Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

2020-12-23 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 15:14, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> "I'd like to swim in a small pool with a waterfall".
>

Good spot for one of your hazard tags!

We have Natural Bridge nearby
https://www.queensland.com/au/en/things-to-do/attractions/p-56b25f942880253d74c479de-natural-bridge-springbrook-national-park.html,
which is a hole cut in the roof of a cave by millions of year of rushing
water, making a waterfall.

Unfortunately, over the years, despite warnings not to swim in there, quite
a few people have drowned, as the force of the falling water pulls them
under & back, they can't see & so run out of air :-(

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

2020-12-23 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 09:00, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:25 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> I've had one German solemnly assure me that anything labeled a 'creek' in
> English is a minor watercourse, and challenge why I was mapping a riverbank
> for Schoharie Creek.
>

Thanks, Kevin, entertaining as always! :-)

I've also seen a couple of comments that "Creeks are small", & always have
a wonder about them?

Here are two of our local "Creeks"

https://goo.gl/maps/47KR97bhpjpSBpDv5

&

https://goo.gl/maps/fru9t4Vg7NynNPtv8

Definitely wouldn't try jumping across either of them, although a lot of
people have fun jumping into them, frequently off the bridges!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

2020-12-22 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 01:49, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> I suggest that, when we get around to looking at pools, we consider
> the possibility of adding other angling considerations
>

Carrying on from those, there are other named river features such as Bend &
Reach, which we currently have no way of mapping.

Another one that comes to mind is when this "pool" in the river is a
designated swimming hole? I've seen them mapped as a leisure=swimming_pool
in the middle of the river, but that just looks weird!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 16:44, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> OSMF board is not spending hours on monitoring wiki pages.
>
> I am spending hours on monitoring wiki pages and noticed it only recently,
> and only in a new proposal.
>
> Anyone may edit Wiki and many things are present there because noone
> noticed what is written somewhere.
>
> Somebody obviously considers that they should be noted there?
>
> I am not against noting legal restrictions in some countries that may be
> dangerous for some mappers. But I am against implying that it is
> against OSM rules to map in China or map military bases in
> Russia/Israel/etc
> or that it is unwanted.
>

The suggestion was made to me privately that this matter be raised via the
Legals list to get an official opinion or ruling, & if it is agreed that it
is a requirement, hopefully also an agreed wording for a "warning".

I agree that that is probably the best option, but also consider that it
could be left until after the proposal is accepted or not, &, once again,
it would be done as part of a clean-up of the military pages.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 10:37, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> imagine you were mapping something, and it is legal in the place where you
> are, but illegal in Britain, so you can not do it. Or you are seeing things
> in country A and when you’re in country B you add them to OpenStreetMap
> (from memory), which is legal in country B but not in country A. You might
> be able to do it and still be arrested when going back to country A.
>
> People also said in the past we should adhere to European law because
> otherwise our dataset can not be used in the EU (e.g. with respect to
> copyright and fair use). I am not sure if after the Brexit this will still
> be the OpenStreetMap-Foundation policy, or whether they focus completely on
> British law, but I am sure that Chinese law has not been deemed relevant by
> past and present osmf boards.
>

I agree it's incredibly confusing, & a legal minefield (as well as
potentially a real one!), but if it's an issue, why haven't the "Warnings"
been deleted from the various military pages prior to this?

Somebody obviously considers that they should be noted there?

Thanks

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


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rescue Stations

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Just to make sure everybody is aware, voting is now open on the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rescue_Stations
proposal.

Any questions or comments are still welcome, either here, the original
Proposal thread (
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056605.html)
or on the Talk page.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks Andrew!

Done!

Graeme


On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 10:21, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Per the Proposal Process at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting it's normal
> to send a new email with the subject like "Feature Proposal - Voting -
> (Feature Name)" to the list.
>
> Many people might not be reading every email in the RFC thread, but do
> want to know when voting is open, so a new thread makes it more visible.
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 14:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations
>>>
>>
>> Moved to voting.
>>
>> If you still have any comments or concerns, please raise them for
>> discussion, rather than just voting "No, because ..."!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> is this referring to British law?
>

Not that I'm aware of (or Australian for that matter!), but I have seen
comments on various pages that it is illegal for people in both Israel &
Russia to map the location of military bases, &, of course, it's apparently
illegal to map anything in China.

I would hate for somebody to be potentially arrested on spying / espionage
charges for doing what we suggested :-(

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> its presence does not even tell in every case that you can exercise the
> sport at an object with this tag. E.g.
> shop=sports
> sport=surfing
>

What would you suggest then for a shop that sells surfboards eg
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0770975,153.4431424,3a,75y,168.57h,84.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw8FwnxP0v8kJgGpiKtZTFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

The wiki is explicit: “ A sport should normally also be associated with a
> suitable physical feature where it is performed; often this is leisure
> =pitch
>  or leisure
> =trac
> 
>

So that would suggest amenity=shooting_range would be a good choice?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
There has been concern raised on the talk page over the "If it's illegal,
please don't map" warning that I included in the proposal.

I put it there due to that issue being mentioned on several military
related pages, but also noticed that there are a few different wording of
it eg {{Key|military}} or landuse
=military
.

I did mention earlier that the military page needs a clean-up. When we do
that, it would be an ideal time to decide on a standard "warning" template
to go on all related pages.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 19:01, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> On 20. Dec 2020, at 05:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
> The existing emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>
> =disaster_response
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Ddisaster_response>
> will get a better definition to cover each countries Emergency Rescue /
> Civil Defence service/s
>
>
>
> which kind of places should get the tag? Garages and places where
> equipment is stored? Administrative offices? Training areas?
>

It does say: " The various emergency
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=xxx
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:emergency%3Dxxx=edit=1>
tags are intended to tag the base areas or buildings of various Emergency
Rescue groups as clearly observed. This tag is only intended to be used for
permanent features, not temporary locations eg in the field"

So pretty well all of the above, depending, of course, on what is at any
particular location. eg for this area, it would include the full fenced
area, with several buildings, carpark etc
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-27.43264/153.00940, whereas
smaller units (usually in country areas) would be a shed only.

How does it relate to
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/emergency_service=technical ?
>
> and to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dses_station
>

They would both be replaced by =disaster_response, which would be defined
as " each countries Emergency Rescue / Civil Defence service/" eg
Australian State Emergency Service (SES), US FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) etc

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 17:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> How objects tagged now with amenity=lifeboat_station should be tagged
> after this proposal passes?
>

They were a late addition after somebody pointed out that they exist. They
would be replaced by emergency=marine_rescue, which has already been
defined as groups " dedicated to the rescue of vessels &/or sailors at sea"

Also "The area of the Rescue base should render with the same pink colour
> as currently used for
> Police & Fire Stations, together with an "SOS" icon." is problematic as
> proposal process has no
> power to select any rendering in any map style.
>

Yes, but all proposals suggest a rendering scheme.

And in many renderers different (or none) styling is used for rendering
> this object anyway.
>

Which I hope would change?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS)

2020-12-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 02:24, Seth Deegan  wrote:

> Those are known as rumble strips.
>
> The wiki has traffic_calming=rumble_strip:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming#Common_values
>

But the description for rumble strip on that page also says "Do not confuse
with longitudinally placed rumble strips to alert drivers that they are
leaving their lane, which are generally not mapped by OSM."

I can understand why a cyclist would like to know about them, but I'm not
sure how we'd map them? A way drawn along the side of the road, like a
fence, or added to the roads properties eg cycleway=lane +
cycleway:rumble_strip=yes?

& wouldn't we then have to include all the rumble strips between normal
traffic lanes?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Following discussions, voting has been postponed until the military=bases
proposal is decided, so this has been returned to Under Way only.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 13:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue
>>
>
> Voting is now open.
>
> If you still have any comments or concern, please raise them for
> discussion, rather than just voting "No, because ..."!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 13:50, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The text of the proposal is still confusing.
>

Sorry about that - maybe it should have been broken into 2 separate things?

Is the tag emergency=rescue_stations being proposed?
>

Currently the Emergency page has the heading "Other Stations" with
emergency=mountain_rescue being the only thing listed under that heading
(until recently, when you have added emergency=water_rescue_station). This
proposal will change that heading to "Rescue Stations", with various tags
to define each type of Emergency Rescue Station.

What are the tags which are proposed and what will be the definition of
> each tag?
>

The existing  emergency =
mountain_rescue
 will
remain unchanged.

The existing emergency =
disaster_response

will get a better definition to cover each countries Emergency Rescue /
Civil Defence service/s

Two new tags

emergency =marine_rescue

for non-military "lifeboat" / Marine Rescue units

emergency =mine_rescue

for dedicated Mine Rescue stations

I did mention that the existing Lifeguard classification could also be
moved to this area, possibly under a new emergency=water_rescue tag, but
that would probably be better done as a separate proposal.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations
>

Moved to voting.

If you still have any comments or concerns, please raise them for
discussion, rather than just voting "No, because ..."!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue
>

Voting is now open.

If you still have any comments or concern, please raise them for
discussion, rather than just voting "No, because ..."!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 09:44, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> for a price:
>

You're not wrong!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 09:26, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> I have seen some shooting=range but the tag does not make too much sense
> for tagging a shooting range facility.
>

Yes, it does actually, because shooters go to a range to shoot.

We have sport=shooting and the physical nature of the place usually would
> go in a leisure tag, maybe sometimes amenity, man_made or natural.
>

As above, possibly amenity=shooting_range?

I would see more consistency in shooting=* describing the kind of shooting
> rather than the place, e.g. shooting=rifle / pistol / archery or maybe
> biathlon.
>

Together with shooting_range=pistol / rifle / etc?

shooting=range could still be ok, if this is intended to describe the kind
> of shooting, and “range shooting” is a suitable category (e.g. for a sports
> club
>

Possibly "target shooting" would be a better option, as you shoot at
targets located on the range, not at the range itself, which is just open
ground, usually with a mound of dirt at one end.


> , e.g. as opposed to clay pigeon shooting,
>

However, clay pigeon shooting also takes place on a range!

& yes, another topic which I know quite a bit about! :-)

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Paul Allen  wrote:

> It calls them speed bumps.
>

Yep, it seems like these are just a variety of speed bump
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming & =bump.

The existing definition is more or less OK in that it includes

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 08:59, Jeremy Harris  wrote:

>
> I think rifle-shooting was a component of a triathlon in a recent
> Winter Olympic, too.
>

Winter Olympics has the Biathlon - cross-country skiing & very accurate
shooting, while the Summer Olympics has several different shooting events
including the Decathlon - running, swimming, various other athletics plus
pistol shooting!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 08:48, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> The leisure key is generally silly, because we assign these tags also to
> sports facilities for professional sports people, but for shooting ranges
> it seems even less appropriate to add them under leisure when the operator
> is the military, a pmc or the police, not to speak of bombing ranges.
>

There was a suggestion on one of the "shooting" talk pages of making it
amenity=shooting_range, due to this exact reason - they're often used for
training by police, security & people interested in home defence, rather
than just as a leisure pastime.

Another issue is how to map them?

Another comment suggested =recreation_ground for the whole area (car parks,
buildings etc) with shooting=range for the actual area that bullets are
flying over.

However, I have seen photos of at least one rifle range in Switzerland,
that has the firing point on one side of a valley, wit the targets on the
other side, & a highway running along the valley floor, 50 m below!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
 On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 02:00, St Niklaas  wrote:

>
> Your text or proposal seems to be focused on modern times.
>

 Yes, that's right, as it's intended for current, active, military
establishments only.

Since every town (vesting) or fortress (fort) has its own barracks in the
> past
>

Yes, but they are (usually) no longer a military area, so to my mind
shouldn't be mapped as landuse=military?

I did earlier raise the question of how to deal with historical sites such
as the ones you pointed out?

"Ex-military bases, now often either historical precincts / tourist
attractions / possibly ruins only eg Fort Lytton
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-27.41058/153.15263,
https://fortlytton.org.au/ & many more similar worldwide. They were, but
are not now military areas, so how should we tag them?
museum + tourist attraction + was:landuse=military + was:military=base, or
ignore all reference to "military"?"

We could also include "historic=fort"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dfort but that also says
"a military fort: a stand-alone defensive structure which differs from a
castle in that there is no permanent residence. There may have been
temporary housing for the crew", which I have some issues with?

(& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't necessarily
make it historic! :-))

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 03:59, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>  when the term is military „base“ I would guess it will always be intended
> for more than a few weeks?


Yes, that's right.

Even if the label is „temporary“ it probably means years and not days?
>

Usually several months, at the very least, but there are military bases at
various sites around the world that have been at that spot for hundreds of
years!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-18 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks for those edits, Joseph.

They make things a little neater!

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-18 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 20:10, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> there are quite different kinds of bases, some are “permanent” and may be
> in the home country of the military, others may be in “allied“ nations,
> with contractual or defacto relationships, and there may be also those in
> conflict and war zones etc.
>

Yes, quite correct, but a USAF base, regardless of whether it is located in
the US, Germany or Afghanistan, will still be tagged as landuse=military +
military=base + military_service=air_force + operator=United States Air
Force.

As with most things OSM, this tag would really only apply to permanent /
long-term sites. "Temporary" locations "in the field" wouldn't be mapped or
tagged this way (plus, of course, the challenges of locating & mapping them
in a war zone!)

Their nature may be very different, e.g. used to provide replenishment,
> used as relais station for communications (including “combat“ action like
> murdering people through drone strikes), used as hospital area for injured
> soldiers, used as command stations, used as a relatively safe space in a
> combat area, ...
>

True, & there was discussion re further defining which units, or branch of
service (armour, Artillery, Military Police etc) the base houses, but I
think that may be better refined at a later date?

There’s also nowadays the situation where private contractors may be in the
> same base as the military forces.
> Operation military kids may have some information:
> https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/private-military-companies/
>
> Do you see PMC as landuse=military?
>

Hmmm, an interesting one that I hadn't thought of?

Depending on their particular role & location, I think you would find that
civilian contractors assisting the military (eg contractors to the US Army
in Iraq or Afghanistan) would be housed inside an Army base, rather than in
a compound by themselves.

Contractors inside a country eg civilian guards manning the entry gates
into a US Army Base inside America, aren't housed on the Base itself, but
would work from their own company premises, which would possibly be an
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Dsecurity?

The awkward one comes in when you consider those forces which used to be
called mercenaries eg
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-understanding-private-armies-today/
?

Although my comment above would certainly apply about actually locating &
mapping them in a conflict zone, I'd guess that yes, they would also be
classed under landuse=military + military=base? Happy to have input on that
from anybody else with a point of view!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-17 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
As just posted on talk

Thanks. Yes, it should have a definition. How about:

A base is the (almost invariably) enclosed area where a military
establishment is located: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_base. It
will include a variety of buildings, facilities etc in the area, & may be
used by different branches of Military Service eg Army, Air Force. However,
they are different to a military=training_area, as that is where field
training, as opposed to classroom, takes place.

Yes, landuse=military will be a required tag, together with military=base

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 12:10, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> So far the proposal lacks a definition of the new tag military=base
>
> The closest we get is "military=base for the area of each military
> establishment" but that makes it sound like almost any kind of
> landuse=military could have the military=base tag added.
>
> How should military=base be defined?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:44 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
> >
> >
> > This proposal is also getting close to voting.
> >
> > Precis:
> >
> > deprecate:
> >
> > military=naval_base
> > protect_class=25
> >
> > modify:
> >
> > military=barracks
> >
> > add:
> >
> > military=base
> > military_service=xxx
> >
> >
> > There have been lot's of fantastic suggestions & comments made so far,
> so if you have any more, please add them either here or on the talk page.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-17 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
>

This proposal is also getting close to voting.

Precis:

*deprecate*:

   - military <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:military>=naval_base
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dnaval_base>
   - protect_class <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect_class>=
   25
   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:protect_class%3D25=edit=1>

*modify*:

   - military <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:military>=barracks
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbarracks>

*add*:

   - military <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:military>=base
   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:military%3Dbase=edit=1>
   - military_service
   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:military_service=edit=1>
   =xxx
   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:military_service%3Dxxx=edit=1>


There have been lot's of fantastic suggestions & comments made so far, so
if you have any more, please add them either here or on the talk page.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

2020-12-17 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 02:33, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the hazard key
> has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
>

Here are some examples of tags as "waterway feature" + type=hazard
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-28.0981/153.4583 (only visible
in "Edit" mode, as white markers)

No documentation that I can find though?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:43, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> That example certainly looks like a landuse=basin or water=basin feature
> with basin=retention
>

Maybe? But there's an awful lot of them tagged as reservoirs!

Thanks

Graeme

>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest
>> dams, because they're mounded up above the ground eg
>>
>> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg
>>
>> For a full explanation:
>> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That Wikipedia page is right.
>>> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall
>>> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of
>>> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction
>>> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.
>>>
>>> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this
>>> is the intended tag. Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
>>>> English.
>>>>
>>>> Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer
>>>> water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>>>>
>>>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
>>>> josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
>>>>> personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
>>>>> sure what subtag to use.
>>>>> I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
>>>>> definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is 
>>>>> structurally
>>>>> and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
>>>>> reservoirs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
>>>>> expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
>>>>> I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
>>>>> water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map
>>>>> incrementally, which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality
>>>>> maps that are constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality 
>>>>> map,
>>>>> we'd map systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will
>>>>> appear on a render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't
>>>>> be mapping.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
>>>>>> > (just added)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>>>>>>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
>>>>>> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
>>>>>> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
>>>>>> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
>>>>>> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
>>>>>> make 

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
I should have added ...

So really, they're not "natural" in any way (except for the water in them!,
& even that is frequently pumped in).

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 12:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams,
> because they're mounded up above the ground eg
>
> https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg
>
> For a full explanation:
> https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume 
> wrote:
>
>> That Wikipedia page is right.
>> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall
>> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of
>> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction
>> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.
>>
>> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this
>> is the intended tag. Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
>>> English.
>>>
>>> Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer
>>> water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>>>
>>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
>>> josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
>>>> personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
>>>>
>>>> I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
>>>> sure what subtag to use.
>>>> I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
>>>> definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally
>>>> and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
>>>> reservoirs.
>>>>
>>>> Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
>>>> expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
>>>> I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
>>>> water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.
>>>>
>>>> One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
>>>> which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
>>>> constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
>>>> systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
>>>> render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
>>>>> > (just added)
>>>>>
>>>>>   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
>>>>>   My arguments on the points you've added:
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
>>>>> If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
>>>>> not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
>>>>> (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
>>>>> could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
>>>>> make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
>>>>> for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
>>>>> complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
>>>>> importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
>>>>> use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
>>>>> work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible t

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
In an Australian context, the most common are known as Turkey's Nest dams,
because they're mounded up above the ground eg
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T7R0/turkey-nest-dam-on-outback-cattle-station-queensland-australia-A6T7R0.jpg

For a full explanation:
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/water-management/excavated-tanks-farm-dams

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:53, Joseph Guillaume 
wrote:

> That Wikipedia page is right.
> The artificial grading mostly involves creating an (earthen) dam wall
> (which is often also mapped), and the purpose is generally retention of
> water rather than infiltration or detention, which is why the distinction
> between reservoir and basin isn't clear cut to me.
>
> I'm having trouble thinking of it as a basin, but it does seem like this
> is the intended tag. Thanks!
>
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 12:29 pm Joseph Eisenberg, <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What is a farm dam in this context? We don't have that term in American
>> English.
>>
>> Is this perhaps an example of landuse=basin (or if you prefer
>> water=basin) with basin=detention or basin=infiltration?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_(agricultural_reservoir)
>>
>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:29 PM Joseph Guillaume <
>> josephguilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This discussion has convinced me not to use landuse=reservoir.
>>>
>>> It sounds like the only benefit is its historical use, whereas I've
>>> personally seen benefits of the natural=water approach.
>>>
>>> I've mapped quite a number of farm dams as natural=water without being
>>> sure what subtag to use.
>>> I now think that's because there isn't an appropriate subtag. I
>>> definitely don't want to tag it as a pond. While a farm dam is structurally
>>> and functionally a reservoir, there are clear differences with large
>>> reservoirs.
>>>
>>> Already now, farm dams tend to be mapped more prominently than I'd
>>> expect. The dominant feature of these grazing landscapes is fencing, and
>>> I'd therefore expect farm dams to appear on a similar scale to fences.
>>> water=reservoir and landuse=reservoir wouldn't do that.
>>>
>>> One of the things I love about OSM is the ability to map incrementally,
>>> which by definition results in incomplete, lower quality maps that are
>>> constantly improving. If the priority was a high quality map, we'd map
>>> systematically (like Missing maps, but for everything that will appear on a
>>> render) and not release an area until it was done. I wouldn't be mapping.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2020, 1:26 am Tomas Straupis, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
 >
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir
 > (just added)

   Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki?
   My arguments on the points you've added:

   1. Regarding benefit of having a combining level/tag natural=water.
 If today you would query all data with natural=water - you will get
 not only lakes and reservoirs grouped, but also riverbank polygons
 (totally different beast) and micro elements like water=pond. This
 could only be partly useful in the largest scale maps and only if you
 make very simple maps and for some reason use the same symbolisation
 for such different water classes. For example ponds usually have less
 complex and less prominent symbolisation because of their size and
 importance. Riverbanks would not need polygon labelling, but rather
 use river (central) line for label placement. Most of GIS/Cartography
 work goes in middle/small scales and it will be impossible to use only
 natural=water there, you would have to add "and water not in
 ('riverbank', 'pond', ...)". This erodes the benefit of "one tag" and
 makes it of the same complexity from coding perspective as original
 water scheme.

   2. Very important disadvantage of water=reservoir from
 cartographic/gis perspective: it allows mappers to NOT differentiate
 between natural lakes and man made reservoirs. If first point
 describes how different classes are USED, this second point is about
 how these classes are CAPTURED.

   Did I miss anything?

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers --> Hazards

2020-12-16 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 at 11:24, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
>
> Thanks for the comments!  For the specific linked case (winding road for
> 74(!) miles), it seems that is already covered in the proposal -
> hazard=curves and its sub-tags cover this, and if it truly is 74
> consecutive miles, that I would think it's just fine to tag 74 miles worth
> of ways in this way.
>

& we'll have to do the same for this! :-)

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BPN0FY/warning-sign-on-the-eyre-highway-across-the-nullarbor-plain-western-BPN0FY.jpg

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 14:51, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
> Personally I'd usually try to add the operator and operator:wikidata tags
> in combination to give more context.
>

Thanks - I never think of wikidata tags as I don't usually use them.

Added

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


Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
> Would this be satisfactory to the group in resolving the question of
> reservoir tagging?
>

Good idea to bring it up, but not sure it will resolve anything once & for
all?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 23:55, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> 1) Holiday cottages are rarely building=cabin, they are mostly
> building=house.
>

May depend on where you are? I know of a number of places that advertise
cottages / cabins eg http://lyrebirdspringbrook.com/index.html

One around the corner from me is a former house
> that has been converted to a holiday let.  Even the ones on farms
> are converted stone barns, converted stone stables, etc.
>

Shouldn't they then stay as their original type of building? From the
buildings page:  the value may be used to classify the type of building.
Note that it may be not the same as the building's current use (tagged
using building:use =*).
For example, a hospital building that is abandoned or repurposed to be a
marketplace is still a building=hospital



> 2) A farm which has converted some of its buildings to
> holiday cottages will have a mix of building types.  Mappers
> who wish to go into details would prefer to see the
> individual holiday cottages rendered distinctly (as
> they currently are).
>

But building=yes + name=xxx will still render sufficiently, won't it?

3) This scheme has problems with individual holiiday
> cottages, such as the one around the corner from me,
> unless you retain tourism=chalet for such cases.
>

Individual as 1 cabin per site, or, as Mateusz raised, multiple cabins on
one site?

 4) There are a lot of tourism=chalet.  Are you proposing we bulk edit them?
>

Nope!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks

Graeme


On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue & have a
> look.
>

This proposal (which is partly linked to both the Rescue Services &
Military Bases proposals) is also close to moving to voting.

Precis:

*Deprecated*:

   - emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=
   coast_guard
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dcoast_guard>
   - amenity <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity>=coast_guard
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcoast_guard>

*Add*:

   - military <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:military>=coast_guard
   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:military%3Dcoast_guard=edit=1>
   - emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=
   marine_rescue
   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:emergency%3Dmarine_rescue=edit=1>

 So far, comments appear positive, but if there is anything you would like
to add, please mention it either here or on the Talk page.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations & have a
> look.
>

Reminder that voting is close to opening on this proposal.

*Precis:*

Amend the heading emergency=other_stations to emergency=rescue_stations /
rescue_services (still in two minds about this one?)

Under that heading, introduce new, or define existing, tags for various
rescue services:

emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=
disaster_response
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Ddisaster_response>

emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=marine_rescue
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:emergency%3Dmarine_rescue=edit=1>

emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=mine_rescue
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:emergency%3Dmine_rescue=edit=1>

emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=
mountain_rescue
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dmountain_rescue>

Deprecate:

   - emergency <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency>=
   ses_station
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dses_station>
   - emergency_service
   
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:emergency_service=edit=1>
   =technical
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency_service%3Dtechnical>
   - amenity <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity>=
   rescue_station
   <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drescue_station>


So far, there have been very few comments, so if there is anything you'd
like to bring up about the idea, please do so, either here or on the talk
page.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Changes to clarify the Hazards proposal during the vote

2020-12-14 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks Brian.

As far as I am concerned, those changes are fine.

Graeme


On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 10:53, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently received late feedback on the hazards proposal.  Based on the
> feedback, I felt it was necessary to make small changes to this proposal.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-14 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:41, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>
> What I don't like in OSM is naming for large geographic areas,


Thanks for the explanation, Frederik, but I'd like to make a couple of
points

like "the Alps", "the Black Forest", or "the Bay of Biscay", for two
> reasons:
>
> First, there can be any number of such areas.


Why is that a problem?

Are you concerned that somebody may mistake the Black Forest in Southern
Germany with the (hypothetical!) Black Forests in the US & Australia?

Or that different people may map it in different spots? If you've mapped
the Black Forest roughly north-south, then I map something E-W in the same
area & also call it the Black Forest, somebody is going to notice & ask me
why? & if I can't come up with a good explanation, it's going to be
reverted.

Second, these areas are usually ill-defined: There are some places that are
> clearly in the Black Forest, and some that are clearly not in the
> Black Forest, but there's not one boundary line - there's fuzziness.


So? If I look at a map eg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#/media/File:Relief_Map_of_Germany,_Black_Forest.png,
it tells me that the Balck Forest is a more or less oval-shaped area in
Southern Germany. Why can't we draw a similar rough oval in OSM & call it
Black Forest? If someone then extends it so that Stuttgart or Zurich are
included, once again, it will be spotted & corrected.

We name towns & cities all the time, with a nice, neat line saying that
this area is part of this town, & outside this line isn't. But what about
that house 300 m down the road - is it part of the town or not?

OSM is not good with fuzziness; OSM forces us to have an exact point or
> line or polygon for something.


I would have said that everything in the natural world is "fuzzy", indeed,
everything that's not an exact geometric man-made object eg a building or
fence, will almost certainly be?

I know that I've mapped woodland areas previously & the boundary doesn't
run along the exact edge of the treeline - yes, most of the trees are
inside the line, with only a "few" outside it, but how could it be done any
better? I could very carefully go along with a million points, twisting &
turning to get every tree, but then next week, one of them falls down, so
it's then got to be corrected!

For fuzzy labels, you need a different system that should exist outside of
> OSM's current data types.


Does it have to be outside?

Either by adding a new fuzzy data type to OSM (no need to assemble 1000
> ways with a total of 20,000 points to exactly describe the outline of the
> Alps if all you want is a nice big lettering in approximately the right
> spot),


& that's (I think) exactly what Anders wants, & I'll go along with him!

It doesn't have to be "exact", just so long as somebody can look at the map
& say that that area there is the "Whatever"!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-14 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:28, Paul Allen  wrote:

> I can't think of an English term, other than "holiday cottages."  These
> places
> generally call themselves "Foo Holiday Cottages" or "Foo Holidays" or
> "Foo Farm Cottages" or things like that.
>

I'm with Paul for Holiday Cottages.

How about tagging the whole area as tourism=chalet + name=Foo Cottages +
capacity=25
then tagging each individual cottage / cabin as either
building=cabin / bungalow + name=xxx?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dcabin

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dbungalow

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-13 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 16:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Tagging 25 tourism=chalet independently is sill when they form
> single object, not 25 separate ones.
>

Are they cottages number 1 - 25 on the same camp site, or individual
chalets located close to each other?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-13 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 19:17, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> fully spelt out
>

Noted.

Thanks

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


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

2020-12-13 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 06:37, stevea  wrote:

> This is problematic to my thinking.  In California (my state), at an
> UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic
> control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to
> another sidewalk on the other side of the roadway," pedestrians ALWAYS have
> the right-of-way (over all vehicles) when they indicate it.  How do they
> indicate it?  By lifting one foot to step towards / into the intersection
> (from the sidewalk).  Drivers must (by law) stop short of entering the
> intersection to allow the pedestrian to cross, once a pedestrian has so
> entered the crossing (even it if is unmarked or "invisible").
>

Australia goes even a bit further in that pedestrians always have
right-of-way, regardless of crossings (marked or unmarked) or not.

https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/pedestrians/needtoknow/index.html

" Drivers must give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which their
vehicles are turning. You must also give way to pedestrians if there is a
danger of colliding with them, even if there is no marked pedestrian
crossing.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-12 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 12:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Break - I've just found that there actually are a handful of
> club=army_cadets (8), =air_cadets (5) & =sea_cadets (2) already in use,
> although all are undocumented, so they will be fine.
>

Seeing that these are already in use, albeit in miniscule numbers, is there
any need to go through the full RFC & vote procedure, or can I just create
pages for them?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-12 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 19:30, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Which military service are the Italian Carabinieri? The US Marines?
>
What about the Guardia di Finanza?
>

Yep, as mentioned previously, there will be a number of fine, fuzzy lines
(& yes, both words apply!) to sort out, mainly between "Police" &
"Military".

I can tell you that the US Marines belong to the US Marine Corps, which
comes under the overall command of the US Navy. The British Royal Marines,
however, are directly under command of the Royal Navy, with no intervening
command level.

No idea on the other two‽

I agree we will probably find use for both, a specific operator tag and a
> more generic attempt to put the things into boxes.
>

Yes, I agree.

In regard to operators - "USMC" or "United States Marine Corps", & the same
for all the other names ie abbreviated or spelt if full ?

Another couple of issues I've spotted as I've been looking at some of the
current listings for military=barracks.

Ex-military bases, now often either historical precincts / tourist
attractions / possibly ruins only eg Fort Lytton
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-27.41058/153.15263,
https://fortlytton.org.au/ & many more similar worldwide. They were, but
are not now military areas, so how should we tag them?
museum + tourist attraction + was:landuse=military + was:military=base, or
ignore all reference to "military"?

The other one is Cadet units eg Army / Navy / Air Force Cadets? I don't
know about other countries, but in Australia at least, while they are named
"Australian Army Cadets", they are classified as a youth group only, & not
linked to the military forces in any way. So what should we tag their depot
/ training building as?

There used to be a tag for club+youth, but this was scrubbed in favour of
amenity =community_centre
 +
community_centre:for
=juvenile

The problem I have with that is that these buildings are not open to the
general public, or for use by other community groups, so they wouldn't meet
the usual criteria.

Break - I've just found that there actually are a handful of
club=army_cadets (8), =air_cadets (5) & =sea_cadets (2) already in use,
although all are undocumented, so they will be fine. Are we all in
agreement though, that there should be no reference to "military" against
Cadet groups (except, of course, for those countries where they *are*
actually part of the military!)?

One other thing I've realised from this exercise is that the "Military"
page needs further cleaning-up, but let's get this one out of the way
first! :-)

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-11 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 08:06, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> do we really need military_service=army given that these services will
> differ according to the country? We can tag operator =United States Army or
> “United States Marine Corps” and keep lists in the wiki for standardized
> names of these structures in all countries, without having to decide which
> “box” they have to be put in.
>

I can't see that it would hurt having both options? After all, you don't
have to enter both if you don't know the info, but as Brian pointed out,
it's more data that people may want to see.

Going out there a bit, but I could also see cases where somebody can see
fighter jets taking off & landing, so it's obviously an Air Force base, but
they tag the operator as the Chinese Air Force, which doesn't actually
exist - it's the People's Liberation Army Air Force!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-11 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sorry, ignore me as it looks like the question had already been answered.

When I opened the message, your original question was the only thing there,
but when I answered, all the other earlier replies appeared?

No idea what's going on there? Guess gmail must be having a bad morning!

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 08:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Does each bog & marsh have it's own name, or are just different surfaces
> inside one big named wetland?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> PS & please don't get frustrated & give up on trying to make progress!
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 02:11, Anders Torger  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was on this list a while back expressing some frustration over
>> limitations when tagging nature and thought about getting involved in a
>> process for change, but I came to realize that it's not feasible for me
>> in my current life situation, so I've decided to continue be a normal
>> mapper as before, doing what I can do with features that exist today.
>>
>> Anyway, if to be a mapper at all, I still like to solve some of my
>> naming issues in the best/least bad ways possible today. I'm currently
>> mapping a national park in Sweden, Muddus. It's in Laponia and consists
>> of mighty wetlands and old forest. These wetlands are named, like is
>> common in Sweden and Sami lands. For us navigating in wildlife, names in
>> nature are important.
>>
>> A wetland polygon can be named in OSM, so the situation is better than
>> for example for named slopes (also common). However, a wetland here can
>> consist of both bog and marsh (and it's important to make the
>> difference, since one is easy to walk on, the other not so much). That's
>> two different natural types and thus can't be in the same multipolygon
>> (as outers).
>>
>>
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-11 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Does each bog & marsh have it's own name, or are just different surfaces
inside one big named wetland?

Thanks

Graeme

PS & please don't get frustrated & give up on trying to make progress!


On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 02:11, Anders Torger  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was on this list a while back expressing some frustration over
> limitations when tagging nature and thought about getting involved in a
> process for change, but I came to realize that it's not feasible for me
> in my current life situation, so I've decided to continue be a normal
> mapper as before, doing what I can do with features that exist today.
>
> Anyway, if to be a mapper at all, I still like to solve some of my
> naming issues in the best/least bad ways possible today. I'm currently
> mapping a national park in Sweden, Muddus. It's in Laponia and consists
> of mighty wetlands and old forest. These wetlands are named, like is
> common in Sweden and Sami lands. For us navigating in wildlife, names in
> nature are important.
>
> A wetland polygon can be named in OSM, so the situation is better than
> for example for named slopes (also common). However, a wetland here can
> consist of both bog and marsh (and it's important to make the
> difference, since one is easy to walk on, the other not so much). That's
> two different natural types and thus can't be in the same multipolygon
> (as outers).
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-10 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 11:42, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
> Yes, this makes sense in broad strokes, though some thought is needed as
> to the exact set of keys and values would be needed to describe these
> things.
>

Indeed! But we've still got another 10 - 12 days of RFC, so lo's of time
:-)

>
>
>> I don't think we'd need to drill down further into what "type" of unit it
>> is (Armour, Artillery, Engineers, MP etc) as that will just introduce a
>> whole realm of further confusion, especially if it's being done by
>> non-Military mappers, plus which I also still have some security concerns
>> about identifying things too accurately‽
>>
>
> I think it would be fine to have a way to tag such unit identifiers,
> though there can be multiple tenant units within a base, so this is
> possibly beyond the scope of base tagging.
>

Yes, that may be another step after this gets through (assuming it does, &
I've got say that, so far at least, nobody seems particularly upset with
the idea)

I did mention earlier in reply to one of the comments that (previously
>> base=) military_service=yes / unknown would be OK if you can't work out
>> what's in there, so that should hopefully cover that problem?
>>
>
> I do not think that military_service=yes or =unknown should be included in
> the proposal.  For the "=unknown" situation, this is accomplished by simply
> omitting the tag, and for the "=yes" situation, this is redundant with the
> military=* tag.
>

In the How to Map section of the proposal, I had worded it that
military_service=xxx was mandatory. A comment was then made "that [it]
prevents the mapping of military bases where the service is unknown", so I
included =yes / unknown for those cases (which should be rare). At the
time, I was thinking about the ubiquitous building=yes & highway=yes, when
you can't work out any further details beyond "It's there". Easier solution
will be just to remove the "mandatory" requirement!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-10 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 07:41, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
>> Services often cross functions; for example, the US Army operates air
>>> fields[2].  Tagging this military_service=army would be accurate, but would
>>> not convey that this is an air force base, but not an Air Force base.
>>>
>>> To get around all of this, we should tag military bases with their
>>> function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner.  For
>>> the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like:
>>>
>>> name=Wheeler Army Airfield
>>> landuse=military
>>> military=base
>>> military_service=army
>>> military_function=air
>>> operator=United States Army
>>>
>>> I went with military_function over military_component in this example.
>>>  "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function"
>>> is probably better understood by mappers.
>>>
>>> military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space,
>>> law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization
>>> in different countries.
>>>
>>
Yes, possibly _function, although this is where _branch could also come in?

Ground/land, air/aviation & maritime/naval all seem pretty well
interchangeable, space is ready for the future & we should also include
amphibious & probably Staff / Command / Headquarters for somewhere like
this place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/89605! Currently
office=military & also office+government (together with building=public?),
so would become landuse=military + military=base +
military_service=joint_forces + function/branch="command" - sound good?

I don't think we'd need to drill down further into what "type" of unit it
is (Armour, Artillery, Engineers, MP etc) as that will just introduce a
whole realm of further confusion, especially if it's being done by
non-Military mappers, plus which I also still have some security concerns
about identifying things too accurately‽

Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility to
>>> combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a more
>>> accurate tagging.  In addition, from a data consumer, there is a difference
>>> between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of the military
>>> air bases".
>>>
>>
Yes, I'm now seeing what you mean, especially after relating it to
Holsworthy, but still trying to visualise how it would work, especially for
somewhere like that, that has both ground forces & also aviation on the
same base? Another prime example would be
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6145740#map=10/34.4681/-116.2189.

As a general rule, I think just "army base" is sufficient for a
> hypothetical multi-function base occupied by an army service. However, I
> note from Wikipedia's discussion of that base:
>
> "Holsworthy Barracks (ICAO: YSHW) is an Australian Army military barracks
> [...] is part of the Holsworthy military reserve, which is 22,000-hectare
> (54,000-acre) training area and artillery range for the Australian Army,
> [...] Holsworthy Military Airport is also located in the reserve."
>
> It calls out "Holsworthy Barracks", "Holsworthy military reserve", and
> "Holsworthy Military Airport" as separate places.  Wikipedia seems to think
> these are different things, and it seems like we should have tagging that
> can describe the differences.  "Holsworthy Military Airport" sounds like a
> perfect example of an army base that is performing air component
> functions.
>

Yep, agree with you entirely! Rather than just being tagged
landuse=military + military=barracks as it is now, the whole area should be
landuse=military, with the built-up area being military=base, the airfield
military=airfield, & the bush military=training_area + military=range +
military=danger_area! - can we mark all three on one area?

Don't take this as criticism, as I fully support the proposed
> military_service tag.
>

Don't worry, I'm not! This is all great stuff, as it helps to make sure we
get it right from the start, rather than realising several years later that
we really should have ... :-( Got to say, though, that going through the
existing 9000, I'm thinking probably mostly incorrect, military=barracks is
going to be a *bbbiiiggg* job! - MapRoulette challenge perhaps?

But -- I can already envision the mis-tagging that may occur the first time
> a mapper encounters a military base that "quacks like a cow" and goes to
> the wiki and there isn't an obvious way to tag these differences beyond the
> "name" tag.  We have an opportunity here to make the tagging more fully
> descriptive to indicate both the service that operates a base as well as
> the overall military purpose for bases that are specialized.
>

I did mention earlier in reply to one of the comments that (previously
base=) military_service=yes / unknown would be OK if you can't work out
what's in there, so that should hopefully cover that problem?

Thanks

Graeme

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-10 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:28, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> There are, in fact, military offices which are not within a
> landuse=military area, and there are military=danger_area features which
> are not in landuse=military
>

Offices not on base are possible, but will usually only be recruiting
offices, & a military=danger_area that's not also landuse_military would be
fairly rare, but can happen in ex-firing ranges.

Going through these one by one

e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315105891,
>

OK, so it definitely *was* a military area, but not sure if it still is, or
if it's now been disposed of? The last info I can find on it (sorry,
couldn't copy the link but please Google " Phoenix Military Reservation
Fire Control Area") is dated 2011, & makes reference to 5 yearly reviews,
but nothing since then. The last change on the map was made by somebody
called *ZeLoneWolf*, so if we can track him down, he may be able to help?
:-)

The area is apparently "only" contaminated, so I don't think it should be
called a military danger area, which relates to firing / bombing ranges,
but it would be a prime candidate for Brian's new "Hazard" scheme

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26165183 (danger_area)
>

Is an active military firing range, so should also be landuse=military +
military=range. The current note should be a description so that map users
can see it.


> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151330951
>

Yep, military recruiting office in a commercial area.

Appears to be Army only, rather than all forces, so military=office +
office=recruiting + military_service=army

, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485899442 (office)
>

Interesting one!

Currently building=commercial + military=office + office=government

Can't open the listed URL due to a 405 error?, but Wiki (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_Exchange_System) says that
CANEX is the Canadian Forces Exchange System, similar to the US PX, &
British NAAFI.

We don't have an Australian equivalent, but my understanding is that these
are a combination department store & supermarket, reserved for use by
military personnel & their families? I wouldn't have said it was actually
either a military or a government office?

Just looking, & here's an American version
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5762588456, which I'm guessing is the
same thing, & it's listed as a shop=supermarket only.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-10 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Once again, thanks everybody for your thoughts & comments! This is great,
please keep them coming!

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:28, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> I agree, and this can be easily fixed by changing the key to describe what
> we are actually specifying: "What military service branch is using this
> feature?"
>
> So I suggest military_branch=* or military_service=* for the key.
>

Yep, after thinking about it overnight, I agree with you, so have changed
the wording from base= to military_service=.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 04:15, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> However, it also assumes that every country's military forces are neatly
> grouped into these categories.  The Chinese military is particularly
> complex - the Chinese navy and air force are part of the army.
>

True, but I think that tagging a PLAN base as =navy, & a PLAAF base as
=air_force would be fine (especially as we "can't" map in China!)


>   Some countries have domestic police forces that are part of the
> military.
>

I think that Police forces are a completely separate kettle of fish, that
can be looked at at a later date:-)

Saudi Arabia, for example, has a separate air force and air defense force
> organzied as separate services, the latter being carved out of the army in
> the 1980s; tagging both as military_service=air_force would not be quite
> right.
>

No, I'd go AD as =army

Services often cross functions; for example, the US Army operates air
> fields[2].  Tagging this military_service=army would be accurate, but would
> not convey that this is an air force base, but not an Air Force base.
>
> To get around all of this, we should tag military bases with their
> function/component rather than solely grouping them by service owner.  For
> the example[2], the base could conceivably be tagged something like:
>
> name=Wheeler Army Airfield
> landuse=military
> military=base
> military_service=army
> military_function=air
> operator=United States Army
>
> I went with military_function over military_component in this example.
>  "Component" is the more typical term in military doctrine but "function"
> is probably better understood by mappers.
>
> military_function could include: ground/land, air, maritime, space,
> law_enforcement, logistics ... etc as needed to cover military organization
> in different countries.
>
> Having both aspects gives mappers in different countries the flexibility
> to combine service and functional aspects of military bases to create a
> more accurate tagging.  In addition, from a data consumer, there is a
> difference between "show me all the air force bases" and "show me all of
> the military air bases".
>

May also make things a bit awkward? eg Holsworthy Barracks that I think I
mentioned earlier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/474902706#map=14/-33.9772/150.9641, is an
Army base, that has infantry here, artillery ther, armour across that side,
engineers over the back, commandos down in the bush, together with an Army
Aviation airfield. What do you call it in one simple word?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

2020-12-09 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 23:37, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not
> falling, rocks.  There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your
> vehicle but the greater risk, by far, is that you will drive into a fallen
> rock.
>

But not always!
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WsC1Ee0QfGg/SdqAsY6oJwI/Akg/P71eh3vrZj0/s280/rockslide+4.bmp

Editors could make both fallen and falling searchable, and identify
> the preset as "falling/fallen rocks," so we might as well make the
> value reflect the really big risk rather than the very small one.
>

While I agree with you, our signs do say "Falling"!

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 03:30, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Also, in the UK, the sign for unexploded ordnance is the same as you
> have for minefields.  That symbol first appeared in UK Defence Standard
> 05-34, Marking of Service Matériel, and was called (bizarrely) "Unexploded
> explosive ordnance" (if it has exploded it would no longer be explosive,
> and if it's explosive then it must be unexploded).  In old money it
> would have been called "unexploded bomb."
>

Our UXO, or "Live bombs" sign, depending on the sign it's on, is
https://cdn-01.media-brady.com/store/stuk/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/85e4522595efc69f496374d01ef2bf13/1563992197/d/m/dmeu_hz185ad_std.lang.all.jpg

I think that moved away from "bomb" because other things (artillery shells,
grenades, rockets etc) can all blow up & kill you?

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 04:13, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

>
>>
>>
>>- Hidden dip
>>
>> Maybe.  There is a barely used tag hazard=dip.  Is this a permanent
> feature?  I usually see these in relation to road construction.  Note that
> speed dips are already covered under the key traffic_calming, so this would
> have to describe a permanent, signed dangerous feature that wasn't put
> there for traffic control reason.
>

Yes, they are permanent features & relatively common out here, with a
"very" complicated warning sign!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-9.svg

A few more that I've just thought of:

Tilting truck: This sign warns that trucks may tip over when driving around
the curve of the road or when making a turn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_W1-8_(L).svg

Emergency vehicles: give you early warning that emergency vehicles may
suddenly drive in or out of their entrance onto the road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-SA70.svg

Grid: to warn that you are approaching a cattle grid - we already have a
tag for grids, do we also need a sign to warn that they're coming up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia#/media/File:Australia_road_sign_W5-16.svg

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-08 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
I've now incorporated all (I think?) the comments from the talk page into
the proposal, if you'd like to check the wording?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 09:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 08:37, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> military bases might house intelligence facilities which are known and
>> could be tagged.
>>
>
> They could, if you can identify them, but as mentioned above, should we be?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-08 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 08:37, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> military bases might house intelligence facilities which are known and
> could be tagged.
>

They could, if you can identify them, but as mentioned above, should we be?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-08 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:13, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> This is an interesting idea.
>
> But the current proposal only provides a way to tag the military service
> branch of a military=base feature (which is usually also landuse=military).
>
> It might be better if there were a way to tag the branch for any sort of
> military feature, including military=office, military=danger_area
> ,
> military=barracks, and so on.
>

Can't see that that should be a major problem?

=offices are usually located inside a Base, which is covered as base=xxx,
or possibly "joint". You do have Recruiting Centres that are often found in
commercial areas, but they are usually for all forces, not individual ones.
If it's an "Army" only Recruiting office, you could go military=office +
office=recruiting + recruiting=army; or it could be covered by either
name=Army Recruiting Centre, or military=office + office=army?

There wouldn't usually be a need to specify who a =danger_area "belongs"
to, as they are almost always located inside =training_areas, which are
then named eg Beecroft Naval Weapons Range, but once again, training /
danger_area=navy should work.

As for =barracks. I did mention that it appears that =barracks is
frequently (almost always?) used incorrectly. It's currently defined as
"Buildings where soldiers live & work", but that is wrong. Barracks are
living & sleeping quarters only, not the entire Base area, so the =barracks
should be located inside military=base + base=xxx.

& as I've just mentioned on the Talk page, I'm starting to partially agree
with the "Don't map anything military" theory! I still think it's fine to
map the area & say that this is Edwards Air Force Base, but I'm wondering
if we really need to, or should, then map interior details to say that this
building is the Officers Mess, these are the Enlisted Quarters & this is
the Armoury?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-07 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Brian came up with a suggestion that bases also be tagged with an
appropriate admin level (2 / 4) to show at which level of Government they
are controlled.

Just wondering - I know that the US has State controlled forces eg National
Guard, but are there any / many other countries that have forces controlled
at lower than Federal level?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-07 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:33, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> I fixed that for you, it should just be status=proposed, and the template
> does the rest of the magic!
>

Thanks, Brian!

Another one to lock away in memory :-)

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-07 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases
>

But when I look at it, it's saying it's in Inactive status so not sure what
I've done there?

Suggestions please!

Thanks

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


[Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-07 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Following on from comments made in regard to deprecating both emergency= &
amenity=coast_guard & replacing them with military=coast_guard:

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 02:01, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> This is probably a US-centric viewpoint, but I note that there is a
> general lack of tagging under the military= key to indicate the military
> branch associated with a military base.  For example, we have
> military=naval_base, but no equivalent tagging for army, air force,
> amphibious, (dare I say space force?) bases.  In places where the coast
> guard IS part of the military, tagging it under landuse=military +
> military=* is appropriate.  However, I also support the need to tag coast
> guard areas in places where they are considered non-military and thus
> landuse=military would not be appropriate.
>

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 04:18, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> yes, a documented way to distinguish "finer" details are missing not only
> for military branches, the same holds true for police branches and other
> law enforcement and border / tax etc. control.
>

I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases

Please have a read & comment either here or on the discussion page.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-07 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations & have a
> look.
>

Thinking about this further, I'm thinking that Rescue Services may be
better than Rescue Stations?

I've also realised that Stations / Services is only a header on the page,
so there's no reason for it to actually be included in the tagging, so
instead of tagging things as eg emergency=rescue_station +
rescue=disaster_response, they would only be tagged
rescue=disaster_response

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-06 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 15:01, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Please be aware of a couple of other existing tags:
>

Thanks.

Yes I am aware of all those & made reference to the lifeguard tags in the
discussion about the Rescue Stations proposal: "The existing lifeguard
classifications could either remain as they are, or all be moved to this
key as rescue=water_rescue" (which looks like it would now be
emergency=water_rescue)

>From a previous (failed) attempt to clean up the various lifeguard
listings, I believe a water_rescue_station is the German equivalent of a
lifeguard, not a marine rescue unit ie they worry about swimmers, not
vessels at sea?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - Pedestrian hazard

2020-12-06 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 04:14, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I cannot remember having seen such signage for places where cyclists are
> using the road.
>

Doing it to you again! :-)

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.128994,153.4847037,3a,75y,327.54h,51.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSXoyhtDrthUQ45j0cSdQ4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Since these images were taken, signage has also been put up warning of
cyclists on road, in addition to the roadway markings.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-06 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks everybody for positive comments!

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 20:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> But maybe  (or amenity=marine_recsue) would be better
> than a brand new key rescue in rescue=marine_rescue tag?
>

I've been wondering about that overnight?

I was working on emergency=rescue_stations + rescue=marine_rescue, but
maybe just keeping the various types of station together under the Rescue
Stations heading, but tagged as emergency=marine_rescue would be neater?

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 23:43, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> The one thing I would avoid is tagging it as an amenity.
>

Definitely!

Which is why I also suggested changing amenity=fire_station to emergency=

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 01:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> it makes it look a either military or rescue decision, but many coast
> guards will be seen as part of the police or border patrol, rather than
> military.
>

Yes, & the same as everything, there will always be edge cases, which is
why I defined "Armed" Coast Guard as also defending against eg smugglers &
terrorists, not necessarily fighting a war.

E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Federal_Coast_Guard
>

 Working on the concept that the crews are armed, even if it is only with
pistols, then I would list them under military=coast_guard.

Naturally, this will be open to input from people in each country who can
say yes / no.

Thanks

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


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-05 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
 Following on from
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056482.html,
I've also put together a proposal to make some changes to the existing
Coast Guard pages.

Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue & have a
look.

All comments welcome either here or on the Talk page.

(& as I just said, these are my first actual proposals, so please be
gentle!)

Thanks

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


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-05 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Following on from
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056482.html,
I've put together a proposal to make some changes & additions under the
Emergency key.

Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations & have a
look.

All comments welcome either here or on the Talk page.

(It's my first actual proposal, so please be gentle!)

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 04:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that
> nobody expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere?
>

No actual traffic lights, but how about a posted No Waiting zone? :-)

https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0021/162651/mt-maroon-rockfall.jpg

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (verifiability - frost heave?)

2020-12-04 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 07:13, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> This will make it easier to fix problems with mappers who want to add
> hazard=curve to every single curve on a long curvy road, or add very
> subjective hazard features which  cannot be confirmed or denied even when
> visiting the location in person.
>

But in some cases, "hazardous" or not will be weather / season dependent.
This curve is fine in bright, sunny, dry weather, but in rain, or when icy
during winter, it's deadly. So when you pass by that spot during summer,
you could well say why is it posted as a hazard, while the locals who are
there year-round know why.

& thanks, Brian - it's getting better all the time! :-)

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

2020-12-03 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 08:33, Guillaume Chauvat  wrote:

> Yes, but this is a node, not a way. Inclined elevators require a way and
> those are not displayed properly.
>

Sorry, didn't get what you were getting at!

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


Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

2020-12-03 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
You can also get rather philosophical about it as well :-)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cW9iNszeKWU/WDuxft3rVBI/G70/HHEd7-W84k0tG_gakCs78RXXfoBfREfigCLcB/s1600/falling-rocks-dj-homewrecker.jpg

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

2020-12-03 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 23:19, Guillaume Chauvat  wrote:

> I used a way tagged with highway=elevator as the wiki recommends, but this
> does not seem supported by any tool (the default editor, the map on
> openstreetmap.org, or osmand).
>

Highway=elevator renders on the main map eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7803033418, & this also shows on OSMand+?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

2020-12-02 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 09:11, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Maybe drop bears, too.
>

Nah, no trees!

Although there are the telephone pole / ladder things (which I assume are
markers of some form), but no cover for them to hide in :-)

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

2020-12-02 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 22:24, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Here is a videoabout a bridleway.  Which is also a footpath (by legal
> definition).  In fact,
> it's also a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT).  Most of the time it's the
> ONLY way to visit Foulnes Island.  It's also the most dangerous
> path in Britain.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM7C_Pw7OL8
>

& which we do indeed have mapped:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158785097#map=14/51.5857/0.9244

Which then goes back to the discussions we were having a while back about
tagging the "dangerousness" of tracks.

Yes, it's marked as being a ford, tidal=yes, & visibility=no, which
suggests it's not the spot for a Sunday afternoon stroll, but it's also
marked as foot, horse, bicycle, car & motorbike=yes, which then suggests it
can't be too bad after all?

The basic facts given in that video could be included as a description, but
shouldn't we have some sort of "danger" classification?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Defining amenity=coast_guard

2020-11-30 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 23:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I run into https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcoast_guard
> and despite that I have basically zero experience with such objects
> I am pretty sure that this description (and an old proposal) has a
> problematic definition
>

Yep.

Of a lot of interest to me, because I'm a member of a volunteer Marine
Rescue ("Coast Guard") unit.

I remember this being discussed previously with the same dilemma - Coast
Guard means different things in different places, from an armed military
force (that also has a rescue function) to a strictly volunteer Marine
Rescue unit, with no official powers of any sort.

Maybe the existing amenity=coast_guard & emergency =coast_guard tags both
need to be deprecated in favour of two new tags:

landuse=military + military=coast_guard: Base for a military /
para-military force intended for protection of a country's coastal waters
against enemy military forces, smugglers, terrorists etc, & which usually
also has a marine rescue function. eg United States Coast Guard, Australian
Border Force (& others). This would render as the standard military area; &

emergency=marine_rescue: Base for a group, frequently non-Government /
volunteer only, dedicated to the rescue of vessels / sailors at sea. eg
British RNLI, Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, Volunteer Marine Rescue (&
others). A good render would be a simple "SOS"! Alternatively, these could
be mapped under the existing amenity=rescue_station tag, but that tag
itself should come under the emergency= heading.

There's currently about 150 x amenity=coast_guard, & only ~25 x
emergency=coast_guard, tags in use, so not a major problem to go through &
correct them. There are a *lot* more rescue bases that should be tagged
though, in the order of 300 in Australia alone!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging 
wrote:

> Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>

Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths, but
what would you tag them as?

Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't
appropriate for an animal track!

New tag animal=track / trail / path?

&, as in most things OSM, it's been discussed before, apparently with no
resolution?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-26 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 14:28, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Assuming that the boundary of that area is reasonably permanent, my first
> reaction is that this could be described by military=danger_area.  However,
> that tag requires landuse=military as the primary tag, which probably isn't
> correct here.
>

Yeah, it would probably best be described as hazard=conflict_zone or
similar?

Is that something that should be mapped in OSM?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-26 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Not wanting to create a bunfight, but just reading the news, & wondering if
this sort of thing should be tagged as a hazardous area?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-27/ethiopia-to-launch-final-phase-of-offensive-in-tigray-region/12926606

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-26 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 06:41, ael via Tagging 
wrote:

>
> There are a surprising number of abandoned open mineshafts in the far
> West of England which are a hazard, if not an extreme hazard.


But if it's already (presumably) tagged with =mineshaft (+ =abandoned?),
does it also need to be tagged as a hazard?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-26 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sorry, just read further through the e-mail list & saw that this has
already been covered

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 08:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> But if it's already (presumably) tagged with =mineshaft (+ =abandoned?),
> does it also need to be tagged as a hazard?
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Elevated housing estate

2020-11-26 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks everybody for your comments, but, to me, none of them really seem to
cover the situation, although stilts=yes seems to come closest, although it
also sounds rather strange!

Going back to my OP, I notice that I mentioned tagging the area as level=1,
thinking about it, maybe that should be layer=1?

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 08:34, LeTopographeFou 
wrote:

> The issue with building=stilt_house is that two things are mixed in one
> key. I would prefer stilts=yes (2945 occurences) + building=* or place=*
> or highway=* or even landuse=* for a full redidential area.
>
> LeTopographeFou
>
> Le 25/11/2020 à 09:59, Alan Mackie a écrit :
>
> This probably isn't too far off from many of the larger man_made=pier
> structures in resort towns, although it lacks the water underneath most of
> the time. Would man_made=bridge be appropriate for the surrounding area?
>
> I think this is becomming fairly common in some flood prone areas, so
> dedicated tagging seems like a good idea, both for the usually dry
> situation, and for buildings that sit over water but don't even have
> vestigial mooring areas.
>
> The wiki lists building=stilt_house, but this seems overly specific.
> Whether a building is tagged as being on stilts should be independent of
> building use IMO. Regardless in this case min_level=1 seems about right to
> me to denote the absence of a ground floor.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpier
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dstilt_house
>
> -Alan
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 06:34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> add location=overhead on buildings and other objects?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:min_level
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels#Buildings_with_parts_that_don.27t_start_at_ground_level
>> (not sure can it be applied if entire building starts above ground level)
>>
>> Certainly add also description=* tag with info what is happening here,
>> maybe with link to this mailing list thread.
>>
>>
>> Nov 25, 2020, 01:00 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>>
>> How do you tag an area, in this case an entire housing estate!, that is
>> raised up above ground level?
>>
>>
>> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.065772,153.3799853,3a,15y,117.51h,89.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN_TJvFHJyLff1E4GmiCSjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>> (with the usual not mapping from Google ...)
>>
>> Just draw the outline of the area & tag it as level=1?
>>
>> The main entry is via a bridge:
>> https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0673717,153.3800556,3a,23.4y,28.84h,87.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBF_8z5ekricuuEFZnUJioQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
>> ,
>> which is ok, but should all the internal roads also be marked as bridges?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-25 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 23:27, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Comment is requested on the proposal "hazard", which describes hazardous
> or dangerous features.  This tagging was first proposed in 2007, and I have
> adopted the proposal with permission from the original author.  Thanks to
> the various folks that assisted in the development of this proposal prior
> to this RFC.
>

Good work, Brian!

Couple of comments added to the talk page

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Elevated housing estate

2020-11-24 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 11:20, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Is the whole ground level a parking lot or parking structure, perhaps?
>

No.

It's built right beside a Creek, on a flood-plain (yeah, thanks Council!),
so it's done like that so that the apartments are up away from the water
the next time the Creek floods!

Thanks

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


[Tagging] Elevated housing estate

2020-11-24 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
How do you tag an area, in this case an entire housing estate!, that is
raised up above ground level?

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.065772,153.3799853,3a,15y,117.51h,89.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN_TJvFHJyLff1E4GmiCSjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
(with the usual not mapping from Google ...)

Just draw the outline of the area & tag it as level=1?

The main entry is via a bridge:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0673717,153.3800556,3a,23.4y,28.84h,87.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBF_8z5ekricuuEFZnUJioQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
,
which is ok, but should all the internal roads also be marked as bridges?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] surface=boardwalk? is it duplicate of surface=wood?

2020-11-21 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020 at 09:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Is there some value in surface=boardwalk tag?
>
> It seems to be a duplicate of surface=wood.
>

Fine distinction I know, but to me =wood would suggest a solid, unbroken
floor eg dance floor or corridor; while =boardwalk suggests that it's
possibly slightly (?) uneven & that there are possibly gaps in between each
plank.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Swampy_But_Pretty_Bog_In_Fiordland_NZ.jpg/1200px-Swampy_But_Pretty_Bog_In_Fiordland_NZ.jpg

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

2020-11-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 08:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairn it seems that it is
> something more purposefully constructed than
> "pile of unwanted stones kept in one place"
>

Yes, that's what I thought

man_made=pile_of_stones ?
>

Had a look & there are 14 uses of man_made=bare_rock & 9 of =rock.

May just go for man_made=rock_pile

Just spotted this image which is very similar to what I was talking about
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_Pile_-_geograph.org.uk_-_443119.jpg

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 09:00, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> We call them stone walls, but every so often a pedantist comes along and
> reminds us that they're actually stone fences.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 5:56 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>> In the part of the world I was raised, rocks cleared from fields were used
>> to build drystone walls.  Solves two problems with one stone.
>>
>
Thanks, fellas, but no rock walls / fences, just a pile :-)

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

2020-11-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
I was having similar thoughts just a couple of days ago, about what to call
a pile of rocks that a farmer has cleared from, then piled up in, a field?

natural=bare_rock says it's exposed bedrock
=scree has fallen from an adjacent rockface
=shingle is on a beach or river bed
=stone is for large boulders
=rock is " a notable rock feature or small group of rocks, attached to the
underlying bedrock"
none of which really fit?

I did see man_made=cairn as "a mound of stones, usually conical or
pyramidal, raised as a landmark or to designate a point of importance in
surveying", which also isn't really right, because this isn't for any use
apart from getting all the rocks in one place.

Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 08:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> It seems that we have no good value to mark surface of path of rocky paths.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

2020-11-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 00:22, Tobias Zwick  wrote:

>
> https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg
>
> It is a residential road marked clearly for 2 lanes, so it seems obvious
> to tag it with lanes=2. But on the other hand, you'll notice that there
> are parking cars on the right side that effectively render the right
> lane unusable.


So what happens when somebody wants to drive the other way - & by the
direction those parked cars are facing, they must?

Also, what do the signs mean above the parked cars - Red X & white
left-pointing arrow on a blue background? Anything relevant to parking?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-11-15 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 20:49, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

> Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made.
>
> After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal
>

Probably the best, because it tried to go too far in one go.

- mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of
> tags that probably should be redefined as separate items.
>

Yes, as came out with the discussion that Anders raised about basic
features, if we were starting them all off today, a lot of things in OSM
would be done very differently!

Thanks for all your input, fair to say this process has been interesting at
> best.
>

Both of these discussions certainly have been! It will be interesting to
see if anything comes of them in the long run?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Defining the meaning of capacity tag for tourism=camp_site

2020-11-10 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 20:27, Sven Geggus 
wrote:

> While the wiki clearly states that capacity means people a lot of mappers
> seem to think that the number of camp-pitches is meant.
>
> The problem is, that both numbers seem to make sense on different types of
> camp-sites.  While the (maximum) Number of people is interesting on
> group-only, scout and backcountry sites, there is no such thing on
> camping/caravaning sites at all.
>
> In the latter case we are typically talking about the maximum number of
> tents
> and caravans while the number of people using the site is usually not
> limited.
>
> As a response to my diary Entry Lyx suggestest two new tags:
>
> We already have "maxtents" and we could simply add "maxcaravans" and
> "maxvisitors" deprecating capacity in case of camp-sites.
>
> Similar in spirit would be deprecating "maxtents" unsing "capacity:tents",
> "capacity:caravans" and  "capacity:visitors" in future.
>

Sorry to be a bit late responding here but I'm just catching up after a
week away, spent camping in our caravan! :-)

The camping / caravan ground we went to is 60 acres / 24 hectares in area.
Most of it is available for set-up-anywhere-you-like camping in tent /
camper-trailer /  caravan / whatever, with no provision for power or water
to the individual site (pitch).

Over in one corner, there are also 30 powered sites (pitches). Of these, 2
are reserved for tents, 2 for motorhomes / 5th-wheel (very large!)
caravans, & the other 26 for normal caravans / camper trailers. All of
these powered sites have an allowed capacity of 6 people only, which means
one "caravan", plus possibly a tent, on each site.

The park overall also has a max. capacity of 1000 people.

So how do we tag it?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-09 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 15:30, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using
> water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones,
>

No, I don't agree, sorry.

Same as the difference between rivers & streams, there is a difference
between lakes & ponds (actually due to teh depth, not teh size!), so we
should keep them both.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-09 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 06:06, stevea  wrote:

> let's take that off-list.  Those would be appropriate to discuss ON list,
> it's true, and maybe you publish the RESULTS of our off-list discussion
> here after we've emailed each other.  But I feel we have spent a great deal
> of time (and passion!) here on this list and it's getting tedious for other
> readers.  This thread is LONG!
>

Yes, long, but not (yet!) tedious, at least to me! :-), as I both agree, &
disagree, with some of the points raised.

Looking forward to the result of the discussions you both may have.

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Mapping terraced, irrigated farmland (e.g. rice paddies)?

2020-11-08 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
A while back, we had a discussion / proposal about mapping steps as an
area, so that each step was mapped.

Would that concept work here?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-06 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 04:34, Anders Torger  wrote:

>
> ** Due to limitations in area-based name tagging the map looks empty
> just when zoomed out a little, as names disappear almost directly, so
> despite detailed mapping and tagging the overview map is not as useful
> as it could be. While the renderer can and does make proper decisions of
> prominence for bays and strait made as areas, point-based natural names
> often yield strange and misleading maps as vastly different sized areas
> have just a point for the name and no other differentiator, there's no
> way the renderer can make an appropriate render decision as the data is
> not there.
>

Welcome, Anders.

That is a problem that we encounter all the time in Australia, where there
are huge expanses of empty, & official OSM guidelines mean that not much
shows :-( Can be worked around to a certain extent by tagging for the
renderer by upping villages / hamlets to towns & making country roads
highway=trunk but officially not approved.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 05:31, Seth Deegan  wrote:

> A gravel area tag/tagging convention is needed. One use I’ve seen is
> highways in particular seem to have gravel separator between the actual
> road and usually grass. Standardizing a area (a way) with just the
> surface=gravel tag could work.
>
> El El vie, nov. 6, 2020 a la(s) 12:34, Anders Torger 
> escribió:
>
>>
>> ** As a minor note, I've noted there is no good tag for anonymous gravel
>> yards, which there are a lot of here. Abandoned quarry is the closest,
>> but still not right, as only some actually were gravel/sand pits to
>> start with. Those gravel yards are often leftovers from construction
>> work or forestry often even locals don't exactly know when or why they
>> were made. Today they are used mainly used for parking by people being
>> out in nature, but they are not maintained so they are not exactly
>> parking lots either.
>>
>
Assuming of course that we're talking about the same thing - areas on the
side of the road where gravel was dumped while road work was taking place?
eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?relation=6007743#map=19/-36.41030/148.59385
or
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.169598,152.8911178,3a,27.7y,206.26h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shrpfOqOyE4oBith4P7iQzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
(NB not the same spot! & G Maps used as an example only , not for mapping
blah, blah, blah ...)

These were discussed in the Australia list a little while ago:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2020-February/013632.html
with no real consensus but landuse=stockpile + resource=aggregate (gravel /
sand / rock etc) was fairly well received.

Unfortunately, though, that won't render :-(, although a counter suggestion
of landuse=industrial + industrial=stockpile + resource=*** would :-)

Good luck!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-27 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 09:43, Supaplex  wrote:

> We (or Christian) are talking about areas that must be kept free,
> especially near buildings, so that fire brigade vehicles can stand and work
> there in case of an emergency.
>
Thanks, Supa - it's not a concept that I've ever heard of in Australia! Our
firies just park in the street as needed!

>  I think tagging of these areas is very useful for use by rescue services,
>
Yes, probably would be.

> How about *"emergency = rescue_area"* (very rarely in use)? I agree that
> landuse should not be used in this case, but we have "emergency" for this.
>
 As I say, I've never looked at it, but would emergency=clear_area work?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-27 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Hi Christian

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:35, Nüssli Christian (SRZ) <
christian.nues...@zuerich.ch> wrote:

> I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas.
> That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for
> emergency vehicles.
>

Sorry, but what do you mean by "fire service areas", & "reserved for
emergency vehicles"?

Are you referring to fire stations & emergency lanes?

I found quite a few that are tagged as landuse=military which is in my
> opinion – the incorrect way.
>

No, not even knowing for sure what we're talking about, but I can see that
would be wrong!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-21 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Couple of other versions of restricted parking

Customer's only or else:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0752577,153.4231834,3a,41.8y,100.24h,86.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swWpsJAcwaHpNkJm8KuoXFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

& customers only with a time limit per day!
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0901058,153.4504965,3a,15y,-3.36h,83.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJmzOQR0jhd-OEpbuRVxkog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
& this one, you get your wheel clamped & it costs $75 to have it released
(No, it didn't happen to me, but I know someone that it did :-()

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 09:12, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

>  https://www.lexico.com/definition/natural
>

Using your own source to disprove your arguments!

https://www.lexico.com/definition/man-made

"Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made
naturally)"

So nothing to do with men, as opposed to women!

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:14, nathan case  wrote:

>
> Indeed, the Handbook of Nonsexist Writing suggests: "artificial, handmade,
> hand-built, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, machine-made, and
> constructed" as options instead of man-made.


Out of those options, I personally think either "MANufactured" :-), or
"constructed" would be good choices.

Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp (& any other
type of) nests, animal burrows & so on?

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 00:42, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

>
> I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide
> that as I am a adult male.
>

But I note that, despite there being at least a few ladies who subscribe to
this list (at least going by their user names!), none of them have yet
weighed into the discussion?

Thanks

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


Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thanks everyone - all makes sense!

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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >