Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Understood Andy, thanks for the suggestions 

> On 19 Sep 2020, at 14:10, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> On 19/09/2020 12:47, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
>> Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to add 
>> things to the wiki without one? 
> 
> People certainly do do that (an example that comes to mind is 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:verge ).  I don't see a problem with 
> adding a page that says "this is how I'd suggest mapping this feature".  
> What's more problematic is adding something to "map features" that isn't 
> really an accepted tag, just one person's "good idea", or gaming taginfo 
> numbers by mechanically editing values to match a new tag (which has been 
> done in the past).  An example of a group of tags where problems were 
> reported was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcycle:theme and 
> earlier related pages - there were suggestions that the wiki was edited so 
> that it looked like "accepted tagging" when it wasn't.
> 
> If you're worried that creating a new wiki page will make it look "too 
> official" you can always create a wiki page underneath your wiki user and 
> make it clear that it's a personal page (but still a suggestion to other 
> mappers).
> 
> 
>> It’s much nicer to find a page on the wiki than looking through tag info 
>> trying to decide if something already exists.
> 
> Ultimately it's tag usage (by "real human beings" rather than imports etc.) 
> that matters - that means that lots of people have agreed that it's a good 
> idea to map a certain feature a certain way.  Any one person can add a wiki 
> page; a few more can create and accept a wiki proposal, but neither of those 
> really means that it's a widely accepted tag.  That doesn't mean that the 
> proposal process has no value at all, but it does mean that if none of X are 
> currently mapped let's at least try and map some of X before having a 
> discussion about it.
> 
> Best Regards.
> 
> Andy
> 
> PS: Sorry for double post earlier - problem was not enough coffee yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Powerbank Sharing Systems

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

> On 19 Sep 2020, at 13:26, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> On 19/09/2020 11:59, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name
>>  
>> https://heychimpy.com
>> https://www.wecharge.me
>> 
>> 
>> I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems.
>> 
> Have you tried searching OSM data by name using Taginfo?

I have but I’m aware I might have missed something

> 
>> Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a proposal, 
>> based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled amenity=powerbank_sharing for 
>> tagging docking station.
>> 
> I wouldn't worry about that - that'll just waste everyone's time.  If some 
> on-the-ground infrastructure is missing from the map, just map it.  It's 
> perfectly possible to search by name or operator later if a consensus emerges 
> about tagging.
> 

Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to add 
things to the wiki without one? 
It’s much nicer to find a page on the wiki than looking through tag info trying 
to decide if something already exists.

> 
>> Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and over-the-counter 
>> rentals. Should an additional tag, such as service:powerbank:rental=yes, be 
>> included for existing features?
> 
> Probably not.  We don't tend to tag "everything a shop might sell".  There 
> are exceptions (food, drinks), and if you want to map the availability of a 
> particular service then you are free to do so - just don't expect everyone 
> else to do it too.

I’m unsure on how many Chimpy locations are docked vs over-the-counter (for 
example) but wouldn’t it be incorrect to add a node for something that doesn’t 
exist (in the case of over-the-counter). 

I wouldn’t expect everyone to do it, but as above, it’s nice to have an example 
for mappers 

> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

[Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name 

https://heychimpy.com 
https://www.wecharge.me 


I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems. 

Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a proposal, based 
on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging 
docking station. 

Chimpy (linked above) appears to use docking stations and over-the-counter 
rentals. Should an additional tag, such as service:powerbank:rental=yes, be 
included for existing features?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Can you elaborate on how IPFS would work? From my understanding, if I add a 
file (in this case an image) to my node then a unique address is generated. But 
the file is only permanently stored on my node unless someone else manually 
pins it on theirs? 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 27 Aug 2020, at 12:20, bkil  wrote:
> 
> 
> Then there's OpenTrailView as a viable alternative (neither Mapillary, nor 
> OpenStreetCam has a free server component), although in the long term, I 
> think we should follow an IPFS, P2P or federated-systems route to scale costs.
> 
> I don't feel it's fair to overload Commons by shifting the costs of all of 
> our street level imagery to them. If we for whatever reason wanted to stick 
> to a centralized solution, OSMF should be the one paying the costs, but then 
> we would pay dearly (someone on Reddit did some estimates).
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:59 AM Thibault Molleman 
>>  wrote:
>> - I'm doubtful of the future of openstreetcam
>> - some people don't like Facebook to the point where they don't want to use 
>> mapillary  so we need to have an alternative
>> 
>>  And that still doesn't solve the problem of not having a system to put 
>> multiple images into one tag
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Thibault
>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 00:21 bkil  wrote:
>>> Have you considered uploading these to OpenStreetCam, Mapillary or whatever 
>>> comes after OSM migrates away from that one?
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> sent from a phone
>>>> 
>>>> > On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
>>>> >  wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in 
>>>> > ‘Drinking fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the 
>>>> > node. 
>>>> > A unique fountain deserves its own category 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I named the fountains as an example where I see one image as sufficient. 
>>>> Of course you could also make tens of each, with details, from all sides 
>>>> and so on, but for me 1 is completely ok, serves to give an impression.
>>>> 
>>>> On the other hand, city gates should have at least 2, one from the outside 
>>>> and one from the inside, in those cases I have recently seen, and you 
>>>> can’t do it with the image tag (a category for every individual city gate 
>>>> seems overkill too in many cases).
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers Martin 
>>>> ___
>>>> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

> The fact that the image is linked to an osm node is enough reason for the 
> image to be online.

Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in ‘Drinking 
fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the node. 
A unique fountain deserves its own category 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:53, Thibault Molleman  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Can you link photos/deletion requests?
> Again, don't bother with that. I was 13, didn't know what I was doing, main 
> reason why they were deleted according to the deletion requests were because 
> they didn't have a license attached to them, so they didn't know if it was 
> even allowed on there. (wouldn't happen with todays upload wizard)
> 
>>  Assuming the drinking fountains are unique
> 
> I feel like it just shouldn't matter if they are unique. We shouldn't have to 
> justify why an image is important. 
> The fact that the image is linked to an osm node is enough reason for the 
> image to be online. But the problem is that Wikimedia wouldn't care for such 
> a reason.
> So that is the reason why I would always archive.org images I'd put on 
> Commons probably
> 
> Cheers,
> Thibault
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 14:45 Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>> I feel like those examples (city gates and fountains) would be appropriate 
>> places to use a wikimedia category. 
>> 
>> Assuming the drinking fountains are unique, if not then do they need 
>> multiple photos? 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>> 
>> > On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > sent from a phone
>> > 
>> >> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI
>> > 
>> > 
>> > I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been 
>> > interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are 
>> > fountains and drinking fountains, where indeed a single foto is completely 
>> > sufficient in almost all cases. It’s not generally answerable.
>> > 
>> > Cheers Martin 
>> > ___
>> > 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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I feel like those examples (city gates and fountains) would be appropriate 
places to use a wikimedia category. 

Assuming the drinking fountains are unique, if not then do they need multiple 
photos? 


Thanks
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil  wrote:
>> 
>> there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI
> 
> 
> I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been 
> interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are 
> fountains and drinking fountains, where indeed a single foto is completely 
> sufficient in almost all cases. It’s not generally answerable.
> 
> Cheers Martin 
> ___
> 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] Canopy Walkways

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Doesn’t bridge:structure refer to the design of the supports? A canopy walkway 
could use of mix of simple-suspension, beam and others not currently explained 
in the wiki (I.e some sort of attachment to trees)

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:36, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> 
> I would say the feature is a kind of highway. 
> The construction is bridge, so bridge=yes on the highway.
> The highway is a footway, and this kind of footway is called a canopy walkway.
> 
> The footway part is kind of redundant, which is probably nice if you render 
> all footways, but unnecessary when you render canopy_walkways specifically.
> 
> 
> Best Peter Elderson
> 
> 
> Op za 22 aug. 2020 om 11:16 schreef Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
> :
>> Should the key be bridge? 
>> I feel like canopy walkways are more like bridges than boardwalks. 
>> 
>> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>> 
>>>> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:08, Alan Mackie  wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 21:46 Martin Koppenhoefer,  
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> sent from a phone
>>>> 
>>>> > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett  
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Do we tag
>>>> > 
>>>> >building=public_building
>>>> > 
>>>> > or
>>>> > 
>>>> >highway=trunk_hghway
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do 
>>>> is footway=sidewalk rather than „side“
>>>> 
>>>> If general opinion is towards footway=canopy I could live with it, but my 
>>>> preference goes to canopy_walkway
>>>> I’m not expecting so many that the extra characters will be significant ;-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have had to remind myself several times as this thread has developed that 
>>> this is not intended as a synonym for breezeway or other covered=yes 
>>> footways. 
>>> 
>>> If the previously suggested =treetop isn't accurate perhaps a more explicit 
>>> =forest_canopy ?
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers Martin 
>>>> ___
>>>> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Should the key be bridge? 
I feel like canopy walkways are more like bridges than boardwalks. 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2020, at 11:08, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 21:46 Martin Koppenhoefer,  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>> > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>> > 
>> > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms.
>> > 
>> > Do we tag
>> > 
>> >building=public_building
>> > 
>> > or
>> > 
>> >highway=trunk_hghway
>> 
>> 
>> these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do is 
>> footway=sidewalk rather than „side“
>> 
>> If general opinion is towards footway=canopy I could live with it, but my 
>> preference goes to canopy_walkway
>> I’m not expecting so many that the extra characters will be significant ;-)
> 
> 
> I have had to remind myself several times as this thread has developed that 
> this is not intended as a synonym for breezeway or other covered=yes 
> footways. 
> 
> If the previously suggested =treetop isn't accurate perhaps a more explicit 
> =forest_canopy ?
> 
>> 
>> Cheers Martin 
>> ___
>> 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] Canopy Walkways

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I couldn’t call a boardwalk a bridge either, but it’s used as a bridge value 

> On 21 Aug 2020, at 09:14, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> footway on bridge construction, so highway=footway, bridge=yes seems ok.
> 
> Canopy walkway is the term I see used everywhere, not canopy bridge. 
> 
> Makes sense to attach the canopy detail to the footway then. So 
> footway=canopy_walkway sounds right to me.
> 
> 
> Best, Peter Elderson
> 
> 
> Op vr 21 aug. 2020 om 08:46 schreef Volker Schmidt  >:
> The footway= approach isn't so good. A canopy walkway is more a bridge type.
> 
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, 00:28 Graeme Fitzpatrick,  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 at 07:50, Martin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:
> 
> Or maybe footway=canopy_walkway? highway= Footway and bridge=yes seem 
> essential for a basic description.
> 
> The combination of the three of them seems like a good, simple solution!
> 
> 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

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

[Tagging] Canopy Walkways

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I can’t find any references to canopy walkways in the wiki or on Taginfo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_walkway 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canopy_walkways 


Currently, many are tagged as bridge=yes or highway=footway.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/352398702 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121881927 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418596115 


The wiki entry for bridge=boardwalk suggests it is used for structures close to 
the ground.

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

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Sorry Graeme, that should have said American style, where the waitress is 
refilling mugs from a carafe 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 23:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 19:22, Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> I've got to say that personally, I don't think there's a need for a separate 
> "speciality" tag, but regardless of that, I'd like to know what an 
>> Independent, ‘Australian-style’, or artisan cafes
> Australian-style cafe is, & how our's differ from everywhere else?
> 
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 14:01, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> 
> Jake Edmonds via Tagging:
> 
>> Maybe that’s true but if people are looking for it, it should be searchable?
> 
> Then we need something objective.
> Maybe coffee_species or coffee_brand
> in the same way that we have breweries for restaurants.

When I arrive in a new city in a new country, I’m not familiar with the local 
brands of coffee. A cafe serving speciality coffee introduces me to them.

> If a restaurant only have beer from one brewery, then it is probably boring,
> especially if it is one of the big global companies.
> 
> If it has beers from 10+ breweries on tap then it probably cater to customers
> interested in beer and some of them will be interesting or good. Even or 
> especially
> if I do not know any of the breweries.

That’s true. 
Being able to pull up a list of cafe’s with the brands of coffee they sell and 
then searching for the roasters website should reasonably quickly tell me 
whether it’s a specialty location or not.


>> Twice as expensive as what?
> 
> €20 espressos in Venice should quality. But I am not so sure about the 
> specialty.
> https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-st-marks-square-cafe-prices-tourists-san-marco-a8481376.html
In my city, an espresso costs the same in a cafe in the centre and in a cafe 
outside the centre 15 minutes away with their own roastery.
> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> -- 
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
> 
> ___
> 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] Specialty Coffee

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 12:58, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> 
> Jake Edmonds via Tagging:
>> ‘Specialty coffee is a term for the highest grade of coffee available,
> 
> 
> microbrewery beer is not necessarily special or better. It is made on the 
> premises.

Of course, but it’s generally understood that a microbrewery will be focusing 
on quality brewing.

> Specialty coffee is just about the quality and price which is very subjective.
> 
> We also do not have special tags for specialty wine or whiskey or bread.
> For food we do have start but only stars that are awarded by recognised 
> tourism boards.
> 
> In short, how would we deal with verifiability requirement?

> 
>> Europe is already a major coffee market accounting for 30% of global 
>> consumption, but
>> is seeing a growth in demand for specialty coffee while overall demand 
>> remains
>> stable[16].
> 
> Yes, there are many new very good coffeeshops here in Europe. But I would not 
> know
> how to separate specialty coffee from not-specialty. Except that coffee-shops 
> that
> are not part of a chain tend to have a better selection of coffee.

Advertising which small-batch/micro roasters supply their coffee separates 
them. It’s not unusual to have multiple beans to choose from.
It’s also typical to see these establishments selling beans and home brewing 
equipment, including accessories such as scales and goose-neck kettles.


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

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 13:08, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 13:00, Niels Elgaard Larsen  <mailto:elga...@agol.dk>> wrote:
> Jake Edmonds via Tagging:
> > ‘Specialty coffee is a term for the highest grade of coffee available,
> 
> Specialty coffee is just about the quality and price which is very subjective.
> 
> +1
> 
> In short, how would we deal with verifiability requirement?
> 
> Price, maybe. Specialty coffee (or anything else) costs more.  However,
> blind tasting of wine has shown that perceived quality is strongly
> influenced by presentation (if it looks expensive, people think it
> tastes better).

Maybe that’s true but if people are looking for it, it should be searchable?

> So rather than tagging it as specialty, or of high quality, just
> tag it as expensive=yes.  At least that is verifiable.  If
> it's more than (say) twice the average price, it's expensive.

Twice as expensive as what?

> Or maybe we just don't bother.  That would be my preference.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> 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] Specialty Coffee

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

‘Specialty coffee is a term for the highest grade of coffee available, 
typically relating to the entire supply chain, using single origin or single 
estate coffee[1][2]. The term was first used in 1974 by Erna Knutsen in an 
issue of Tea & Coffee Trade Journal. Knutsen used specialty coffee to describe 
beans of the best flavor which are produced in special micro-climates.[3]

Specialty coffee is related to what is known as the Third Wave of Coffee[4], 
especially throughout North America. This refers to a modern demand for 
exceptional quality coffee, both farmed and brewed to a significantly higher 
than average standard.’

'While specialty coffee in North America is rarely offered in major coffee 
chains, the Third Wave of Coffee[4] has resulted in a significant increase in 
specialty coffee consumption. Independent, ‘Australian-style’, or artisan cafes 
have opened in multiple cities[13][14][12]. An SCAA report estimated the US had 
29,300 specialty coffee shops in 2013, up from 2,850 in 1993[15].

Europe is already a major coffee market accounting for 30% of global 
consumption, but is seeing a growth in demand for specialty coffee while 
overall demand remains stable[16]. In 2016, specialty coffee was Europe’s 
fastest growing major restaurant category, with an increase of 9.1% from 
2014-2015.’

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialty_coffee 



amenity=cafe & cuisine=coffee_shop are used to tag establishments most known 
for serving coffee. This includes large chains like Starbucks that serve a 
variety of coffee based drinks made with commercially roasted beans, 
independent cafe’s serving either nothing but black, American style, drip 
coffee and those making specialty coffee drinks.

There are tags for the preparation method:
drink:filter_coffee
drink:espresso
drink:coffee:automatic
While consumers might have a preference for the way their drink is prepared, 
the coffee source is also an important factor.

I have looked through the wiki and taginfo and the closest thing I could find 
is one use cafe of diet:specialty_coffee, but I’m not sure that’s an 
appropriate namespace. real_ale has 1819 uses for beer with no namespace. Are 
suggestions? 

Other tags:
microroasting=yes has 64 uses, mainly on amenity=cafe, in the same way 
microbrewery=yes is used for pubs.

Existing information:
European Coffee Trip has 1893 cafe’s serving specialty coffee in Europe.
https://europeancoffeetrip.com/city-guides/


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

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

While it might be used in Paul’s area, McDonalds is not a cafe where I am from, 
and would put money on most British people calling it a fast food restaurant 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 29 Jun 2020, at 12:56, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 29. Jun 2020, at 12:41, Gábor Fekete  wrote:
>> 
>> You would be surprised if you wanted to cure your hunger in a Hungarian 
>> cafe. I do not expect (real, nutritious) food in a cafe.
> 
> 
> because it seems the term „cafe“ in Britain has a different meaning than it 
> has in Germany, Austria, Hungary (likely some Austrian influences) and other 
> places. At least this is what Paul tells us (I admit I found it more than 
> strange that cafe could be a suitable term for a McDonald‘s, Mc Cafe aside)
> 
> Cheers Martin 
> ___
> 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] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I’ve never heard anyone refer to McDonalds as a cafe. 

Although they do have some standalone McCafe locations 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCafé

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 28 Jun 2020, at 22:14, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 at 21:06, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 15:54 Paul Allen,  wrote:
>>> Cafes are more about fast food with seating (again,
>>> a generalization).  To over-generalize even further, a cafe is fast food 
>>> with
>>> seats.  My local chip shop (fast food) has a seated area (making it a cafe).
>> 
>> 
>> Does this mean that in British English, a McDonald's that has seating is not 
>> a fast food place but a cafe?
> 
> I would tag it as such.  With takeaway=yes.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> 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] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 28 Jun 2020, at 19:22, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>>> On 28. Jun 2020, at 17:11, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>> 
>>  Some cafes in the UK lack table service.  Maybe somebody brings your
>> order over after you've placed your order at the counter, maybe your order
>> is announced when it is ready and you have to get it yourself, maybe
>> you sit down and somebody asks what you want then brings it over
>> when it is ready.
> 
> 
> question is whether we distinguish these places by main type or by subtags. 
> Is a self service restaurant a restaurant? Or maybe a fast food? Or a place 
> on its own? 
> 
> Providing table service or not is a significant difference that gener  merits 
> reflection in tagging (IMHO). It is an indication besides others (of course 
> there will be some places that offer decent food in self service, and having 
> table service is not a guarantee that the food will be ok, still it is some 
> indication for the type of “restaurant” when there is no table service).
> 
> 
>> Cafes sell more than coffee.  Cafes may have
>> only one, rather inferior, brand of coffee.
> 
> 
> maybe in Britain ;-)
> Bad jokes aside, I recall a discussion on the local mailing list to tag 
> coffee brands, and there are a handful examples in the db: 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=brand%3DLavazza
> 
There is the microroasting= tag for small coffee roasters but I can’t find 
anything for cafes serving small batch/third wave coffee 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_wave_of_coffee

> 
>> Add a craft=patisserie node. 
> 
> 
> the scheme for craft is craft=profession so patisserie does not really make 
> sense. 
> 
> I guess craft=pâtissier is not considered to be English?
> My dictionary says craft=confectioner does this make sense?
> 
> Cheers Martin
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

> I almost never found a photo of something I was looking for with OsmAnd's 
> "close by Mapillary photos"

I agree
I realise this thread was initially about buildings but when I’m using OsmAnd 
to find, for example, a public transport ticket machine at an airport, I want 
to see a photo of the machine so I know what I’m looking for not a frame of 
someone driving around a carpark. I’ve started using wikimedia_commons tag but 
OsmAnd doesn’t appear to support it. I submitted a bug report/feature request

> On 4 Jun 2020, at 16:23, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> Is it really necessary? "give image for location [lat, lon] from direction X" 
> seems a 
> basic functionality for service like Mapillary.
> 
> I almost never found a photo of something I was looking for with OsmAnd's 
> "close by Mapillary photos". I think Osmand only takes Mapillary photos x 
> meters from the subject. The compass and gps  inside mobile phones aren't 
> good enough for this to work this easily. Directions of photos are often 
> wrong. Maybe if we wait some 5-10 years for neural networks to understand the 
> surroundings, and decide which photos show the subject.
> 
> And a second point is there are a lot of low quality photos, shot behind the 
> dashboard, and others, shot specifically for that building, framing it just 
> right, on a nice sunny day. I don't think there is going to be an algorithm 
> that decides which photo is nicer.
> 
> Janko
> ___
> 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] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I’m going to throw this in rather randomly but the reason i don’t tag width and 
surface is that the footpaths I’m mapping vary widely. Getting wider and 
thinner and going from gravel to dirt to sections with many trees roots. Plus 
the surface tag is rather subjective. 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 22 May 2020, at 17:48, Daniel Westergren  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think in terms of tagging we don't get further in this discussion. 
> But it has been very valuable to me. I've done a couple of video tutorials 
> about the basics of mapping trails in OSM and the next one will be about what 
> tags to use and why.
> 
> They are in Swedish, but I'm planning to do English versions later as well. 
> It's probably been done before, but I guess we need to use different ways in 
> this widespread community to reach mappers to get more useful data to work 
> with.
> 
> And regarding rendering of surface... Yeah, both an advantage and 
> disadvantage of OSM is its diversity. What for many sounds like the only 
> logical way may conflict with the views of others.
> 
> Great work with your rendering btw! I'd love to discuss more about that 
> outside of this mailing list, as I'm also helping out with creating a custom 
> rendering for trail running purposes. OpenStreetMap is indeed very 
> urban-centred still, which brings me back to my opening lines of this thread, 
> that OSM hasn't caught up with how lots of people actually are using it now, 
> like routing and rendering for hiking, cycling and running, areas where 
> Google Maps etc. are and will continue to be way behind.
> 
> Thanks for valuable input!!
> 
> /Daniel
> 
> Den fre 22 maj 2020 kl 17:26 skrev Andy Townsend :
>> On 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote:
>> > And there actually seems to be a pull request finally solving the 
>> > paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!? 
>> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137
>> >
>> > If that makes it to the default map it will certainly help people to 
>> > tag surface, because they will see that it makes sense.
>> >
>> >
>> I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound like it, but this does read 
>> somewhat as if rendering "surface" on paths is somehow "obvious" and 
>> "easy", and it's an "oversight" that the OSM Carto folks haven't been 
>> doing it since basically forever.
>> 
>> It's not - I think that pnorman's comment of 
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3399#issuecomment-596656115
>>  
>> still applies:
>> 
>>  > I'm of the opinion that the only way we can get the cartographic 
>> "space" to render unpaved surfaces is to drop something else, like 
>> access restriction rendering.
>> 
>> I think that there's another problem with the standard style as well - 
>> aside from surface rendering it's hugely biased towards urban centres.  
>> Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you 
>> can't see any paths at all at that zoom level due to the "Central 
>> European Graveyard problem" - compare with 
>> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13=53.9006=-0.8795
>>  
>> to see what you're missing.
>> 
>> What we need are concrete suggestions of how to get there from here, 
>> (and Ture Pålsson's mail of 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-May/052747.html 
>> is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for).
>> 
>> Adding a sane surface rendering in addition to everything else is hard - 
>> I've not managed it across the board at https://map.atownsend.org.uk 
>> although that is influenced by sac_scale, trail_visibility and width.  
>> All suggestions gratefully received, but what's needed some code that 
>> people can play with and see what the effect is on various areas and 
>> different zoom levels - not just emails to the tagging list*.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> * yes, I do realise the irony of "yet another email to the tagging list"!
>> 
>>   75  Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
>>   58  Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
>>   49  RFC ele:regional
>>   42  relations & paths
>>   35  Doorzone bicycle lanes
>>   34  Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email
>>   28  Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles
>>   27  Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of 
>> trails in OSM
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Country-specific images for tags

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

It’s not obvious how this works (at least to me). At first I assumed the 
gallery pulled images from Wikidata but the Wikidata page doesn’t have those 
images listed. 

> On 13 Apr 2020, at 14:16, Andrew Hain  wrote:
> 
> One feature of the OSM wiki data items that has seen little use so far is the 
> ability to set geographically specific properties. I have reorganised the 
> images for amenity=post_box (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q6349) 
> to use this scheme, but many countries are still missing and still need to be 
> set up as options.
> 
> --
> Andrew
> ___
> 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] Proposal drinking_water:refill:fee

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Is it worth adding drinking_water:refill:carbonated=yes/no, 
drinking_water:refill:chilled=yes/no and drinking_water:refill:alkaline=yes/no, 
etc (or drinking_water:refill:types=carbonated/chilled/alkaline). Then fee can 
be based on which types of water is charged for?

Personally I can’t see myself paying for still or chilled water, but I would 
pay for carbonated. 

Info on alkaline water: https://www.enagic.com/ 



> On 10 Mar 2020, at 09:13, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I have been in contact with Stephanie Dick from Zero Bouteilles Plastique 
> (copied), based in Arles, France regarding tagging establishments in 
> OpenStreetMap offering water bottle refill for a small fee.   Stephanie is 
> also involved in Zero Waste France. 
> 
> The rationale for including establishments in a refill network which require 
> a small payment is that they often need to add a cooling fountain or a 
> fountain which offers fizzy water. Also allowing a store owner to charge for 
> water refills is often the only way to get them to stop selling plastic 
> bottles. 
> 
> I suggest adding an third key within the drinking_water:refill namespace, 
> "drinking_water:refill:fee=yes" for establishments which charge a small fee 
> for water bottle refills.  
> 
> The requirement to have a sticker or a sign showing the inclusion in a refill 
> network or being an "independent" refiller is unchanged. 
> 
> If a tag is agreed, on our App we plan to differentiate between free and 
> paying refill establishments using different colors. 
> 
> An example image of a water fountain in blue and a cafe in orange. 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RxP8r-Vtl8nWFiCiZ_8wIWmo-ULb5fta 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Stuart 
> ___
> 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] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

The wiki page for drinking fountain suggests they may be supplied by free 
flowing water or by a tap. 

What cases are you referring to? 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 6 Feb 2020, at 17:04, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:50, European Water Project 
>>  wrote:
>> 
> 
>> I also agree that removing amenity=drinking_water as a tag makes sense. The 
>> physical attributes of a node/way still exists - irrespective of whether the 
>> water is drinking quality. For example,  a spring which has water polluted 
>> after a big storm, stays a spring. 
> 
> How are you going to handle an amenity=drinking_water that is a tap?  It's not
> a fountain (ornamental or otherwise).  It's not a spring.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> 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 - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Hi Stuart, 
Can you clarify drinking_water:refill_scheme=multiple? I assume it should look 
like drinking_water:refill_scheme=refillscheme1;refillescheme2;refillscheme3 
using the semicolon to separate each value?


Thanks
Jake

> On 4 Feb 2020, at 09:06, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> Also, I forgot to mention that I put the results from the previous vote on 
> the talk page .. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Stuart 
> 
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:59, European Water Project 
> mailto:europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I have started the voting period on the revised proposal after an additional 
> one week RFC period. 
> 
> The proposal is for how to best tag cafés, bars, restaurants, kiosks, hotels, 
> etc which belong to a water bottle refill scheme offering free bottle water 
> refill to anyone - whether or not a paying customer. 
> 
> drinking_water:refill=  ; and
> 
> drinking_water:refill_scheme= 
> 
> Here is a link to the proposal :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to vote
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Free_Water=edit=12#Voting
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Thank you for your consideration,
> 
> Stuart 
> 
> ___
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

But Deposit Refund Scheme or (sorry, not deposit return scheme) is how it’s 
most commonly known.

container_return isn’t clear whether there is a deposit, or if it’s even part 
of a reuse/recycling scheme. 

> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:50, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
>> deposit_return_scheme=yes
> 
> This is trying to include too many things under one tag.
> 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On 1/14/20, Jake Edmonds via Tagging  wrote:
>> I believe they are schemes where other items also have a deposit, such as
>> newspapers.  So rather then container_return, how about:
>> 
>> deposit_return_scheme=yes deposit_return_scheme:type=counter/machine
>> 
>> These tags can be added to shops, breweries, recycling centres, etc. Reverse
>> vending machines can also be tagged individually to be more complete.
>> 
>> Do we continue to use payment:* or switch to
>> deposit_return_scheme:cash/token/etc
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>> 
>>> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:05, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
>>>> But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or
>>>> some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where
>>>> yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other
>>>> bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that
>>>> shop, in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect the
>>>> rest of the shop via a lift.
>>>> Maybe a tagging with
>>>> bottle_return=yes
>>>> bottle_return:type=machine
>>>> for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts
>>>> bottle_return=yes
>>>> bottle_return:type=checkout
>>>> would be more accurate?
>>> 
>>> I think it's not a good idea to limit this useful tag to just bottles.
>>> Cans, bottle crates and as we can see also other containers can be
>>> returned in a reverse vending machine or a return point. So instead of
>>> bottle_return I suggest container_return respectively.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> --
>>> Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I believe they are schemes where other items also have a deposit, such as 
newspapers.  So rather then container_return, how about:

deposit_return_scheme=yes deposit_return_scheme:type=counter/machine

These tags can be added to shops, breweries, recycling centres, etc. Reverse 
vending machines can also be tagged individually to be more complete. 

Do we continue to use payment:* or switch to 
deposit_return_scheme:cash/token/etc


Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:05, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
>> But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or 
>> some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where 
>> yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other 
>> bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that shop, 
>> in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect the rest of 
>> the shop via a lift.
>> Maybe a tagging with
>> bottle_return=yes
>> bottle_return:type=machine
>> for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts
>> bottle_return=yes
>> bottle_return:type=checkout
>> would be more accurate?
> 
> I think it's not a good idea to limit this useful tag to just bottles. Cans, 
> bottle crates and as we can see also other containers can be returned in a 
> reverse vending machine or a return point. So instead of bottle_return I 
> suggest container_return respectively.
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
> 
> ___
> 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] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I’ve heard of places not refilling water bottles due to hygiene reasons 
(whether that is a concern or not is a separate discussion) but will give a 
glass of water to whoever asks. And on the opposite side, there are places that 
will refill bottles but won’t give a glass a water.

> On 13 Jan 2020, at 11:06, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
> How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and 
> free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
> 
> +1 
> 
> And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.
> I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including pubs, 
> bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference 
> amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative 
> illustration or example.
> Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
> amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.
> 
> Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container, not the 
> contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many other things 
> are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So free_carafe=yes may end up 
> disappointing a few people...
> And water is not always served in a carafe. 
> 
> And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even "carafe" 
> word
> is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown).
> ___
> 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] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I’m in support of something. 

Did you speak to Refill about sharing data? I emailed them some time back but 
never received a response 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 13 Jan 2020, at 10:20, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear All, 
> 
> I thought this subject could wait, but it is becoming pressing early than I 
> expected. 
> 
> As part of our project (and that of similar non-profits - most of which are 
> not open data but nevertheless great organisations), we want to voluntarily 
> encourage cafés, bars and restaurants to offer free tap water bottle refill 
> to anyone off the street.  Refill has had significant success in the UK and 
> surprising the feedback is that the impact of increased customer traffic far 
> outweighs any issue of cannibalization. 
> 
> If it is not already the case, could we develop a tagging standard for this 
> case. Maybe "amenity = cafe & free_water = yes"
> 
> It would be important to develop at the same time a distinct tag for another 
> cause, which we support but will not be targeting is restaurants which offer 
> free tap water for paying customers.
> Maybe "amenity = restuarant & free_carafe = yes"  
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Stuart  
> 
> PS : 
> 
> The European Water Project progressive web app powered by OpenStreetMap, 
> Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons data can be found : 
> https://europeanwaterproject.org 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Do you have a suggestion Martin? 

Maybe something like deposit_refund_system=yes could be applied to 
amenity=recycling, amenity=shop and amenity=vending_machine + 
vending=reverse_vending. deposit_refund_system:brands=* can specify the brands



> On 13 Jan 2020, at 07:54, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 13. Jan 2020, at 06:51, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>> 
>> To come back to tagging: so people seem to have a problem with 
>> amenity=recycle in case of reuse, but do not have a problem with 
>> amenity=vending_machine for such a machine (that does not sell anything). Or 
>> am I mistaken?
> 
> 
> I’m having issues with both 
> 
> 
> Cheers Martin 
> ___
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Here is the list of brands accepted at three stores near by. I also checked two 
others, one had a picture of various shapes and colours (with no labels) of 
bottles and the other lists ‘beer 0,33l, beer 0,5l) but both did have a list of 
which brands of plastic crates are accepted  
Fresh
Fresh 2
Billa
Birell
Birell

Budwar
Budwar
Budwar
Budweiser
Budweiser

Corgoň
Corgoň
Corgoň
Heineken
Heineken
Heineken
Kachelman
Kachelman
Kachelman
Kelt
Kelt
Kelt
Kozel
Kozel
Kozel
Krušovice
Krušovice

Pilsner
Pilsner
Pilsner
Šariš
Šariš
Šariš
Smädný Mních
Smädný Mních
Smädný Mních
Starobrno
Starobrno
Starobrno
Zlatý Bažant
Zlatý Bažant
Zlatý Bažant




Steiger
Steiger





Budiš


Fatra


Gambrinus


Gemer


Grošák


Martiner


Sitňan


Staropramen


Topvar



14
15
21


Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 12 Jan 2020, at 18:15, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>>> Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average 
>>> consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put 
>>> the item into landfill?
>> 
>> 
>> first of all it is indicating the (rough) typology of container that is 
>> accepted, secondly it would seem strange to tag something “recycling” when 
>> it’s actually much more beneficial for the environment because of reuse.
> 
> I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some
> glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a
> shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the
> only difference is a mark on the bottle itself.
> 
> regards
> 
> m.
> 
> ___
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average 
consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put the 
item into landfill? 

Even schemes designed to reused containers have a limit on the number of 
reuses, the container I return might be on it’s first use or it’s thirtieth use.


> On 10 Jan 2020, at 23:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 18:55, Martin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:
> 
> Am Fr., 10. Jan. 2020 um 08:58 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis  >:
> > amenity=reverse_vending_machine
> > reverse_vending=bottle_return
> >
> > Machines may take more than one type of item. Some here take bottles and 
> > bottle creates. Some take metal cans.
> 
> sometimes (e.g. common typology in German shops) you can add both, plastic 
> bottles for recycling and reusable bottles in plastic or glass (but usually 
> not bottles in glass for recycling) into the same "machine" (which will often 
> just be a conveyor belt with a scanner and a receipt printer, while sorting 
> takes place manually behind the curtain). Other machines are only for plastic 
> bottles for recycling and they will crush the bottles to reduce space 
> requirements. I have never seen a machine that accepts glass bottles for 
> recycling (but maybe they exist somewhere),
> 
> They certainly do! Here you go: 
> https://www.mytomra.com.au/home/qld-containers-for-change/ 
> 
> 
>   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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=firepit vs fireplace=Yes

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

> Note that it may mean that wiki is incomplete and should be edited.
Understood, but I wanted to get some other opinions before making any changes


> On 6 Jan 2020, at 12:18, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 Jan 2020, 18:30 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> The pages for leisure=picnic_table and amenity=shelter do not mention 
> fireplace=*.
> Note that it may mean that wiki is incomplete and should be edited.
> 
> Wiki is an useful documentation but not some sort of a final authority.
> I don’t think it makes sense to use fireplace=yes as an additional tag and 
> they should be mapped separately as leisure=firepit. If I understand 
> correctly, additional tags should be used to describe the object itself, but 
> fire pits and tables/shelters can be used independently. If I’m planning a 
> trip and I want to make a fire, I am going to search for fire pits.
> 
> Is there something I haven’t considered? 
> Apparently at least some people considered situation as "this is a shelter 
> with/with nearby firepit"
> 
> See also toilets=yes vs separately mapped toilet for restaurants, fuel 
> stations etc.
> ___
> 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] Fwd: amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

On third thought, breweries isn’t appropriate because not all reverse vending 
machine is for beer bottles, or even bottles at all. 

If something like brands_accepted existed, that would be fine. I’d rather not 
create something new. 


amenity=reverse_vending_machine
reverse_vending=bottle_return
 
Machines may take more than one type of item. Some here take bottles and bottle 
creates. Some take metal cans. 

Reverse vending machines are not the only vending machine type that’s not 
technically a vending machine, although you are exchanging one thing for 
another. 

I propose
amenity=vending_machine
vending=reverse_vending (or keep bottle_return as its already in use)
recycling:glass_bottles=yes/no (already is use)
recycling:=yes/no
Plus another optional tag to dictate which brands the machine takes
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
> Date: 6 January 2020 at 07:36:52 CET
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Cc: Jake Edmonds 
> Subject: Re:  [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - 
> operator=
> Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> 
> 
> Regardless of whether the main tag should be changed or not, on second 
> thought, I think the following tags should be used:
> 
> brand= To indicate how the service is branded, for example, a 
> recycling/bottle return company or the name of the super market where the 
> machine is located
>   
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse_Vending_Machine_-_Fresh_Plus_-_Pod_šiancom_-_Kosice.jpg
>  
>   Located inside and branded as Fresh (a supermarket), the 
> receipt can only be exchanged in Fresh.
>   
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse_vending_machine_for_the_NSW_Container_Deposit_Scheme_at_the_Kooringal_Mall_2.jpg
>  
>   Located outside and branded as Return and Earn (a government 
> scheme), retail vouchers, PayPal an e-vouchers are available.
> operator= To indicate who maintains/services the machine, possibly the same 
> as the brand, maybe hard to find out.
> breweries= To indicate the brands of containers that the machine accepts 
> 
>> On 5 Jan 2020, at 21:43, Colin Smale  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2020-01-05 21:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> sent from a phone
>>> 
>>>> On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not 
>>>> be used.
>>>> 
>>>> They are frequently called "reverse vending" machines - instead of the 
>>>> customer trading money for goods, they trade goods for money.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine
>>> 
>>>  
>>> clearly „reverse vending machine" is a completely different term/concept 
>>> than „vending machine", although it plays with the idea of using the same 
>>> words and change the meaning by adding „reverse" to it
>>>  
>> It is also a clearly related concept. I hereby propose:
>>   amenity=reverse_vending_machine
>>reverse_vending=bottle_return
>> Problem solved.
>>  
>>  
>> ___
>> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Regardless of whether the main tag should be changed or not, on second thought, 
I think the following tags should be used:

brand= To indicate how the service is branded, for example, a recycling/bottle 
return company or the name of the super market where the machine is located

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse_Vending_Machine_-_Fresh_Plus_-_Pod_šiancom_-_Kosice.jpg
 

 
Located inside and branded as Fresh (a supermarket), the 
receipt can only be exchanged in Fresh.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse_vending_machine_for_the_NSW_Container_Deposit_Scheme_at_the_Kooringal_Mall_2.jpg
 

 
Located outside and branded as Return and Earn (a government 
scheme), retail vouchers, PayPal an e-vouchers are available.
operator= To indicate who maintains/services the machine, possibly the same as 
the brand, maybe hard to find out.
breweries= To indicate the brands of containers that the machine accepts 

> On 5 Jan 2020, at 21:43, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> On 2020-01-05 21:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not 
>>> be used.
>>> 
>>> They are frequently called "reverse vending" machines - instead of the 
>>> customer trading money for goods, they trade goods for money.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine 
>>> 
>>  
>> clearly „reverse vending machine" is a completely different term/concept 
>> than „vending machine", although it plays with the idea of using the same 
>> words and change the meaning by adding „reverse" to it
>>  
> It is also a clearly related concept. I hereby propose:
>amenity=reverse_vending_machine
>reverse_vending=bottle_return
> Problem solved.
>  
>  
> ___
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - brand:

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Hi Colin. I’m in Slovakia current and I believe the system is similar, if the 
shop sells a brand then they accept those bottles. 

I believe it’s useful information to be mapped. 

It is possible to find the machine that accepts the widest range of brands. 

One may not remember, or know, where a particular bottle was purchased. 

I agree, it will be almost impossible to find a scheme to fit every country, 
but at least some details on the wiki page would be useful :) 


Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 5 Jan 2020, at 14:33, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> 
> Jake, could I ask you to state what country/state you are referring to? These 
> practices are likely to be different across the world. For example, some 
> countries (such as the Netherlands where I am now) have a pseudo-mandatory 
> system where the retailers pretty much have an obligation to facilitate the 
> deposit schemes, but that usually only covers products they sell themselves. 
> So there would be no real need for "brand" or "operator" in NL. Other 
> countries will probably have different systems - maybe they do not charge an 
> extra deposit on the bottles, but still offer a (small) discount when they 
> are returned. Finding a tagging scheme to fit the whole world requires 
> extensive analysis of as many different perspectives as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>> On 2020-01-05 13:15, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
>> 
>> Some bottle return vending machines only accept bottles of a particular 
>> beverage brand. 
>> 
>> Of the existing 137 bottle return nodes, none specify if there are any 
>> restrictions of which brands of bottles can be returned. 
>> 
>> I would like to propose using brand= but wanted to check if there were any 
>> other suggestions before I add it to the wiki.
>> ___
>> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Some bottle return vending machines are placed inside supermarket stores and 
give the user a discount coupon to redeem in-store when paying for their 
shopping. The supermarket chain may not own, empty or maintain the machine but 
it appears operator=* is already being used for this case. Should we continue 
and add it to additional tags?   ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - brand:

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Some bottle return vending machines only accept bottles of a particular 
beverage brand. 

Of the existing 137 bottle return nodes, none specify if there are any 
restrictions of which brands of bottles can be returned. 

I would like to propose using brand= but wanted to check if there were any 
other suggestions before I add it to the wiki.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] leisure=firepit vs fireplace=Yes

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

In the woods around my area, there are many fire pits and picnic tables. Around 
25% of the fire pits are tagged as their own object with leisure=firepit  and 
the other 75% are additionally tagged as fireplace=yes on an 
amenity=shelter/shelter=picnic_shelter, tourism=picnic_site or 
leisure=picnic_table object.

Here is an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5610200725 

Photo of the object: 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picnic_Table_-_Ko%C5%A1ice_-_mestsk%C3%A1_%C4%8Das%C5%A5_Sever.jpg
 


The wiki page for fireplace refers to a structure with a chimney (as is 
commonly used in English).

The page for tourism=picnic_site does list fireplace=* as a possible additional 
tag and 'Alternatively, map separate features: leisure=firepit’

The pages for leisure=picnic_table and amenity=shelter do not mention 
fireplace=*.

I don’t think it makes sense to use fireplace=yes as an additional tag and they 
should be mapped separately as leisure=firepit. If I understand correctly, 
additional tags should be used to describe the object itself, but fire pits and 
tables/shelters can be used independently. If I’m planning a trip and I want to 
make a fire, I am going to search for fire pits.

Is there something I haven’t considered? ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging