenity from OSM tagging

2015-05-18 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote:
 amenity=pub - pub=yes
 shop=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes
 office=travel_agent - travel_agent=yes


 So you want to replace shop=bakery by bakery=yes, shop=butcher with
 butcher=yes, etc. ?
 This means that you cannot write a query that retrieves all shops in a town.
 You would need a list of things for which the value is yes. But you cannot
 summarize the things, because there is no category to which they belong
 and the list is open-ended.
 Don't know whether that is a good idea.

There are no categorizes in the OSM data, believing that will not be
helpfull to you when you try to use OSM data. The current way of
sometime using the key as an category isn't working that well. Or I
might be wrong I don't write that many stylesheets, and they are the
biggest consumers of our data, so take a look at how they handle it.

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


Re: [Tagging] Wood+Coastline conflict

2015-04-29 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø
torstein...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 Some island are covered completely  with wood. For these island I get a tag
 conflict. Since the natural tag is used for both. I have two solutions:
 1. make a combined tag like natural=coastline;wood
 2. make a 1-way relation for the wood tag and tag the way with
 natural=coastline

 which one is prefered?

To keep my blood pressure low I do not map trees on islands at least
in the current OSM datamodel.

There are two cases the whole islands is filled with trees, and the
islands is partially filled with trees. So are the tree trunks growing
right at the  coastline, or is there a 1m-5m zone where there are no
tree trunks and you are really mapping landcover=tree_canopy? So I've
never really figured it out  exactly what it means when the coastline
and the treeline shares the same way.

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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

2014-12-17 Thread Erik Johansson
Hi Dmitry

I did a quick sruvey of some fast food restuarants the local Ikea,  I know
they all have leisure=playground outside and inside, non of these were
mapped.

So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground?

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dmitry Kiselev dkise...@osm.me wrote:

 Hi

 We have
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
 for kids areas mappings.

 But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be
 nice to have amenity to map such features.

 So here is mine proposal for that
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area

 Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.

 --
 dkiselev
 Dmitry Kiselev

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



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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

2014-12-17 Thread Erik Johansson
Then I like kids_area when you are mapping a private playground that
is closed off without direct public access, mainly because I wouldn't
map them as a leisure=playground.

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



On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
 On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:32:05 GMT+ (GMT), Никита wrote:
 Probably we should define kids_area as:
 leisure=playground
 playground:indoor=yes
 playground:supervised=yes - supervised by parents, not by somebody else

 And access tags, such as access=customers.

 Phil  (trigpoint )


 --
 Sent from my Jolla
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far

2014-11-27 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
 Maybe they are sometimes tagged in another way as shop=bicycle + 
 service:bicycle:repair=yes and service:bicycle:retail=no
 (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=bicycle?uselang=en-US)
 or is this incorrect ?

 Similar to amenity=drinking_water;potable=no,
 it's problematic to tag something and then try to reverse the meaning
 with another tag.
 For example non-bicycle data consumers won't interpret the subtags,
 and will think there's a shop
 at the location.

 Note:
 A similar concept exists for skis.  Ski repair stations have
 screwdrivers, a table,
 sometimes a wax removal device, and other tools for fixing skis and 
 snowboards.

 In each case the operator is normally the property owner or manager
 of the property.

 ---
 If you want to bikeshed the tagging, perhaps seek
 amenity=repair_station;repair_station:type=[bicycle/ski/auto].
 Or just be happy and find some repair stations to map.

Maybe

amenity=bicycle_diy_station
repair=yes  (I'm sure you can name space this if you want*)
cleaning=yes
truing=yes


What I'm saying is that I've actually not seen a diy bicycle repair
station, but I've seen the other two and tagged one of them. It would
be in the best interest of everybody to be as inclusive as possible in
the basic tag so also including other sports might be usefull (I don't
know depends on what people are tagging at this moment).

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


Re: [Tagging] Various alt_name values?

2014-11-27 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Brian Quinion 
openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote:

 On 25 November 2014 at 13:30, althio forum althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
  I don't even know which keys are currently under use by Nominatim and
 other
  data consumers and how that could evolve in the future.

 At the moment nominatim supports

 alt_name_[0-9]+:language_code=name

 for alt names

 I've added this to the wiki


+1

This is also how I have done it when I've worked with names. I do not like
semicolons at all.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-30 Thread Erik Johansson
These are more than 90% of values for surface, categorize them as
paved/unpaved the rest as unpaved.

surface=

asphalt
unpaved
paved
gravel
ground
dirt
grass
concrete
paving_stones
sand
cobblestone
compacted

paved=yes will remove then need for parsing those last % of surface=*
values, not sure it's worth it. To think that there is only one
definition of paved=yes, is a big mistake. There are few tags in OSM
that are specific enough to mean the same thing all over the world.



On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:42 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 00:23 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
 ..A good suggestion ...

 So it seems that yet again, we are going to reject this attempt to solve
 a real problem. Looking at the neg replies, because its not useful for
 bike riders; not useful for a number of undefined edge cases; is a
 duplicate of surface=.

 Thats just plain not true ! There is no suggestion that paved= should be
 used instead of surface=. I use surface= on all unsealed roads I map and
 would continue to do so if I also used paved=no.

 But there are 34 official values for surface= and 3581 values used. It
 is very plain that the mapping community want surface= as a fine
 grained, very detailed key. And thats great, people making specialised
 maps or engines can use those values, display them in a meaningful way
 to people they understand. My data will help them.

 But the vast majority of people just want to know that the road may not
 be what they are used to. Thats all. And paved= does that easily.

 In places like Australia, that information can be a life or death thing.
 People die here because they are inexperienced or ill equipped for roads
 they tackle. Generally visitors from Europe or North America.

 Please folks, think of the big picture, not the edge cases.

 David


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



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] wikidata instead of wikipedia

2014-02-24 Thread Erik Johansson
Yeah it's pretty easy to get wikidata data. Warning though; the data
in  Wikidata is not all CC0 licensed. You never know where the data
came from they are not as strict about these things as OSM is.

lang=en;
title=OpenStreetMap;
bad_title=gracefully_handle_bad_input

curl  
www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetentitiessites=${lang}wikititles=$title|$bad_titleprops=labelsprops=infoformat=json|
  perl -lpe 's/([{},])/$1\n/g'


#curl 
$lang.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=querytitles=$titleprop=langlinksformat=jsonlllimit=500|
#  sed 's/}/}\n/g'

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM, bulwersator bulwersa...@zoho.com wrote:


  On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 06:31:18 -0800 Martin
 Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote 

 +1, it would be premature to switch completely to wikidata at this point,
 and the human readable titles in the wikipedia tag have generally this
 advantage over machine only cryptic ids

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


 Maybe there is a simple way to obtain wikidata id of article X on wikipedia
 Y? This would make unnecessary to introduce cryptic tags.

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




-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] tag man_made=campanile to be replaced with man_made=belfry?

2014-02-13 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.comwrote:

 Here in Thailand we're having an extended discussion about towers that are
 associated with temples. I would suggest using man_made=tower in
 conjunction with tower:type=bell_tower for your situation. Our discussion
 is stuck on whether such structures are really towers and not monuments but
 in recent times we have used tower:type=stupa to describe the particular
 man_made towers that are associated with Buddhist temples or wats.

 It would be nice to gain some consistency in the description of these
 common structures.



This seems to be the best direction, I want to hear more. I know the lure
of finding proper name for everything instead of being general, but
remember we use highway to name roads.

I've tagged man_made=campaniles, and did so after deciding that there was
 no real difference between a klockstapel and a campanile. Things are so
different between cultures and languages so unless you have someone with a
good theory on how to calssify these towers I would say that the more
general the better. See discussion about man_made=pier


For me man_made=campanile is a free standing tower adjacent to a building
that might be religous, and probably contains a clock. Does that cover all
use cases?

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


Re: [Tagging] End voting bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-14 Thread Erik Johansson
I agree with Martin the voting is meaningless for this, you will have
to prove that this is usefull in some way first then post the proposal
again. Show us how routers should use the data and how invasive this
tagging is.



On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
 @ Martin

 I understand what you are saying. With regard to routing I did not expect we
 had to explain why it could be improved by this new tag. There have been
 some examples like this one showing that a router that wants SHORTEST way
 has no way of knowing it should not take the main road. Still routing is a
 difficult issue. And as some say... routing is not something to be mapped as
 a prime goal so our aim is to just focus on bicycle access. A better routing
 is then a spin off. Discussions about routing leads away from  bicycle
 access as the main goal. I think (but you never know ;-) )  it is easier to
 explain that bicycle access on these roads differs from roads with explicit
 ban or roads that allow cycling (always). Having said that it still is
 difficult to come to some sort of agreement but we're going to give it a
 try.

 Cheers
 PeeWee32


 2013/12/14 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com


 2013/12/13 Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com

 Today the voting of the bicycle=use_cycleway ended.  Voting results:



 Yes:  10 (not counting the 2 that made the proposal)

 No:  11

 Abstain:  3



 This is reason enough for us to work on a better proposal so we reject
 the current one.



 if you look at the reasons from the rejecters you'll find that the vast
 majority of them neglected in general that this was something to be tagged,
 either they said the routing software should solve this (impossible btw., if
 there is no hint in the data, how should the router do it?), or they
 existing tags would suffice (these said you should tag bicycle=no or
 destination on the road, what is not working and has already been
 discussed).

 As these are the reasons for opposing this, a better proposal very
 likely won't change anything (when the problem is not understood, no
 solution will be agreed on).

 cheers,
 Martin

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




 --
 Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor openstreetmap.

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




-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag babycare?

2013-12-02 Thread Erik Johansson
I use ramp=yes on highway=steps so you can route for strollers, but I
there is not support in renderers or router for that.. :-)

All those other tags are pretty universally available in Sweden, but I
guess it's a good thing to map in those large amusements parks/malls.

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi list,

 I'm a bit wondering how to tag following babycare amenities.
 Possibly those are additional feature for childcare 2.0 schema, but usable
 with other POIs.
 (e.g. w/ amenity=cafe, toilet, or so.)
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0

 * where to replace baby's diaper.
 ** according to Taginfo, diaper=[yes|no|room] ?

 * where to access with stroller/pushchair
 ** according to Taginfo, stroller=[yes|no|limited]?
 ** very similar schema as wheelchair=*.

 * where to feed milk to baby.
 ** Maybe feed=* or feeding=*?
 *** According to Taginfo, those tags are to feed domestic animals.
 ** Maybe nursery=*?
 *** But this definition is conflict with childcare 2.0 definition.
 ** possible values are [yes|no]. or others?

 cheers.


 --
 Satoshi IIDA
 mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
 twitter: @nyampire

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




-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies

2013-11-26 Thread Erik Johansson
No, when I looked at the code last year there was no indication that you
could do that in any easy way.


The taginfo import is reported to take 10 minutes for Sweden so I guess if
the box isn't that big you can always try to extract it and import it to
your own taginfo db. Now when we have taginfo on osm.org maybe we can put
all of the local variants there.


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified
 geography (could be a country or a bounding box).  Is there anyway to do
 this for geographies other than those listed here:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Sites

 Mike

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




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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-11-13 Thread Erik Johansson
Are you proposing tagging all ways with a parallel cycleway with
bicycle=use_cycleway? Sounds like it's made for mechanical edit abuse.

But if you are saying that there are roads marked with bicycle=no
which really do not have such a sign, then that's different.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Together with user Masimaster I've made a proposal for a new tag to improve
 bicycle routing. I think (and hope) the wiki is clear enough but I’ll say a
 few words about this new tag.


 The tag is introduced to separate 2 kinds of roads where you are not
 supposed to ride your bike.


 The first is a road with a traffic sign (bicycle icon with red edge) that
 makes clear it is forbidden to ride a bicycle . (common tag: bicycle=no)

 The second is a road that has a parallel compulsory cycleway but does not
 have the bicycle forbidden sign.  On this type of road you’re not supposed
 to ride your bike but there are exeptions.


 Legally  these 2 roads are not the same. For example.. in NL some 3 wheel
 bicycles with certain measurements are allowed to ride the second type of
 road.  In other countries there is also a legal difference. For this reason
 we propose this new tag.


 Cheers


 PeeWee32


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




-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

2013-11-05 Thread Erik Johansson
It has occured to me that this seems to be more of something simliar
to  tourism=theme_park, yet smaller. I don't know if there is such a
tag that is widespread or if it's better to use your own tag.

I think it's not such a good idea to use leisure=playground + fee=yes,
since it most certainly is not a playground, but sure playgrounds
really do span a very big range from a sandbox to extremely large
contraptions .  I have now tagged two soft play centes with
leisure=play_land which is a direct translation from Swedish. Feel
free to adopt or change my tags.

It would be interesting to tag place where kids can play, many
museums/science centers have that as well.


On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:30 PM, nounours kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Dom,

 I don't know about voting ...

 But I read your interesting proposal.
 I completely agree that indoor-playgrounds should be mapped.

 In Switzerland, it seems that they are normally mapped as leisure=playground 
 and indoor=yes, see example:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1687169329

 I personally think that keeping things together is better, so why not stay 
 with playground? There are managed playgrounds, and there are indoor_play 
 which are free. There are outdoor playgrounds with opening-hours 


 So, why not use:

 Leisure=playground
 Indoor=yes|no
 Fee=yes|no
 Managed=yes|no
 Opening-hours=*
 Operatortype=public|private
 Operator=*

 etc.

 Maybe a template would help more than a new tag?

 Greetings, nounours



 Am 04.11.2013 um 14:07 schrieb Dominic Hosler:

 Hi everyone,
 It has been almost two weeks and the discussion seems to have died down.
 How long should it be left, before initiating a vote, and how long
 should a vote last on the proposal?
 This is the relevant wiki page:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Indoor_play
 Thanks,
 Dom

 On 24 October 2013 14:23, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:
 That's definitely better but I would make the description more generic, such
 as An indoor area for children to play and then make the padded aspects,
 cafe etc sub tags that can be added.  The indoor_play tag should be able to
 be used by those in other countries who have similar facilities but minus
 the padding or cafe.  The tage of indoor_play needs to be the umbrella tag.

 Jonathan

 http://bigfatfrog67.me


 On 24/10/2013 12:13, Dominic Hosler wrote:

 Thanks, I feel a bit silly now, I didn't look hard enough.
 New page is at:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Indoor_play
 for anyone wanting another look.
 Thanks,
 Dom


 On 24 October 2013 12:04, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl
 wrote:

 Use the arrow down button on the upper right (next to the Search box)
 and choose 'Move'.

 -- Matthijs

 On 24 October 2013 12:59, Dominic Hosler dominichos...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have updated the page to indoor play, but I don't know how to
 actually change the title of the page?

 Do I need to just delete that one and create a new proposal called
 Indoor play?
 Putting a note in the discussion that it has been migrated from the
 previous soft play proposal?

 Thanks,
 Dom

 On 23 October 2013 20:51, Dominic Hosler dominichos...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I agree we should move away from the trademarked title 'soft_play'.
 Perhaps
 if we keep the proposal and change the name of the tag to indoor_play,
 to
 include other types as well, as per brad's suggestion. We should also
 include sub tag qualifiers to specify if it's soft play and for what
 ages
 it's designed. I think it would be most appropriate to use indoor play
 considering its catch all nature and the fact that it is already used
 by a
 couple of websites.

 I will update the proposal and fill in the definition area, I must have
 just
 missed it. However, I won't update it till tomorrow because I only have
 my
 phone until then.

 Thanks,
 Dom



 Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree, we need to choose a term that is more generic, maybe
 leisure=childrens_adventure or kids_play or kids_amusement.  There can
 always be a sub tag defining soft_play?

 Especially considering that a lot of softplay areas are now included
 among
 other internal children's play features? Softplay is just one bit.

 Jonathan

 http://bigfatfrog67.me

 On 23/10/2013 17:47, Brad Neuhauser wrote:

 Instead of soft play, what about indoor play (or indoor play
 area/centre)?

 1) it seems to be used as a catch all sometimes, even in the UK (ie -
 http://www.timeout.com/london/events/indoor-play-centres-in-london or

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

2013-06-20 Thread Erik Johansson
I think this discussion seems a lot like the one on apartment
numbers  we had a while back. I couldn't find it though.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 18.06.2013 05:27, Paul Johnson wrote:
 I'm thinking it might be time to revive this proposal:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site

 Interesting proposal

 In which, the space my 5th Wheel has been for the last half a year would
 be part of a site relation.  The node or closed way representing my spot
 would be tagged...

 addr:housenumber=801
 addr:street=North Mingo Road
 ...
 lot:number=252
 caravan=designated
 tent=no

 lot:street and lot:number are analog to addr:* but if you tag each lot
 ref=* seems to me the right tag for the number.

 Please do not use addr:street and addr:housenumber but use a new tag if
 you need to use addr:* tags.

 Cheers
 fly



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



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] tagging cannons

2013-06-04 Thread Erik Johansson
BTW is there a tag for cannon that still go BANG now and then;
historic=cannon+bang=yes? I guess fixed artillery hasn't much room in
the defense of today, so it's still a historic thing.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 On 6/3/13 3:49 PM, René Kirchhoff wrote:

 Hello, why do not you use 8 nodes? No Mapper previously used a area for
 cannons.
 Many OSM Mapper like more details. I also :)

 i could probably develop a fairly extensive taxonomy for cannons from
 the American Civil War. Napoleans, Parrot Rifles, Columbiads, Rodmans,
 you name it...

 richard



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



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Historic huts

2013-03-30 Thread Erik Johansson
I don't know, they seems to be in pretty bad shape a lot worse than
the ones depicted in the wiki.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:




 Am 29/mar/2013 um 09:37 schrieb Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:

 I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an
 attraction nor a shelter,


 From what the op wrote it seems these are shelters.


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



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Historic huts

2013-03-29 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andreas Labres l...@lab.at wrote:
 On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote:
 This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though

 If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I 
 said).

 But don't tag it for this reason: to increase the chance that the historic=*
 actually renders as something


We all know don't tag for the renderer mantra, repeating it is
pointless. I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an
attraction nor a shelter, and also it is in the intersection between
macro and micromapping..

Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this:
node:
building=hut
tourism=attraction
name=Smith Hut (ruins)
note=historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts

node:
tourism=camp_site
backcountry=yes
impromptu=yes


So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one
could also call it

disused:amenity=shelter
shelter_type=wather_shelter
tourism=attraction
name=Smith hut (ruins)
note=historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts

My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too
general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are
to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after
Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I
went to find a hut.


Increased chance to render is a great reason to tag something.

/Erik

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


Re: [Tagging] Historic huts

2013-03-28 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andreas Labres l...@lab.at wrote:
 On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote:
 tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually
 renders as something...)

 Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as 
 a
 tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction.

This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though, i.e.
tagging it as a hut will probably confuse things. But there is a clear
interest in knowing that it's there. I would say use : camp_site,
backcountry=yes, building=hut/shack and name=Smith Hut (ruins),
perhaps some special  tag documenting it on the wiki with
pictures/urls.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site



/Erik

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


Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies

2013-02-26 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM, A.Pirard.Papou
a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
 maybe add the key informal=yes to the path? I do this for spontaneous 
 ways and it is also documented in the wiki: 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal

 And the other suggestions, many thanks, sorry for not listing them all.
 I'm looking for a general feature, not only a solution to my particular 
 problem.

 A non-way is not the best word to describe my idea and I also do not feel 
 comfortable with it.
 It's sort of a secret [winding] little passage that one must follow on 
 demand.

You mean a shortcut?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shortcut


 So, more than informal=yes (which I don't understand well), it would be a 
 straight exists=no.
 How could it be mapped, sort of dotted line, so that the human understands 
 that he may follow a route for which there's no path under the conditions 
 otherwise described (no cars in a meadow)?

This is like the landcover/landuse debate So basically we have:
1. existing roads that are official
2. existing, but non-official paths
3. routes that exists without paths (for hiking, buses, tour jeeps,
beachbumming etc)
4. shortcuts that exists with and with out paths.

I think if there is something that you are ment to walk on, then you
can add a way, I don't think you should use a relation just because
highway=footway is a bad fit. I've added a highway=footway where there
was only grass, because the only other way was to take a ~5km detour,
but as I said I was feeling very dirty when I did this (surface=mud).

So to restate, I don't want to use a relation instead of a way to
draw a way where people are supposed to walk, even if it's a short
cut.

/Erik

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


Re: [Tagging] As the crow flies

2013-02-22 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:


 2013/2/22 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com

 I'm not entirely sure I understood your question, but you shouldn't map
 non-ways. Routers could be developed that route through non-ways, if there
 is no cliff or something else in the way. A router could route along the
 contour lines, to make the hike through forest easier. But if there is no
 path, don't map it.



 I'm also not sure if I got you right, but in the example (hiking route,
 presumably sign posted, crossing a parking with no explicit footway) I'd
 connect the footway to the road network and won't interrupt the route.



I feel dirty every time I do that, they are usually tagged as
surface=mud.. :-) Basically I map them  if there really is a path
there and it seems usefull, even though it's clearly not a designated
path.

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


Re: [Tagging] Using key:operator to contain building management organization

2013-02-20 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:58 AM,  dies38...@mypacks.net wrote:
 In particular for business properties, the property or building manager name 
 and contact information is often available on a sign on the building's 
 exterior.  In this case I've used the _operator_ key to contain this 
 information.  Wondering what your opinion is on the suitability of this.  
 Thanks. --ceyockey



I've done the same for apartment buildings, both for rental and
self-owned appartments. Basically for me operator= is the company that
service the building, and usually own at least a part of it.

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


Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

2013-02-09 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
 On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 23:25 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
 On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
  I have had a quick look around Melbourne's motorway entrances on
  streetview and all I have looked at have a sign like this
  http://goo.gl/maps/0hC6c.
 
  Please can you point out one that does allow cyclists?

 Western Freeway:
 http://goo.gl/maps/XUWBF

 Hume Freeway:
 http://goo.gl/maps/Ze3qc

 On first glance I am not sure I would consider those motorways, they
 look more like expressways to me. There are similar signs on Grade
 Separated trunk roads in the UK.

Any attempt at understanding the tag names in OSM only leads to
madness (I repeat this to myself all the time).

People love simple names instead of complex schemes. But remember the
name you choose for a thing in your country means nothing in OSM,
because some non-native speaker might already have defined that name
to be something different.

I can just +1 what Steve Bennet says:
 IMHO, the approach the wiki says that in country X, Y is the default,
 therefore I don't need to tag it is excessively optimistic.


/Erik Johansson

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


Re: [Tagging] Kids use a sled downhill

2013-01-21 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
 No word for it in English (en-gb), to my knowledge. Locally we'd refer to
 the slope by the bridge or going up to Rayleigh Park. As some of us were
 doing yesterday :o)

Thanks all for the wonderfull anecdotes, since I only know how to use
a sled here it's really usefull.

What do you think about:
piste:type=sled_slope
or
leisure=sled_slope

which would mean an informal route for pulka/sled/luge,  piste:type
seems some what sterile and professional I would rather use
leisure=sled_slope since I'm really talking about those small 30 meter
informal slopes, in leisure=parks or on highway=footway.

So some different scenarios:
1. in my leisure=park there is a 100m slope.
2. there are sled parks, where you can go sled on a prepared track,
which I'm guessing is mostly for kids/familys(?)
3. The sled parks might be open in the summer
4. in the Alps you have 2km long slopes made up of ordinary highway=*
ways, and other shortcuts. [1]

I'm thinking 1 and 4 are informal and might be leisure=* and 2, 3
might still be piste:type=sled.



[1] I'm imagining a network on normal roads consisting of ~1000kms of
sled routes, allowing you to go from eastern Austria to Nice.

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


[Tagging] Kids use a sled downhill

2013-01-20 Thread Erik Johansson
I've spent every winter since ~2008 wondering what you call a Pulka
hill in english, so basically a hill that kids use to go fast with a
sled. People have been using:
piste:type=sled

So a pulka is something like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rodeln_01.jpg

And a Pulka hill is something like this (and that's a big one)
http://www.bagisbloggen.se/2010/01/27/bagarmossens-basta-pulkabackar-del-2-laxabacken/


I've used leisure=pulkabacke, swedish for sled hill,  which I think is
better than piste:type=sled, but it's not very international.

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tagging best practice

2013-01-19 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
 We have an xapi that lets you selectively pull data for just what you're
 interested in.

This is not a discussion for tagging, sorry for brining it up.

Interesting; about disused:*, I use this for big things that seems to
be one thing but really are disused, e.g:

1. airfield strips
2. big stores with logos up but not really in service.

I guess someday someone will render what used to be there, but that's
another really hard subject.

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tagging best practice

2013-01-18 Thread Erik Johansson
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:17 AM,  dies38...@mypacks.net wrote:
 There is a fast food franchise site which is closed for renovation in my 
 vicinity.  Two questions:
 * Would you support or recommend tagging a transient state like 'closed for 
 renovation'?
 * If one were to indicate temporary closure, how would one do this?  In the 
 case of renovation, would one use a construction-related tag?

For short periods I don't bother and for long periods I remove them.
I've used end_date=2013 and then removed things when I see that they
are really gone. Removing things is not such a good idea when you have
people downloading offline data and use data that is 6 months to a
year of of date, and as Martin metions it also requires someone adding
it again.

Time related stuff is hard, this is similar to the question about how
to manage and warn routing applications when you know the road will be
shutoff at 6pm on 2015-01-27.

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


Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

2012-12-15 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 14 December 2012 18:41, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Markus Lindholm
 markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Created a page on the wiki for this proposal
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature

 What purpose does the role=entrance have when the node/way is going to
 be tagged building=entrance or entrance=main anyways?

 You mean that the role description could be left empty because it
 could always be deduced from tags on the member? I guess it could be
 possible, but I think it is much much better to have an explicit role
 descriptions, foremost for the benefit of the next mapper who comes
 along and wants to improve and edit the relation. So that he can
 clearly see what the intention is with the different members.


The redundancy is what got me wondering what else the role could be
used for, but I guess there are two parts of that. One is that it
doesn't really need to be more complex and that it's probably fine if
I leave the role part out.

Should I use it on railways stations with subway_entrance and parkings?

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


Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

2012-12-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Created a page on the wiki for this proposal
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature

What purpose does the role=entrance have when the node/way is going to
be tagged building=entrance or entrance=main anyways?

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] How to solve the problem with relation overload?

2012-12-04 Thread Erik Johansson
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi!

 After reading all the responses I have to conclude that we don't
 really have a perfect solution right now. I guess the best would be a
 cleanup of the relations: on ways where more than one (or two)


Or remove all routes from the main database, it might even be easier
to edit bus routes if you try not to use OSM relations for those
things.

But then maybe the no-right-turn relation is too complicated as well.

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


Re: [Tagging] Bicycle room in a hotel

2012-11-22 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 Any established way to tag a hotel that has a lockable bicycle room for
 guests?
 Would
 service:bicycle:parking=yes
 be appropriate?
 This would be in line with other bicycle services the hotel may provide,
 like
 service:bicycle:rental=yes
 service:bicycle:repair=yes


How about adding the entrance to the bike room on the map and tag that
with something useful? Maybe something similar to
disused:amenity=bicycle_parking

And then just reuse existing tagging:
private:amenity=bicycle_parking
private:amenity=bicycle_rental

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012-10-16 Thread Erik Johansson
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 2012/10/16 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com:
 You have to divide the road each time there is not a full line on the road,
 ad you should put a restriction where those roads meet that restricts
 U-turns. What is the answer to that?


 I find it strange that we are still discussion whether roads that are
 only legally divided should/could be split into 2 parallel ways, a
 solution that we did - since ever - reserve for physically divided
 roads.

It's basically Tagging for the renderer. As long as the divider tag
is not supported by routers, people will continue to use this
solution, and these discussion will only make the situation worse for
the divider tag.

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


Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

2012-08-26 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
 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.

This is an area which has two ways instead of one:
http://osm.org/go/0bCzT1kfr--

Here is an route example:
http://map.project-osrm.org/1cL

Without two ways you would be routed directly to the end point, but
with two ways you will be routed with the needed detour. It's
especially interesting if you go by bike but then it's more of a
psychological divider than a physical (which is another story).



I don't like mapping like this, but I'm pragmatic and it does solve a
real problem, so I decided no to fight Markus on this.
So what is the recommendation for mapping this.

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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] First bona fide mini-roundabout spotted

2012-05-08 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
 On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 13:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
 On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
  So this is not/should not be a mini_roundabout? It seems a little silly to
  call it anything else, since the city just dug a hole in the center of the
  existing intersection, built a circular curb, and planted a tree:
 
  http://g.co/maps/e2gsv
 
  What about this one? Also a full on roundabout?
 
  http://g.co/maps/d6n74
 
  This looks more like a roundabout to me:
 
  http://g.co/maps/hnbp9

 All three are roundabouts, yes.
 All 3 are roundabouts, none of them a mini-roundabouts.

 The point of a mini-roundabout is that they can be driven over, hence
 whilst cars are supposed to go around them and many are 'speed-hump
 raised' to encourage this behaviour. Trucks can pass over them as many
 are in places where a truck cannot get around otherwise.

 The first 2 should be mini-roundabouts, as a truck is likely to have
 serious issues with them. I cannot imagine that tree will last too long.

 This is a mini-roundabout, which you can see is raised slightly
 http://g.co/maps/hm49m
 Actually its part of the magic roundabout, which is a roundabout you can
 go around in either direction, and at each intersection there is a
 mini-roundabout. On osm its here, http://osm.org/go/eumbs5ZIw--

 Phil


But Nathan does have a point, mini-roundabouts are not a specifically
good name, and the current docs will only make more people tag small
roundabouts as highway=mini_roundabouts..



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses

2012-03-30 Thread Erik Johansson
2012/3/27 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc:
 I will make my point clearer.
 It isn´t the houses with adresses that will be tagged, it is the
 Reference_point itself.

Indeed in the current scheme of things,  addr:reference_point=* should
be part of the node where the adress is, in the same way that the very
similar addr:postcode=* tag. I understand if Felix doesn't want to do
this since it's micromapping.

You would need to tag lots of:
addr:managua=Donde fue el pequeño árbol, un bloque de casas hacia el
Lago, y 25 pas hacia arriba
addr:reference_point=Donde fue el pequeño árbol
addr:managua_1=un bloque de casas hacia el Lago
addr:managua_2=25 pas hacia arriba

Where:
hacia el Lago=North
hacia arriba=East
hacia abajo= West
hacia el Sur=South


In the same way we tag:
addr:housenumber=42
addr:street=Lake Street
addr:postcode=118 52


I see why you would want to tag addr:reference_point=yes instead.
Felix do you have any examples from real life? I think you should
start collecting them, and please use Spanish since that is what the
addresses are written in...

Regards Erik

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


Re: [Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe

2012-03-12 Thread Erik Johansson
2012/3/11 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc:
 I made a try to do go through some examples to see how it worked. They are at:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Johan_J%C3%B6nsson/Workspace

 what I can see, it looks like it is only the open-air public nature bath
 locations that really lack tags, swimming_pools and indoor bath locations
 could easily be tagged with current more specialized tags or similar. (e.g.
 amenity=turkish_bath /tourism=spa/leisure=sports_centre)

I would probably use leisure=bath to map outdoor bathing places, but
I'm not sure the word is that much better than a direct translation of
the  Swedish word, which would be;

amenity=place_of_bathing

So maybe just use the Swedish word http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badplats
leisure=badplats + sport=swiming

Or if there is another language which has a word for (outdoor) places
where you take baths?

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


Re: [Tagging] gym as an amenity value

2012-03-09 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 18:16, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
 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

You mean: leisure=sport_centre

Serisouly if you want to map gyms please try to make the documentation
better, it's currently a mess. I've undeleted amentiy=gym, so this FAQ
doesn't come up again.



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] gym as an amenity value

2012-03-09 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:04, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 18:16, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
 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

 You mean: leisure=sport_centre

 Serisouly if you want to map gyms please try to make the documentation
 better, it's currently a mess. I've undeleted amentiy=gym, so this FAQ
 doesn't come up again.


I added a picture to the wikipage to show the problem:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgym



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance

2012-03-05 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 08:04, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I've run into the same argument with people tagging construction sites for
 various kinds of buildings. I always maintained that the object in question
 is primarily a construction site, and the fact that a hotel or museum is
 being built is at most worth a note; whereas others were of the opinion that
 the object in question is primarily a hotel or museum, and the fact that it
 is under construction is of secondary nature.

If it's not taking prisoners it's not a prison, though I've seen
historic prisons marked as real ones. If the museum is being renovated
is it still a museum? When there is a big construction work around
here I remove all streets inside that landuse=construction. These are
all temporary things, a year or two after the tagging is obvious.

And old failed railway cutting through the landscape is pretty
permanent, I'm not sure if Russ maps planned railways as well. I'm all
for including them as well.

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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping as two ways or one, u-turns

2012-03-05 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 13:03, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Markus Lindholm
 markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
 There was a proposal like that
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider
 that has been abandoned. Not sure of the reason.

 I also created one:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Divided_road

 In my case, the reason for abandoning it was, well, proposing *any*
 feature is an exercise in frustration and futility. Ultimately, the
 way to get any feature adopted is through the use of force: implement
 a style, do a mass import, add support to an editor. Getting any kind
 of sensible discussion about a possible change like this is next to
 impossible.


Maybe mapping them as separate ways is ok, it certainly seems a lot
simpler than the divider=* tagging page.

This is a big step from current guidelines, and why shouldn't I map
lanes as separate ways then?


-- 
/emj

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


[Tagging] Mapping as two ways or one, u-turns

2012-03-02 Thread Erik Johansson
There is nothing separating this road yet it is mapped as two ways:

http://osm.org/go/0bCzcBhNM--?m
http://goo.gl/KLTpu  (Streetview)

This is done for routers. Imagine you want to go from the marker to
number 117, as it is mapped today the router will know that you can't
go back on the same street directly. How can this be mapped with out
mapping this as two ways, as it's said in the Editing standards:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways

-- 
/emj
PS. I feel that OSM suffers from too many mailinglists.
PPS.
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/4572/when-to-use-two-parallel-ways-for-roads

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


Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)

2012-01-12 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:56, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote:

 2012/1/11 Ben Johnson tangarar...@gmail.com:
  For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a 
  private operator who's main business is the swimming pool) usually charge 
  an entry fee and have opening hours, so i'd use [access=permissive] - 
  likewise for tennis clubs with public access for a fee, with set operating 
  hours.

 Is permissive what we're looking for? I don't think so.
 access=permissive means you shouldn't go there, but I'll turn the
 other way and pretend I don't see you.

No it means you are free to go here but this is not public land.

From wiki:
Open to general traffic until such time as the owner revokes the
permission which they are legally allowed to do at any time in the
future.

And that's how I've seen it used.

/erik

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


[Tagging] Amenity parking

2012-01-11 Thread Erik Johansson
I tag all parking spaces as amenity=parking, even though you have to
rent a place by the month. I'm guessing this is wrong? But this is how
most people do it.

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking

2012-01-11 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 19:58, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think that a space that you rent as an open-air garage on a monthly basis,
 cannot be considered an amenity car parking. If you put these on the map
 you are really creating confusion for the map users (= car drivers).
 I would not map these facilities as car parking ( ... and don't have any
 better alternative either)



On the first line of amenity=parking: it says A parking lot is an
area reserved for parking cars, trucks, motorcycles etc. Which is a
broad and in my opinion good way to describe something: include
everything by default. (See problems with natural=tree). Further down
it says A default amenity=parking means a free public parking lot on
surface. So it's as coherent as a wiki should be.. :-) And makes me
think that there will be lots of bad data..

There are two problems, neither which has been addressed.
1. how should different types of parking spaces be tagged
2. how should the existing amenity=parking be handled

I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does
access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that
you can't park there.

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


Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking

2012-01-11 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 21:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 it says A default amenity=parking means a free public parking lot on
 surface. So it's as coherent as a wiki should be.. :-) And makes me
 think that there will be lots of bad data..

 actually this is a recent wiki fiddling attempt. The default for
 missing information is: missing information. Changing (or setting)
 defaults after years of mapping cannot work.
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aamenity%3Dparkingaction=historysubmitdiff=648803oldid=640812

Actually the proposal page from 2007 said Generally only public
parking lots should be tagged,, but that page is now deleted so you
will have to trust me.. :-)

The page also says fee=* Default value is no.

So as much as it hurts me I must say that historically this tag is
only for public fee less parking, and that you have to change it to
something else for all other cases. I do not think this is very good
for the future.

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


Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking

2012-01-11 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 23:51, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.comwrote:

 2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
  2012/1/11 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
  I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does
  access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that
  you can't park there.
 
 
  access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means that
  the right to access is private / given on an individual basis. Current
  tagging practice (access=private AFAIK, also rendered differently in
  Mapnik) does indeed seem wrong if you can access the parking (e.g. you
  can cross it on foot or bike) but cannot park there.

 Er, sorry? It seems to me that access=private is exactly what is
 needed, and your own definition falls into place easily: the stall is
 phisically accessible, but the right to access is private. The fact
 that you can walk on it is irrelevant: actually, since it's a parking,
 it should be interdicted from traffic (ok, walking is not a good
 example, but for example you shouldn't drive your car through it)


This is IMHO.

To be clear I'm talking about huge parking lots in suburbs which for all
practical reasons are public land if you ask the people living around it.
There is a big problem with adding PRIVATE PROPERTY to something like that
just because you can't park your car there without a parking permit.

access seems to mean that access is private or permissive.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-12-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 13:12, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote:
 ... and what about the bigger roasters, that do not sell their products to
 the consumer, but you can smell them from miles downwind. They are
 factories, I suppose, but what is the tag? land_use=industrial and then the
 name of the factory.

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

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

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


Re: [Tagging] power=tower enhancement

2011-12-13 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 21:12, Nick Austin nick.w.aus...@gmail.com wrote:
 3) Where three cables meet one of two of them may come up a riser and
 it's impossible to tell which is the supply cable and which is leading
 to a destination.
 4) When underground cables fail they are often abandoned and left in
 place. The ends of the cable are disconnected at the top of each
 riser.

 And finally I think that it's going to be difficult for many people to
 verify that the information is correct. I'm not keen on having
 information in the OSM database that can only be checked and updated
 by very few people.

I would really like you to expand on why adding
riser=power_line;tele_communication  would make things difficult to
map. Though I think it might be hard to visualize making accidental
deletions a worry.

Risers seems to be pretty easy to map, but under ground cables might
not be quite as easy (since even tunnels are hard).

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


Re: [Tagging] Explain sport=multi

2011-12-10 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 05:01, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Peter Wendorff
 wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
 I would use it for sports facilities not dedicated to specific sports.

 So, to play devil's advocate: why bother with a sports=* tag at all in
 that case?

 What's the difference between:

 leisure=sports_centre

  and
 leisure=sports_centre
 sport=multi

No the question is if it is a sports_center with only one entrance
where you can go to a  Dojo and a weight lifting gym (plus other
stuff). How do I map this, if I want to add a name for both. Since it
has one entrance using multiple nodes seems strange.

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


[Tagging] Explain sport=multi

2011-12-08 Thread Erik Johansson
sport=multi is very well used but have no description in the wiki. Is
there anyone that uses this tag?

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

e.g.
sport=multi
instead of:
sport=soccer;basketball;curling


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sport=multi
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=multi


-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Explain sport=multi

2011-12-08 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 13:53, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 Erik Johansson wrote:
 sport=multi is very well used but have no description in the wiki. Is
 there anyone that uses this tag?

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

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


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

I've seen it used on out door arenas.
-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Wheelchair ramp

2011-12-05 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 20:34, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
 On 02/12/2011 04:31, Josh Doe wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com  wrote:

 2011/12/1 Martijn van Exelm...@rtijn.org:

 Is there a specific tag for a wheelchair ramp that is not part of a
 steps feature?

 I agree with Martin and others, it is a separate feature, but I do
 think that it's also a distinct feature type and thus warrants its own
 highway type, therefore I am going to go ahead and use
 highway=access_ramp as David proposed.



 I agree that it might be desirable in some contexts (mainly
 statistics) to be able to identify these ramps distinctly, but for
 most contexts including routing it is the same as a footway. If you
 use a dedicated, low-use highway-tag you will risk to not get this
 feature evaluated at all (what is not desired here, IMHO). I suggest
 to use a subtag/attribute instead.


 +1. I don't see the value in adding a new highway value. How do you
 differentiate a ramp intended for the disabled and one intended for
 all travelers? Thus I don't see it is substantially different than
 highway=path. I'd favor highway=path + wheelchair=yes, and if you'd
 like throw on access_ramp=yes as well which can give you special
 rendering and stats if you'd like.


 I really don't care what the tagging is, so long as
 (a) there is a reasonable consensus
 (b) it represents the distinctive features of the object, and
 (c) it is documented
 (d) it doesn't keep changing

 The trouble with asking is that you get as many suggestions back as there
 are people listening, and then it goes quiet and you're no further forward.

I manage to keep quite sometimes... +1 is a great feature which sadly
only works on wikis.

 highway=access_ramp was the only remotely documented feature, even then as a
 proposal,

I don't tag tunnels as highway=footway_tunnel, let me suggest
ramp:wheelchair=yes a well used tag.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ramp

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


Re: [Tagging] Announcing: website key integrity checking

2011-10-26 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:18, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
 KeepRight, at http://keepright.ipax.at/
 now validates website tags on ways and nodes.
 The script loads each page and performs a fuzzy match...
 a restaurant for example needs to match on name, phone number or address
 (any one will do).

 The script also checks for hijacked domains, though this detection could use
 additional match strings.


Great stuff, the best of armchair mapping. You do surveys of websites..

Is it possible to download these keepright lists in batch form? I
would like to do a survey with paper of some places and then it would
be cool to have your error messages available.

Bugs:
But you don't match phone numbers with spaces in them, at least over
here people use  these chars [0-9 +()[]-] to write a phone number.

No OCR, and no flash parsing. (ha! joking)

Could you add support for website2=*?

Who reads what you write in the comment field in KeepRight?

 The http error check could use some help also: many http errors are
 transient, which leads to unfortunate flagging of non-problems.

Patches welcome?
-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:28 AM, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:

 As the creator of the proposal I do not like your proposed key/value
 entrance=public_transport.
 The tag should show the importance of an entrance and not what you
 will find behind the door.

 Definitely.  I think it would be good, wherever possible, to stick to
 the idea of the value of a tag subclassing the key, so that
 building=* indicates what kind of building, and entrance=* indicates
 what kind of entrance.

If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit  about what you
mean.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:18 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:

 In the case of a subway station, this will mean that the station's area will 
 need to underlay other mapped objects, and the mapper will need to map the 
 access tunnels as well as the station proper.


Burrr! Openstreetmap is not made for mapping in 3D atm, even though
people do try [1]. Even looking at 3D renders of subway stations
complexes make my head go around. So lets not use building=* for
subsurface buildings, but I'm guessing people are already doing this?
[2]


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Building_attributes
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/112427969  subway tagged
as building and layer=-1
-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
 2011/10/14 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:
 If can't even tag *entrances* to a subway with this tag I see little
 use for it. Could either of you perhaps expand a bit  about what you
 mean.

 You can tag the entrance of a train or subway station as
 entrance=yes/main BUT only together with a correspondending building
 (or poi area). It is not possible to use the tag entrance=yes on a
 single node without any connection to a building or area.

That leaves a tricky problem to where does an entrance go; Which of
the 10 different locations in the building will I enter, and also
which of these 10 different entrances lead to the one I want. Most
buildings are not single use.

I'll try to change my perspective a bit, marking important entrances
is a good thing there are several entrances that are more important
than others, subway_entrance is just one of them..

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-12 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ilya Zverev zve...@textual.ru wrote:
 Hi. The proposal for marking building entrances with entrance=* tags was
 discussed a year and a half ago, but didn't really go anywhere:

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

 An hour ago there was a big changset (#9541529) from one of belarusian
 mappers changing 21640 building=entrance to entrance=yes in several
 countries

At last! Someone is actually doing something about that shitty tag, I
support the intent of #9541529, is there really any reason to revert
those edits, aren't we better of without building=entrance? I really
hope that DWG can be kept out of this.

Further I would like to propose railway=subway_entrance =
entrance=public_transport, since it's probably interesting to have on
bus/boat/rail terminals as well, now this is a bit more tricky since
it already renders.


/Erik

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-12 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote:
 On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Erik Johansson wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ilya Zverev zve...@textual.ru wrote:

 aren't we better of without building=entrance? I really
 hope that DWG can be kept out of this.

 Further I would like to propose railway=subway_entrance =
 entrance=public_transport, since it's probably interesting to have on
 bus/boat/rail terminals as well, now this is a bit more tricky sinceer
 it already renders.

 Please let me know when did my private renderer for those
 building=entrances cease being something that renders (besides the times
 when my VM is down of course :-))? ...Honestly, I think you just _assumed_
 that nobody is using the data for anything

I assumed you would love to get rid of that tag, I might not have put
it in the best way so I'll include what was said by Tobias:

 Tobias Knerr:
 What makes this case interesting beyond the relatively trivial tagging
  issue is that it raises the question whether we, as a community, are
 able to revise earlier decisions.

 To me it seems obvious that we need the ability to do so.
 But it is also apparent that we have no working process - not even an
 informal one - for handling data model changes.


/Erik

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-12 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi wrote:
 But that's still besides my point which
 is that deprication should be handled properly instead of giving those
 hints for DWG to not interfere on mass removal even before anything
 is official.

 FYI, I'm not against the proposal itself and in fact I've used some of the
 suggested tags already together with building=entrance but not the
 entrance=yes.

So the question is still what is proper action? Does it take Komяpa or
someone similar with their own rendering engine to make the change?

I do agree with you that removing all building=entrance might not have
been the best idea, but I still support the intent of it. :-)

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Wide steps

2011-10-07 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:50 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
 Any suggestions as to how to represent some steps...

 These steps aren't that unusual I guess, but they aren't a staircase. They
 form the edges of a piazza-like platform, running most of the way around it.
 There are only 4 steps, but they are several of them, up to about 40m wide:

 http://twitpic.com/6whcou

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/119046469
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vinterviken_fabriksomr_2010.jpg?uselang=sv

This one has been tagged as barrier=retaining_wall which is of course
true of these steps.


There are also proposals on the wiki about being able to show what
direction an area of stairs go, I believe someone needs to show that
it is practical to tag like this.

/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute

2011-09-18 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 Currently user Alv is trying to redefine the lanes tag to say that it must
 include all turn lanes:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanesaction=history

I've had this discussion before 2007 and I've always said and heard
that lanes is always all the lanes on the road. This very easy
definition goes back to the first version of the key:lanes page. See:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:lanesoldid=85670

So the current wikipage is wrong and too complex.
-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute

2011-09-18 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 9/18/2011 8:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 +1, lanes from the very beginning were to indicate all lanes of the
 road. Opposed to this was the common practice, not to split an highway
 because of a short lane for turns (otherwise we would for example have
 had to split a motorway at every exit which I never saw in the actual
 data).

 So it's down to the old prescriptive vs. descriptive debate then.

The current lanes tag works pretty well for me as a pedestrian, it
tells me how many lanes there is on a road.  I agree that it gives too
little information to be useful for routers etc, but that's because
the generic name. Please write something more descriptive to describe
the problem and how you think it should be solved. These single
sentence responses do not really help.

Btw the current wiki page seems to say that you should count cycle
lanes in the lanes tag, something I don't really agree with.

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


Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types

2011-07-02 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Folk, I rediscovered an old proposal which is extending the set of
 barrier values.

 Please comment now on this, before we can eventually vote to get this
 to a more definite status:

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



I think turnstiles and full height turnstiles should be the
barrier=turnstile, add some extra tag to differentiate them.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare

2011-05-09 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 2011/5/8 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com:
 The biggest issue I see is that this feature seems already be covered
 by the social facility feature:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Social_facility
 Have a look at the subkey social_facility:for=child      e.g. daycare
 center for children

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

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

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

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

amenity=kindergarten
religion=scientology
age=1-6

/Erik.

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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: Directional Flow

2011-04-02 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 4/1/2011 5:59 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

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

 Presumably JOSM would treat this like oneway, in that it will prompt when
 reversing a way?

There are lots of tags that are direction dependant:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Way_Direction_Dependent

It does seem like josm handles many of those in a good way, not all by
far though.


-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis

2011-01-18 Thread Erik Johansson
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
 Or take the Sucre, the capitol of Bolivien (193k people) and compare to
 Santa Cruz de la Sierra (biggest city of the country) with 1.1m people.

Funnily enough many people in Bolivia count La Paz (about 2m) as the
Capital, the president is there among other things.

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


Re: [Tagging] Karting...

2011-01-10 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:03 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 January 2011 23:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
 Definitely with a k. I actually tagged this sport recently, I took a

 Did I really need to say british english? cart with a k is american english.

 punt on sport=go_karting. Either that or sport=karting sounds ok to
 me. (kart_racing is a bit un-natural)

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/go-cart

It seems like all of the wikipedia pages uses k, my gut reaction was
c but we can all be wrong.



[[bg:Картинг]]
[[ca:Kart]]
[[cs:Motokára]]
[[da:Gokart]]
[[de:Kartsport]]
[[en:Kart racing]]
[[es:Karting]]
[[eu:Karting]]
[[fa:کارتینگ]]
[[fi:Karting]]
[[fr:Karting]]
[[gl:Karting]]
[[he:קארטינג]]
[[hr:Karting]]
[[id:Gokar]]
[[it:Karting]]
[[ja:レーシングカート]]
[[lt:Kartingas]]
[[nl:Karting]]
[[no:Gokart]]
[[pl:Gokart]]
[[pt:Kart]]
[[ru:Картинг]]
[[simple:Kart racing]]
[[sk:Karting]]
[[sl:Karting]]
[[sr:Karting]]
[[ta:கார்ட்டு பந்தயம்]]
[[tr:Karting]]
[[uk:Картинг]]
[[zh:卡丁車]]

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Groups of islands, how to tag?

2010-11-19 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Willi wil...@gmx.de wrote:
 2) If the answer is 'use a relation', have I done it properly, and if so,
 why isn't Mapnik rendering the name properly?

 2) If and how a feature is rendered is up to the renderer. The mapper can't
 and imho shouldn't try to control this.

 Two examples:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/963669
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/963209


Since it's obviously not rendered in any renderer., the question is
how to make this renderable, not how to write the relation in a nice
way..

This problem exist all over and a fix is badly needed, e.g.
1. buildings/entrances
2. islands
3. metro stations/entrances
4. water areas



-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag a (main) entrance to a large feature?

2010-11-19 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
 I don't know if it's legal to park here and walk around the gate into
 the park, but assume for the sake of argument that it is. How do we
 tell the router to instead use the main entrance to the south?

  In this case, the way in the photo can be properly tagged as a
 service/driveway and /or track to help direct routers to another entrance. I
 recently found this exact situation where hordes of lost park-goers coming
 from the north were directed to the back gate which is permanently locked. I
 was able to tag the back entrance as service/driveway because the gate is
 never open and the only normal access is for the ranger - even though I
 think the road is still named as Lake Road in the official county records
 (which I cannot access).

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=41.85594mlon=-89.9528zoom=15layers=M


Hum...

Should private access roads really render as ordinary roads in zoom 14
and less? Bug in mapnik?

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


Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments

2010-09-08 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
 At 2010-09-04 09:12, Erik Johansson wrote:

 I would like to tag areas with apartment buildings, and small houses
 for a  single family differently, at the moment I tag all of them with
  landuse=residential. I need good terminology in english to tag them.

 type=site
 + site=housing
 + housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}

 Here's an example of apartment:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/194049 at
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.079189lon=-117.560582zoom=18layers=Mrelation=194049

Thanks housing is a better term, here are some questions:

Is it possible to separate your category into physical and legal
status? All I want to do is separate houses/villas from apartment
buildings. I don't know how to spot the differences of different type
of housing tenures, it's only a legal difference between condominium,
housing cooperative and public housing.

But wikipedia is very vague on this subject so I think it's pretty
hard to be able to get good terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_types#Residential_Buildings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_tenure

/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments

2010-09-05 Thread Erik Johansson
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote:
 M?rtin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

  And AFAIK it's not a good idea to translate every value like you do it 
  here.
  The translations/languages should only apply to names, not on classes.
  If your Application wants to use different languages than English, it 
  should
  use a dictionary for that at client side.


 While this might be true in this case or not (don't speak Swedish)
 there are certainly cases in the world where English is missing a
 term. So as exception putting a tag in a foreign language (and marking
 it as foreign) is not a bad idea.

 Yes you're right there is some regional exception for specific things.
 But the general rule is to use only one tag class for a definied thing.

 tag class has not to be translated, but specific tag class name should
 not be always in english for some regional specific features.

This is a dear subject to me, but it wasn't really want I wanted to
know.. :-) I just want to know what english speakers call areas with
apartment buildings/areas with villas.

Maybe some smart guy will solve the translation of key/values at some
point, I've not seen any solution yet.


/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

2010-09-05 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Many people are tagging single trees, and usually use natural=tree for
 this. Now there are some voices on the German ML that say,
 natural=tree is reserved for special trees, and can therefore not be
 used for ordinary trees.

 I changed the wiki according to what I perceive actual usage, by
 changing lone or significant to single. Unfortunately this is
 disputed at least by a few people.

 What are your opinions on that?


Well you remember Girona
http://osm.org/go/xU1FEbE9

Don't think all of them are special, and I know I have never tagged a
special tree.


-- 
/emj

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


[Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments

2010-09-04 Thread Erik Johansson
Hi

I would like to tag areas with apartment buildings, and small houses
for a  single family differently, at the moment I tag all of them with
 landuse=residential. I need good terminology in english to tag them.

This is from swedish wikipedia:
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flerfamiljhus#Typer_av_flerbostadshus
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sm%C3%A5hus

So that would be something like:
landuse=residential
residential.en=[ apartmentbuildings | villas | small houses | vacation
houses | farmbuildings]
residential.sv=[ flerbostadshus | villområde | småhus | fritidshus |
radhus | miljonprogram] etc.

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting

2010-05-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king
antony.k...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
 Hi all,

 We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for
 the last couple of months, and I hope that we've covered all the
 ground that needs to be covered by now. Could those that care to vote,
 cast your votes on the page? If you disapprove, please say why and
 maybe we can continue the RFC stage for a little longer so as to get
 it right. I'm aware that there are a few people who have had input on
 this who disapprove of the whole voting concept; I'm not proposing we
 open that can of worms here but I am keen to formalise this properly.

 Here's the page:

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

 Regards,


If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it
exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes
shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there,
and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies.

Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive?

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


Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting

2010-05-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king
antony.k...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
 Hi all,

 We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for
 the last couple of months,

And you did a very good job, I've always wondered what to call those
hanging roundabouts myself.

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


Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting

2010-05-14 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
 * Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]:
 If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it
 exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes
 shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there,
 and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies.

 Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive?

 Could that be unified with other access designations?  'baby=designated'
 or 'baby=official'?

Sure, I only want to use baby=yes to tag if there is toys for babies.
This is mostly used for swings so I'm not entirely sure it's needed.
:-)

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


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

2010-05-07 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com wrote:

 That is what I like about it - when all I can find out about an area is that 
 is green and lies in between buildings, yard is an appropriately vague 
 word.

 You say you only know two things:

 1) it is green -- color=green (IMHO, this is silly - don't bother
 mapping this)

don't map it is a bad advice, lets say it's already mapped by e.g.
me as a leisure=park even though it isn't.  So the question is how do
you handle the edge cases, that someone as scrupleless as me would tag
as a park.

I would tag it as leisure=park, access=no

 2) lies in between buildings -- just map the buildings with
 building=yes areas

 On the other hand, if you actually know that it's a private garden,
 then that's a different story - see the other posts about how to tag
 this.

There are buildings which don't have atriums.  One could map it as
leisure=private_yard_between_houses  + surface=[green_stuff |
mostly_concrete] perhaps defaulting to render green  as a park.

Maybe it's hard to decide because there are so many words for semi
private yard, other words can be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrium_%28architecture%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrangle_%28architecture%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtyard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patio_garden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard

And that's not even counting what Petr wants, front side garden.

-- 
/emj

PS.  Jonas  hälsa Emil DS.

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


Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood

2010-05-05 Thread Erik Johansson
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 5 May 2010 01:24, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote:
 Those calling for shop=fish rather than shop=fishmonger - what would you use 
 for
 the pet fish shop?

 How many pet shops would there be that only sell fish?

 I'm guessing a small minority at best, but this would be better as a
 sub tag of a pet shop...

There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near
me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like
shop=fish.

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] How To Tag Coastlines That Are Also Cliffs?

2010-05-01 Thread Erik Johansson
Well since the cliff is usually an area extending from the coast (at
least around here), maybe you don't need to tag the coastline but the
place where the cliff starts, as a separate way.

That said if you want to further define the  coastline way by adding a
type you will most likely have to invent you own tagging scheme since
tagging multiple values like natural=cliff;coastline is frowned
upon(?).

2010/5/1, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com:
 It seems to me that indicating whether or not the water's edge is a cliff
 would be useful.  For example, if you have small children, you probably
 wouldn't want to take them to a cliff-edge site.

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

 -Original Message-
 From: Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com
 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:30:25
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolstagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] How To Tag Coastlines That Are Also Cliffs?

 On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,
  I'm working on
 an area of coastline made up of cliffs and beaches.   There are many
 sections where the cliffs drop directly into the ocean and it seems
 logical
 to me that the coastline and the cliff should be represented as one single
 way where this is the case.

 I've thought about it, adding the type of coastline would be very
 useful when you don't want to do micromapping. But I've never done it,
 on Rottnest Island I've instead used natural=rocks to tag areas with
 cliffs/rocks.

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.0154lon=115.50287zoom=17layers=B000FTTT

 You could tag it as a barrier=cliff. :-)


 --
 /emj

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


-- 
Skickat från min mobila enhet

/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] How To Tag Coastlines That Are Also Cliffs?

2010-04-30 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,
  I'm working on
 an area of coastline made up of cliffs and beaches.   There are many
 sections where the cliffs drop directly into the ocean and it seems logical
 to me that the coastline and the cliff should be represented as one single
 way where this is the case.

I've thought about it, adding the type of coastline would be very
useful when you don't want to do micromapping. But I've never done it,
on Rottnest Island I've instead used natural=rocks to tag areas with
cliffs/rocks.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-32.0154lon=115.50287zoom=17layers=B000FTTT

You could tag it as a barrier=cliff. :-)


-- 
/emj

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


[Tagging] Entrances..

2010-04-20 Thread Erik Johansson
Wouldn't it be great if railway=subway_entrance was rendering, and if
we had a generic scheme to tag entrances for different stuff. I've
used building=entrance, but I need to tag railway=station_entrance,
train=door, highway=bus_station_entrance  etc. etc. How do I solve
this in a better way?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dsubway_entrance
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=entrance
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Stop_Area


When rendering railway=subway_entrance do you think one should disable
to rendering of railway=station, and in that case how do you know
which subway station to disable. About 1/3 of subway_entrances have
names, even fewer have relations, I believe using names has
advantages.

-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Beaches

2010-04-10 Thread Erik Johansson
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 On Friday 09 April 2010 09:03:03 John Smith wrote:
 Although that brings up another issue about how coastlines are legally
 defined as being at the mean low tide mark

 Actually this is completely irrelevant.

 In OSM the coastline is not defined that way.


Please! There is no definition, if you want to define your
beach/waterline as mapped in a specific tide then tag the waterline as
such. I have a hard time believing that everyone that maps coastlines
knows about this high/low tide definition.


-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging an old bus route

2009-12-24 Thread Erik Johansson
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Bennett
openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
 On 24/12/2009 01:13, Arlindo Pereira wrote:
 Hi there,

 I mapped a bus route that is integrated to the subway line (uses the
 same ticket) [1]. However, this route will be no more, because we've
 built another subway station, which would change the bus route. I'd
 like to maintain the old route to historical reasons. How should it be
 tagged?

 You should delete it from the current dataset, indicating it's no longer
 current data. However, this doesn't remove it from the OSM database,
 only from the current dataset so you'll still be able to retrieve the
 route at some later point if you need to.

Any ideas on how to indicate that a delete isn't an edit. These kinds
of deletions are because of change of the physical world, not because
of a better survey. There is a meta difference which some might want
to map.

/Erik

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


[Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.

2009-12-21 Thread Erik Johansson
Hi

I've slowly started using addr:housenumbers, I'm not really interested
in doing it according to the way the addr:* scheme work atm though..
Because of the amount of work to enter data in that scheme.

Here are the things that I believe is different from the addr:* scheme..

1. I use addr:housenumbers, just to get numbers on the map. Even
though I don't follow the spec.
2. I don't add streetname
3. my add:housenumbers are usually like this: 45-29 or 89d-110
signifying that at this point their is a sign telling me that the
first number I will find on this side of the street is 45 or in the
second case 89d, and the last number on the other end of the street
will be 29 or 110.

Does anyone have any improvements to make this scheme better?

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


Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.

2009-12-21 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 2009/12/21 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
 wrote:
  Then why don't you use place=locality, name=45-29 if that's all you
  want.

 Thanks, that's a good idea (if it works),

 what do you mean by: if it works? All alternative ways to the well
 established addressing scheme don't work. It's easy as that.
 place=locality is generally used to give names to localities that don't
 match other established features (can be lots, hills, named localities,
 etc.), IMHO a locality-node name=45-29 to express housenumbers is wrong.


  Does anyone have any improvements to make this scheme better?
 
  Yes, use the same scheme that everyone else uses as well ;-)

 +1


 I don't care about geocoders, I will fix it but I'm not that keen on
 getting geocoders to work.

 as soon as someone else is editing in your area it will be conflicting
 anyway. I just don't see the point of entering useful information in a way
 it will not be retrieved...

But it is retrieved in the only way I care about namely the rendered
map. It could be retrieved by geocoders as well, with small changes,
it was this change I wanted help with. Note, place=locality seems even
better after what you said, or do you have a better tag combo that
works?

So these are the issues
1. I interpolate but can't only see one end...
2. I will only enter a number, because a human can use it.
3. I will use the housenumber scheme since that works at the moment
and this is what I'm mapping.



-- 
/emj

___
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

2009-12-09 Thread Erik Johansson
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:

 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.

 Yup, but to tag *correctly* for the renderer is simply to tag correctly. 
 :P

Yes but people say don't tag for the renderer which a horrible meme,
I say always tag for the renderer. If there is not visual feedback
you are doing it wrong (except in keepright).


-- 
/emj

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


Re: [Tagging] The current problem with tagging

2009-10-19 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 2009/10/19 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com:

 I'd say that 95% of the mappers are interested in what the
 renderings show, and that is also in the mapfeatures-list. I agree
 though that in the case you are looking for something special and not
 already documented it will fail.

Since I'm concentrating in the not documented tags that might explain
why I dismiss it as irrelevant. But I really think it's now so big it
is more of a hurdle than anything else, this is from watching newbies
mapping on openstreetmap.


 Care to expand on what you mean? The wiki search sucks

 I don't agree that it sucks. My favorite feature are drinking

But when you don't know the language and can't produce synonyms it
certainly sucks, right?


 There is a need for personal documentation of tags, easy way to say
 what this tag means for you. IMO We are severely limited by English,
 what is easy to describe in Swedish for me, might be hard for me to do
 in German, Spanish or English.

 just go ahead. There is no limit, and everyone can document everything
 on his personal wiki page (IMHO _this_ would lead to bad results, as
 you get everyones own definition and are left alone for deciding,
 which one you prefer, whilst today we maintain one page which displays
 (at it's best) the consensous in definition.

There must still be a standard, that is a consensus on a wikipage,
there are several problems though:
* You tag according to a standard, without understanding You are doin it wrong
* You don't know there is a standard and tag as you want
* There is no standard

If you document what you think you are tagging then we have a better
chance to understand what you mean by those two tiny key/val words you
use to describe something.



/Erik

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


Re: [Tagging] The current problem with tagging

2009-10-19 Thread Erik Johansson
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote:
 2009/10/19 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:

 The problem currently seams to be that there are 3 different places
 within the wiki that things can be documented.

Do you mean,  Proposed/* pages, mapfeatures page and key:/tag: pages?

 But if I want to map a Birthday Card Shop I could be here a while
 trying to work out what the last person used Which may not be on
 the wiki at all hence we end up with a mix of shop=card,
 card=stationary, etc etc all of which may or may not be the same
 thing Also you tend to read it every time as you don't remember
 because you don't map them as often.

And a birthday card shop is not the same as a postcard shop, but they
can both be mapped as shop=card (or shop=gift according to
mapfeatures). Some people will assume it's for birthday cards other
thing it's for postcards..

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