from:"Jonathan"

Looks fun, but how did you know you could stay there?  Or did you just ask?






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎08‎:‎10
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools






To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated campsites I 
uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, 
Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and enjoy. As you can see the 
quality of the places varies wildly.







Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

Jan van Bekkum
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl


On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:


Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on 
availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation between the 
camper and the land owner:

Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there tomorrow, 
service offering (whatever it is) is stable, publicly announced as campground;
Non-designated: permission to camp, policy and services may change overnight, 
not publicly announced as campground (no signs, no listings);
Wild: no permission to camp (but no prohibition either), sometimes a policy, 
situation may change overnight, not announced.

Regards,





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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

I better understand your requirements now, thanks for that.


I've looked at your site and pictures and feel we heave a fundamental problem.  
Designated is fine and existing tags cover it but non_designated is harder to 
agree to because of its temporary nature, I’m not sure OSM is the place for 
such transitory, temporary data.


If a place that many travellers have found over a period of time exists then it 
is as permanent as any commercial campsite therefore can be tagged as now.


As for Wildcamp spots then this is just a place you’ve found convenient to stop 
and shouldn’t be mapped other than as a car park or layby using existing tags.


Wildcamping is a very specific activity and shouldn’t made official.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎56
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





Our blog can be found at www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl, video clips of our trips at 
https://www.youtube.com/user/JanvanBekkum.



Many places we visited in Iran and east Africa for sure are no campgrounds 
according to western standards, but if you need a place for the night your 
standards adapt quickly. We also had many superb wild camps (different set of 
images I am happy to share).




You must have visited the place or have a report from earlier visitors to map 
it properly, but once you have been at the place classification is very simple 
and well visible.




Most often we found the non-designated places from reports and blogs of earlier 
travellers (we made an overview ourselves as well 
http://www.deeindervoorbij.nl/camping.html), from travel guides like Lonely 
Planet or by just asking at hotels. We recently came in touch with iOverlander. 
iOverlander currently maintains a proprietary database, but considers to get 
the hard data from OSM in future. Soft data (visitor reports and ratings) and 
images would stay in their own database.




As far as tagging is concerned I think it is quite simple. We have three main 
categories designated, non-designated and wild. As designated is the default it 
would not need a special attribute; non-designated would get an extra attribute 
while wild would get it own namespace tag. Trekking camps are in the designated 
group.




Classification as proposed by Dave Bannon a.o. would be by means of an 
additional attribute tag for designated campsites.




Any category (also wild) can have additional attributes to describe facilities.




Examples:

Regular campground with toilets, water, power, shower, internet:
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=serviced (definition Dave B.)
internet=wlan
A hotel offering to put the car on their parking lot and a toilet:
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=non_designated
toilets=yes
A place next to a city park with public toilets (like we used in Iran):
tourism=wild_camp_site
toilets=yes



On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:04 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated
 campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia,
 Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and
 enjoy. As you can see the quality of the places varies wildly.

Yep, as you say, wildly !  I would not consider them camp sites to be
honest !

I am not as organised as you, but just uploaded a couple of my sort of
camp sites -
http://bannons.id.au/uploads/agate_creek.jpg
http://bannons.id.au/uploads/obriens.jpg

Its going to be hard to talk about these in the same voice 

Is the solution to invent a set new of tags ?  Or qualifiers to the
suggested values ?

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

If it's there for years then it is a campsite no matter how it is advertised. 


There is no point in separating designated and non-designated.


In my opinion those photos do not depict wild camping, you are camping in a car 
park with some facilities available to the public. The is nothing “Wild” about 
it. 


All of these examples can be covered by existing tags.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎12‎:‎36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the service 
for many years, but it is not officially announced and not listed. For 
overlanders this information is too important not to have it mapped somehow.




Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that should be on 
the map:

Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with public toilet 
(Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the one place to go to in Tabriz. 
In Iran we had quite a few situations like this.

Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there are few good 
places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at the beach near the Kite Club. 
The Kite Club has clean public toilets and a beach shower.
Images are here.



Reagrds,




Jan



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Examples of Wildcamping:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/487310@N25/pool/






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jonathan H
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎17
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





If it's there for years then it is a campsite no matter how it is advertised. 




There is no point in separating designated and non-designated.




In my opinion those photos do not depict wild camping, you are camping in a car 
park with some facilities available to the public. The is nothing “Wild” about 
it. 




All of these examples can be covered by existing tags.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎12‎:‎36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the service 
for many years, but it is not officially announced and not listed. For 
overlanders this information is too important not to have it mapped somehow.




Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that should be on 
the map:

Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with public toilet 
(Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the one place to go to in Tabriz. 
In Iran we had quite a few situations like this.

Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there are few good 
places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at the beach near the Kite Club. 
The Kite Club has clean public toilets and a beach shower.
Images are here.



Reagrds,




Jan



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Those look fantastic, would you want to tag those as Wildcamping?






Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎11
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





Fortunately we had those as well: 
https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-24 Thread jonathan

I object to any mapping, let alone tagging, of “Wild Camp” sites.  By mapping 
these places they will become overused and therefore no longer “Wild”.




If it's in a country where Wild Camping is legal then the area will be abused 
and damaged, if it's in a country where Wild Camping is illegal then it's 
encouraging trespass.




First rule of Wild Camping is you don't talk about Wild Camping, well at least 
don't publish it on the Internet!


If the only definition of such a camp site is that you can put a tent on it 
then every few metres will get mapped.


You can't map the absence of something.


Stick to defining organised campsites, do not try to bring order to  something 
that by it's very nature is disk-organised.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎24‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎07‎:‎39
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools, Dave Swarthout





Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close to 
what I had in mind with camp_site=designated.


So the updated proposal would become:


Designated - standard, designated (duplication of tourism=caravan_site), 
trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with attribute tags
Non-designed - as proposed
New main tag tourism=wild_camp_site___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-18 Thread jonathan

Am I missing something here?  What's the matter with the current schema? If it 
is essential that a toilet in a power plant is mapped then why not 
amenity=toilet and access=private? 


Or a better example, a toilet in a train station that is for staff only 
amenity=toilet access=private or access=official?


Where’s the problem you're trying to fix?






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Janko Mihelić
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎18‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎11‎:‎30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools







2015-03-18 12:15 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:




 




It would require us to add operator tags to every single object inside another 
object with the same operator tag, if I got you right.





Only to the ones that are by default used by public, so toilets, 
waste_disposals, and so on.  But they are already mapped wrong, so something 
has to be done. Adding a private: prefix and operator=* tag is one idea, 
maybe there is a cleaner way.



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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-18 Thread jonathan

What Forum?






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Andreas Goss
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎18‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎20‎:‎19
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





 It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
 vote compared to the number of mappers.

STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!

Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody 
else it's just as mess and feels like spam.

We are 100x more productive in the German Forum than on this or the de 
list and have much more participation...

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
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] Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-17 Thread jonathan

Not sure what you mean by “Private Objects”, anything in the DB is capable of 
being displayed, depending on whether the Renderer wants to.  Nothing is 
Private in OSM.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: John F. Eldredge
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎17‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎20‎:‎44
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools







Does the default rendering on the slippy map on OSM's main page show private 
objects? If it does, then there is a loss of privacy. If it doesn't, then there 
is a loss of feedback to mappers.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



On March 16, 2015 7:08:34 PM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:


On 17/03/2015 10:46 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:






Please do not map private objects in private space.  In general if 
the object could create a privacy concern, or is just not useful to 

a member of the public, please don't add it to the database.  Note

it is fully OK to map facilities within membership or fee based venues,

as long as the facilities are reasonably available to members of the public.




Examples not to map: toilets in homes, employee only toilets in businesses, 
private recycling bins, playgrounds in private homes or day care facilities.




Examples to map: toilets inside DisneyLand, buildings visible from air photos, 
private facilities with a history of public permissive use.



If OSM encourages others to use the OSM data base.. why cannot they add data 
that is 'private' to them? 

If renderers were not to render any access=private object then the general 
public would not be aware of these 'private' objects and 
those who want them may enter them and configure there own render to show 
'their' data alongside OSM data. 

One idea is to only map stuff that is 'publicly viewable'. Some define this as 
'from a public place' such as a street. However with satellite views being 
publicly available then mapping things that are not viewable from a public 
street becomes possible with more accuracy than that of a visual estimation 
from a public street. 

I think that mapping stuff that is not usefull, in some way, is a waste of 
time, public stuff or private stuff. If a person with authority wants to map 
private stuff .. then I think that is OK. The key is the authority.  

And then the definition of 'private' is? 
Are Universities 'private'? Are bicycle repair stations inside university 
grounds private?  
Are private swimming pools in backyards to be mapped as they may be used in an 
emergency to fight fires? 
The boundaries between private and public are grey ... and then their is 
community emergency use. Murky waters. 

___
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] Subject: Re: Deleting private objects in private spaces

2015-03-17 Thread jonathan

Not sure what you mean by  “the software” but the Renderer’s designers choose 
what is displayed by the Renderer.  The standard OSM rendering of the OSM 
database shows objects that are marked as access=private as well as access=yes. 




As mentioned below only Public objects should be added to the DB unless they 
are physically noticeable such as private roads or property and they will be 
given an access tag of private to show they are not public.  access=private 
indicates the right of access to an object not that the object should be kept 
hidden from public disclosure.


Everything in OSM is visible to all Renderer's to display or not display aas 
they choose.


The OSM database is not the place for private individuals or organisations to 
store private data.


Hope this helps to clarify things.




Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: John F. Eldredge
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎17‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎22‎:‎20
To: jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me, Tag discussion, strategy and related tools







What I mean is, does the software allow you to specify that only objects with 
access permitting the general public, or access=private with only specified 
values of the operator tag, be rendered?

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



On March 17, 2015 4:43:07 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote:


Not sure what you mean by “Private Objects”, anything in the DB is capable of 
being displayed, depending on whether the Renderer wants to.  Nothing is 
Private in OSM.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: John F. Eldredge
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎17‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎20‎:‎44
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools







Does the default rendering on the slippy map on OSM's main page show private 
objects? If it does, then there is a loss of privacy. If it doesn't, then there 
is a loss of feedback to mappers.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



On March 16, 2015 7:08:34 PM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:


On 17/03/2015 10:46 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:






Please do not map private objects in private space.  In general if 
the object could create a privacy concern, or is just not useful to 

a member of the public, please don't add it to the database.  Note

it is fully OK to map facilities within membership or fee based venues,

as long as the facilities are reasonably available to members of the public.




Examples not to map: toilets in homes, employee only toilets in businesses, 
private recycling bins, playgrounds in private homes or day care facilities.




Examples to map: toilets inside DisneyLand, buildings visible from air photos, 
private facilities with a history of public permissive use.



If OSM encourages others to use the OSM data base.. why cannot they add data 
that is 'private' to them? 

If renderers were not to render any access=private object then the general 
public would not be aware of these 'private' objects and 
those who want them may enter them and configure there own render to show 
'their' data alongside OSM data. 

One idea is to only map stuff that is 'publicly viewable'. Some define this as 
'from a public place' such as a street. However with satellite views being 
publicly available then mapping things that are not viewable from a public 
street becomes possible with more accuracy than that of a visual estimation 
from a public street. 

I think that mapping stuff that is not usefull, in some way, is a waste of 
time, public stuff or private stuff. If a person with authority wants to map 
private stuff .. then I think that is OK. The key is the authority.  

And then the definition of 'private' is? 
Are Universities 'private'? Are bicycle repair stations inside university 
grounds private?  
Are private swimming pools in backyards to be mapped as they may be used in an 
emergency to fight fires? 
The boundaries between private and public are grey ... and then their is 
community emergency use. Murky waters. 

___
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] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-17 Thread jonathan

+1






Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Kotya Karapetyan
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎17‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎04
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





Dear all,



I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was that 
the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for accepted/rejected decision 
was self-contradicting. Even if there may be different opinions on that, the 
very discussion shows that the situation is not clear.




I propose to clarify it by changing the recommended number of votes in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Approved_or_rejected

from ...8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority 
approval...

to ...8 or more unanimous approval votes or 10 or more total votes with more 
than 74 % approval

This will not change anything in terms of the ongoing discussion of how the 
approval influences other things. So the discussion can continue. But we'd 
introduce some mathematical logic in the process.




I don't think there is a procedure to vote on such proposals, so please just 
give it +1 here if you agree. We change it when we have 8+ plus ones if there 
are no significant objections to this change. Once again, please note: we are 
not discussing the consequences of approval/rejection, we just change the rule 
of thumb recommendation to a mathematically more sound one.




Cheers,
Kotya






On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:





On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:




inscription

note (not rendered .. for use by mappers to make notes to other mappers ? thus 
not required to be rendered?)
Visible in a popup in geschichtskarten for historical items.



But you were talking about all renderers I thought. Now you seem happy that 
there is 1 renderer showing the feature/data ? 

I'm still convinced that features that people want to map will be mapped, 
regardless of the state of the tagging proposal.







m.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

2015-03-14 Thread jonathan

I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by reading 
other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then vote against. 
 Likewise, you can vote for a proposal even without being party to the 
discussion.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎14‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎07‎:‎08
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools






I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage and 
power_supply=intermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and 
without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve 
except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up!




Regards




Jan van Bekkum





Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

Jan van Bekkum
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl


On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:


To avoid confusion the wiki page has been renamed to reflect the change of the 
proposal itself that was made before the proposal was submitted for voting. It 
now can be found here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dstorage#Tagging.



Furthermore I elaborated the reasoning for the proposal as it is a bit more in 
the paragraph Tagging.




Regards,




Jan van Bekkum


On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:


There a move page link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming pages.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-13 Thread jonathan

In the UK Wildcamping is illegal, you have to request the landowners permission 
or face charges of trespass.  There are two exceptions, Scotland allows 
wildcamping, not sure of the limitations if any.  And Dartmoor National Park, 
again not sure of any specific restrictions.


So, only officially designated campsites, mainly privately run, should be 
mapped, I feel.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Dave Swarthout
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎13‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎47
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools





There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside 
a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also 
noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would 
be. 



On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:



I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you 
please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage?




Jan




http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D*






Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

Jan van Bekkum
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:



On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

A strongly related discussion:

tagging the difference between an official trail,
and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail.

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



Link to this discussion?



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



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






-- 


Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?

2015-01-24 Thread Jonathan Bennett


Scene 7. Ext. Prehistoric Planet

FORD:
You don’t seem to understand…

MAN IN CROWD:
No, no, no I just -

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
It’s a simple matter! It’s a procedural matter! That’s the point!

CAPTAIN:
Alright, alright, alright, alright!

CHAIRMAN:
I’d like to call this meeting to some sort of order, if that is at all 
possible.


CROWD MEMBER:
Care for a light drink sir?

CHAIRMAN:
Uh, not now love…

FORD:
Look! C’mon please! I mean everybody! there is some important news: 
we’ve made a discovery.


MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Is it on the agenda?

FORD:
Oh don’t give me that!

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Well I’m sorry, but speaking as a fully trained management consultant I 
must insist on the importance of observing the committee structure.


CROWD MEMBERS:
Yeah, yeah, yeah!.

FORD:
On a prehistoric planet!?

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Address the chair.

CROWD MEMBERS:
Yes.

FORD:
There isn’t a chair! There’s only a rock!

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Well, call it a chair.

FORD:
Why not call it a rock?

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
You - you obviously have no conception of modern business methods…

FORD:
And you have no conception of where the hell you are -

MARKETING GIRL:
Oh look shut up you two, just shut up! I want to table a motion. Guy: 
Boulder a motion you mean…


FORD:
Tha-Thank you I think I’ve made that point! Now listen! Someone: Order, 
Order!


FORD:
Oh God!

CHAIRMAN:
Listen! I would like to call to order the five-hundred-and-seventy-third 
meeting of the colonization committee of the planet of Fintlewoodlewix. 
And furthermore -


FORD:
Oh this is futile! Five-hundred-and-seventy-three committee meetings and 
you haven’t even discovered fire yet!


MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
If you would care to look at the agenda sheet -

GUY:
Agenda rock, yes…

FORD:
Oh, go on back home or something will ya?

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
…you will see that we are about to have a report from the hairdressers 
fire development subcommittee today.


HAIRDRESSER:
That’s me.

FORD:
Yeah well you know what they’ve done don’t you? You gave them a couple 
of sticks and they’ve gone and developed them in to a pair of bloody 
scissors!


MARKETING GIRL:
When you have been in marketing as long as I have, you’ll know that 
before any new product can be developed, it has to be properly 
researched. I mean yes, yes we’ve got to find out what people want from 
fire, I mean how do they relate to it, the image -


FORD:
Oh, stick it up your nose.

MARKETING GIRL:
Yes which is precisely the sort of thing we need to know, I mean do 
people want fire that can be fitted nasally.


CHAIRMAN:
Yes, and, and, and the wheel. What about this wheel thingy? Sounds a 
terribly interesting project to me.


MARKETING GIRL:
Er, yeah, well we’re having a little, er, difficulty here…

FORD:
Difficulty?! It’s the single simplest machine in the entire universe!

MARKETING GIRL:
Well alright mister wise guy, if you’re so clever you tell us what 
colour it should be!


FORD:
Oh Mighty Zarquon! Has no-one done anything?

MARKETING GIRL:
And of course Finlon the producer has rescued a camera from the wreckage 
of the ship and is making a fascinating documentary on the indigenous 
cavemen of the area.


FORD:
Oh yes, and they’re dying out, have you noticed that?

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Yes we must make a note sir to stop selling them life insurance.

FORD:
But don’t you understand? Just since we’ve arrived they’ve started dying 
out.


MARKETING GIRL:
Yes! Yes! And this comes over terribly well in the film that he’s 
making. I gather that he wants to, eh, make a documentary about you next 
captain.


CAPTAIN:
What? Oh. Oh really? That’s awfully nice.

MARKETING GIRL:
Oh, he’s got a very strong angle on it: you know the burden of 
responsibility, the loneliness of command…


CAPTAIN:
Ah well I wouldn’t overstress that angle you know, I mean one’s never 
alone with a rubber duck…


MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Er, sir, er, skipper?

CAPTAIN:
Want a squeeze, eh?

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Um listen, if we could, er, for a moment move on to the subject of 
fiscal policy -


FORD:
”Fiscal Policy”?!

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Yes.

FORD:
How can you have money if none of you actually produce anything? It 
doesn’t grow on trees you know!


MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
You know If you would allow me to continue!

CAPTAIN:
Yes let him to continue.

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt leaves as legal tender, we 
have, of course all become immensely rich.


FORD:
No really? Really?

CROWD MEMBERS:
Yes, very good move…

MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT:
But, we have also run into a small inflation problem on account of the 
high level of leaf availability. Which means that I gather the current 
going rate has something like three major deciduous forests buying one 
ship’s peanut. So, um, in order to obviate this problem and effectively 
revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on an extensive defoliation 
campaign, and um, burn down all the forests. I think that’s a sensible 
move

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

2015-01-23 Thread Jonathan Bennett

On 23/01/2015 20:53, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:

+1 to all of that


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

Re: [Tagging] access=designated - what do we think it means?

2014-04-13 Thread jonathan

But how can a tag that tells you to follow official designation signs be 
meaningless unless what you mean is that such a definition is implicit 
on all ways?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 13/04/2014 12:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am 11/apr/2014 um 19:02 schrieb Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:

All access=designated tags should be removed.


+1, also agree that editors should not suggest meaningless tags

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




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

Re: [Tagging] access=designated - what do we think it means?

2014-04-11 Thread jonathan


+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/04/2014 18:07, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Apr 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:


On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 17:28 +0100, SomeoneElse wrote:

Currently, there are 41,000 things tagged access=designated (1).  I can
understand what =designated means for a specifc transport type (foot,
bicycle, etc.) but not access.  The wiki (2) also doesn't know.

What do we think that someone means when they tag something as
access=designated?

I have always understood it to mean access to certain vehicles/people.
The it will be what is shown on a signpost, in fact I was expecting the
road after Fairholmes to be motor_vehicle=designated as blue badge
holders can use it.

Phil (trigpoint)

Cheers,

Andy


(1) http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/access=designated#overview

(2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aaccess%3Ddesignated

This is how I understood and have used it.

-Tod



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


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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

2014-03-09 Thread jonathan

I definitely think there is a need for this, I can think of many places 
around the UK this could apply to.


landuse=events is better than leisure=*

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 09/03/2014 21:31, Tod Fitch wrote:
It seems to me that landuse=events is reasonable. Most of the places 
called fairgrounds where I am are used for other events other than the 
traditional once a year fair. There are often swap meets, animal 
shows, concerts, and other events held during the year. And the area 
often (always in my experience but I've not seen many) have amenities 
on the grounds like toilets, food concessions, etc.


Using event_space or event_place seems odd to me: And area already 
denotes a space or place. We don't say residential_place or 
industrial_place in our tags, so my preference would be for 
landuse=events.


-Tod



On Mar 9, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Antônio Marcos wrote:

I've never heard of fairground, but it seems to be a quite specific 
tag that could be substituted by or even inside the events area. The 
events tag is indeed supposed to be generic, just like 
landuse=retail, which demarks areas used by shops, and the leisure or 
landuse key before the events value should denote that it is an 
area where events are carried on (like the ones you cited, circus, 
shows etc.). Maybe, if the area hosts a single type of event, it is 
considerable to create too an event_type= key that describes the type 
of event. I am considering changing back the key leisure to landuse, 
as it originally was supposed to be, because it is a land used for 
this purpose and may contain facilities (amenities and leisures) used 
during the events, such as pitches, toilets, bars and so on. An 
example of an area like this is a very famous rodeo place here in 
Brazil called Parque do Peão: http://binged.it/1h4EgcT. As you can 
see, there is an entire area used for it, where fairs are made and 
several amenities for the public are found: the rodeo event is not 
comprised only of the rodeo show made in the arena. And there are 
many other event-designated places in the world, I believe, thus I 
think OpenStreetMap is really lacking this kind of tagging. Back to 
the leisure/landuse discussion, stated some points above I think 
landuse fits better than leisure and I'd like some more opinions on 
this matter, please, before changing it back to landuse=events. If 
there needs any other improvement on this tag, please comment. Thanks.



On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:



2014-03-09 17:18 GMT+01:00 Antônio Marcos toni.o...@gmail.com
mailto:toni.o...@gmail.com:

I have created this proposal some time ago for a new tag
called leisure=events (originally landuse=events), which
should describe areas reserved for events in a city or in a
place (more info at the proposal page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents).
Does anybody have more opinions and suggestions on this, please?



I think event is not a good description for a place where
events take place, something like event_space / event_place would
already be better, but still seems very generic. What kind of
events do you have in mind, folk festivals? parish fairs? trade
fairs? concerts? beer festivals? just to name a few.

For these maybe fairground would be a good tag (not sure for
leisure as a key, maybe use a neutral amenity?)

cheers,
Martin

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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] tag covered questions

2014-01-24 Thread Jonathan


:-)  Touché

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 24/01/2014 10:30, Simone Saviolo wrote:
2014/1/24 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com


 Am 24/gen/2014 um 07:46 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri
lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi mailto:lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:

 It's then only natural that they use tunnel=building_passage or
even tunnel=yes when they map these, totally without any regard to
whether some engineers or geologists or encyclopedia editors have
restricted the use of the word in their field in English to only
under ground level tunnels.

actually in this Case it was the osm-wiki key definition that
restricted the usage, not just some scientist or encyclopedia
author or international  technical standard


In favor of Kytömaa's observation I'll mention the best-known tunnel 
in the world, the Boulevard Louis II in Monaco 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4230891#map=16/43.7369/7.4349), 
known to Formula One fans all over the world (and also non-Formula One 
fans) as The Tunnel.


Ciao,

Simone


___
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] Unsuitable?

2014-01-08 Thread Jonathan

Very important that we can mark roads that are officially designated as 
unsuitable for certain vehicles.  Don't see a problem with this use of 
this tag?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 08/01/2014 17:44, Philip Barnes wrote:

These examples are not far from home so I can get some copyright free
versions, when there is some daylight.

An example of unsuitable for all motor vehicles
https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.812712,-2.642415spn=0.003962,0.010364t=mz=17layer=ccbll=52.812712,-2.642415panoid=wmYBMLnyBiKjRsNIkNw57wcbp=12,7.72,,1,2.89

and unsuitable for HGVs
https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.873274,-2.724481spn=0.007965,0.020728t=mz=16layer=ccbll=52.873314,-2.724506panoid=nA6y8jfXn9h0aQlJ38KRIQcbp=12,340.45,,0,14.96

and one in full
https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.871746,-2.735252spn=0.007965,0.020728t=mz=16layer=ccbll=52.871725,-2.73534panoid=yvYYjN3db-nYjq0IxmnkaQcbp=12,2.61,,1,3.54

There are others, such as unsuitable for caravans and unsuitable for
coaches, but can't easily place examples of these.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
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] Security Gate Post/Cabin

2013-12-08 Thread Jonathan


Hi all,

Just went to tag a building at the main entrance/exit to an industrial 
site and couldn't really find a well used or documented tag.


It's the sort of building that houses the security guards or 
gatekeeper.  They operate the gates to allow entrance to or exit from 
the site.  May contain security guards who patrol the fences/area.  May 
contain security equipment such as camera monitoring displays.  Usually 
first point of call of any visitor or site operative.  May handout 
health and safety equipment, such as hard hats etc.  May collect names 
and details of all visitors.


It's the building I want to describe but could be applied to a node as well.

building=security_post has been used 3 times and seems to pretty well 
cover it but I'm surprised at its small use.


This would not sit on a way, as that would the be a barrier, but is 
usually positioned near the barrier=gate etc, however, could be 
elsewhere on the site, particularly in the example of a Foreman's Office 
or Site Office in the construction industry.


Any thoughts, is it worth a wiki page or subpage of building?

Jonathan



--
http://bigfatfrog67.me


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

Re: [Tagging] Security Gate Post/Cabin

2013-12-08 Thread Jonathan


Wikipedia suggests a gatehouse as a medieval construction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatehouse

building=gatehouse has been used 19 times, but in what context I don't know.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 08/12/2013 15:39, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sun, 2013-12-08 at 15:28 +, Jonathan wrote:

Hi all,

Just went to tag a building at the main entrance/exit to an industrial
site and couldn't really find a well used or documented tag.

It's the sort of building that houses the security guards or
gatekeeper.  They operate the gates to allow entrance to or exit from
the site.  May contain security guards who patrol the fences/area.  May
contain security equipment such as camera monitoring displays.  Usually
first point of call of any visitor or site operative.  May handout
health and safety equipment, such as hard hats etc.  May collect names
and details of all visitors.

It's the building I want to describe but could be applied to a node as well.

building=security_post has been used 3 times and seems to pretty well
cover it but I'm surprised at its small use.

This would not sit on a way, as that would the be a barrier, but is
usually positioned near the barrier=gate etc, however, could be
elsewhere on the site, particularly in the example of a Foreman's Office
or Site Office in the construction industry.

Any thoughts, is it worth a wiki page or subpage of building?

Where I have worked, and industrial sites that I have visited over my
long career, that building is always called 'the gate house'.

I would suggest building=gatehouse, or gate_house, although neither had
any previous useage :)

Phil (trigpoint)


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



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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

2013-12-06 Thread Jonathan


:-)

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 06/12/2013 12:32, nounours wrote:
I think we should tag private backyards with surveillance=yes, even 
if surveillance is executed by a satellite et not a surveillance camera.



:-) nounours77


Am 05.12.2013 um 18:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:



2013/12/5 Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de 
mailto:osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de


how should it be tagged? Is it ok to tag the whole residential area
between the streets as one leisure=garden including all buildings
etc.
or shall every garden be tagged as leisure=garden separately in it's
place and only there?



I would only use it on the effective garden area, overlapping the 
landuse=residential area. Buildings and non-garden areas should not 
be included.


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] How to tag babycare?

2013-12-03 Thread Jonathan


+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 03/12/2013 10:56, Pieren wrote:

So I would prefer amenity=changing_table as an isolated feature or
changing_table=yes when attached to something else (like
amenity=toilets). Something similar is proposed here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilets#Other_proposed_or_emerging_keys_for_toilet_tagging

Pieren



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-02 Thread Jonathan

I was being facetious. Hence the smiley faces. The comment wasn't
intended to be taken seriously.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 21:59, Peter Wendorff wrote:

I would say it assumes hat cyclists in theory have to obey traffic rules
and a map should reflect what they have to do, not what they do.
Walkers cross lawns wherever they want if that's a shortcut and rules
against that aren't enforced strictly, but we don't map any possible
shortcut.

regards
Peter

Am 01.12.2013 22:47, schrieb Jonathan:

:-) This whole discussion assumes cyclists obey traffic rules! In the
UK cyclists ride where they like! :-)

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 21:38, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 1 December 2013 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:

I mean that bicycle=no bans bicycles from the road, while the actual
situation is that you have to use the cycleway if it leads where you are
going (and nothing bans you from using the road). If you want to turn
left
for instance but the cycleway goes straight, you can use the road.
There is
no ban of bikes on the road.

I don't think this is true in the Netherlands. Situations like you
describe are quite rare in the Netherlands, but I did find one:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Marconibaan,+Nieuwegein,+The+Netherlandshl=enll=52.02938,5.101267spn=0.001149,0.004823sll=51.566277,5.062965sspn=0.002574,0.004823oq=marconibaant=hhnear=Marconibaan,+Nieuwegein,+The+Netherlandsz=18layer=ccbll=52.029299,5.10157panoid=3G1tWOtoUdO_1hUBl5deXwcbp=11,219.58,,0,2.4

I would expect that cyclists are not allowed to turn left on this
crossing at all, and I don't think they would be allowed to use the
main road here.

I'm also not sure why you think it is like you describe in Germany. It
certainly is not explicitly written like that in the law. Could you
point me to an example of such a crossing in Germany?

Perhaps the answer depends on the meaning of 'leading into the same
direction' in the convention: does making a turn qualifies as going in
a different direction, or does it just refer to forward and backward?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

2013-12-02 Thread Jonathan


Thankfully I don't live in Germany :-)

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 22:58, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:


Am 01.12.2013 um 22:47 schrieb Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com:


:-)  This whole discussion assumes cyclists obey traffic rules!  In the UK 
cyclists ride where they like!  :-)


In Italy as well, but in Germany they might even withdraw your driving license 
(for the car) if you did certain infractions


Cheers,
Martin


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



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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam


Yes!

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 14:28, Peter Wendorff wrote:

2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the
webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=*



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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I would agree, the contact key has not taken off and may fit for phone 
or fax (although the old way is still more popular) the use for webcam 
is back to front.  Was the original intention to cover video calls like 
skype?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 17:11, Peter Wendorff wrote:

Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:

On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote:

Hi,
I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves
a different purpose.
contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the
webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to
contact e.g. a shop by phone).
1) I would change the order, as it's part of the webcam information, not
part of the contact information, which would lead to webcam:*
2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the
webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=*

regards
Peter


Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact

Yes, it's defined there, but that doesn't make it a good solution.
It's used 180 times worldwide according to taginfo.

A check through first 50 values listed in taginfo [1] reveals:
1) all of them are website urls
2) most of the URLs are dead or wrong
3) the valid ones are mixed: some refer to the image, some to a website
containing the image, some probably even to a fixed image (not updated),
but I couldn't check that properly.
4) 80 values are from the same domain and refer to cameras of the same
operator or organization:
http://www1.eot.state.ma.us/cam_updated_images/*.jpg

To conclude this I would say:
The tag is not yet used much (especially due to (4)).
It is not used in a unified way (see (3))

Therefore it's not useable in the current form.

And as it doesn't fit semantically (it's not a URL to contact someone,
but to see something), I don't see a big issue in fixing that by
moving the tag to another key and to define it better.

regards
Peter

[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Awebcam#values

___
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] preproposal : internet webcam

Yes, I was vague in my comments.  What I meant was that most, 
fun/weather/scenic/city cams are open to all comers and therefore 
providing uncontrolled surveillance where at least police or council 
cameras are strictly regulated and their feed is largely private (except 
if used in court).


My assertion is that a camera that captures a scene is performing 
surveillance on an area and should be tagged accordingly.  Add extra 
tags to describe it further but don't remove the surveillance tag.  Call 
me paranoid but in 5 or 10 years time when we have all cameras commonly 
tagged then you'll be grateful there is just one way of spotting them on 
a map.


Jonathan

p.s. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out 
to get you!  ;-)


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 02:07, John F. Eldredge wrote:

On 11/30/2013 11:22 AM, Jonathan wrote:
I don't care if it's publicly available or not.  Even if it is for 
the personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even 
more creepy).  Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, 
where it goes and who has it.


It should be tagged accordingly.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 30/11/2013 14:39, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Internet-connected cameras aren't necessarily publicly-viewable. 
Access to the camera may require a password, or the video stream may 
be sent, encrypted, to some other point.



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


I agree with your statement that a camera is doing surveillance, 
whether privately or available to the public.  I disagree with your 
statement that no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing 
to the internet and therefore there is no control on who sees it and 
what they use it for, since, as you just agreed, video being pushed 
to the Internet isn't necessarily publicly available. Including the 
definition that a camera that is connected to the Internet necessarily 
is available to all comers would mean that most security cameras 
connected to the Internet would not be classed as surveillance cameras.




___
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] preproposal : internet webcam

Or this is how you contact someone via webcam such as with skype (BTW I 
realise that's not a webcam is but some people call it that)


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 21:39, John F. Eldredge wrote:

On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
I think, contact should be restricted to ways of getting in contact 
to someone, and IMHO seeing images of a webcam is not getting in 
contact to the webcam or someone else. regards Peter
I agree.  Contact usually refers to a way to reach a person; the 
intuitive meaning of contact in reference to a webcam would be this 
is how to contact someone if you have questions about the webcam, not 
this is a way to see what the webcam is currently viewing.




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


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

:-) This whole discussion assumes cyclists obey traffic rules! In the
UK cyclists ride where they like! :-)

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 21:38, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 1 December 2013 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

I mean that bicycle=no bans bicycles from the road, while the actual
situation is that you have to use the cycleway if it leads where you are
going (and nothing bans you from using the road). If you want to turn left
for instance but the cycleway goes straight, you can use the road. There is
no ban of bikes on the road.

I don't think this is true in the Netherlands. Situations like you
describe are quite rare in the Netherlands, but I did find one:

I would expect that cyclists are not allowed to turn left on this
crossing at all, and I don't think they would be allowed to use the
main road here.

I'm also not sure why you think it is like you describe in Germany. It
certainly is not explicitly written like that in the law. Could you
point me to an example of such a crossing in Germany?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I agree the man_made tag is ludicrous, but we're stuck with that for the 
time being, changing that is a whole other thread.


The two level tagging is what is currently defined for cameras that film 
public spaces, I was just suggesting a new value of webcam etc and the 
addition of a new key of URL.  Let's not re-invent the wheel just 
because we need a bigger cart.


A camera recording a public space is performing surveillance over that 
space, be it a webcam, police cam, traffic cam or nature cam.  It's a 
camera.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 29/11/2013 22:54, nounours wrote:


BUT:

1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should 
also tag highways, restaurants and buildings as man_made.


2) The two-level tagging seems exagerated in this case.



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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I don't care if it's publicly available or not.  Even if it is for the 
personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more 
creepy).  Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it 
goes and who has it.


It should be tagged accordingly.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 30/11/2013 14:39, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Internet-connected cameras aren't necessarily publicly-viewable. 
Access to the camera may require a password, or the video stream may 
be sent, encrypted, to some other point.



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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

man_made is A tag for identifying man-made /(artificial)/ structures 
added to the landscape. taken from the Wiki.


It's not just technical, and when you look at what is now included under 
this bizarre heading: adit, clearcut, monitoring_station, pier, 
snow_net, snow_fence, wastewater_plant, windmill, surveillance and 
finally works!!?!?!?


Clearly, man_made has become a dumping ground for anything not natural 
that we can't be bothered to tag somewhere else!


Man_made probably needs clearing up and surveillance probably shouldn't 
be under it, however it is under it and none of that effects the 
question of webcams.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 30/11/2013 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
what is the logics behind this? We use man_made for technical 
installations/facilities/structures/devices, a camera is a technical 
device, restaurants aren't (maybe the kitchen would qualify), 
buildings aren't (but could have technical facilities to make them 
work), highways aren't. I do not insist in using man_made for cameras, 
but IMHO they would fit (like a crane, a chimney, a water_well, etc.).


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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam


I agree, contact doesn't make sense.
webcam:url=http://...  is better

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 30/11/2013 23:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:


Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:


contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need 
anything more to tell its a webcam?


I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam.

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

You mean the cycle lane is only oneway and so bicycle=no on the road 
stops bikes both way?


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 00:15, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:


Am 30.11.2013 um 21:25 schrieb Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:


Cyclists shall be required to use the track if the track is running along a
carriageway, footpath or track for riders on horseback and leading into the
same direction


Again a confirmation (and leading into the same direction) that bicycle=no on 
the road doesn't work (like many opposers stated in the voting)

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



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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

2013-11-29 Thread Jonathan


I would agree, I think that covers it.

A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it 
available to anyone.  Some would say that is a greater infringement than 
an official camera that is regulated.


Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter 
who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera then it's 
surveillance.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 29/11/2013 08:15, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Have a look at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance


man_made=surveillance
surveillance=webcam
contact:webcam=url

Seems fine to me.



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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

2013-11-29 Thread Jonathan


+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 29/11/2013 13:18, Zecke wrote:

Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I 
am interested in:

http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/

http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg

A webcam is a webcam. This example is also called a weathercam:
http://www.wetter.tv/de/webcams/riegelsberg_webcam

Is it really? You never know. Any webcam is a surveillance cam. The 
purpose and details of surveillance may vary.


Zecke.


___
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] preproposal : internet webcam

2013-11-29 Thread Jonathan


Why can we not have:

man_made=surveillance
surveillance:type=webcam
surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic.
url=http://

The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because 
no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet 
and therefore there is no control on who sees it and what they use it 
for, so you can't say it isn't surveillance because that's what it is.


This is in keeping with current usage and allows current renderers to 
capture any newly added webcams without recoding.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 29/11/2013 13:24, Georg Feddern wrote:

Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:

On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote:

I would agree, I think that covers it.

A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making 
it available to anyone.  Some would say that is a greater 
infringement than an official camera that is regulated.


Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't 
matter who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera 
then it's surveillance.




I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I 
am interested in:

http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/

http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg


not living, just thinking:
You can surveil the wheather condition, snow condition, forest fire 
there. ;-)


Well, I think I understand what you mean - I would have prefered a 
generic man_made=camera instead of =surveillance.

I normally can not decide which view angle, zoom or purpose it has.
Only: There is someone watching - but what and why?

Best regards
Georg


___
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] opening-hours off closed

2013-11-28 Thread Jonathan


+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 28/11/2013 15:32, nounours wrote:

Dear André,

Also being new to OSM and new to the tagging mailing list, I 
completely understand your frustration. And I also believe that a lot 
of people left OSM because even if they try hard, the don't get it right.


On the other hand, I also understand the people being involved for a 
long time in OSM, to explain over and over again the same things ...


But I think, in all documentations on the wiki, there is a lot of 
clean-up needed, to make clear to newcomers what's valid and what's 
not. And also I think contributors would benefit from a badge 
indicating the state, like I'm new and willing to learn. If I do 
something wrong, it's not on purpose, in opposition to a badge I'm 
an old OSM guy and grounchy, and if I do something, I do it on purpuse 
to make life harder for others.


In a conlcusion, I only can ask you to stay and help to transform OSM 
in the way your suggesting.


Concerning opening_hours: I'm very much happy that finally someone 
(André) tries to simply this tag. I personally think the original 
definition is a nightmare, and even Andrés simplified syntax looks 
very, very complicated to a normal mapper.


Well, I really hope the person that added the don't use it-flag will 
remove it and help to improve André diagramm!


Thanks, nounours

(badge: greenhorn, but willing to learn)


Am 28.11.2013 um 16:15 schrieb André Pirard:


Hi,

I had to tag the simplest thing there is: a parking lot closed a few 
hours on Fridays (during market time).
On wiki.osm.org/wiki/Opening_hours 
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Opening_hours, I found explanations by, 
rather than a simple diagram, a lot of examples and explanations 
sometimes nearing slang like off rather than the internationally 
understood closed.
After spending much time reading them several times, I didn't find 
how to code that ubiquitous case.
I queried this list and I received something like six different and 
alternating answers.

Someone even said that off, crowding the page, is not to be used.
So, I thought that this fuzzy matter had to be be solved by writing a 
simple syntax diagram. Should anything be wrong in it, someone would 
put it right and it would be a good job jobbed and a big step forward.
Instead of that, someone added to footnote 1 the very clear sentence 
no program works like that, looking like a discussion message.  I 
posted here that it would be better to state (and fix) how the 
diagram must be rather than how it must not (I also receive repeated 
updates notices from the discussion page in which someone put a vote).


And now, probably in thanks for my contribution, my diagram was 
adorned with this:



40px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png 
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/File:Ambox_warning_pn.svg
	The syntax diagram below had no proper discussion and vote, and 
conflicts with established tagging. *Don't use it!*


It is obviously something very difficult to understand that a diagram 
translating an article needs no discussion nor vote but needs to be 
corrected to align with the obscure explanations by their gurus.  
Else, it's the article itself that suffers from lack of discussion 
and vote. That remark still doesn't say what's wrong in the diagram.


In practical conclusion, two months after stating the problem I still 
don't see how to do.  I know that the diagram is wrong but not what 
in it and there is still no example in the page explaining how to tag 
that ubiquitous case.


So, I followed my best option: remove my tagging, unsubscribe and 
forget it all about opening-hours.
That's probably what a many mappers have done silently, unless it's 
true that they tag in every which way.


Help OSM, they say.
All the best for the rest

André.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling

2013-11-03 Thread Jonathan

Wow, a very well documented RFC! Thanks in advance for your time and 
effort on this.  Will read it and comment where appropriate.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 03/11/2013 12:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

Dear all,

Based on your input during the pre-proposal phase, I have come up with
a feature proposal for various gambling features. The proposal
includes the following tags:

- shop=bookmaker: A shop that takes bets on sporting and other events
at agreed upon odds.
- shop=lottery: A shop of which the main purpose is the sale of lottery tickets.
- amenity=casino: A gambling place with at least one table game.
- amenity=amusement_arcade: A place with arcade games and/or gambling machines.
- amenity=gambling: A place for gambling, not being a bookmaker,
lottery shop, casino, or amusement arcade.
- leisure=video_arcade: DISCOURAGED, use amenity=amusement_arcade instead.
- shop=betting: DISCOURAGED, use shop=bookmaker, shop=lottery,
amenity=casino, amenity=amusement_arcade, or amenity=gambling instead.
- shop=gambling: DISCOURAGED, use shop=bookmaker, shop=lottery,
amenity=casino, amenity=amusement_arcade, or amenity=gambling instead.

Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gambling
for the full proposal.

I am looking forward to your comments, either on this mailing list or
on the discussion page.

In addition, I would also welcome extensions to the lists of examples
on the wiki-page.

With kind regards,
Matthijs

___
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] [Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk? PITA?

2013-11-03 Thread Jonathan

I've just googled PITA and it would appear that it stands for Pain In 
The Ass.  The below quoted email I received to my personal email is not 
a snippet but the full and entire transcript I received this evening.


I can't stress strongly enough how insulted, and a little scared, I feel 
for this personal attack.


Is Chris Hill (user: chilly) trying to intimidate or bully me outside of 
the list?  Is he threatened by my questioning the Status Quo?  Was he 
upset that I didn't shut up after he proffered the first answer  to my 
question?


I thought these lists were aliases for discussion?  It would appear 
that if you ask a question that was raised 3 years before then that 
instantly make you a PITA?


I realise there are mappers like Chris who have many years/edits of 
seniority over us newer mappers but that gives them no right to abuse 
anybody, if anything it confers a responsibility to help newer mappers.  
That help shouldn't come in the form of I say it is so accept it, if 
they can't justify their opinion with a reasoned argument then don't 
give the opinion!


Abusing the  questioner is unacceptable. Either within the list or without.

I was on the fringes of the organising committee for SOTM2013 and the 
subject of an anti-bullying policy was raised, suggesting it should be 
documented and published.  I was against it because I felt it was just 
common human courtesy to treat everyone with respect and kindness.  
Maybe I was wrong, maybe it should be documented so that people like 
Chris Hill (chilly) can be officially sanctioned, given warnings over 
their conduct, and in the extreme, have their account blocked.


I'd like to state that I shall withdraw all involvement in the the 
Trunk/Primary debate and will think twice about any future questions to 
these lists.


If anybody wants to see OSM flourish and bring in new participants from 
other walks of life and grow to be a well respected global organisation 
then think again, some may need to leave before others feel they may 
want to join.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 03/11/2013 19:55, Chris Hill wrote:

Why are you being a PITA about this?




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

[Tagging] Primary or Trunk?

2013-11-02 Thread Jonathan

This question is really aimed at UK roads but the same may apply to 
other countries.


I'm not clear with the distinction of a Trunk road in the UK. The wiki 
suggests a trunk road is high performance roads that don't meet the 
requirement for highway 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway=motorway 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway which to me 
would suggest an A road that is a dual carriageway.  Further on in the 
wiki it says that any A road in the UK  signed with Green signs is a 
Trunk road.


I know of many Green A roads that aren't much more than country 
lanes, they are definitely not high performance and I don't feel they 
should be Trunk roads, I feel they should be Primary roads.


Where do we draw the line?  (No pun intended)

Thoughts?

Jonathan





--
http://bigfatfrog67.me

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

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

2013-10-24 Thread Jonathan

That's definitely better but I would make the description more generic, 
such as An indoor area for children to play and then make the padded 
aspects, cafe etc sub tags that can be added.  The indoor_play tag 
should be able to be used by those in other countries who have similar 
facilities but minus the padding or cafe.  The tage of indoor_play needs 
to be the umbrella tag.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 24/10/2013 12:13, Dominic Hosler wrote:

Thanks, I feel a bit silly now, I didn't look hard enough.
New page is at:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Indoor_play
for anyone wanting another look.
Thanks,
Dom


On 24 October 2013 12:04, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:

Use the arrow down button on the upper right (next to the Search box)
and choose 'Move'.

-- Matthijs

On 24 October 2013 12:59, Dominic Hosler dominichos...@gmail.com wrote:

I have updated the page to indoor play, but I don't know how to
actually change the title of the page?

Do I need to just delete that one and create a new proposal called Indoor play?
Putting a note in the discussion that it has been migrated from the
previous soft play proposal?

Thanks,
Dom

On 23 October 2013 20:51, Dominic Hosler dominichos...@gmail.com wrote:

I agree we should move away from the trademarked title 'soft_play'. Perhaps
if we keep the proposal and change the name of the tag to indoor_play, to
include other types as well, as per brad's suggestion. We should also
include sub tag qualifiers to specify if it's soft play and for what ages
it's designed. I think it would be most appropriate to use indoor play
considering its catch all nature and the fact that it is already used by a
couple of websites.

I will update the proposal and fill in the definition area, I must have just
missed it. However, I won't update it till tomorrow because I only have my
phone until then.

Thanks,
Dom



Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:

I agree, we need to choose a term that is more generic, maybe
leisure=childrens_adventure or kids_play or kids_amusement.  There can
always be a sub tag defining soft_play?

Especially considering that a lot of softplay areas are now included among
other internal children's play features? Softplay is just one bit.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 17:47, Brad Neuhauser wrote:

Instead of soft play, what about indoor play (or indoor play
area/centre)?

1) it seems to be used as a catch all sometimes, even in the UK (ie -
http://www.timeout.com/london/events/indoor-play-centres-in-london or
http://www.dayoutwiththekids.co.uk/things-to-do-family/Northampton/Indoor-Play-Areas)
2) it is broad enough to cover all of these sort of places, since some
indoor play areas may only have some actual soft play equipment meant for
younger kids/toddlers  (or, if you are only meaning the actual areas that
have the soft play equipment, then that might be different)
3) it might make more sense for those outside the UK who don't use the
term soft play much

Brad


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Dominic Hosler dominichos...@gmail.com
wrote:

Due to child protection, you are generally not allowed to take
pictures inside the soft-play centres. Also, any official pictures are
copyrighted.

In the proposal, I linked to a few websites of some soft play centres,
where they have pictures, I hoped this would be fine.

Soft play is as Jonathan said, padding not inflatables.

Thanks,
Dom

On 23 October 2013 14:31, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:

On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Would they qualify as soft play?


No, that's a bouncy castle. Soft play is padding, not inflatables.


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

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




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




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


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

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

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Dress Code proposal


On 23/10/2013 12:27, pmsg wrote:

Generally, I think it is a good idea to map access restrictions related
to dresscode.
Similar kinds of access restrictions are: No knife, no camera, no
backpack, no cellphone, no food/drinks etc.


What about not being allowed in a bikeshed unless you have a bike?

J.

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

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres


On 23/10/2013 12:55, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

I think the proposal would benefit from a more precise definition.


Or you could just tag the ones you find using this perfectly sensible 
tag and not worry about it.


In the UK a Soft Play is a well-recognised and well-defined concept. If 
that concept doesn't exist elsewhere, fine, but don't stop this mapper 
from recording information because you don't like what colour the 
bikeshed is.


J.

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

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres


On 22/10/2013 16:43, Dominic Hosler wrote:

I have just proposed a tag to use for soft play centres.


Looks absolutely fine. There are times when I'd use it on a node when 
the soft play is just one part of a larger building, but that's pretty 
much standard OSM practice anyway.


Don't worry about having to explicity specify which other tags you can 
use with this one, since editor presets will take care of many of them 
anyway.


I'd just carry on mapping using this tag.

J.

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

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres


On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Would they qualify as soft play?


No, that's a bouncy castle. Soft play is padding, not inflatables.

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

Re: [Tagging] Dress Code proposal

2013-10-23 Thread Jonathan


I agree

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 17:00, John F. Eldredge wrote:
I think a better approach is to have a tag that links to the venue's 
web site, which we already have tags defined for.



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

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

2013-10-23 Thread Jonathan


Gives you a good idea what they are:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=softplayclient=firefox-ahs=U7Prls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialsource=lnmstbm=ischsa=Xei=CSBoUpT_B4S57AbYy4Aoved=0CAkQ_AUoAQbiw=1366bih=589

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Maybe a picture would help.



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

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

2013-10-23 Thread Jonathan

I agree, we need to choose a term that is more generic, maybe 
leisure=childrens_adventure or kids_play or kids_amusement.  There can 
always be a sub tag defining soft_play?


Especially considering that a lot of softplay areas are now included 
among other internal children's play features? Softplay is just one bit.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 17:47, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
Instead of soft play, what about indoor play (or indoor play 
area/centre)?


1) it seems to be used as a catch all sometimes, even in the UK (ie - 
http://www.timeout.com/london/events/indoor-play-centres-in-london or 
http://www.dayoutwiththekids.co.uk/things-to-do-family/Northampton/Indoor-Play-Areas)
2) it is broad enough to cover all of these sort of places, since some 
indoor play areas may only have some actual soft play equipment 
meant for younger kids/toddlers  (or, if you are only meaning the 
actual areas that have the soft play equipment, then that might be 
different)
3) it might make more sense for those outside the UK who don't use the 
term soft play much


Brad


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Dominic Hosler 
dominichos...@gmail.com mailto:dominichos...@gmail.com wrote:


Due to child protection, you are generally not allowed to take
pictures inside the soft-play centres. Also, any official pictures are
copyrighted.

In the proposal, I linked to a few websites of some soft play centres,
where they have pictures, I hoped this would be fine.

Soft play is as Jonathan said, padding not inflatables.

Thanks,
Dom

On 23 October 2013 14:31, Jonathan Bennett jonobenn...@gmail.com
mailto:jonobenn...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


 Would they qualify as soft play?


 No, that's a bouncy castle. Soft play is padding, not inflatables.


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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013-10-16 Thread Jonathan

Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We 
don't have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning 
pedestrians as well.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote:

Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used to
start this thread, and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
occur often:
* cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=no)
* cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=dismount)



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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013-10-14 Thread Jonathan


Wow, Oxford's parks sound a fun place to be! Not! ;-)

On a more serious note, I would have thought tagging this one: 
http://cycle.st/p17860 would be straight forward because no pedestrian 
and no bicycle also means no pushing a bicycle.  You gotta wonder who 
can use he gate? :-)


But thanks Stephen for the heads up on such tough restrictions on bike 
users in the UK, have never seen anything so extreme.  But then I've not 
been to Oxford for about 20 years!


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 14/10/2013 13:23, Stephen Gower wrote:

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

and [Neither cycling nor pushing allowed] would be an area/route
explicitly signed as e.g.  no bicycles not even pushed (Oxford
University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years ago).

Just for the record, this is still the case in Oxford University Parks, they
had a few months trial of allowing people to push bikes, and shortly after
the trial was over they put up the current, explicit signs:
http://cycle.st/p53524 http://cycle.st/p53525 (text reads NO CYCLES WHETHER
RIDDEN OR NOT)
The same is also true of Christ Church Meadows: http://cycle.st/p17860
http://cycle.st/p17861

Given people seem to be saying bicycle=no doesn't correspond to this
situation I'd be grateful for a tag, likely to be supported by routing
software etc, that does.

s

___
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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013-10-11 Thread Jonathan

No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is 
there.  We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we map the 
result of those signs. The signs are there for humans in the real world, 
we are representing the real world to computers.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

We can all decide that it's nonsense, and they shouldn't have done that, but 
that doesn't change the sign.
And we map what's there, not what we'd like to be there.



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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013-10-11 Thread Jonathan


http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg

This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to map 
that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is not 
allowed.  Although, in this case I can't see how that works, as a 
pedestrian how do you get to the other side of the service road because 
it would appear neither pedestrians nor cyclist are allowed on these 
sections? Typical idiocy of local bureaucrats.



http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 08:24, Petr Holub wrote:


Am 08.10.2013 20:16, schrieb Volker Schmidt:

Just for your reference - while for many cases, I agree that bicycle=no
is appropriate, there are quite interesting cycleways in the Czech
Republic, where using bicycle=dismount for nodes on a path would
make things easier for people editing OSM. Consider this:
http://img.ct24.cz/cache/900x700/article/20/1936/193540.jpg
http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg
(and don't ask me what idiot proposed a cycleway like this).

This is the standard way of doing things here in Italy as well. At 
every end of cycleway sign you are legally supposed to dismount and 
cross the lateral road as pedestrian



well, as it is also signed as the end of the legal footway/sidewalk - 
in my opinion it is no need for a _dismount_ there.
In my opinion it is just a legal backdoor, that on these driveways (or 
serviceways?) you leave the legal cycleway/footway (with the regarding 
legal rights above the otherwise crossing traffic) and have to obey 
the crossing traffic for your own risk - even as walker, but also as 
cyclist


Nobody actually dismounts in practice, but you're not legally allowed 
to use a normal pedestrian crossing (zebra) on your bike in the Czech 
Republic and should push. We also have a special zebra for bicycle 
crossing, but in that case the end of cycleway sign is not used. 
I've posted the most blatant examples of idiotic cycleways.


Petr



___
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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013-10-11 Thread Jonathan


+1 Totally agree, thanks Robert for a sensible summary.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 11/10/2013 11:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. There are
four combinations of access for bicycles and cyclists, depending on
whether you are allowed to cycle and/or allowed to
push a bike:

(a) Cycling and pushing both allowed
(b) Cycling allowed, but pushing not allowed
(c) Cycling not allowed, but pushing is allowed
(d) Neither cycling nor pushing allowed

I beleive all of these combinations are possible in real life. In the
UK (a) would be a normal cycleway that's shared with pedestrians, (b)
could occur on a cycleway that's only for cyclists (i.e. no
pedestrians allowed), (c) would be the case of (e.g.) a narrow bridge
on a cycle route, where dismount signs are shown, or a typical
pedestrian shopping street with no cycling signs, and (d) would be
an area/route explicitly signed as e.g. no bicycles not even pushed
(Oxford University Parks used to be like this until a couple of years
ago).

Clearly if you are travelling with a bike you would want to
distinguish between at least (a)/(b) vs. (c) vs. (d), to determine
where you can go with your bike and at what pace.

Currently the tagging used is bicycle=yes/no/dismount. The problem
with this is that while bicyle=dismount unambiguously indicates (c),
people have used bicycle=no for both (c) and (d) -- interpreting it as
either no cycling or no bicycles. Also (although less importantly)
using bicycle=yes offers no way to explicitly distinguish between
cases (a) and (b).

I would therefore propose a new access tag be introduced to capture
information about whether pushing a bike is allowed. I'll call this
bicycle_pushed for now, but the actual name is something that can  be
discussed and agreed upon later.

With this tag and the existing bicycle=* access tag (whose values are
now taken, as I believe was originally intended, to apply to 'cycling'
rather than 'bicycles'), it is now possible to unambiguously
distingiush between the four cases above:

(a) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=yes
(b) bicycle=yes + bicycle_pushed=no
(c) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes
(d) bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=no

bicycle=dismount is then deprecated, and the same information captured
by using bicycle=no + bicycle_pushed=yes (i.e. no cycling, but you can
push your bike).

For actual tagging use, It might be worth considering that whether, in
the absense of a bicycle_pushed tag, the presense of foot=yes implies
you can push a bicycle on that route -- which is probably a sensible
default in most of the world. Although we would have to think
carefully about how to handle the case of people who have previously
tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d).

Robert.

___
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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a 
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag 
the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude 
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.


However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't even 
be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag needs to 
be extended to include a no pushed bicycles option.  In those 
circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage trolley but 
not push a bike?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 18:30, Frank Little wrote:
It is no longer clear to me what is being proposed since two different 
situations are involved.


1. There are situations where there are signs telling a cyclist to 
dismount. He/she can continue on the way, pushing the bike.
To tag these situations the current solution is to tag 
bicycle=dismount.
The original question was: is it an 'official' sign? The answer 
seems to be, yes, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK).
We also have a similar sign in the Netherlands (although the legal 
status is not entirely clear).
Where there is a sign (and only in those situations), it makes sense 
to tag it accordingly. So there is no reason to deprecate the tag.
Possibly other tagging solutions need to be found where there is no 
explicit signage but there are general rules (e.g. in Italy).


2. A different situation is where a cyclist is explicitly forbidden to 
push the bike (e.g. through a pedestrian area) after dismounting.
The assumption is that a cyclist pushing a bike is to be treated as a 
pedestrian, and may normally use a sidewalk, pedestrian zone, etc.

Where that is not allowed, we need a different tag.
I don't like bicycle:dismount=no since it suggests to me that you do 
not have to dismount.
(On pragmatic grounds, I wouldn't tag this anyway because I don't 
expect routers to use highway=footway or area=pedestrian for bicycle 
routing.)




On 10.10.2013 16:28, fly wrote

+1 for a separate tag and deprecating  bicycle=dismount

On 08.10.2013 18:46, Tod Fitch wrote:

Would bicycle:dismount be better than bicycle_dismount? Seems like that
would be more in keeping with current key naming conventions.


The convention did change a bit by time and now : is more common than
_ but at the end it does not really matter.



Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

I think dismount should be a key, not a value - 
bicycle_dismount=yes/no.


On a typical sidewalk we have bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.

On some pedestrian streets in Netherlands we have bicycle=no +
bicycle_dismount=no

When bicycle_dismount is not tagged, it is the same as foot=*.

Bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle=no + bicycle_dismount=yes.


+1

cu fly




___
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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

It doesn't need a hint, it should be making that decision currently on 
all routes: is it quicker to get off and push if that is allowed.


Nothing needs to change to support this other than to tag routes using 
ACCESS that a bicycle can't be pushed on.


I reiterate, bicycle=dismount is a pointless tag, it shouldn't be 
there.  If you want to keep it then we need a car=slowdown and 
car=speedup tags.


The only need I can think of where you need to signal an unusual change 
that access can't cover is a turn restriction that says cycles can't 
turn right but maybe have to use some underpass for safety reasons.  
This is already covered by existing tags and methods.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 19:03, Mike N wrote:

On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote:

The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access
tag to exclude bicycles.


What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this 
route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking 
speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to 
take a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.



___
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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways


If you can't cycle on a way then it isn't a cycleway!

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 19:10, SomeoneElse wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a 
change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown!  The only way to tag 
the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclude 
bicycles. As I see it it's that simple.


Here's an example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26194733

looks like a cycleway and quacks like a cycleway - it's clearly a 
cycleway.  It also has a cyclists dismount sign on it.


Cheers,

Andy


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



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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Nope, the only difference is a way changes from a way that can contain 
cycles to a route that can't, it's an access issue.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 19:18, Mike N wrote:

On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote:

What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this
route instead of taking a longer route?   Knowing that speed = walking
speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to 
take

a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.

And why do you need bicycle=dismount for this ?

Think the width of the footpath is much more important.


 Nope, the width of the path is the same - the only difference is the 
side rails and the bicyclists must dismount sign.



___
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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways


So what is it about?

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/10/2013 21:46, Frank Little wrote:
Yes, the intention is to stop people pushing their bikes in a 
pedestrian area.

No limitation on prams, wheelchairs, luggage trolleys, etc.
It's just aimed at bikes (which in a country with lots of bikes, like 
the Netherlands, is understandable).


Again: this really is not what bicycle=dismount is about.

- Original Message - From: Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways




However, if there is a situation in a country where a bicycle can't 
even be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag 
needs to be extended to include a no pushed bicycles option.  In 
those circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage 
trolley but not push a bike?


Jonathan





___
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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways