Re: [Tagging] Mapping a negative
On 9 November 2011 16:12, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: I've run into a curious use of a tag, to map the lack of a thing. At least that's what I think mappers are doing. One might normally expect a well, mountain hut, highway rest area, or toilet to offer drinking water. Some mappers have placed: drinking_water=no To indicate the normal expectation is wrong. All the signs round here have potable yes/no depending if it's safe to drink or not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] unless someone objects: amenity=truck_rental
On 1 August 2011 12:00, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: amenity=car_rental rental:truck=yes Works now and in the future. You could always dual tag and at some point in the future have a bot clean things up. shop=rental rental:plant=yes* Works in the future. Steve * plant meaning equipment... Perhaps you should have used equipment, that way you won't confuse people, as I believe some places also rent out plants, as in the growing kind. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] unless someone objects: amenity=truck_rental
On 31 July 2011 08:50, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: i'll add this alongside car_rental and bicycle_rental unless someone makes a strong case against it. there are many truck_rental sites in the US (common brands are UHaul, Penske, and Ryder). Or the better question, why should these remain as amenities... Surely shop=* or office=* would be a better fit. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] More granular tagging of airports
For those that missed the email that came up on talk this week, someone has imported a lot of airports and so on for NZ and it looks horrible because they show at z10: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.243lon=175.014zoom=10layers=M Looking through the wiki I found this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aerodrome_(unified_symbol_set) It even has some nice icons already, although I don't a map icon sizes (about 20px) they could be easily distinguished. thoughts? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 25 June 2011 20:47, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/6/25 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should show up sooner than grass airstrips. Yes, the discussions and proposals are endless for this. Suggestions are usually that you should deduct the importance by analyzing the map dat (e.g. surface of the runway, length of the runway) and combine OSM data with external sources (numbers of starts/landings a year, number of passengers a year, freight volumes, ...). Seems pretty simple to me, importance is going to be partially subjective, even if 2 airports have similar number of flights, some will have 747s 380s and some won't. highway=* classifications seems at least partially subjective as well. I see the need for at least 4 or 5 airport types, major international airports, minor international airports, regional airports, tiny airports and airstrips. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
On 26 June 2011 02:38, Alan Millar grunthos...@yahoo.com wrote: As has been said a number of times, OSM is a do-ocracy. At this point, more discussions just aren't going to resolve it. A little discussion might allow us to harmonise tags, so 10 people don't go off and do their own thing and then need to make massive changes. Just pick something, like importance=[1-5] or airport_class=[major|minor|regional|airstrip] and tag them. Such values can always be translated into another form later, and/or it just gains traction and becomes the standard. No reason to wait further. I'm a fan of subtagging :) So I'd be more likely to do something like this: aeroway=aerodrome aerodrome=[major|minor|regional|airstrip] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pet supplies store but doesn't sell animals
On 12 June 2011 14:04, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: I'll elaborate on why this is a bad idea: 1. It's a lot of tags Only if you want it to be, just like some people tagging trees, most won't so this isn't an issue 2. It won't get used in real life Never assume this, after all how many trees have you tagged? 3. It's nested In your opinion. 4. It's apt to change animals:fish = yes is you listing a store's inventory. It would be the same as store=clothing men:bowties=yes Nonsense, at least compare apples to apples, store=clothing, clothing:mens=yes Inventory changes, and this leads to increasingly bizare tagging of individual items. After all, why stop at fish animals:fish:neon_tetras=yes animals:fish:angel_fish=no You are the one trying to prove your point by being overly specific and then stating being overly specific is a bad thing. 5. It's outside the reasonable scope of the project. At lot of people claim this about many things, tagging individual pens at a zoo might not interest some people, but it does others. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pet supplies store but doesn't sell animals
On 12 June 2011 02:33, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: The problem with these types of proposals, of N levels of depth of a tag, is that they quickly become complex, and thus get unused. You, Dr. Who, are proposing changing shop=pets to now: shop=pets animals:fish=yes and shop=pets animals=no There is a good reason I mentioned fish, they seem to be the only pets/animals sold in some shops these days. The logical conclusion is: shop=pets animals:cats=yes animals:reptiles=gecko;snakes supplies:cat_food=dry;canned supplies:fish=block;flakes;filters;nets supplies:fish:treasure_chest=no ... I don't see a problem with this except to prove your point you made things excessively specific, but I don't see a problem with more general forms, how is this any different than tagging the types of fuel sold at amenity=fuel? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paint your own pottery
On 11 June 2011 06:21, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi Another query... http://www.crockadoodledo.co.uk/ it's a place where you can create your own design on crockery such as plates,mugs etc. it's not really a craft shop as it doesn't sell supplies just the kiln fired end product. craft doesn't mean craft, it means trade, german to english translation issue. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pet supplies store but doesn't sell animals
On 11 June 2011 06:16, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi Is there a specific tag for pet supplies (food, collars, chew toys etc) I'm used to pet stores being ambigious, and don' have a problem with that. But I'd say shop=pet_supplies is better than animals=no. Still, I think that the distinction is fairly narrow. Lots of pet stores here now no longer sell animals, but they still call themselves pet stores since they still sell products for pets, still listed in the yellow pages like that etc, I'd be inclined to still tag them as a pet shop, and use your animals=no suggestion, because then you can have animal:fish=yes as well if they sell one type of animal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Club
On 8 June 2011 10:08, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: In Australia, 'going to the club' means (generally) going to a licenced members-only venue, often associated with sports but generally not where sports are played. www.clubsvic.com.au and www.clubsnsw.com.au for example (second one requires some proprietary microsoft plugin to view fully). I'm sure you're aware of this, but we added these sort of regional specific things to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Cultural_Features ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire alarms
On 5 June 2011 23:58, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: As a proposal you can almost added it the same way on the wiki as a approved tag and you can change anything that might not work or find a better solution while testing. I've done this in the past and set the status to defacto, rather than approved. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire alarms
On 4 June 2011 17:02, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: I don't know of any, but I would go with emergency=phone, and specify maybe in another tag phone=fire_alarm or some such thing. The description of emergency=phone includes 'making calls to emergency services' so it is not necessarily restricted to switches. I didn't see any phone, just appears to have a switch you pull to trigger an alarm. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire alarms
On 4 June 2011 17:10, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 June 2011 17:02, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: I don't know of any, but I would go with emergency=phone, and specify maybe in another tag phone=fire_alarm or some such thing. The description of emergency=phone includes 'making calls to emergency services' so it is not necessarily restricted to switches. I didn't see any phone, just appears to have a switch you pull to trigger an alarm. I didn't read the text below, I'm assuming that PD is for police. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire alarms
On 4 June 2011 17:44, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 June 2011 17:02, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: I don't know of any, but I would go with emergency=phone, and specify maybe in another tag phone=fire_alarm or some such thing. The description of emergency=phone includes 'making calls to emergency services' so it is not necessarily restricted to switches. I didn't see any phone, just appears to have a switch you pull to trigger an alarm. I'm sorry, I misunderstood - you're saying *your* fire alarms don't have two-way communication. emergency=phone is misleading then, as it implies two-way communication. emergency=alarm would be my intuitive choice too, then. We don't have anything like that here, I was just going off the photo, it seems from the description it would be an emergency phone for someone wanting police, but just a dumb switch for fire. As for tagging, emergency:police=phone, emergency:fire=switch maybe? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: tower:type=lighting proposal
On 1 June 2011 01:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO both are not really towers. I'd consider the tower John proposes as a kind of lightning device that is not a tower (although being cantilevered). Not my proposal... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: tower:type=lighting proposal
I propose the following new tag {{tag|tower:type|lighting}} as follows:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dtowerdiff=nextoldid=639593
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
Out of boredom I tried to think up all the non-physical tags currently in wide spread use: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Devent#Why_even_obscure_tags_should_be_documented_if_they_are_likely_to_be_mapped.21 I doubt the list is exhaustive, but these are obviously important to people, otherwise they wouldn't get tagged. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid
On 11 May 2011 23:04, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: The wiki should be a place to document the various parts of OSM, and for things like software it can be useful. For tags, however, it is getting steadily more and more complex and confusing and less and less beneficial. I think we need to set a wiki principle: it should be descriptive. If there are different views then we should describe them, with an objective indication of relative popularity. Deleting someone's views because you disagree is vandalism. +1 Regardless what the object of interest people want to tag, people are going to tag something if it is of enough importance to them, and we should be describing things on the wiki so that we don't end up with 10 different ways to tag the same thing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping these locations, they are important to people, and people have already shown that there are physical places that can be mapped. In fact the only thing that will be accomplished by removing references on the wiki is people will use multiple key/value pairs for the same type of object because they can't see any other values that are already documented. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 00:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/5/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping these locations, they are important to people, and people have already shown that there are physical places that can be mapped. Yes, they already do use it: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values No, I meant more like historic=pa I have no idea what it means, but there is 2100 uses... http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic#values So if I were to tag the same thing unknowingly, I wouldn't use that key pair to tag it... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 00:59, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: In fact the only thing that will be accomplished by removing references on the wiki is people will use multiple key/value pairs for the same type of object because they can't see any other values that are already documented. Between the two extremes, completely removing or putting the controversed tag 'event' prominent in the Map Features (where the feedback shows that the tag is far away from a consensus), I tried something new with this So far one person has gamed the vote, hardly convincing, especially since they wish to do away with historic=battlefield as well, of which there is 317 tagged objects, and based on a quick glance a large variety of people using that tag in the 3-4 years of it being approved. considered as a map feature. This is a lot of efforts to find a compromise to satisfy everyone. Already some think what can be mapped should be limited and enforced on the wiki, but it won't limit anything, it will just make a mess of things in terms of the same type of object being tagged in many different ways. You will find anyway in the database much much more undocumented tags than documented tags. So keep the Map Features page for what it has been created. So that is a reason to remove documented features that would be useful for others wanting to tag the same thing? Already someone else has used it as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, they already do use it: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values No, I meant more like historic=pa I have no idea what it means, but there is 2100 uses... http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic#values So if I were to tag the same thing unknowingly, I wouldn't use that key pair to tag it... Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: It's being used for a Maori fortress, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 That seems too specific, it should be a subset of historic=fort, and even then how many of these still actually have some kind of physical presence, which is the argument against tagging historically significant events. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 01:34, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/5/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: It's being used for a Maori fortress, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 That seems too specific, it should be a subset of historic=fort, and even then how many of these still actually have some kind of physical presence, which is the argument against tagging historically significant events. Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose physical presence is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical interest in that a Roman building or forum was there. I agree it'd be moot to map Troy based on the supposed position, but for well-documented POIs we shouldn't be discussing whether a fort is still a fort. After all, most European castles aren't actually used as castles anymore. I was just pointing out the extent of the argument against historic=event, since many historically significant places won't exist any more, but that doesn't detract from their importance, and you summed up my argument about having a place to tag, I agree 100% that only places that are known specifically should be mapped. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 04:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: e.g. there is a place in Rome which is said to be the locus where Julius Cesar was stabbed by Brutus. I find this interesting and I I hadn't thought about assassinations, but all it took was an assassination to kick start World War 1, yes there were other factors but the assassination was the final straw, I'd say this is pretty significant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 3 May 2011 02:02, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: To reduce the danger of edit wars: what about _not_ defining the events explicitly significant (most of German Wikipedia disputes are about relevance criteria and I'd rather avoid similar discussions in OSM if possible). Of course we all expect only significant events to be mapped, but requiring it explicitly will encourage others to delete stuff and say: but it was not significant (enough). historic=battlefield is being lumped in with this vote as both are non-physical in the long term and so some people think both shouldn't be in OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
After digging further into this, and with all XAPI servers seemingly unresponsive I looked toward tagwatch, the following are historic values of curious note: yes (5053) pa (2138) battlefield (331) Altstraße (80) heritage (76) tumulus (60) industrial (54) coat_of_arms (54) hollow_way (41) road (37) quarry (36) lavoir (33) UNESCO_world_heritage (33) re (32) railway_station (31) Personally I think historic=yes isn't a good idea, since you have to do further digging to be able to classify things, where as stipulating why it's historic is of much better value. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Formerly proposed highways
On 2 May 2011 06:28, Andrew Cleveland evil.salt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Can the highway=proposed tag apply to highways which were proposed but are no longer? As in the road was never constructed and the proposal was abandoned? The wiki says the tag is for roads that are about to be built, but where any construction work hasn't yet been started, but I don't know if that counts for anything. Some of us have previously documented idea on what to do in this situation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#What_happens_if_another_map_says_a_road_exists_but_isn.27t_really_there.3F ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What to map a site of historical significants...
On 28 April 2011 17:56, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: historic=event and event=event-class? or historic:event=yes/event-class ? I like this suggestion. I noticed in JOSM there is a historic=battlefield, but this and other similar events, like David's suggestion about the great train robbery, would be good to be grouped together so they render even if they aren't more specifically rendered. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What to map a site of historical significants...
On 28 April 2011 10:35, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I agree in part, but this isnt just any news story or photo. +1 That doesnt detract from the original question, of what to map a site of historic significance. Im sure the location of the great train robbery or an the location of the site of an air disaster would be of interest to some people, especially those tourists travelling in the area. To me, OSM isnt just about street maps, its about finding out-of-the-way places and finding (or following others) ways to get there. If people can tag trees, surely things of historical significants deserve to be allowed in OSM as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What to map a site of historical significants...
On 28 April 2011 11:40, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 4/27/11 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote: If people can tag trees, surely things of historical significants deserve to be allowed in OSM as well. identifiable, physical objects that exist today, sure. That's the catch, there is no marker signifying the location in this instance, instead a painting of the location and event were made which now hangs in the national museum. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] What to map a site of historical significants...
Does any one have any thoughts on what to tag a location famous for 2 reasons, first it was a spot where a stage coach was held up by thunderbolt, secondly because someone did a painting of the event after the event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailed_Up There is no marker at the site or anything else to identify the site, the only thing I can think of is something like historic=historical_site, but that seems a bit redundant... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
On 13 April 2011 17:06, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: Not the same situation here NE2. There are no traffic lights at all installed in either place for the inbound direction, just outbound. Is the 2 directions of the highway have some kind of barrier down the middle? If you split the ways that way you don't need to twist yourself into knots trying to tag lights in only one directions for a dual direction road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses
On 12 April 2011 19:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Recently I found this sign which I interpret as access forbidden to touristic busses: http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6610385 It is at a driveway to the local cemetery, near a very popular monument (unesco world heritage). Do we have to invent another access tag, or is there already something in use? My first idea was tourist_bus=no Why not use access:*=* ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses
On 12 April 2011 20:01, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/4/12 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: My first idea was tourist_bus=no Why not use access:*=* ? Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why I should change this standard here. There is a lot of access:*=* for vehicles, so you would be going against things. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [talk-au] How to tag reaches (segments of a waterway)?
On 9 April 2011 18:22, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to map some named reaches (straight portion of a stream or river, as from one turn to another;) part of a major river. To do this I would shift the river specific information to a relation, which is useful in any case since you can then lump all parts of the river into the same relation and then the individual segments can be tagged differently. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] office=administrative...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:officeoldid=573918diff=next That is kind of contradictive, since local authorities are also government and I don't think there is sufficient need to distinguish between local, state and federal (where applicable) offices, the name=* should usually do that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 21:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: broken by design... There won't be an invalid polygon, there would be 2 valid but contradicting polygons. Which are sorted by smallest first usually so they render on top of the larger ones. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 21:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: This is a method of trying to extract useful data from an undefined state making assumptions, but it is IMHO not how we should design our data model. This would also mean that even with complete data for the whole world, you would need endless processing if you wanted to estimate the area covered by sand: for every area tagged surface=sand you would only know it's real extension after subtracting all other polygons with different surface-values (or with an assumed different surface). You also seem to reduce this to a rendering problem. There can also be cases where a bigger polygon overlaps for a small part a smaller polygon. None of which is an issue, you can sort and display the information however you like, however in general it is a rendering problem and the way that was solved was to put the smaller polygons on top of the bigger ones which seems like a reasonable way to handle things to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/31 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: 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. 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... 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. Real world examples off the top of my head. Ayres Rock/Uluru is supposed to be 1 big lump of sand stone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Uluru_%28Helicopter_view%29-crop.jpg You also have the cores of what were volcanoes, the outer dirt layer has eroded away completely over time http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PBYeriHIc4k/SfT3VgN4yvI/A0A/GKwEHYMKEcI/P1010343.JPG Just to throw a spanner in the works, both of which are natural formations :) As for loose rock, isn't that scree? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 29 January 2011 23:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it is: The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which can be used to supply extra information about the surface in conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features. So it is meant to be additional what landcover is not (can be used That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond highways for things like golf bunkers, eg surface=sand because natural=beach wasn't suitable. Also the Map Features page lists natural=mud and surface=mud, but apart from mud flats (natural=wetland + wetland=mud), where would you actually use landcover=mud? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 00:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: also from a data consuming e.g. rendering point of view I see more disadvantage then advantage to not separate landcover as a feature from surface as an attribute to highways. Can you expand upon that with a less vague example? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 That was the follow up etc, I can't find the original thread, however it would have been about the same time. it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a well established feature that now would require intense changes of tags. I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach, surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one. there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than trying to render every possible use of sand. obvious. Generally we call this tagging for the renderers and we don't have to discuss about it. This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the Map Features page and tagging presets other wise? I don't know if there is places on earth you would tag like this. Probably not. But neither would I tag natural=mud. For mud flats I'm not sure. I don't live at a tidal coast so I don't have to bother. Looking at the actual used values there is tidal_flat and saltmarsh which could be suitable as well (as I said, I don't know). There is one near me and that's pretty much what I did, tagged it as a natural=wetland since it had more than just mud as the primary feature. mud will probably mostly be surface=ground on highways. or dirt or or at least for the most part I'd hope the road wasn't muddy :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 01:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Come on, it was never expanded, you would like it to be expanded. You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people. As for expansion, you really should spend 2 seconds looking into things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:surfaceaction=history Specifically: (cur | prev) 2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs) (1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo) Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not yet established so it wouldn't be a big change. Why is it better suited? You haven't given a single reason as to why it's better, you just keep saying it is as if you are hoping that it will make it true some how. If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we just use it? this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to distinguish between casual sand and a bunker. In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used, which seems to be a good thing imho... to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in second place to do with rendering and is not tagging for the renderer. Any kind of data evaluation should be possible. Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever weird thing might be a very distant second. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 03:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree that sand is a good value for surface, but at the same time there could be landcover=trees. Isn't there plenty of other tree options already, why do we need yet another one? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: I could also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well). Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense. even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand? The beach could often include also bars, restaurants, parking space, paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more generalizing while surface shouldn't. I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those other locations have their own POI or polygon? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 27 January 2011 06:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: PS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover Why keep pushing this instead of just using surface=* which is widely used and accepted already? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Scuba diving (Shop or spot)
On 25 January 2011 18:34, Sean Horgan sean.hor...@gmail.com wrote: Are you referring to SNUBA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuba Nope, they've been line diving a lot longer than that, and dying for about the same amount of time... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On 24 January 2011 13:51, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: We don't map only based on legal distinctions. It's not a bad thing to see how others solved similar problems all the same. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] boundary=town, place=town
On 22 January 2011 07:53, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: On 09/01/2011 00:48, John Smith wrote: the centre of the boundary and the centre of the boundary will rarely be the same thing ? centre of the boundary and the centre of the town ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis
On 19 January 2011 16:49, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: atlases etc. A town of 50,000 would barely even rate a mention in France, whereas that's pretty big for Australia. And a town like Eucla in the nullarbor (pop 50) has very high prominence as it's the only place for many miles with accommodation. I didn't say 'town', I said places of 50,000 calling themselves cities (eg Dubbo, Tamworth), or the 'city' of Gympie which has ~10-15,000, city is a subjective term applied for various reasons. In any case the lone place in the middle of no where aren't cities, but regional centres. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Scuba diving (Shop or spot)
On 19 January 2011 17:34, rob...@elsenaar.info wrote: Literally, you are right. In the scuba world rebreather diving and snorkle diving are a part of what scuba divers do. Erm no... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_diving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorkling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather There is also some diving in places where you use a bubble over your head and then there is line diving but I couldn't find a wikipedia article on it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Scuba diving (Shop or spot)
On 19 January 2011 04:27, Robert Elsenaar rob...@elsenaar.info wrote: (scuba_diving is better then Dive_centre because also dive spots can have filling facilities without having a divecentre nearby.) My point before is that scuba is only one type of diving, you can also snorkle or use a rebreather neither of which is scuba. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis
On 19 January 2011 05:41, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/1/18 Robert Elsenaar rob...@elsenaar.info: Great idea to reactivate is again. New times, new ideas. I think capitals should be tagged to be Metropolis to also when they do not have enough inhibitans to be granted as one. -1, what is the point of this? The key: capital already tells you, if I agree with Martin here, if you want to tag those other attributes tag them objectively, rather than vaguely with some kind of tag that could mean any number of things. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 18 January 2011 09:18, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: waterway=flood_gate flood_gate=sluice_gate ...is more usable for non-techie nerds than something like: waterway=flow_control flow_control=sluice_gate usage=flood_gate So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks? -1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 18 January 2011 16:13, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: So why do we use highway=* for even small tracks? The tagging system as a whole will never be entirely consistent, or even operate on consistent principles. The best we can do is fix small chunks at a time, and make those chunks as big as is practical. Therefore, let's not avoid fixing X just because it doesn't fix Y as well. Exactly, so why should we use flood when at least half or more of these things have nothing to do with flooding? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 15 January 2011 04:40, Alberto Nogaro bartosom...@yahoo.it wrote: Maybe the handycraft value might hint that the craft key is used in OSM with a broader meaning? Actually that would indicate to me it was very specific to art works made by hand which would be a much narrower meaning. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On 14 January 2011 02:06, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: comment on emergency=*, and I oppose treating bridge/tunnel signals the same as those in front of fire stations. +1 they aren't emergency signals, they just aren't used all the time, and you can also get regular traffic signals that are only used during peak hours, but these aren't for emergencies either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On 13 January 2011 16:10, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On 01/12/2011 11:33 PM, James Mast wrote: I've created a proposal for Emergency Traffic Signals, which are typically found in front of fire stations and highway tunnels at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Emergency_Traffic_Signals emergency= is already in use for emergency vehicle access. highway=traffic_lights are used for normal traffic lights, why not use emergency=traffic_lights ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Karting...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:sportdiff=prevoldid=583789 I'd be more inclined to use the English and shorten it to just sport=cart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Karting...
On 10 January 2011 23:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Definitely with a k. I actually tagged this sport recently, I took a Did I really need to say british english? cart with a k is american english. punt on sport=go_karting. Either that or sport=karting sounds ok to me. (kart_racing is a bit un-natural) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/go-cart ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Karting...
On 11 January 2011 00:47, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:03 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 January 2011 23:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Definitely with a k. I actually tagged this sport recently, I took a Did I really need to say british english? cart with a k is american english. punt on sport=go_karting. Either that or sport=karting sounds ok to me. (kart_racing is a bit un-natural) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/go-cart It seems like all of the wikipedia pages uses k, my gut reaction was c but we can all be wrong. Which matches what I said before about UK English :) Wikipedia would be more likely to use US English being US based... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is the key leisure only a physical ta?
2011/1/11 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: 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; eating and drinking are usually tagged more specifically, eg restaurant or fast food etc... or maybe leisure=movies; music? Again these can be tagged more specifically, although for movies I can only think of movie theaters, as for music you can have concert halls and opera places etc. A lot of big concerts will use sports stadiums as well, but that isn't the primary use of that location. Where as bathing and to a lesser extent swimming are venue specific activities. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re: Towing service?
On 11 January 2011 10:28, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I wrote this before I realized there were other replies on this topic. Based on them, it seems the closest fit is office=towing, since that's what such a place is primarily used for - accounting, answering the phone, etc. What was wrong with landuse=depot, they have to park the tow trucks somewhere just like buses need to be parked at a depot when not in use. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 9 January 2011 20:54, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As it doesn't actually matter which words for tags we use, as long as their use is generally agreed (see highway for instance), I could go on with craft in the way it is currently defined. It shouldn't matter, however using craft=* is likely to really confuse native english speakers as others have pointed out craft is something really different to a trade and expectations of that will cause people to either complain or mistag because they're confused. I'm not sure how to make this explicitly clear to reduce confusion, which is why tag names are usually picked to reduce confusion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] boundary=town, place=town
On 10 January 2011 09:29, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, that's very interesting - I didn't think of that. Australian towns tend to be very far apart, so the boundary of two *towns* rarely meet. (Other administrative boundaries, shires, do...) There are suburb boundaries gazetted for most of Australia, the exception being unincorporated areas, and these do touch each other just as postcode boundaries do. You also have parish and local government boundaries (not unnecessarily shires, can be county councils), so there is all sorts of boundaries all over the place touching each other even if they aren't mapped at present on OSM. As for town boundaries are these even gazetted or are they informal? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] outdoor nature bath
On 10 January 2011 01:42, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com 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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] boundary=town, place=town
On 9 January 2011 10:39, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Can anyone tell me the difference between these two tags? Only place=town appears to be documented. Both have ~~4000 usages on ways. The place marker should be part of the boundary as well, because the centre of the boundary and the centre of the boundary will rarely be the same thing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 9 January 2011 13:36, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: I've been looking into this. How does this sound? waterway=dam and waterway=weir remain unchanged. I'm still in favour of shifting these into flow control... The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong there - that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate. The same thing could be said for the other types of gates, eg lock gates are called that because of their function. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 9 January 2011 13:37, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: I'm starting to be convinced that there is a cultural disconnect with the word craft. To me (and I suspect most English speakers) there has to almost be an arts aspect for something to be a craft. Whereas I'm starting to get the impression the German use is closer to what I think of as trade or profession, and this is the way the tag is being used. Yes I got this impression when this tag was being introduced. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 7 January 2011 19:25, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 5:50 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: What about shop=service Errg, no. All shops provide a kind of service... Don't forget the key office if it is not really a shop: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office This would be more a shop than office, or maybe it would be better under landuse=depot... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 7 January 2011 20:26, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 January 2011 20:19, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: For me, a shop would be to get in, buy something (or at least get some service done) and go out. That's not the case here. A towing service will get to your place to do something, much like the office of a plumber (which in most cases also wouldn't qualify for a shop). Most plumbers here either work from home or work from a plumbing shop, I doubt I've ever seen a plumber working out of an office. To expand things a little, I wouldn't say a locksmith has an office either, but they may have a shop or kiosk or work from home as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 8 January 2011 02:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I guess this misunderstanding derives from German ;-) In German there is a word Laden (m.) which is usually translated as shop, but the actual meaning is not as broad as shop in English. Actually it only describes retail shops. There is another word Werkstatt (f.) which is also a shop in English, but is describing a workshop / studio for working manually or with machinery. [1] Well that might be the other option shop=workshop workshop=plumber|locksmith|... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 8 January 2011 08:33, Surly_ru p...@isnet.ru wrote: I agree that shop=workshop, workshop=whatever is a good solution to this issue. +1, it could be combined with craft to map the kind of workshop. I think, craft=* (may be with man_made=works) is sufficient. So shop=workshop is redundant, and we need no such tag combination. -1 A tow truck driver doesn't need much more than a special license, I don't think this is a craft at all. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 7 January 2011 01:44, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: More organisation would surely help, but this is in contrast with the wiki principle. For the most part things could stay as status quo, it's only existing/well established tags, such as waterway=dam|weir that might fit better as a subtag instead along with other flow control methods. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 7 January 2011 07:03, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, but it's a matter of defining a line between chaos and coordinated anarchy. It seems that many OSMers would not want to go any further than an anarchy, this may be ok, but for the data to be somehow useful (and not only a bunch of self-referential, self-glorifying material) coordination is needed. +1 If you wanted true anarchy people would use datums other than WGS84, it would also make the data pretty useless as a result. If we can all agree on a datum, why can't the same be true for tags as well? PS wikipedia claims WGS84 is only useful until 2010, anyone know what we should be using instead? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
Things seem to have gotten way off track, I started this thread to get ideas/feedback on how we could replace an existing tag like waterway=weir and instead make it a subtag along with other similar flow control tags like dams, sluice_gates, flood_gates, lock_gates and so on... Any talk about a certification process for apps is completely off topic for this thread. I have nothing against such a process, but that doesn't directly help with the current problem. In fact I'd go so far as to say people wanting maps to render properly probably will deal with the issue themselves all we have to do is come up with a sane way to handle any kind of change over, and as I said before I think regular updates combined with a freeze period and a dual tagging period seems like a good idea to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aqueducts?
On 7 January 2011 09:18, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm. It could get increasingly difficult to objectively distinguish between all the different types of man-made water channel: canal, drain, aqueduct. (Incidentally, taginfo shows 40,000 uses of waterway=artificial - anyone know what that is?) If you really want to know, try emailing a couple of the contributors that added them. I guess the difference in the above is the purpose: transport, stormwater, and drinking water respectively. How is one supposed to tag an irrigation channel? Instead of drinking water I suggest you refer to it as potable water, that way you could also tag non-potable water, both are fairly similar, however one is supposedly safe for human consumption, the other isn't. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
On 7 January 2011 12:26, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I can't find a tag for the base of operations of a towing service - i.e. you call them to tow your broken car or truck to a repair shop. The basic definition would be a service that tows cars and other light vehicles. Truck and other heavy vehicle towing would be a separate option. I propose: shop=towing [+ hgv=yes] What about shop=service, service=towing ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 6 January 2011 08:47, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I'm working on the basis that it's not possible to move any established tag. Would be happy to hear suggestions for how to accomplish that, though. This seems to be an area that OSM *really* lacks, and some people give usage of tags as a reason not to improve things which doesn't seem like a valid argument especially when some tags like abutters and created_by have been depreciated. I'm spit balling here, but maybe one way to achieve might be to do the following: 1) Make a proposal and post to the tagging list asking for feedback/discussion Wait a week or two after the last post and then: 2) Post to the talk list asking for feedback/discussion 3) About 2 weeks after the last discussion/modifications to the proposal you post a vote request to both the tagging and the talk lists Depending on the outcome of the vote, either too many against at which point you could try modifying the proposal and going back to steps 2 or 3, or if the vote is successful or if there was a lack of interest in the outcome you could jump to step 4 4) Update the wiki to reflect the outcome 5) Use the XAPI to find existing tags and mass retag using your JOSM or any other editor that can handle OSM XML files. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Baby care shop
On 6 January 2011 10:16, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: too easily confused with shops selling products made from babies. Apart from research facilities using baby stem cells, what products are made from babies? :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aqueducts?
On 6 January 2011 13:52, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: How does one tag aqueducts that are not bridges? Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quabbin_Aqueduct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicopee_Valley_Aqueduct Based on those I'd use tunnel=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Aqueduct redirects to Key:bridge. Maybe whoever added the redirect were confusing aqueduct with viaduct ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 6 January 2011 14:07, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: My guess is that this mailing list and talk@ reach a pretty small proportion of users. Simply announcing we're changing the tag! please tag differently from now on! is not remotely sufficient. As I stated I was spit balling and this thread is to try and come up with something defined that would even remotely facilitate a tag change :) Also, while talk and tag are only a small number of contributors, they are the ones that would care most about such changes. Similarly, doing a mass tag update which is going to break many existing renderers and editors is simply not acceptable. Particularly when some of Well I didn't stipulate time frame between wiki changes and have no idea how much notice would be reasonable, would a month, 3 months, 6 months ? Putting in place a serious process for tag migration will be difficult. I IMHO the current system of not being able to make alterations is worst. suggest that a first step will be definition of an actual schema, with version number. For example, define an actual list of several hundred tags, with semantics, that correspond to OSM core 1.0. Then, we could have votes on changes to the schema, with advance notice given: On November 1, 2011, the main database will be updated to OSM core 1.1. Please have your editor and renderer patches ready for this date. I don't agree with this, if you must use versioning just base it on the date rather than arbitrary numbering. Not easy, and I don't think the OSM community is at that level of process maturity yet. Unless we take steps to become more mature things will never change, I see this thread as a good start, where it will end up is another matter entirely. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 6 January 2011 14:23, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: It would be nice to have a list that map data consumers could subscribe to that we could poll to verify that they are or are not using a tag, or get clarification on how they are using a tag. (Just what we needanother blankin' list!) We could just use the announce list, but restrict posts to major tag change announcements. But for tags with presets, etc, the process is very drawn out, as Steve mentioned. I'm trying to get a minor tag update on one editor - no accompanying style sheet update. A single line change, and 2 1/2 months later it is still several months away from implementation. Exactly, this is why I'm advocating some kind of policy on how to achieve tag updates in a much more reasonable time frame. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aqueducts?
On 6 January 2011 14:10, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Or perhaps waterway=drain, if you're not fussed about the distinction between stormwater and drinking water. Or subtag waterway=conduit conduit=storm_water|potable_water|waste_water| ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 6 January 2011 16:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: In your thinking there seems to be the assumption that we run some process *per tag*. I think it works better to run a process *per schema revision*. Oh, a regular update schedule, that might be a good idea, however ... Let's say we think that there will be a revision on January 1 next year. You might have a process like this: Jan-Mar: Suggestions for tag changes, stored in some structured location. Apri-Jun: Discussion on tag changes. Unpopular proposals can be killed. Popular ones need to be fleshed out Jul: Voting on tag changes. Votes could be yes, no, needs more work. Aug-Sep: Writing up of spec for tag changes, explaining what's going to happen. Oct-Dec: Implementing new spec across all editors, renderers, documentation etc. Jan: go live with new schema, commence discussion for the next round... I'd suggest at most updating quarterly. This should be ample time to discuss simple changes that most people don't have a problem with, update the wiki and push editor makers to make necessary changes and finally have people update their style sheets to the new tags, they could run modified tags in parallel so they aren't surprised when things change. As for timetable, I'd suggest allowing tags to be discussed for as long as they like, and have a freeze period where accepted changes can no longer be changed and then a change over period where objects might be dual tagged where possible and finally the depreciated tag removed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 4 January 2011 07:19, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: BTW: My feeling is, that sluice gates formerly were tagged with waterway=weir most of the time anyway. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be updated/added if there is a better tag... The suggested term floodgate would be more intuitive for me as a none native speaker - if the term fits for native speakers as well. I actually think we need some way to indicate scale, wikipedia seems to indicate sluice gates are usually on the small side of things, spillway gates are usually much larger, for a good example of spillway gates see the photos Liz linked to of Wivenhoe and Somerset, those dams were specifically built to reduce or prevent Brisbane (state capital of Queensland Australia) from flooding. In fact Wivenhoe was upgraded in recent times to hold 200% normal operating capacity. As for floodgates these aren't usually closed except in times of flooding and should be tagged differently again so they can be rendered differently for those that care about such things. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Baby care shop
On 5 January 2011 04:06, Osmisto osmi...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all The vote for new tag shop=baby_care has been started. I've removed section with 'assortment=*' to make it simple and propose one thing in a time. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Infant_care_shop#Vote Everyone is welcome These shops can supply stuff for toddlers and children, not just infants. Also I think the word 'care' is misleading, to me, that would indicate some kind of place you could take your baby for medical assistance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 5 January 2011 11:38, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I'm wary of the endless drive to create more high-level tags. It increases the burden on reusers of the data. Normally I'd agree with you 100%, but in this case it's a bit different because as pointed out earlier weirs tend to be non-moving for the most part (even if they can be temporarily removed) and the water freely flows over the top, sluice gates allow water to be diverted and generally don't have water flowing over the top of them and spillway gates of dams can be dry 99% of the time unless the dam is so full water needs to be released to prevent water from flowing over the top of them. Perhaps a more generic approach would work, eg waterway=flow_control flow_control=weir|sluice_gate|flood_gate|spillway_gate| ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
On 5 January 2011 10:39, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: Then you get the ambiguous tags, which can be both. What is a forest? A place where forestry (timber cutting, etc) happens? That's land Actually I remember reading this in some other thread a long time ago, a forest originally didn't necessarily have trees but was an area used for hunting, so landuse would have been accurate, however as with any living language the meaning of words change over time, like 'sad' for instance, it has it's roots in 'sated' but the 2 words have completely different meanings now. use. A place where there's a lot of trees? - that's landcover. If a military area allows timber cutting inside the military zone, then that is double land use. But if it's just a bunch of trees, then the forest isn't a landuse tag, it's a landcover one. While your example might be accurate, I doubt the 2 areas would match identically, so you most likely would need 2 polygons. An agricultural school may have fields, orchards, cattle yards barns etc in the school grounds. Should this landuse be a school or a farm, or both? I'd be tempted to say just education myself, but I could see it going both ways. In this case I'd be tempted to tag it in a similar manner as an agricultural research area, or perhaps come up with a new tag, since they're teaching agriculture rather than focusing on commercial activities associated with agriculture. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 3 January 2011 20:04, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: What's the difference to waterway=weir? A lot of weirs I've seen don't have any kind of gates, they just semi-dam a river to provide a water supply for nearby towns, the water freely flows over the top of the weir. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 3 January 2011 21:06, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: like this http://museumvictoria.museum/collections/items/766657/negative-weir-bridge-across-the-murray-river-mildura-victoria-circa-1925 I doubt I've seen such a large weir in person, I was thinking more along the lines of this: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/13825102.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 3 January 2011 21:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the difference is that a weir is used to control the water level (and sometimes used to produce energy) while a sluice gate is used for ships to navigate in rivers/canals with different levels (it is part of steps for ships). Depends on the type of gates as to the use, doesn't it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
On 3 January 2011 11:59, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: I've set up a proposal for sluice_gates, which are typically found on small waterways in agricultural areas at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sluice_gate You might want to add an example photo for those not familiar with these... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tree Nursery
On 8 December 2010 02:22, Kenny Moens street...@functor.be wrote: Hello, Hereby I want to invite everyone to comment on the Tree Nursery proposal I made: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tree_nursery Is there a reason that you want such a specific tag? There is also an old/abandon RFC for almost an identical tag value: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Plant_nursery You could extend this to add a subtag to indicate the types of plants grown. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
On 15 November 2010 06:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'm actually already doing this: landcover=tree. There is already 2545 entities of them in the db. You could still use a different surface there by the way, so it is not superfluous. Also landcover=scree, grass, ice, sand are good values IMHO. Probably we should simply start using them. I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how does using landcover make this any better? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
On 16 November 2010 09:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The whole nature_reserve as an area is broken. it is clearly an area. What else should it be? All boundaries delimit areas. I agree, but what does that have to do with surface tagging? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
On 16 November 2010 10:03, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/16 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: I've already been tagging beaches and other areas as surface=sand, how does using landcover make this any better? I agree that in this case it is the same. For trees it is different. surface=tree doesn't make any sense. Should we put some landcover values in surface and some in landcover? Yet another case of people treating keywords as english and trying to apply english grammar to them, if things keep going in this direction there will be another highway=footway V highway=path issue come up very quickly. At the very least surface=* makes a lot more sense than landuse=grass etc... We could reserve surface to roads, squares and paths. Surface=* started out applying to roads and people wanted to tag bunkers at golf courses so surface=* was expanded, and now people want to make a similar tag duplicate the same intent and this seems to me will cause more problems than it will solve. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] geology taggin?
On 16 November 2010 10:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: problem. Anyway, there is a nice proposal for golf courses and surface doesn't seem to be in it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course Past tagging discussion updated the surface=* tag to do this, eg: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=beach ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
