Re: [Tagging] charging stations
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 12:02:17 +1000 From: Warin Where a cable exists (is present) then why not tag : cable=yes/no/ length (in metres) ??? Cables would be wired in to prevent theft? On one one OSM entry there should be one connector with any required cable tag (and voltage/amperage etc)? cable=yes/no/length seems like a great idea. It does however not solve OPs problem that a cable is not a socket. Not sure what you mean by that last question. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*
Am 15.08.2018 um 11:35 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: sent from a phone On 15. Aug 2018, at 07:43, Johannes Singler wrote: I'm just saying there is no absolutely blatant one-to-one correlation addr:street<->highway I would say there is, and in the other cases, addr:street is not the right key to put the address component. Use addr:place for the defined cases and addr:full for the rest. In a city like Basel, all addresses consistently have an street name and a house number (and there is a consistent list of all of them). IMHO it does not make sense to tag them differently depending on what feature they reference (the reference is even just by name, not even by ID, so there might be even multiple features named like that). Well, maybe I should just augment the squares with pedestrian streets, and give the street name also to the footpath in that park, that would solve the problems as well. Johannes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*
Hi Marc, Am 15.08.2018 um 02:38 schrieb marc marc: I din't understand your funny addr:park and so on... I'm just saying there is no absolutely blatant one-to-one correlation addr:street<->highway addr:street when it's the name of a highway and addr:place when it's the name of a not-a-highway Is this an established rule, or did you just come up with it? The respective Wiki article https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:place says something else: "When using addr:place=*, make sure there is a matching place=* object of the same name." Johannes Le 14. 08. 18 à 17:27, Johannes Singler a écrit : Hi I understand that it is useful to use addr:place for neighborhoods, hamlets, and isolated dwellings etc. But here, it is a quite regular street address, just that the referenced feature is not a highway, but a square (we could limit it to place=square). So why should this be ruled out categorically? It does not read addr:highway, does it? I think OSM Inspector should check that there is *some* entity close by that matches the street name, to avoid spelling mistakes etc. In another case, the street name actually references a park, e.g here <http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.61170=47.55898=18=street_not_found> So should I reference that with addr:park? Or map the park as a place, or as a highway? Rather not, eh? So I propose to be more flexible here. Too many "false positives" in the QA tools are frustrating to the users, and shadow the real mistakes. Regards Johannes Hi I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages, islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street with the addresses' name (example: [^1]). [^1]: <http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way> Regards Markus On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas wrote: Hi I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/ Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request: - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111 - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115 The submitter johsin18 proposes the following: Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with place=square, name=theName, the first object should logically be tied to the second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this and not display it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way osmi-addresses currently expects either addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=* or addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=* Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) are unsure if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger public or not. We are therefore seeking your opinion. Best regards Lukas ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*
Hi I understand that it is useful to use addr:place for neighborhoods, hamlets, and isolated dwellings etc. But here, it is a quite regular street address, just that the referenced feature is not a highway, but a square (we could limit it to place=square). So why should this be ruled out categorically? It does not read addr:highway, does it? I think OSM Inspector should check that there is *some* entity close by that matches the street name, to avoid spelling mistakes etc. In another case, the street name actually references a park, e.g here <http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.61170=47.55898=18=street_not_found> So should I reference that with addr:park? Or map the park as a place, or as a highway? Rather not, eh? So I propose to be more flexible here. Too many "false positives" in the QA tools are frustrating to the users, and shadow the real mistakes. Regards Johannes Hi I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages, islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street with the addresses' name (example: [^1]). [^1]: <http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way> Regards Markus On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 at 21:05, Toggenburger Lukas wrote: Hi I'm the main author of the address view of Geofabrik's OSM inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses , a QA tool for OSM, whose sourcecode you can find at https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/ Some time ago I received the following issue and subsequent pull request: - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/issues/111 - https://github.com/ltog/osmi-addresses/pull/115 The submitter johsin18 proposes the following: Given a (node|way) with addr:street=theName and a (node|way) with place=square, name=theName, the first object should logically be tied to the second. Correspondingly, osmi-addresses should recognize this and not display it as an error as it is currently the case, e.g. at: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses=7.59448=47.54290=18=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,entrances_deprecated,entrances,no_addr_street,street_not_found,place_not_found,misformatted_housenumber,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads,nearest_areas,addrx_on_nonclosed_way osmi-addresses currently expects either addr:street=* used in combination with highway=*, name=* or addr:place=* used in combination with place=*, name=* Both myself and the current maintainer of osmi-addresses (=Nakaner) are unsure if this proposed change would be appreciated by the larger public or not. We are therefore seeking your opinion. Best regards Lukas ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging at openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] foreign siren:range format
Hello everybody, the siren:range tag [1] indicates the sphere of activity range radius from an emergency siren. In the wiki I found a format like 1000m This seems to be slightly incompatible with our well done width [2] tag format. Should the format of siren:range link a apply the format of the width tag? Best regards Johannes [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dsiren [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] dinosaur park
Hello, today I searched for dinosaur parks in my surrounding. These parks seems to have a current tagging like leisure=park or leisure=recreation_ground name=Dinopark X also dinosaur musuems also just seem to have tourism=museum and a name tag. So its impossible to query them without regexp. Do you think a new tag like park=dinosaur or leisure=dinosaur_park is a good idea? Or maybe a more general tagging scheme like subject=dinosaur could be connected to tourism=museum or leisure=park. And its a general container for other needs. What is your meaning? Regards Johannes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: tag for planetarium
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I count your votings on tagging-mailinglist: leisure 2x tourism 3x amenity 4x Finally I vote also for amenity=planetarium. I'm going to create/modify the wiki pages in that way. Regards Johannes On 25.02.2014 18:17, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: clearly not everyone has been there to see the busloads of elementary school kids who are actually the main visitors to planetariums. Oh, I have. Granted, I only have the planetarium at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry to go by, and it's not the daytime exhibits that bring in their bread and butter. Could be Portland being Portland. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTDjV/AAoJEIhNWXvfzcR1peQH/1LhnKahipXNwzKmjNEg2dUx YOaZ0iK/GAkmGxy5Ins8wPRifVRg9JUpALQu6QrsroPkDZn6acYk3ZgLgt53RJ8y 9DoPU37KW4ap6mehW1z3nygHM8DCcUsBZlfaShLFVjbnnZvTaufqp6in6HhtcHsY doWrCUcpl9GOnwjFgHjbpnD3Ec3reI1Ml2smOruDsLQ+xARS1cp8Zh624Vr75HiH Dd/G+V0CSjTzxFOPNu5JLYNq2mImA8yEoJd2veUKjKBl1JGngWoTkwUxeJlSUQGG DMeue/Bl2BwaEjJEMD8+k561VM2b/VNCP/62jMau/Mb/T/Yn1YDSHOHn4B9AfVI= =P/m0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: tag for planetarium
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - Original Message Subject: tag for planetarium Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:22:16 +0100 From: Johannes jotpe@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Hello, i was looking for suitable tag, that describes a planetarium. But until now nothing, there's no mention in the wiki. But there are several different usages out there. After a discussion on talk-de there was a majority for amentiy=planetarium We could not agree us, if a planetarium is a theater/cinema or a museum. So we took amenity as key. Any protest? If not, i will make theses wiki changes. Best regards, Johannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTC79CAAoJEIhNWXvfzcR1mTIH/2rPzwL/o5FTlYyFhI9evRGm +YLRmnBlDolQ40Mu60jT03zRzTfEjjhgPjd6VOKF2WiRSMYpO52aM6C9wrJU0Gai E4c/usozrnSJFNCwssYT4PaQ0ava2iIK+36ri3+3ALioEv2lqBoUUqtUSQ8tL+eu A8mVuhCoz1udkTXMk0hSABvsiCpZMYRC3KrSiTaPP3bDCWZRViSjgB3QpwDNaCns D5lVsf2px6y09w1ni0855ZB3ePZL9CQ4+11dJyamk+EnRDtzOESLIqhSp+VIJY+y GFqSMpCnG5SY24dta+R4PfV1Nav0SPHwvgwm79LF6t+qsH/0irjg/hvFbeLrhXI= =JE0R -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
