Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee
A reasonable simple tagging would be:amenity=café and cuisine=special_coffee So you would replace the tag coffee_house with speciality_coffee I hope that won't be too much of a nuisance as it still have the very common tag: café If it is a node with an abundance of tags, I suggest using drink:speciality_coffee (and all the other nifty little tags shop, craft, brand and so forth) /Johan Jönsson, lurker on vacation On Wednesday, July 8, 2020, 04:00:38 PM GMT+2, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote: > 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] undersea tourist route
Hi!I would use the scheme for scuba_diving:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=scuba_diving sport=scuba_diving scuba_diving:type:intro=yes(or make up a new :type:path=yes) But maybe the scuba_divers doesn't approve of this snorkeling_path, who knows. Anyway, we got some in Sweden too (called snorklingsled or trail for snorkeling) http://goteborg.se/wps/wcm/connect/e710693c-16cd-43d5-ab26-d36a020f3a38/Tv%C3%A5viksbroschyr_+snorkelled_webb.pdf?MOD=AJPERES /Johan Jönsson p.s. It's been a while since I posted, I hope this comes out right. d.s. - Message: 7 Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 08:26:56 +1000 From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: [Tagging] undersea tourist route Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Hi, Here is one for puzzling over. A scuba or snorkel route - some concrete drums with a chain between then and signs for people to follow. Like an under sea path. http://watertourist.com/listing/gordons-bay-underwater-nature-trail/ How would you tag such a thing? Presently: Way: Gordons Bay Underwater Trip (614747238) Tags: "chain"="yes" "surface"="water" "phone"="+61 2 9583 9662" "name"="Gordons Bay Underwater Trip" "note"="chain along seafloor as route to follow" "source"="https://www.abyss.com.au/sites/GordonsBay_pf.jpg; "email"="d...@abyss.com.au" "oneway"="yes" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food
Janko Mihelić janjko@... writes: If you ask me, all fast foods are restaurants, restaurant is just a broader term.There's no way we can find a clear line that distinct fast food with slow food restaurants. What ever rule you find, there will be some example of a restaurant that fits both descriptions. There is probably a restaurant somewhere in the world where you buy food from a counter, but the food is expensive and very good. Also, there is a restaurant with waiters, that only serves hamburgers. Not to say bars and cafes can also be restaurants and fast foods. The best we can do is use other tags, like cuisine=*, diet=*, and maybe invent some new ones like waiters=yes/no, buffet=yes/no, conveyor_belt_sushi=yes, grill=yes/charcoal/flattop etc. Janko 2014-08-03 15:19 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes phil- bj7mckwqqpbzvkzjlza...@public.gmane.org: On Sat, 2014-08-02 at 21:29 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 01:45 +0200, Michał Brzozowski wrote: Sometimes it's hard for me to tell whether a food venue should be classified as a restaurant or a fast food. From the description in the Wiki, the distinguishing features are: * payment right away * counter-only service (no waiters) * disposable plates and utensils * usually offers take-away * very fast (I guess this means in most cases you wait at the counter for your order to be fulfilled) snip These usually get tagged as fast_food. Should they be? Sometimes food venues beg to be called a fast food (and someone tags them so) due to quality, but then again, they're not so fast - so maybe there should be amenity=shitty_food? :P Jokes aside, it's all subjective (hence, fails at verifiability). snip You might try referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_restaurant which also mentions another classification, fast casual which is basically a step up from fast food but not quite as fancy as a (casual) full-service restaurant. When talking about tagging we could ponder a while on the possibility to use a extremly general tag, amenity=place_to_eat_and_drink, this will make the initial choice easy. Of course the discussion will be there still for the detailing of the subordinate tags, this time with an even wider set of meanings (as even vending machines would fit). The meaning of the term restaurant is sometimes a general term for places to eat and drink in more ordered forms, as Janko writes (not sure if that's the case in british english though). We could use that value (or any like it) as the general term and then use a scheme of subtags to tag the specifics. One possibility for this scheme is as Janko writes to use a full set of tags, much like a form that you fill in. To make it easier we could have one special tag that is used (as a short cut) to fill in these forms with a predefined set of values. E.g restaurant=fine_dining, restaurant=fast_food, it will be obvious that only some of the tags in the form can be filled this way. So I believe that we need to ask ourselves, how far down in the hierarchy do we want to go with the values of the amenity-key in this case. I think that as long as there are a fairly known term to use it fits as a value to the key amenity=*, as we have pub/cafe/biergarten/bar/food_court. In that tradition it is quite clear that Restaurant is one of those terms. fast_food_restaurant is quite easy to understand too. I see these values only as fast ways to do mapping (and that further detailing could be done afterwards). A problem with the fast tagging method is that we lack a value for the unclear cases (a catch-them-all value to use when uncertain ) and then we have to decide if something that apparently is neither/both should be tagged with one or the other terms. ((My own conclusion of what I wrote is that I will use amenity=restaurant when in doubt, even if I don't experience it as a restaurant myself)) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Map day spas and spa resorts?
I have written a proposal to map day spas and spa resorts, places you go to get relaxing treatments over the day or weekend. Is it a good move to map these features separately? If it is, then we could discuss the value of the tag, for the moment I just put down tourism=spa_resort. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Spa_resort It is not of special interest to me, but I saw that there where a amenity=spa and that there were some trouble regarding the meaning of spa. So I singled out one popular aspect of the possible meanings of spa and made this proposal. What to do with the other meanings are not part of the proposal but of course interesting. Trying the tag on three examples I found that the significance of this tag is to tag places that have lodging/hotel but where the lodging is primarily meant for the visitors to the establishment, in this case making it possible to stay a whole weekend at a spa. That is, tourism=spa_resort would fit better than tourism=hotel. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tradeoff
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: 2013/8/10 hannes.janet...@gmail.com hannes.janet...@googlemail.com Tradeoff sounds too unspecific to me. amenity=public_bookcase is used once already. Though here are also shelves to share other things so a bit more generic tag might be good. Somehow it is also related to 'give-away shop' without being a shop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_bookcase I agree that tradeoff is misleading as well. The public bookshelves I know of don't require any kind of trade off, you are free to leave books or take books or do both completely to your liking. -snip- This is quite close to the question, how to tag collection bins for charity shops: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:shop%3Dcharity We have a whole set of tags for recycling, maybe we should copy that for all kinds of reuse instead. That would be for places to leave things for reuse amenity=reuse reuse:books=yes For places to get things for free, one could maybe use shop=* and then some other tag to show it is for free. Maybe payment=free. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tradeoff
Tobias cra_klinrain@... writes: amenity=reuse reuse:books=yes This could be a better alternative for tradeoff. I did not find a wiki-article. Is there one? No, I copied it from amenity=recycling http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling Recycling is apparently when you take things and use the material they are made of. Recycling of books would mean that they are pulped and the paper recycled. Reuse seems to be the term when you don´t destroy the things but put them to use as they are or after improvement. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Childcare Tag
John Sturdy jcg.sturdy@... writes: It would probably be good to re-open discussion (and add your voice to it, particularly as you have an interest in using such a tag); after that, I think this one could be ready to vote on. __John On 7/9/13, alyssa wright alyssapwright at gmail.com wrote: Thanks. I'm beginning to get a better sense of how things operate. Appreciate the patience. That said -- how does one move a proposed tag to a vote? Like can I call one right now? Best, Alyssa. It is good to see that the proposals are picked up and continued. My advice would be to keep a short log of the proposals history. E.g. keep the old RequestForComments date and add your new after. For an example see; http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock Good luck /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - reference_point
Felix Delattre maps@... writes: for the address system based on reference points, which is largely used in Central American countries we would like to propose the tag reference_point. This is needed to get routing working in this part of the world. We can not use existing tags (such as landmarks) as reference points can be related to landmarks in the past. Here is the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point Good work, I remember the discussion last year and it do seem reasonable to tag these reference points for adresses. Could it be possible to use addr: as is the case with all other adress- references? addr:reference_point=Little_tree hmm, or wait, that would of course be one the adress it self, I guess whole blocks of houses would have the same reference_point in their adresses. Well, that should be added to the page about addr: as it is not the same as addr:place. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Award
Johan Jönsson johan.j@... writes: A proposed key for non-physical tagging of the rating of another feature. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings award:award_system=award_value e.g. award:hotelstars=4stars Last chance to cast your vote on this proposal of a new tagging system. It is meant to be used for tagging some intangible properties that I find lacking systematic approach today. These are quite subjective things like scenic route or high class hotel. The reasons for voting against it is that it might be more appropriate with a link instead, partly because the feature having the properties that render them an award/rating could change over time, and partly because we might not have the rights to publish these ratings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pastry and confectionery
Wolfgang Zenker wolfgang@... writes: * Murry McEntire murry.mcentire@... [130607 20:15]: [..] A summary as I understand it: We currently have English labels and definitions used for tags for bakery and confectionery that have language translation mismatches, especially based on common usage of the words. ... English cultures are comfortable using one term for shops of any type bakery goods (bakery), but continental Europeans are not. There may be regulatory reasons in Europe for not grouping them as a whole. ... A new proposed solution considering the most appropriate English definitions and the needs of both groups. A new category shop=bread be created... The English definition: a shop that specializes in selling breads. The category shop=bakery be retained; ... It should be used where both bread and non-bread bakery products sales are important, and when the specific baked good sold is unknown. All arabic countries that I have travelled to so far have the following kinds of shop: - shops that sell bread, often made on premises, and in a few cases also cookies and very simple kinds of pastry (basically sweet bread). If signs in english are used, these shops are signed as bakery --shop=bread, bread=yes, pastry=yes, (craft=bread_baker?) name:en=Ishtmar Bakery - shops that sell sweets but no cake, cookies or pastry --shop=confectionary - small restaurants that offer (sweet) pastry, to eat in or take out, but nothing else --amenity=restaurant, (selling=bread?) (craft=pastry_baker?) - places that sell cakes and cookies (mostly takeout, no coffee etc.) --shop=bakery, cake=yes, cookie=yes - places that sell coffee and tea, but usually no food. If there are signs in english, they usually read cafe or coffee shop --amenity=café, name=Ishtmar Café So, my conclusion here is that in the arabic world I would expect a bakery to be a place selling mostly or only bread. Wolfgang A great contribution by Murry! If we want to have two different shop-values to separate bakeries that mostly sell bread from the other kinds of bakeries and still want to use words by their english meaning; It seems that Murrys way is the way to go! (If we want only one value, then bakery is good for both, that is consistent with the english language) So I want to point out that it really isn´t an option to use bakery only for breadselling shops, even though it might be closer to the words origin (when you had to go to the baker to get bread) it is not how it is used in the english language today (as Murry have explained). (I would myself, as would many other foreigners assume that bakery mainly was about bread, but that is not the point) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pastry and confectionery
Michael Krämer ohrosm@... writes: ..snip.. Basically I think we're on the same page: To my understanding we agree that there's a need to differentiate between the different kinds of baked goods. So the problem is how to classify and name these. But as pretty often I guess that's where trouble starts. ..snip.. Murry McEntire murry.mcentire@... writes: ..snip.. 1) Pastries should definitely not be listed as a product of shop=confectionery.2) A more correct definition for shop=bakery is selling cakes, pastries, pies and bread -- or tongue in cheek: selling cakes, pastries, pies and sometimes bread, but rarely bread alone ..snip.. Murry It looks too me that both american Murry and german Michael have found that a breadselling shop is different from a pastry-selling shop. So why not do as the Original Poster, Martin, wrote and distinguish these two. (The discussed problem seem to be that bread-shop is bäckerei in german and that pastry-shop is bakery in english, similar name for different things) We might even need to go so far to consider to abandon shop=bakery and use shop=bread and shop=pastry instead. p.s. Shop=bakery and shop=butcher where the first shop-values, when the shop-key broke out from amenity-key. These two really are old entities that have been with us in our culture for a long time and kind of demands to be tagged. d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pastry and confectionery
Peter Wendorff wendorff@... writes: Hi. I'm curious wether the existence/usage of an oven is the best criterium for this issue. At least in Germany a lot of bakeries have an oven, but use it only to bake prepared raw rolls/buns/..., selling them fresh, sometimes still warm (if you're there at the right time at least) while the other bread is transported from somewhere else. So at least that would lead to a second tag: preparing=yes or something like that. regards Peter Am 03.06.2013 10:45, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/6/3 Jo winfixit@... oven=yes for all 'warme bakkers' where the bread is baked on the spot. oven=no if the bread is transported in from somewhere else. currently the oven tag is used also to convey further detail (oven=wood_fired) this could be extended to tag also oven=electrical instead of a simple yes (if known). Wood_fired ovens are a typical ingredient for higher quality pizza but also bread. May I suggest that we might also use the relatively new key craft=* (I have found it mostly useful for bookbinder and blacksmith and such but could be worth a try) This is supposed to be used to point out that it is an artisan in the shop making the things you buy. So in France one could add craft=baker to a boulangeri while just having shop=bakery on the depots. I can also see that oven=stone_oven and other variants could find their interested mappers here in Sweden, where such bread has become popular. By the way, we also have a lot of non-bakeries that make what we call bake-off (doing the last part of the baking in an electric oven in the store, not just heating them up) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pastry and confectionery
Andreas Labres list@... writes: Here (in Vienna ;) the distinciton is Bäckerei (= bakery, who also sell sweets like those Viennoiseries) vs Konditorei (= pâtisserie) (those are different crafts). Don't know what the correct English translation is for the latter, it seems to be confectionery. N.B. most of the Konditoreien are also Kaffeesieder, what makes them an amenity=cafe. Different from a Konditorei (and dying out) is a Confiserie (no cakes, just sweets). And of course there also is a thing called drop shop (www.dropshop.at) (candies only). Just by comparing words I find it plausible to believe that: * Bäckerei is related to bakery * pâtisserie is related to pastry * Confiserie is related to confectionary I think your examples are great. This is a gliding scale from bread via pies and cakes to chocolate and candy. p.s. I Sweden, we used to have bageri (=bäckerei/bakery) exactly as you describe. We also had more exclusive konditori (=konditorei exactly as you describe many of them also served coffe). d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Award
A proposed key for non-physical tagging of the rating of another feature. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings award:award_system=award_value e.g. award:hotelstars=4stars ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] pastry and confectionery
Murry McEntire murry.mcentire@... writes: I do see bakery (baked goods) and confectionery (candy, chocolates) and the shops that sell them as very different so would never use the later for any of the former. snip Here (Western US), i usually do not first think of a bakery shop for bread, but instead as one selling cakes, cookies, pastries, cupcakes, pies or a combination thereof and maybe breads. We tend to call shops where mainly bread is sold, bread stores; but I would still look under bakery in the business directory for one. Here confectionery shops are more likely to sell something like nuts or dried fruit with chocolates and/or candy than they are to sell pastries. The few that do mix candy and pastries are also likely to offer cakes, cupcakes, or cookies. Rather than push for shop=pastry it makes more sense to change the text on the wiki to expand what bakery stands for (and remove pastries from the description of the confectionery). I agree with you, for me do the value bakery well mean more than just bread. I am myself not comfortable with the word confectionary, but if it is a usual english word I guess that could be used for everything selling candy and all kinds of sweet things. If I only had bakery and confectionary to choose from. I would put pastry shops (and viennoiseries/konditorei/pâtisserie) as bakeries. Chocolatiers, fudge boilers, nougat/marcipan-producers and makers of turkish delights I would put as confectionary. So let us expand the meaning of shop=bakery and put the pastry-part of confectionaries as an (could also have..) p.s. and if there is interest I guess one then could proceed and distinguish pastry shops as bread-less bakeries. d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Awards and ratings
I propose a scheme how to tag existing map features with the awards or ratings it have achieved. This does not mean that you have to or even should tag awards and ratings, but if you want to, use this scheme. Comments on the scheme? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Planters
Andy Carter osm@... writes: Planters are very common (in the UK at least) in town precincts, streets and parks. My feeling is that they should be included in OSM for much the same reason as barriers or bollards. Most are made of brick, concrete or similar and permanent features of the landscape/streetscape - at least until major works are undertaken in the area. I don't think that small moveable planters should be considered at all. I have been unable to find any suitable tags so would appreciate any thought or opinions. The area in question relates to Market Hill, Brandon, Suffolk http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.447109lon=0.624782zoom=18layers=M Images of the planters in can be seen in the initial image on ... and the first two rows on http://www.brandonsuffolk.com/photos_photo-tour-of-brandon-suffolk.asp Good idea! I had to check up on the word planter http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planter Seems absolute spot on as a large flower-pot used as decoration or as a barrier. Since we do not have a key for this kind of less noticeable decorations (as I know of) lets use barrier. barrier=planter Just start using it, but to keep the gods of bureaucracy mellow I think a proposal page could be in place too. There were a large runner-up of new barriers for a year ago at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types Maybe we can start a proposal on even more barrier_types. Alternative: A planter, especially the ones built in bricks from the ground is quite similar to a flower bed in a park/garden. Maybe one could think of something like man_made=flower_bed/planter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Planters
Andy Carter osm@... writes: On Tuesday 04 Sep 2012 11:24:13 John Sturdy wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Johan Jönsson johan.j@... wrote: Seems absolute spot on as a large flower-pot used as decoration or as a barrier. Since we do not have a key for this kind of less noticeable decorations (as I know of) lets use barrier. barrier=planter But they're not always barriers! Indeed they are not. The example has a brick planter at each end of the market place with bollards either side so are effectively acting as barriers. The wooden seats/planters are decorative/architectural features but not barriers in any reasonable sense. My suggestion is to use man_made=planter for these, wherever they appear. If they are used as barriers on a road, add also barrier=planter or barrier=yes and necessary access-tags to a node on the way. (this is a variant on the barrier=block. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dblock) If they are used for traffic calming to form a choker or chicane, be sure to tag that part of the road with traffic_calming=choker or chicane. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of company name change
Andrew Errington erringtona@... writes: Thanks everyone for the tips. I'm sure it's all stores: http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx? aid=2954734cloc=joongangdaily|home|newslist2 On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Errington erringtona@... wrote: Hello everyone, Here in Korea a chain of convenience stores has changed its name from FamilyMart to CU. All of the stores have had their signage and livery removed and replaced with new signage and livery. What is the best way to perform essentially a country-wide search-and-replace for objects tagged shop=convenience, name=FamilyMart to change the name to name=CU? The objects could be nodes or areas. I do not want to complicate the matter but if I was to tag those I would have used the tag brand=CU but even then, the name-tag usually get something like CU Garak. So it doesn´t solve anything, it just makes things more hard to change. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal Amenity=meditation centre
Michael P pancoma@... writes: I believe I created a new proposal discussion page at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Meditation_centre_tag A good initiative of you to create a tag for these places. It should be of interest for mappers to tag this feature. To formalize this there is need for a definition and a tag, both of which there could be some discussion. My guess is that there are other names for meditation centres and that there might be some confusion if it is only those explicitly named centres that should have this tag or if there is some kind of requirement of size or accessability. Two alternative taggings to amenity=meditation_centre could be amenity=place_of_meditation (obviously copied from amenity=place_of_worship) or when we are at it maybe amenity=meditation. There are probably many views on meditation, but without knowing much about it I guess the different forms and uses of meditation could be explained with further tagging of different attributes on the same feature. I can mention that there are a proposal on how to tag the healthcare-oriented meditation http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0 Good luck ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: ... IMHO in OSM it would make sense to have several tags describing generic properties instead of having one single value with a very specific class. E.g. one tag might be vegetation=trees, shrubs, grass, no, where no could follow the definition given by the FAO, i.e. a total vegetative cover of less than 4% for at least 10 months of the year, or an absence of Woody or Herbaceous life forms and with less than 25% cover of Lichens/Mosses ... another tag might describe whether it is a water covered area or not, etc. To have a couple of keys instead of one key to describe how an area looks like could work. For instance, a key for vegetation with a given set of values could help map a lot of areas. To have a key for the bare areas would complement that. Maybe surface could be used for those areas of stone, pavement, sand and soil. It looks good to have complete sets of values, the four values for vegetation could theoretically be used to cover the whole planet but I think veg=no willl be implied on most bare areas. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 35, Issue 32
St Niklaas st.niklaas@... writes: IMHO is a grass covered area, temporarily, scrubbs and trees are covering it without care in an short period of time, whos tagging it again ? Why not nature as tag in nature reserve area 's. Just to avoid the immage Ive seen, with a large forest area and a view trees besides it. Tagged as beiing a group or a forest. You dont have to worry about the actually grow of the different plants if you use nature and forget if its 1,00 (grass), 3,00 (scrubbs)or 5,00 m (trees) high. Or is that to simple ? The devil is in the details, if there is ways to map details in ,for instance a wood then it will lead to what you describe. When some areas are mapped in detail it could look strange with the neighbouring areas mapped more generally. In that aspect, there is no difference in mapping landcover. You could still end up in a lot of small detailed areas instead of one big. And just the same you could map large swaths of lands. A forest could be mapped with trees and a grassland with a few trees could be mapped grass. My suggestion is to extend the mapping of a forest with trees trees:cover=closed shrubs:cover=open grass:cover=open this would be a forest with shrubs and grass underneath. trees trees:cover=closed shrubs:cover=absent grass:cover=absent this would be a dark nordic spruce forest. grass trees:cover=sparse shrubs:cover=absent grass:cover=closed this would be a grassland with some trees but no bushes. So the basic idea is that you can map an area with trees and be done with it. If you want you can add more details in other tags of the area, but you do not have too. The map-drawers will probably only look at the first tag trees, but if they want to they can use the other info for something fun. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: On 08/13/12 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: +1, the FAO system seems quite elaborated (might be too detailed/complicated/long for OSM, not sure, Anything used for OSM must enable someone who knows shit about biology and geology to make a meaningful contribution (that does not make him feel like he's completely useless because he could only fill in 2% of the blanks). ... Anything that contains the word herbaceous is, however attractive to someone working in the field, is very likely not suitable for OSM. Of course enthusiasts can use specialist tags to record esoteric stuff, but I fear that many people believe that such tags, if adopted, would automatically enter the mainstream and their filling out be requested from everyone who adds data, when indeed our presets are often too crowded already. If we replace herbaceous with grass you don´t have to know much about biology. FAO's idea is also to avoid biological and geological terms. The FAO-system relies on that a couple of different data is added, all of them is not needed, it could be refined later. Based on these they can categorize the landcover. At the highest most unrefined level there are only 8 different types. These eight then have their own set of tags. One of the eight are vegetated land (excluding farms and parks), the first refinement is done by asking if it is: mainly trees (big plants to climb in), shrubs (smaller plants you have to hack yourself through) or if it is low vegetation The only word they have for the last is herbaceous but as previously discussed, we might use grass instead. I think that chosing between the three values trees/shrubs/grass would be manageable by every mapper. Then there could be other tags if someone wants to add more of the data, mostly things like the form of the leafs and if the trees form a full cover or if they are sparse. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Everybody is hiding?
Ole Nielsen / osm on-osm@... writes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions A short comment on the proposal: The actual conditions go into the tag value. The transport mode (vehicle catagory) and the direction stay in the key in accordance with current practice for access restrictions. Ole / polderrunner Good work there, a very good blend of expanding the key with already used information *:hgv:conditional=* and at the same time keeping more complex information in the values *=no:(12:00-18:00) It is good that the expansion of the key is only with things that are quite defined already: transportation mode direction Maybe more could be added if they get commonly used. I am not sure if *:condition=* really needs to be added, but it has probably something to do with how the machines interprets keys. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging amenity=waste_basket
Werner Poppele poppele@... writes: According to the Wiki-page, the tag amenity=waste_basket should be put to a node. I found ways tagged with this tag [1] in Bakersfield, California. Is that wrong ? I think yes, because a waste basket is normally a small amenity. Therefore a node is sufficient. If it is bigger, than it should be tagged as amenity=recycling. Any comments ? I would replace them by a single node and add the tags of the way to it. WernerP PS: Same with amenity=bench [2] [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.322431lon=-119.105307zoom=20 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.30326lon=-119.080687zoom=20 That area is extremly thoroughly micromapped and things normally a node could be represented by an area. There could be large container-like waste disposal structures, with only small holes to throw things, they are so big to manage the great amounts of waste produced at a park on a picnic-day. If they have the possibility to through different materials in different holes, it could be a recycling. If htey are large open containers where one can dump entire sacks of waste, they could eb waste_disposal. Long park-benches have I myself tagged with a way, seems appropriate. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
To make my question more clear: IF we where to use landcover, what would then the value for grasslands and lawns be? =herbaceous =herbs =grass In another context, guess the third: landcover=trees/shrubs/??? The description would be something like Areas where the vegetation is dominated by grasses and other herbaceous (non-woody) plants, with only sparse trees and shrubs. Including managed lands but excluding cultivated areas (crops) and wetlands. p.s. Nice overview Imagic d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On 03/08/2012 12:36, Martin Vonwald wrote: But on the other hand those subkeys are harder for mappers. That's why we will not see landcover=vegetation + vegetation=trees and similar constructs. Such hierarchical tags have the disadvantage that mappers often have to use more than one tag. Even for such common objects like forests. And mappers will simply not accept that I agree on trying to have a limited set of values for landcover ( a complete set) but on the same time try to avoid subkeys for the obvious differences. I think that replacing a value of vegetation with three values trees/shrubs/herbaceous would still make the numbers of values a reasonable amount. Colin Smale colin.smale@... writes: Grass is an example of a herbaceous plant, and we tag from generic towards specific, so it should really be landcover=herbaceous and herbaceous=grass. I would advise against using herbs in this context. Although it may be technically not incorrect amongst biologists, in common English usage it refers to plants used for flavourings etc. like Thyme, Rosemary, and Oregano. Joe Mapper is never going to forget that, although Jean-Luc Cartographe might be excused for confusing grass and herbs (herbe is French for grass, as well as the culinary plants) Colin Thanks for the insights on the word herb. Then it is a contest between the formal but long value: herbaceous and the shorter value: grass It is the same thing they are supposed to map, it is just a question on the name of the value. It is the third value in the series trees/shrubs/?? I am looking for. (I understand that Imagic in his previous post thought it to be a hierarchy, this shows a weakness in the proposed values, would the value grass be understood as fields of plants, even if there are more of something else than just grass.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbaceous_plant http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krautige_Pflanze ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
LM_1 flukas.robot+osm@... writes: What about this: Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like landcover=vegetation:herbaceous:grass, ... Mappers would understandably not be willing to do it all, therefore any generic qualifications could be omited if the rest is unambiguous. ... Sounds like a great way. There are of course several ways to construct hierarchy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) uses one such approach and when they come sufficently deep they switch to a more complicated system with tailored classifiers and attributes to go further. Right below the hierarchical system for vegetated land, FAO begin the classification by using the overall appearance of the vegetation to categorize landcover. They use something they call lifeforms where they identify woody plants as distinguished from herbacious plants. The woody plants are subdivided into trees and shrubs following the simple rule: If higher than 5 metres then it is a tree. They then identify if the land has a cover of trees/shrubs or if it is herbaceous. This is supposed to be a complete set of possibilities. -So on some level in the hierarchy we could (if we want) use theses three values as the only ones. That is why I am thinking on what names these three should have. For the moment the names of the three values are: trees/shrubs(?)/grass Defined as: Trees are woody plants over 5 m Shrubs are woody plants below 5 m Grass are not woody plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_plant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Names localization
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xificurk@... writes: [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Names_localization OK, so if I understand this right lang=language_code is supposed to tell what languages that are used in the tag name=place_name May I propose to use lang:name=language_code instead of lang=language_code (or is it name:lang=language_code) Then the key lang: could be used even if there happens to be more tags that need its language stated. By the way, is it only meant as an internal OSM-thing or is it supposed to also be a mapping of official languages in the place (or official languages expected on road signs)? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Names localization
Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xificurk@... writes: Johan Jönsson wrote: By the way, is it only meant as an internal OSM-thing or is it supposed to also be a mapping of official languages in the place (or official languages expected on road signs)? Could you provide an example, where those two are different? The proposal was primarily meant to fix the unclear meaning of bare name tag, but it's still just the first draft. Sorry if I am getting to theoretical on the subject of how to write tags. I was wondering about the reason for this tag, *is it to explain the languages in the tag name: (if, like in your bruxelles-brussel example, is two names I guess that the order is important) *or is it aimed at noting information from wikipedia on the official languages of this place (probably ordered after number of speakers but with administrative language first or something). *It could also be meant to explain something that might not exist on wikipedia, in what languages and scripts the road signs usually are on the place. In the greece capital Athens there are usually the name in greek letters first and then in roman letters (gr and gr_rom maybe). I do not say that these things generally differ much, I just say that which of these that is supposed to be tagged could be good to know. p.s. If we leave the cities I could think of a nice example. A pub or maybe camping place where they have a sign outside telling what languages the staff speaks, seen these on swedish camping places. d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging awards and ratings
Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes: Linked data is not about linking to every possible source from one source, but rather publishing your data as RDF thus allowing linkages with other datasets. See here[1]. I don't think it gets much attention in the OSM community, and I don't claim to know a whole lot about it, but the concept is applicable to what you would want to do. Given, of course, that these third party datasets are also available as RDF. In the brave new world, they will be. [1] http://linkedgeodata.org/About This was an awarding discussion. So far I have catched that there could be need of a common top-level key award: to put in front. I think I will go forth and make the draft of the proposal on award: There seem not to be any need of further narrowing the key with hotel: or similar, which is good since it could easy become a lot of parts of the key. There are of course also doubts on why one should map this at all, if it is allowed and some interesting notes on something called linked geodata. There are some things that are more usable to map than others (tripadvisor-awards beeing the opposite :-), but they had some nice text- values usable to test the tagging-scheme) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC - emergency=aed (defibrillator)
I thought it would be a good thing to at öleast pass the proposal-phase for the tag emergency=aed #The value aed seem to be the agreed value, it is a abbrevation of Automatic External Defibrillator (An AED is a device designed for the layman to treat life threatening cardiac arrhythmias). #The key seem to have migrated from man_made to amenity to medical to emergency. the contributors to the map prefers medical=aed according to taginfo. See more at the proposal page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/automated_external_defibri llator Anyhow, I seemed it fit to take this proposal up one more time, as the tagging pair emergency=aed never was sent out to RFC. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging awards and ratings
Sometimes there is a discussion on how to tag differnt kind of awards and ratings. I thoguht a bit of this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Johan_J%C3% B6nsson/Workspace#some_musings_on_the_subject and came up with a pre-draft that I might take further if there is any interest: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Johan_J%C3% B6nsson/Workspace#A_preliminary_proposal It is basically like this Award_System=Award With a catchy name for the award_system as key and for each award_system there could be a list of values example 1 Tripadvisor have some awards called Travelers' Choice If someone of some reason would like to tag that, they can use travelers_choice=top25 / best_service example 2 Guide rogue Michelin awards restaurants Michelin=2_stars example 3 there are many hotel star-systems, one is HOTREC by hotelstarsunion (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stars) HOTREC=3_stars example 4 In the blue flag system beaches are rewarded with the blue flag award blue_flag=blue_flag As you see from the examples, there are some things to discuss. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] emergency=fire_hydrant and wrenches and some off-topic
fly lowflight66@... writes: On 25/07/12 14:00, LM_1 wrote: 2012/7/25 Jason Cunningham jamicuosm at googlemail.com: On 24 July 2012 19:55, David ``Smith'' vidthekid at gmail.com wrote: Useful to whom? The local fire department should already know, and nobody else should be authorized to open the hydrant anyway — though it seems the biggest reason departments object to unauthorized access is damage caused by using the wrong kind of wrench… Your assuming the existence of something called a local fire department who have some sort of control over the hydrant. This may be the case for the the area your thinking about but not be the case across the rest of the world. Having said that I agree that if people should not interacting with an object then OSM should not provide data on how to do it, especially for something as important as a fire hydrant. Jason More importantly OSM should not censor its data even if there is potential for abuse. (surveillance cameras for crime planning, detailed road maps for attack forces coordination, police using uploaded gps tracks to find locations where cars are likely to exceed speed limits... ) +10 Please no censorship in this way. As the fire_hydrant has already an own tag it should be no problem to add some more information (like the wrench). Im my country, I find them not just on fire_hydrants, eg it might be worse thinking about a generell solution and not just for fire hydrants. wrench_type=* comes to my mind. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I just found out about the emergency-key, I think it is great for things you could need in an emergency. As I udnerstand, the tagging have appeared as a need for things that could not be described with other keys. some things like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlife_ring are just there for in case of emergency. Looking at the values at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency I see that the one that made these have had fire_fighting in mind. It makes me wonder if all things related to firefighting should be tagged emergency. Some might argue that only things usable by ordinary, unprepared people should be marked emergency. But as Jason argues, in some places are everyone supposed to join in to figth fires. I could settle on some kind of definition, that things *only* used at an emergency or at least *mostly*, should be tagged with emergency. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_water_pond could be a border case on the included side. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dambulance_station I think is far to active during non-emergency situations to be included. I would like things in the emergency-key to be out on the field, sort of. Well, the above was off-topic. Regarding keying, i think the barrier-guys have thought a bit on it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types#Combinat ions_.2F_Subtags hydrant:key=6sided_wrench maybe? Probably, there are some kind of advanced access-tagging system floating around also. hydrant:access=key and key=wrench ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - natural=bare_rock
This is an old proposal that have been discussed before. It seem to be in use according to tag watch, so I have been urged to make this official. There are also similar tags in use and others proposed but that doesn´t mean this one could be approved for use by a voting. Eventually, when the lancover discussion has come to a conclusion, landcover=bare_rock might be acceptable to use instead http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - blue_flag=yes
There are plenty of beaches (and marinas) that have a blue flag with a breaking wave on it, they have excellent water quality and a couple of other nice things. It wouldn´t be wrong to map these, and it is easily done with this simple proposal. When a mapper sees the flag on the beach just add the tag blue_flag=yes. Read more at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Blue_flag and contribute with your insights, eother directly by changing the wiki-page, writing on the discussion-page or kust reply here. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
This is an old proposal that have been discussed before. It seem to be in use according to tag watch, so I have been urged to make this official. There are also similar tags in use and others proposed but that doesn´t mean this one could be approved. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)
Simone Saviolo simone.saviolo@... writes: Yes, in fact, that's what I meant. Every single beach area in the municipality has been awarded the flag. I am still a bit unsure, though: do you know of cities in which only some of the beaches/marinas have the flag, and others don't? I Gothenburg, Sweden we had the blue flag on some of our sea baths but not all. I think we abandonded it because of the cost for the tests and so, I think that when a commune decides to apply for the blue flag they will get as many of the baths as possible. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: 2012/6/27 Janko Mihelić janjko at gmail.com: I got an answer about gray flags on their site: The grey flags are Blue Flag sites not in Blue Flag season yet: this means they have been awarded the Blue Flag, but will comply with all criteria when their season starts, later in the summer. So some beaches are only blue flag compliant during some seasons. I think this is too much information for osm right now. fee_blue_flag=yes should be enough. or tag those fee_blue_flag=grey (or similar)? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I would like to see something more general like award=blue_flag or award=fee_blue_flag where the award-key could be used for all kind of awarded ratings, hotel- stars, michelin-stars, camping-stars, barcelona-restaurant-forks and so forth As the grey flag on the web-site only indicates a blue flag beach out of season, it should be something like: blue_flag:season=May-Oct ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
I will make my point clearer. It isn´t the houses with adresses that will be tagged, it is the Reference_point itself. A street with 20 houses. *The street: highway=residential and name=Big_Street *The twenty houses have each addr:housenumber=1..20 and addr:street=Big_Street An area with 20 houses using Big_Tree as reference point. *The reference_point: reference_point=yes and name=Big_Tree *The twenty houses are not covered by the proposal I wanted to show that a reference_point is to be compared with the name of a strett. addr: then relates to that street, it soen´t tag the street itself. p.s. If one would reuse the addr: scheme for the houses: addr:meter=10..200 addr:ref_point=Big_Tree d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
Felix Delattre linux@... writes: I started working on a draft for a proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:reference_point Please help me! This is an important thing to map. I have been looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses and it seems that the key addr: is used on each and every single address. an example, the addr:street isn´t used on the street but on the surrounding buildings that uses that street in their adress. with a similar approach, addr:reference_point would be used on all houses having the railway station as a reference. My conclusion is that you should not use addr: for this tag. I suggest to use only reference_point=yes or reference_point=address. Maybe there are other uses for reference_points, what first comes into mind are the survey points: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made% 3Dsurvey_point ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC - Leisure=sea_bath/lake_bath/river_bath
A proposal to map locations to bathe at, including the near surroundings connected to the bathing experience. Failing to create a general tag (it got to general) here are three rather general but still usable tags: leisure=sea_bath leisure=lake_bath leisure=river_bath Ideas on these names and if they are usable is welcome http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sea_bath p.s. These three are not supposed to cover all kinds of bath, just the outdoor ones that are not pools. d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe
Erik Johansson erjohan@... writes: I would probably use leisure=bath to map outdoor bathing places, but I'm not sure the word is that much better than a direct translation of the Swedish word, which would be; amenity=place_of_bathing So maybe just use the Swedish word http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badplats leisure=badplats + sport=swiming Or if there is another language which has a word for (outdoor) places where you take baths? I think it would be a mistake to use the values like: bath/place_of_bathing/bath_location/bathing_spot/bath_facility for only open- air baths, it would be to easy to make the mistake and tag a indoor bath with the same. If there is to be one tag only for open-air baths it should be reflected in the name of the value somehow. In german there are words like ''freibad'' (open-air bath) and older words like ''badeanstalt'' (bath facility). The European Environment Agency have a bathing water directive. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/index_en.html All member states have to profile and monitor all their outdoor bathing waters and adjacent beaches.(swimming pools excluded from directive) Possible tags for open-air baths could be leisure=open-air_bath leisure=outdoor_bath leisure=bathing_water leisure=beach ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe
Colin Smale colin.smale@... writes: There seem to be several dimensions to this. Bathing can mean different things to different people, with different English words/usage. I can give a few examples. Firstly, the activity itself: *to get clean (with soap etc) *to exercise or as a sport (swimming pool with lanes) *as a recreation (river/beach/recreational swimming pool) On a different dimension, there is the construction of the facility: *indoor (turkish baths, swimming pool etc) *outdoor+manmade (outdoor swimming pool) *outdoor+natural (river/beach etc) Then there is the type of water: *natural, seawater *natural, fresh water *natural, geothermal *manmade (swimming pool with heavily treated water) These three attributes can probably exist in the real world in any combination. I would suggest tagging them separately, to allow full flexibility and minimise ambiguity. Very good summary! This is what I mean, there are plenty of different places to bathe at. As a generalist, I would prefer to have one super-tag and many sub-tags to differentiate. e.g. Leisure = bath bath:activity = wash/exercise/leisure bath:construction = indoor/outdoor/natural bath:water= sea/fresh/mineral/treated There are probably more sub-tags and we can come up with better names and groups. /Johan Jönsson p.s. (If this doesn´t fit the osm-scheme, then I can make separate proposals for all diffferent leisure and amenities, I will need some help with the outdoor ones. I do not like natural=beach to be used for all natural bath places) d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Bandstand
LM_1 flukas.robot+osm@... writes: 2012/3/11 Johan Jönsson johan.j at goteborg.cc: leisure=bandstand is a good tag. The bandstand is a prominent feature that is easy to map, so ease of mapping with one tag is prefect. Is this not bad, having more (independent) information in one tag? Imagine that person A - technocratic deaf engineer who hates music and person B - artist who loves music and does not care a bit whether it is inside or outside or anything about buildings. Both happen to be mappers: on cannot input the interesting construction without adding info about music, the other cannot enter music without construction. That is the same reasons that I find this a good tag, whether you are type a or type b, you will know it is a bandstand and tag it with that. Easy. The type a-mapper could add more tags regarding architectural style, the type b-mapper could add more tags regarding music-style. If they do not want or know anything more, the tag bandstand is enough. If per chance they do not know it is called a bandstand I guess there are no problems if they map it with pavilion or music_venue /Johan Jönsson p.s. (As a generalist I would of course prefer if there where a tagging scheme for all pavilions and music_venues out there. building=pavilion pavilion=bandstand and music_venue=open-air_scene, music_venue:size=small or something like that) d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe
In older days and in some parts of the world the public bath is an amenity and not a leisure. I am sticking to trying to find one tag for the leisure-bath establishments, but it might be possible to find a general tag encompassing both leisure and amenity and then have subtags to discern them. One such solution would be to not tag the physical place (the bathing-place) but instead use a non-physical tag that states come here when you want to bathe. For the leisure-baths I was thinking about using some kind of subtags leisure=bath bath:outdoor= yes bath:indoor=no or maybe leisure=bath bath:outdoor= sea, pool, lake, river, hot_spring bath:outdoor= beach, cliff, pier, pool, lake, river, hot_spring ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe
I made a try to do go through some examples to see how it worked. They are at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Johan_J%C3%B6nsson/Workspace what I can see, it looks like it is only the open-air public nature bath locations that really lack tags, swimming_pools and indoor bath locations could easily be tagged with current more specialized tags or similar. (e.g. amenity=turkish_bath /tourism=spa/leisure=sports_centre) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Bandstand
leisure=bandstand is a good tag. The bandstand is a prominent feature that is easy to map, so ease of mapping with one tag is prefect. With one tag it maps both: *the physical building (band_stand says in one word that it is a small open pavilion) *the use/function: scheduled music (a bit informal) A question, there is no such things as indoor band-stands, right? There could be some controversy if one instead want one tag for all small pavilions, garden-kiosks, gazebos out there. building=pavilion If one would want one tag for all music-playing places, leaisure=music_venue or leisure=music. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] A leisure tag for bathe
What do you think about a tag for different kind of places to bathe. Small recluse places along a river, Organized public places with piers and beaches Turkish bathes maybe even hot springs. I´m thinking about something along the lines of leisure=bath What I am after is a place for the leisure activity of immersing the body in water, not the soap and water bath or the compettitive swimming. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -sport=disc_golf
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/disc_golf This is yet another value for the key sport= As all sport tags, this could be used on places suitable for exercising the sport, for clu houses or shops. As for all sports tags, this tag is supposed to go with physical tag. If the place is some kind of organized disc_golf_course, then use the newly proposed http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Disc_golf_course as physical tag (then sport=disc_golf isn´t necessary) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=ridge
Dmitri Lebedev siberia.accanto@... writes: Hello, this is the page with the proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ridge There are peaks that can be tagged properly (although it's technically possible to deduct them with some accuracy from elevation maps), but between them there are ridges, the top edges of the mountains. Those are not peaks, they descend from or ascend to another peak. And a ridge is an important object. Very good proposal, a ridge is absolutely something for a map. I guess these kind of natural objects of the geography was on the very first maps in the world. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=disc_golf_course
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: 2011/11/6 Johan Jönsson johan.j at goteborg.cc: It will be nice with a physical tag for the place to play disc_golf. As the course it self probably could be found in a larger wood or park without any clear boundaries of where the course are it is probably best not to try to mark a whole area. I would try to estimate the area extension and hope that someone later might refine it in case of errors. You better have an approximation of the area instead of a node or a new type or relation that nobody parses. I have used leisure=park, sport=disc_golf for an approximate area holding the holes. It is really nothing that separates this area from the surrounding park, except for the danger of flying discs. Is this a method used elsewhere? Taking a part of a bigger area and subtagging it with sport=x. But as said before, there is no problems with introducing a new leisure-value. Then people can use the tag as they want, for a relation, an area or a node. /Johan Jönson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
Bryce Nesbitt bryce2@... writes: The http://www.mrlc.gov/ Is a partnership of: federal and state partner agencies interested in assisting in either the population of the Landsat database or collaboration in developing the Land Cover database. Which have all agreed on common landcover descriptions, including a code feature for stony ground. A interesting line-up one must say. Here is the latest (2001) definition of the different classes: http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/definitions.html#2001 They have shown a distinct movement from land use-like classes to more physical definitions. The old Bare_Rock/Sand/Clay have been replaced by the simpler barren_land. !!This could be an alternative approach to the tag-name. Use vegetated or barren as tags. Maybe I was to specific when looking/and failing to find a tag for all land of bare rock (stony ground). The vegetated/barren couple could be better. Anyone got any objections on barren, do it have other meanings? /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
It might not be a good idea to try to find one tag all areas of rock (that then could be refined). Probably it would be better to find a general tag for areas of solid rock and another general tag for areas of fragmented rock. I am looking for a general term as there seem to be so many specialized terms, it would be troublesome to get a whole covering set of specialized tags. ---Areas of solid unbroken rock-- # bare_rock Could that be understood as an uncovered surface of rock, bedrock? # bedrockIf there is rock showing I guess it is the bedrock. --Areas of fragmented rock-- # stony_ground Might seem to exclude the really big stones, boulders and such. # fragmented_rock Is fragmented understandable? Or is it futile to find something to encompass everything from fields of large boulders to gravel? /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes:
2011/9/2 Nathan Edgars II neroute2@...:
On 9/2/2011 7:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, I also disagree. I see landuse=forest as the effective area
covered by trees. Hence I would subtract all other entities within.
Disagree with this. landuse=forest should be the area that is used for
forest purposes, which can include fertilizer storage sheds, access roads,
etc.
what do you think about using natural=forest for this?
snip
The attribute maintained or not could be stored in another tag.
natural=wood could be for woodlands, forest for forests (including
fertilizer storage sheds, access roads and a lot more that is in the
forest area). This would also be the object to put the name for the
forest while the landuse would probably mostly not have names.
Martin
+1 for using one tag for the whole forested area.
Maybe something along the scheme of natural=wetland, wetland= {more detailed
desc.} Maybe natural=woodland?
/Johan Jönsson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Refining landcover/natual landuse WAS Re: A name for stony ground?
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: snip in the second phase (they call it the modular/hierarchical phase) they do: I surface aspect II macropattern landform,climate altitude,erosion,vegetation soil type/lithology cheers, Martin PS: The FAO document is really interesting, what do you think about a tag vegetation_structure to be applied to vegetated areas like meadow, scrub and forest with the suggested values open and closed? This is inspired by this scheme: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X0596E/X0596e13.gif and could help to differentiate between woodlands and dense forests or between thickets and shrubland. It could also be used on beaches (some of them are bare, others have sparse vegetation, e.g. there could be vegetation_structure=open and vegetation_structure=none (where none could include also be very sparse vegetation, almost not present) and in mountaineous regions (where there is often areas which are mixed pebbles and grass). Another key to indicate the same could be vegetation_density with values dense sparse (or low). Obviously this would also require to define that it is related to the main vegetation form, i.e. the one in the landuse (or landcover) key. I took a look at the FAO-scheme a while ago and came up with this example for a forest: -Forest FAO-level: I) (SEMI) natural vegetation II) Woody III) Trees IV) closed V) broadleaved VI) deciduous landcover=tree/shrub/grassland landcover=vegetation vegetation=tree/shrub/grassland tree:leaf_type=broad/needle tree:evergreen=yes/no tree:height=10m tree:distribution=open shrub:leaf_type=broad/needle shrub:evergreen=yes/no shrub:distribution=sparse I went with one main key having 3 values (tree/shrub/grassland), indicating existence of that type. main vegetation-type is not identified directly, instead one have to further tag each type with further info. From the distribution(or density) of each type a renderer could decide what graphics to use. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: 2011/9/1 Johan Jönsson johan.j at goteborg.cc: I have also looked at the UN-organization FAO that reasons about a scheme for tagging land cover... http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X0596E/x0596e01f.htm It's indeed interesting how they do landcover, they work in 2 phases. In the first phase they use 3 simple steps to differentiate. 1. Primarily vegetated=yes/no and a criterion for vegetated with at least 4% vegetation cover for at least 2 months of the year. this results in 2 classes, each of which is analyzed in a second step: 2. Edaphic Condition=terrestrial/aquatic or regularly flooded aquatic includes marshes, swamps, bogs and all areas where water is present for a substantial period regularly every year. the 4 resulting classes are then divided by their 3. artificiality of cover in Artificial/managed and in (Semi-)natural Those classes are then further refined in the second phase, when more detailed landcover and environmental attributes like climate, erosion, landform are added. A scheme is here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X0596E/X0596e10.gif cheers, Martin It is an ambitious project and it would be nice if we could try to do something similar. By there scheme bare_rock goes like this: Vegetation=no Wetland=no man_made_cover=no Further differentiating could be done based on the surface structure, something in the line of fragmented=yes/no /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
Bryce Nesbitt bryce2@... writes: On 08/31/2011 10:50 AM, Johan Jönsson wrote: A name to use for tagging stony ground. I am looking for a denomination to use for an area that have little or no vegetation so that the stony ground shows. Could there be a tag describing everything from coarse gravel, boulders, scree to exposed bedrock. There are well established land cover types used by various government data sources: I suggest OSM adopt one. I agree, let us use terms from people who already have thought about this. (Many of the land cover-definition is made for interpreting remote sensing dat though) I have looked at a european remote sensing land cover defintion by European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information used in CORINNE, they use bare_rock foreverything that behaves like that when rmeote sensing, including all kinds of rocks even scree only discouraging fine white sand. http://sia.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.2CLCtitle=Bare%2520rocks I have also looked at the UN-organization FAO that reasons about a scheme for tagging land cover, they write that bare areas should be tagged specific and more detailed mapping should use the nature of the surface, if it is consilidated or not. I guess they suggest differentiating between areas of loose rocks and those of firm rock. Somewhere I have seen that they call unfragmented rocks: bare rock and the fragmented rock: Gravel/Stones/Boulders http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X0596E/x0596e01f.htm Another source I looked at is the Orienteering association, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IOFmapping#Rock_and_boulders, they use bare_rock for the solid surface and boulder_field/stony_ground for the fragmented surfaces. According to the thesis http://bib.tiera.ru/dvd68/Fisher%20P.%20%28Ed%29%20Re-presenting%20GIS%20%282005%29%28en%29%28296s%29.pdf USGS only make a difference between Sandy areas other than beaches and bare exposed rock. I guess that stony ground is included in bare exposed rock. hmm, but on the web http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.php#barren I see that among the barren areas they have a general term for Bare Rock/Sand/Clay To conclude, if there is a general term for both solid and fragmented areas of rock I think it is bare_rock but it do seem easy to interpret it as only defining solid rock. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Another sidewalk question
Nathan Edgars II neroute2@... writes: There's a piece of road here that recently got a sidewalk on the west side. But they didn't include a couple pieces where there's extra pavement on the side with diagonal lines to keep vehicles off. This is obviously meant as part of the sidewalk, but it's technically not one. How should it be tagged? http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.535699,-81.405357spn=0.002104,0.00515gl=ust=kz=19vpsrc=6layer=ccbll=28.535699,-81.405357panoid=z9EMHAwlFYXL81LOUKOedQcbp=12,200.63,,0,-1.41 I would not tag the white and black-striped area of the road as a sidewalk. Whoever invented the black-white striping probably did not intend it to be a designated pedestrian area, more something of a no drive zone, probably some kind of safety issue concerning the joining roads. /Johan Jönsson, Sweden-do not know anything about american sidewalks, really. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open cut mining
Elizabeth Dodd edodd@... writes: 2011/2/5 Elizabeth Dodd edodd at billiau.net: I'm tracing a big open cast mine ... the residential village and the airstrip are part of the mining site from the social and economic points of view - single owner, single purpose the 132km of haul road also belongs in the economic view of the mining site, but would not be appropriate in a polygon, but could be added to a relation, which was why I was suggesting relation Sounds like a relation to me. I don´t know how we map normal civic communities, I guess only by anode and then you have to figure out what belongs there according to proximity. Good luck! /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
Steve Doerr steve.doerr@... writes: On 03/02/2011 20:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Can you please help me to find the right word for stuff that is added later on top? (in German that would be something like Bekrönung or Spitze): e.g. Tricky. Looking through the translations of Spitze at leo.de, either apex or pinnacle might do. The pyramid-formed top part of the obelisk is called pyramidion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidion (The very tip of any pryramid shape is called the apex of the pyramid) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_%28geometry%29 But i think you want to know what to call the additions made to the obelisk: statues, balls, spikes, crosses and that sort of things. An ornamental finishing on the top could be called a crest, but I´m not sure if it used in architecture. For some uses they are called finial, but that might be too obscure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finial an easy solution would be to use top_piece /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: Has there been a conclusion on which main tag to use? Who is against man_made and who is against historic? Actually I am against subtagging them as columns (IMHO they don't qualify, a column can't have a pointed top). A very close cousin to the obelisk is the etiopian stelae, here is one example moved to Rome (and back again) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_of_Axum These obelisk, properly termed stele or the native hawilt/hawilti (as they do not end in a pyramid), was carved and erected in the 4th century AD by subjects of the Kingdom of Aksum It would be great if there where an english term that could encompass obelisks, high freestanding columns and other stelae that is clos in resemblance. but if there isn´t any such term then: man_made=obelisk is great. It fits with the other man_made. It is better than historic=obelisk (why tag the Las Vegas obelisk different from others) Maybe tourism, culture or landmark=obelisk could work? M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: I suggest height for the overall height (including the base and eventual additions to the top) above ground ( so you get the height of the top by adding ele and height). and obelisk:height for the net height of the obelisk itself As you say, there should be a whole range of nice subtags to describe it. I hope we are not going to tag the individual parts of the monument. The overall height (including the base and eventual additions to the top) should be one of the most important subtags. Let us test to tag some examples here on the mail-list. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
I am on the same page as you Martin, we should tag the obelisks as the prominent features they are. man_made seem to be the most neutral key, but landmark is tempting. I suggested: man_made=column + column=obelisk What I meant was man_made=pointy long massive not natural freestanding thing +pointy long thing=obelisk Other columns/pointy long freestanding things is: *egyptian obelisks and other that is inspired by them *the monumental more or less cylindrical columns/victory columns etc. *stele is a general term for inscribed and decorated things some of them is high, some are not. Mostly taller than it is wide acc. to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stele *the portugise Padrão *large christian cross-, they probably wont fit in the pointy long thing * modern art sculpture, some of it like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Doppels%C3%A4ule_23_70_von_Erich_Hauser-1.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes: Not all rocky surfaces are natural, just like sand being used on golf courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s of km of an actual beach... That is true, instead of the proposal natural=bare_rock you can use landuse=quarry and other tags if it is not a natural rock surface you are tagging. As I concluded yesterday, this proposal would be better with landcover=bare_rock, then it could be used on every land cover consisting of a bare rock surface without confusion on the natural-key. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Johan Jönsson johan.j@... writes: This is an old proposal, that have been discussed before. It lead to a rewriting and instead of natural=rock it is proposed natural=bare_rock. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock It is supposed to be a tag for land cover. A summary so far. There seem to be a need for a tag for areas of solid rock, bedrock, with visible rock surface. bare_rock could be used. It is then obvious that there also is a need for areas covered by loose rocks. The naming of the popular natural=scree suggest a particulate definition of a slope with rubble of different sizes. More distinct tags needed or a general tag. There have been a vivid discussion, one idea is to use natural=* for special named features, like scree, but use a land_cover=* for general tagging of the nature of an area. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Specific natural-tags for rock and stone.
In the discussion of natural=bare_rock I have found that there is need for a couple of different specific natural-tags for stone and rock land forms. for instance the boulder fields and other areas of lose rock that are not scree. It would be nice if we could find a hierachical tagging system in the same way as natural=wetland + wetland=bog see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wetland and in natural=desert + desert=hammada see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deserts /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Johan Jönsson johan.j@... writes: A summary so far. There seem to be a need for a tag for areas of solid rock, bedrock, with visible rock surface. bare_rock could be used. It is then obvious that there also is a need for areas covered by loose rocks. The naming of the popular natural=scree suggest a particulate definition of a slope with rubble of different sizes. More distinct tags needed or a general tag. There have been a vivid discussion, one idea is to use natural=* for special named features, like scree, but use a land_cover=* for general tagging of the nature of an area. I have some concerns on my proposal. I am taking the proposal back to status=draft if that is OK. It should be better off as a landcover=bare_rock instead, but that key is not really accepted. If used with the natural-key then it should at least be possible to use the same way as natural=wetland with subtags of wetland=.. natural=rockland :-) I started a new thread on that. Another concern is that the tag is only supposed to be used for solid rock, I am not sure how people are supposed to know that. And what to use for loose rock. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Steve Bennett stevagewp@... writes: IMHO there are some subtle differences between these concepts: surface=rock landuse=rock natural=rock The first to me suggests that the ground beneath some other feature, like a path or a park, is rock. surface=* is almost always a supporting tag, rather than a tag by itself. The second is a bit odd, but would imply an area that is not used for anything because it's rocky - perhaps some kind of barren wasteland. The third describes a geological feature that is useful as a landmark. There are trees over there, there are rocks over here. I agree, and further more, the word rock can mean a lot of things like skerries and boulders. That is why the proposal is on bare_rock instead. An alternative could be bedrock. Regarding the first concept you mention: the ground in a feature. It could be of bare_rock, in Sweden we have some cliff bathes that is some kind of beach with a rock surface. I guess there could be roads on bare rock on some places in the world, where the surface tag could come in use. Beach and road with subtag of surface is probably to prefer over natural=bare_rock. But if there is no other good tag for the area then you can use the landcover tag of natural=bare_rock, instead of leaving it blank. Regarding the second concept: landuse=rock that could be landuse=quarry http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quarry Regarding the third concept of geological landmarks. To get a more lively map with nice landmarks there probably should be more tags like hillock, stone_pillar, monolith, cliff, plateau, hill. The more detailed tagging on these hills could use natural=bare_rock, natural=cliff, natural=scree for the parts with rock surfaces and other tags for the vegetated parts. In the same way as the old abutters tag is the description of the terrain useful to orient yourself: there are trees over there, there are bare_rock over here. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4@... writes: Is a distinction made between areas which are basically one really large rock stuck to the ground, and areas where there are lots of body to head sized rocks (without knowing what is underneath)? Also some areas would likely be a combination of the two. My opinion is that natural=bare_rock should be used for solid rock and not for fields of stone/stony ground. The visible bedrock, even if it could be splintered and jagged. The first proposal intended to span all kinds of stone surfaces, I changed that. I took a look at [[IOFmapping#Rock_and_boulders]] and got convinced to separate the solid bare_rock. In the discussion it was argued that natural=scree could be used for rough stony grounds, that maybe not the case as scree have a limited definition meaning a certain mountain slope filled with rubble, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scree Scree on wikipedia]]. There is a definition on [http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.2CLCtitle=Bare%20rocks European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information] that is like the first proposal, encompassing all kinds of areas with visible rock. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: If it is a tag for landcover, why do you propose it in natural ? Natural is IMHO about geographic features like bay, spring, coastline, cliff, volcano, beach, peak and not about landcover like sand, rock, mud, ... OK, actually it is not yet strictly like this, but if we start assigning new values in this scheme it could move in this direction. You said yourself: It is supposed to be a tag for land cover. cheers, Martin PS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The landcover-scheme is interesting, haven´t heard about that. It would be nice to have a sytematic definition of physical geography characteristics to fill the white areas between the roads with. If you don´t mind I will edit the landcover-proposal and change landcover=rock to landcover=bare_rock. So regardless of the key natural/landcover, I propose the use of the tag bare_rock. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
robert@... writes: In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost at the end. Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of main tags like highway, cycleway and so on. syntax: main tag : sub tag = * Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very efficient. I plea for introducing the sub tag :type for using on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@...: 2011/1/13 robert@...: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin Probably a good idea Robert. The main idea of my post was to show Ulf that using the proposed civilization and civilization:period-tags shouldn't be any harder than normally. The example chosen by Ulf was something that probably is dealt with in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding the off-topic-tags. Both of the wiki-pages above have plenty of.._type. Maybe a suggestion from you on the discussion-page would come in handy. If you look closely on my post, you can see that I had an alternative tagging with tripple subtags: historic:civilization:period:bronze age and even another alternative with quadruple tagging historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Main tags, values and sub tags
This is a suggestion from 2008 that I have been reading: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespacing regarding main tags and sub tags. It sure looks good, but I do not really know how it tastes like. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@... writes: In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different roots throughout the ages. A castle may be build in early medieval ages, continuously extended throughout those ages, largely changed in the baroque era and mostly rebuild after damages of the second world war. Oh, and all of that on top of a hill that was already populated in the celtic age. How do you tag that? Regards, ULFL I am not used to these fancy namespacing tags, but they look useful. I guess it would be something like this: - building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Celtic, Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:period:bronze age, early medieval, baroque, post-war - or is it: -- building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Celtic historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon:period:early medieval, baroque, post-war -- It is probably the most visible or prominent remains that should be tagged. The Celtic hill fort is probably at the most an archaeological site. I guess that the archaeological site could be tagged separately, either as a single node or as an area. Do not tag if not visible. - building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:period: early medieval, baroque, post-war historic=archaeological_site site_type=fortification fortification_type=hill_fort historic:civilization:Celtic historic:civilization:period:bronze age - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new key civilization
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@... writes: What do you think of a key: civilization ? This could be used to describe the people that built a certain feature (mostly historical intentions). Values could be: etruscan roman greek egyptian mayan ... cheers, Martin Good idea! Maybe use a word more connected to time. Maybe era instead of civilization? When I read civilization, I thought it was supposed to tag UNESCO world heritage :-) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Building_attributes have a somewhat similar proposal on: building:architecture That is supposed to be used to describe from which architectural period the building is made in, or made to look like. It have been well received, so will your suggestion be too, I think. historic=archaeological_site could use this to. In archaeology they speak of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archeological_culture. Just some random ideas (a bit off-topic maybe) from me: Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] outdoor nature bath
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@... writes: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:30 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@... wrote: On 10 January 2011 01:42, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@... wrote: I can't comment on the rest, but sport=swimming is incorrect unless the area is for competitive swimming. -1 Swimming pools don't have to be for competitive swimming, eg kiddy pools, but they aren't for bathing in either. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool sport=swimming does not seem like a good tagging of a general bathing area. The sport-key suggest, as Nathan says, a connection to the more devoted swimsporters, a place with sport=swimming probably should have the possibility to swim whole lengths. This could well be the cause in many bathing places, like public swimming baths with 25 or 50 meters pools, those can of course be tagged with sport=swimming too. What I am looking for is a more general tag to say that it is a place to go for a dip, maybe stay the day sun-bathing or swimming if suitable for that. p.s. Regarding the tag swimming_pool, there is a proposal for leisure=swimming_pool http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Swimming_pool and another entry for amenity=swimming_pool http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dswimming_pool they state that these are for both leisure and sport. d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] outdoor nature bath
Johan Jönsson joha...@... writes: --- Steve Bennett stevag...@... skrev: 2011/1/10 Johan Jönsson joha...@...: My thoughts have been on a physical tag like leisure=bathing_area, leisure=public_bath or just simply leisure=bath. The later one would be a tag for all kind of bathing facilities, both outdoor and indoor. Maybe the noun bath isn´t a good one, it might imply some kind of building or pool. How about leisure=swimming? IMHO the word bathe is rarely used these days, and is confused as noted above. Yes, there will be a confusion between leisure=swimming and sport=swimming, but at least it will be an obvious one that we can easily document and explain. Steve leisure=swimming I suppose that swimming in this use also is synonymous with taking a swim, taking a dip. In most uses of the tag it could also mean bathing (that is bathe, the wading, floating and splashing experience), it could be a place also for those that can´t swim too. But not directly taking a bath (with soap and shampoo), although there might be showers and soap-and-water-baths around too, that might have its own amenity-tag. What I have learned from the thread. Do not use the word bath/bathe as it has confusing double meanings. Maybe bath could be used for some speciality markings later on. The use of the key sport: could mean trouble if it isn´t a place where the sport should be exercised for competition or closely connected to that. I will start a new thread with another suggestion. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Is the key leisure only a physical ta?
From the wiki, I have drawn the conclusion that the key leisure is used to tag physical objects. Can it be used for non-physical tags too? Is it possible to tag leisure=bathing; swimming; eating; drinking; or maybe leisure=movies; music? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is the key leisure only a physical taquot;?
Steve Bennett stevag...@... writes: On 11/01/2011 7:06 AM, Johan Jönsson wrote: From the wiki, I have drawn the conclusion that the key leisure is used to tag physical objects. Can it be used for non-physical tags too? ... ... My understanding: there is no physical/non-physical distinction. Tags are assessed on a case-by-case basis. Steve Ok, thanks for the clarification. I must have had ancient information and made some selective reading. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] outdoor nature bath
Elizabeth Dodd ed...@... writes: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:48:32 +0100 (CET) Johan Jönsson johan.j at goteborg.cc wrote: How about one tag for all of these places: leisure=bath With a bathing person as a symbol: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_9_2_24.svg To bathe and to have a bath are to close in English, and it has caught you too. leisure=swim is unambiguous have a bath is to get clean with soap and hot water bathe is to go for a dip in the water for fun Thank you Elizabeth, I did not know the difference between bathe and bath. The key: leisure is considered a physical key, I think it is supposed to be a place and not an activity. My thoughts have been on a physical tag like leisure=bathing_area, leisure=public_bath or just simply leisure=bath. The later one would be a tag for all kind of bathing facilities, both outdoor and indoor. Maybe the noun bath isn´t a good one, it might imply some kind of building or pool. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
