Re: [Tagging] iD Editor - unclear translations ( QA ) - 2018Oct

2018-10-06 Thread José G Moya Y .
I think these unclear translations come from the fact different languages
make a different split in the world. As an example, in Spanish we have many
different words (bar, mesón, restaurante, cantina, café, cafetería,
chiringuito,  pub/bar de copas, cervecería, bodeguilla, whiskería,
taberna,  txoko, peña) for what english splits into
bar/restaurant/pub/café. Bars are for Spanish language what snow is for
inuit language...

Obviously the Spanish team is not interested in creating new categories as
"amenity:meson: a dirty bar that also serves as cheap restaurant where you
can drop olive kernels and prawn carcasses straight into the ground." or
"amenity:chiringuito: a kiosk in the seashore where cheap food and drink is
served at incredibly expensive prices."
.
But some users are interested in making these differences.

Regards,

José.




El vie., 5 oct. 2018 a las 23:52, Imre Samu ()
escribió:

> extra:
>
> Languages - sorted by FREQ of unclear translations :  ( descending )
> * 61 tr
> * 59 he
> * 50 uk
> * 40 da
> * 38 it
> * 36 ro
> * 30 is
> * 29 pl
> * 27 lt
> * 26 ast
> * 25 ca
> * 24 zh-TW
> * 21 no
> * 21 fi
> * 20 vi
> * 20 sl
> * 20 ko
> * 20 gl
> * 20 el
> * 19 lv
> * 18 hr
> * 18 fa
> * 18 ar
> * 16 sv
> * 16 mk
> * 16 et
> * 14 sr
> * 14 sk
> * 14 ru
> * 12 zh-HK
> * 12 zh
> * 12 pt-BR
> * 12 pt
> * 12 es
> * 11 zh-CN
> * 10 nl
> * 10 id
> * 10 de
> * 10 af
> *  8 ta
> *  6 hu
> *  6 eo
> *  4 so
> *  4 ja
> *  4 dv
> *  4 cs
> *  4 bs
> *  2 te
> *  2 ms
> *  2 ckb
> *  2 bn
> *  2 bg
>
> Imre
>
>
> Imre Samu  ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 5., P,
> 23:00):
>
>> Hi,
>> I have created an experimental QA report about the same/unclear
>> translations.
>> and now about ~450 unclear translations pair detected.
>>  ( same translations AND different osm keys! )
>>
>> if you know any language - please check!( discuss in your local osm
>> list! )
>>
>> Current status ( you can edit the "C" column  - if you fixed )
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DNNuPjjnp6oOXLS2Wtrn__NdCtFN7wy7Lvdm7K1bES0/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> comment:
>>
>> presetKey =  tags0+tags1+tags2 + ... tags4
>> If you want to understand iD Editor presets
>> *  https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/presets/README.md
>> *
>> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#translating
>> this is related to: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5323
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> hr Fakultetsko zemljište College Grounds amenity/college
>> hr Fakultetsko zemljište University Grounds amenity/university
>> hr Groblje Cemetery landuse/cemetery
>> hr Groblje Graveyard amenity/grave_yard
>> hr Knjižara Book Store shop/books
>> hr Knjižara Stationery Store shop/stationery
>> hr Krojač Tailor shop/tailor
>> hr Krojač Dressmaker craft/dressmaker
>> hr Odmorište Rest Area highway/rest_area
>> hr Odmorište Service Area highway/services
>> hr Travnjak Grassland natural/grassland
>> hr Travnjak Grass landuse/grass
>> hr Uspornik Speed Bump traffic_calming/bump
>> hr Uspornik Speed Hump traffic_calming/hump
>> hr Vinarija Wine Shop shop/wine
>> hr Vinarija Winery craft/winery
>> hr Zgrada fakulteta College Building building/college
>> hr Zgrada fakulteta University Building building/university
>>
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>> it Campo da bocce Bowling Green leisure/pitch/bowls
>> it Campo da bocce Boules/Bocce Court leisure/pitch/boules
>> it Campo da gioco Sport Pitch leisure/pitch
>> it Campo da gioco Recreation Ground landuse/recreation_ground
>> it Capanno Shed building/shed
>> it Capanno Hut building/hut
>> it Cimitero Graveyard amenity/grave_yard
>> it Cimitero Cemetery landuse/cemetery
>> it Dormitorio Dormitory building/dormitory
>> it Dormitorio Homeless Shelter amenity/social_facility/homeless_shelter
>> it Foresta Wood natural/wood
>> it Foresta Forest landuse/forest
>> it Fotografo Photographer craft/photographer
>> it Fotografo Photography Store shop/photo
>> it Garage Garage building/garage
>> it Garage Garages building/garages
>> it Girello Play Roundabout playground/roundabout
>> it Girello Basket Spinner playground/basket_spinner
>> it Lavanderia Dry Cleaner shop/dry_cleaning
>> it Lavanderia Laundry shop/laundry
>> it Negozio Shop shop
>> it Negozio Retail Building building/retail
>> it Negozio di elettronica Electronics Store shop/electronics
>> it Negozio di elettronica Radio/Electronic Component Store
>> shop/radiotechnics
>> it Sartoria Dressmaker craft/dressmaker
>> it Sartoria Tailor shop/tailor
>> it Scivolo Slide playground/slide
>> it Scivolo Water Slide attraction/water_slide
>> it Serra Greenhouse Horticulture landuse/greenhouse_horticulture
>> it Serra Greenhouse building/greenhouse
>> it Stadio Stadium leisure/stadium
>> it Stadio Stadium Building building/stadium
>> it Teleferica Goods 

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

2018-10-01 Thread José G Moya Y .
Michael Booth says that this is not a tower, but it seems to have stairs
inside, and even windows.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzien
ne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq

WP says it is over 100m tall, too.

I don't have a telecomm background, but I think the "seems to be a
building, is hollow inside and has normal stairs instead of outer ladder"
is a good hint for casual mappers.


El lun., 1 oct. 2018 16:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
escribió:

>
>
> Am Mo., 1. Okt. 2018 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com>:
>
>> The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same
>> width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more
>> supports.
>>
>
>
> I would not negate that a mast can be tapered.
>
>
>
>>
>> I do think we need something simple to distinguish simple mobile phone
>> towers like (1) and larger television/radio broadcast towers like (2)
>> and it seems like mast/tower is it.
>>
>
>
> If this is the reason why we need a distinction, I'd rather use tags that
> state it, then rely on some indirect fuzzy mast/tower distinction.
> man_made=broadcast_tower vs. man_made=cellphone_tower (for example).
> Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
> different keys wasn't  a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
> confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
> people want to distinguish).
>
> 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 - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

2018-09-20 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
If we start mapping refill=soft_drinks;coffee... and so on, how would you
map sites where some soft drinks are refillable and some are not?
As an example, in Ikea the bottled unsugared top-brand cola drink (I don't
remember whether it is coke zero or pepsi max) can not be refilled, where
the unbottled sugared own-brand cola drink can be refilled.
Would you tag Ikea as
"refill=coffee;pear_drink;blueberry_drink;tea_unsugared_drink;cola_sugared_drink"?


El jue., 20 sept. 2018 14:25, bkil  escribió:

> Thanks for your local insights. I believe that the UK program called
> "Refill" used the word in a different meaning as well, hence the key
> `free_refill=*` could lead to confusion in the future.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refill_(scheme)
>
> Listing the semicolon-separated list of refillable beverages in the
> value part of the tags sounds like a good idea.
>
> I like your take with `drinking_water=customers`, let me update my
> proposal to this one.
>
> My original idea was to add `drinking_water=yes` as well to such
> shops, but has received chilling responses so far.
>
> And do you think that a note to users may be warranted, like
> `drinking_water:description="on request"`? A potential barrier may be
> a tourist who does not speak the local language. She could definitely
> use an unattended water tap either inside or outside the pub, but may
> have trouble describing to the staff that she wants water but only the
> free, non-mineral, non-carbonated variant so it will be free. They
> could mix up the intention with the `owncup` campaign where you get a
> discount when using your own cup/container for your orders. I imagine
> pubs would gladly refill with premium content "by accident" in many
> such cases, or at least I know countries where this would be
> commonplace. I'll add this case to the description.
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:32 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > I see that the suggestions about "free refills" are included here
> because there was some confusion about the use of "free_refill=yes" in
> central Europe. The English word "refill" implies that it is the second
> time something has been filled. Thus a customer may request that their
> glass be filled again with the same beverage.
> >
> > I'd suggest a separate proposal page to discuss the free_refill=yes tag.
> >
> > In North America, free beverage refills are limited to "soft drinks"
> (aka fizzy drinks / pop / soda / cola depending on dialect), tea and brewed
> coffee. Alcoholic beverages, espresso and specialty coffee drinks, and
> other specialty beverage are usually excluded. I don't recall every seeing
> free refills of lemonade or fruit juice.
> >
> > So it would be sufficient to have
> free_refill=coffee/tea/soft_drink/yes/no free_refill=yes would imply that
> all customers can get free refills on coffee, tea and soft drinks, if all
> are offered. Or at a cafe that only serves coffee and tea, free_refill=yes
> would mean free refills on coffee and tea (since soft drinks are not
> available)
> >
> > Some places only offer refills for free on one category. For example, a
> cafe or "diner" may only offer free refills of brewed coffee, while a fast
> food restaurant often offers free refills of "soft drinks" but not coffee.
> In this case the specific free_refill=coffee or free_refill=soft_drink
> would be used.
> >
> > I don't think it is necessary to use a more complicated namespaced tag,
> such as free_refill:coffee=yes, though that could be an alternative.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I’d suggest keeping it simple by using existing tags when possible.
> >>
> >> If a cafe or shop gives out free water for customers, tag the shop or
> cafe with “drinking_water=customers”. If it’s for anyone,
> “drinking_water=yes” is currently used. I don’t see a need for a new tag
> “drinking_water=ask”
> >>
> >> If there is a drinking fountain, water tap or bottle refill station in
> a shopping mall or building that has opening_hours, just use
> amenity=drinking_water plus opening_hours=* on the node. Man_made=water_tap
> or =drinking_fountain or =water_well can also be added to the same node for
> more detail.
> >>
> >> I believe amenity=drinking_water implies no fee, and public access, so
> these characteristics do not require explicit tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 8:57 PM bkil  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to discuss three related proposals and two separate ones that
> >>> can be confused with the others. In all the below cases, the
> >>> availability is tied to the opening_hours of the containing POI.
> >>>
> >>> Five separate proposals could have been created, but I feel that the
> >>> concepts and words describe these are so close, it is best to have a
> >>> good overview.
> >>>
> >>> I'm open to suggestions both related to the tags themselves and how we
> >>> should structure and document this proposal in the wiki.
> >>>
> 

[Tagging] Telephone exchange

2018-09-16 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!

Path 374362033 ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374362033 ) is a
building with no windows in Calle del Fúcar, 28014 Madrid that contains a
phone exchange (originally it was a gigantic relay system for the phones of
the area, now probably replaced with smaller computers and
microcontrollers).
It is tagged as "building=central office", a non-standard tag.
I wonder if tagging it as "building=industrial" would be better, despite of
the whole neigbourhood being officially classified as "tertiary use"
(non-industrial).

Or maybe "building=yes" would be just enough. Path 28996211 (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28996211 ) is a similar phone exchange
building, near Delicias, Madrid, enough old to be announced as "phone
booths that way" on the street. It is tagged as "building=yes".

Do you think I should change the tag on 374362033?

Yours,
José Moya
Madrid
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] What is a VTC car in OSM ?

2018-08-21 Thread José G Moya Y .
VTC is how rental cars with professional driver are called in Spain. I
think the rest of the thread clarifies this: It is the Spanish name for
Uber, Cabify and other companies that provide private transport services
but are not taxis (their cars are not equipped with taxi meter).




El mar., 21 ago. 2018 8:15, Steve Doerr  escribió:

> On 20/08/2018 22:05, yo paseopor wrote:
> > These days I am editing Barcelona's harbour. One of the things I saw
> > there is some places for VTC car (like taxi but private: Uber, Cabify).
>
>
> What does VTC stand for?
>
>
> --
>
> Steve
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

2018-08-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Well, from the mapping point of view, these political differences between a
Spanish small village and a Spanish big hamlet matter:

1) Villages have their own major, so they have a town hall.
2) Villages have their own local rules on max speed, buildings, street
markets and banking holidays. So a van driver looking to sell his/her
watermellon cargo could need to know this fact.

El sáb., 18 ago. 2018 20:31, djakk djakk  escribió:

> I agree with Michael, openstreetmap should reflect what the mapers see,
> not what the politics and the administration see. Though it is also
> interesting to map administrative things like borders.
>
> djakk
>
>
> Le sam. 18 août 2018 à 17:33, Yves  a écrit :
>
>> Michael, you don't seem to take the right direction to construct a
>> fruitful discussion with Jose :)
>> For your first issue, did you reach the Lithuanian and Russian community?
>>
>> Yves
>>
>> Le 18 août 2018 16:37:28 GMT+02:00, Michael Tsang  a
>> écrit :
>>>
>>> On Saturday 18 August 2018 22:10:15 HKT José G Moya Y. wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Plwase take into notice that, in some countries, the difference between
>>>>  suburb, hamlet, town or village is not only based on population but in
>>>>  political issues, such as self-government, also.
>>>>
>>>>  When I see my hometown is defined as "aldea" (hamlet) in wikidata I always
>>>>  got angry, because, being statistically a hamlet (~200 people), it *is*
>>>>  politically a *village* (it elects its own town major and has its own self
>>>>  government and budget).
>>>>
>>>>  There are many such villages in Spain, (specially in the "Spanish 
>>>> Finland",
>>>>  the demographic desert between Soria and Teruel) and that is a point of
>>>>  conflict with many EU directives that request villages provide services a
>>>>  such small villages can't afford.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But does it look like a village from an untrained eye? i.e. what services 
>>> does
>>> it provide? If it really provides services that a village provide than it is
>>> really a village.
>>>
>>> If I am doing the mapping, if the settlement is small (less than 200 people)
>>> AND does not provide services where a village should provide, I will mark it
>>> as a hamlet despite every official designation.
>>>
>>> ___
>> 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] consensus needed: officially a town but visibly distinct settlements?

2018-08-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Plwase take into notice that, in some countries, the difference between
suburb, hamlet, town or village is not only based on population but in
political issues, such as self-government, also.

When I see my hometown is defined as "aldea" (hamlet) in wikidata I always
got angry, because, being statistically a hamlet (~200 people), it *is*
politically a *village* (it elects its own town major and has its own self
government and budget).

There are many such villages in Spain, (specially in the "Spanish Finland",
the demographic desert between Soria and Teruel) and that is a point of
conflict with many EU directives that request villages provide services a
such small villages can't afford.




El sáb., 18 ago. 2018 15:10, Michael Tsang  escribió:

> Dear all,
>
> I visited the whole Curonian Spit last month (the whole 100 km from
> Zelenogradsk to Smiltynė) and made some edits on it according to
> observations
> from my eye. These edits got reverted on the basis that I have "no local
> knowledge" (I made the edits completely on observations - "If it looks
> like a
> duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a
> duck.")
>
> Basically there were 2 sets of edit which got reverted, I am going to
> focus on
> the issue of settlement tagging here (another set is road tagging):
>
> 1. I have marked the settlements from Nida to Alksnynė, from suburb to
> town/
> village/hamlet, because they are clearly distinct settlements from eyes,
> separated by the forest, and relabelled Neringa to be a municipality.
>
> One more reason of that is we are expecting the name "Nida" shown as the
> town
> because we, as a tourist, is expecting to visit Nida (that town is
> generally
> known as Nida rather than Neringa)
>
> The changesets are 61735279 and 61735890. If we look at the history of
> Nida
> and Alksnynė, they were mapped as town and hamlet respectively initially,
> but
> got changed to suburb about 3 years ago.
>
> Smiltynė can be reasonably considered part of Klaipėda (only a short ferry
> ride) so it is a suburb out of question.
>
> According to the wiki, "OSM's usage of 'suburb' is different than that
> used by
> North American English, where a suburb is "an area, often residential,
> outside
> of a central city". Often these suburbs are distinct settlements and will
> be
> tagged as place=village, place=town, or place=city, depending on factors
> such
> as population." What I see those settlements seems to be the North
> American
> definition because they are distinct residential areas outside the central
> town Nida.
>
> These got reverted in 61762622, saying (translated) "Bookmark management
> (canceled guessing without local knowledge)" and a comment is left on my
> changeset 61735279 "Reverted incorrect change with no local knowledge.",
> and
> "Whole Curonian Spit is officialy one town. Therefore no hamlets inside."
>
> Well, the southern settlements, Morskoye, Rybachy and Lesnoy, have been
> marked
> since the beginning villages and hamlets with no change afterwards, but
> they
> are officially belongs to the same "Curonian Spit rural settlement",
> similar
> to Nida to Alksnynė which officially belongs to "Neringa municipality"
> with
> its capital in Nida.
>
> So I doubt if it is reasonable to mark those settlements "which belongs to
> a
> city municipality (although there is no true city there) but distinct
> (seperated by forest) from a naked eye" as "suburb", rather than
> town/village/
> hamlet/etc, and need community consensus on this.
>
> Michael
> --
> Sent from KMail___
> 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] When is a way not a way? [Was: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)]

2018-08-13 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
In a post about access=permit, Kevin Kevin wrote:


El lun., 13 ago. 2018 18:10, Kevin Kenny 
escribió:

>  - what is the
> point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
> not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an
> answer other than 'no'.
>

In Madrid we have some streets that have a street plaque but are completely
closed to cars or even walking people. I call them "streets that are not
streets". One example is Calle Maestro Tellería in Madrid:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85518639

That street is closed with a lift gate and it is exclusively used as
parking space by people working on Ministry of Health-care or Consejo
Económico y Social (a consultive government agency).

But the most stupid no-street is Calle Francisco Piquer: it is completely
closed with fences (no doors on it) and served as a backyard for Palacio de
las Alhajas, a former pawnhouse and bank:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31053349

I know the following question is off-topic on this group, but I'm curious:

Are there many of these no-streets on your cities?

Are they mapped?

Are they named upon someone, as Madrid no-streets are?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

2018-07-27 Thread José G Moya Y .
 Hi!

For the rest of us

Like Kevin, I followed this email list for a couple years. The first case I
read about was the lakes of Alaska (Sept 21st 2017), but I'm sure there
were more threads on this matter before.

For cases where you get your permit on the entrance of a national park or
similar, I understand "access=customers" is fine, since, as you'll do in a
theme park, you have to make a reservation and buy tickets, in some cases
limited to a few visitors. In this I agree with Marc.

For cases where there is not obvious "entrance gate" I'm not sure of how
you would map it.

An example would be Cíes Islands in Galicia, Spain, where limited visitors
are allowed every day -- "licences" are usually included with boat tickets,
but last year there was an scandal when government discovered boat tickets
overpassed the allowed number of licences. ¿Is it access=customers? ¿Are
the customers of the many boat companies travelling to Cíes also the
customers of the Cíes National Park?

Also, there is the case of the closed city centres, "Low Emission Zones",
discused in another thread, I don't recall the outcome of the thread on Low
Emission Zones, just that they have their own tag. despite they could be
tagged as "private" or "customers" if we follow the line of thought of Marc
and most people on this list. Their rules are similar to what you could
consider a special case of "permit" or "licence". In current Madrid LEZ,
permit is granted to residents, hotel hostages, some kinds of vehicles
(including high-polluting motorcycles) and people who has requested a
permit negotiated by an area resident. The rules will change next November,
but I think the situation will be similar.

P.D. Javier, remember OSM uses British English, so "licence" would be
preferred to "license".

Yours,

José

2018-07-27 9:25 GMT+02:00 Javier Sánchez Portero :

> What's about access=license? For me it has the same meaning. It has 245
> uses and is documented https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dlicense.
>
> Javier
>
>
> 2018-07-27 6:22 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> 27. Lipiec 2018 03:38 od t...@fitchdesign.com:
>>
>>
>> My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is
>> anything that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on
>> how to tag. Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your
>> thinking on how something should be tagged so it is worth submitting.
>>
>>
>> Tagging mailing list is not a decision making comiite. It is a place to
>> get a feedback.
>>
>>
>> I remember some cases with "this is a bad idea" consensus, for some
>> really poor ideas.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] RFC: property for the presence of pitch markings

2018-07-27 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi, Martin,

What about if there is a basketball pitch (basketball hoops are on the
pitch) but lines are for futsal only?

Maybe some like this?

leisure=pitch
pitch=basket; futsal
lines:futsal =yes
lines:basketball =no


Yours,
José

2018-07-27 0:43 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 26/07/18 23:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Please comment on this proposal for a property to denote the presence of
>> pitch markings / field markings.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pitch_markings
>>
>> I would particularly be interested to learn from you, if there should be
>> suggestions for more detail (e.g. multiple overlapping markings, fainted
>> /incomplete markings, ) to cram into the values, or if a simple yes/no
>> seems more appropriate.
>>
>>
> The basketball wiki page has suggestions for line makings ..
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dbasketball
>
> lines:basketball=yes/red/yellow/*
>
> The tag allows multiple sport lines in different colours.
>
> I think it should only be used on paved areas, other surfaces are too
> temporary unless well maintained.
>
> -
>
> The leisure=pitch is not a usefull combination .. it is a 'required
> combination'.
>
> ___
> 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] "sym" tag

2018-07-24 Thread José G Moya Y .
El mar., 24 jul. 2018 17:38, Andy Townsend  escribió:

What you would need to do would be different for the next one though.  You
can't assume that (e.g. "sym=church" actually means a church on the
ground.  You'll have to do this on a case by case basis.

In fact, know it's not church but a hermit.

Regarding the rendering, I've discovered there was a
amenity=place_of_worship  node hidden under the marker of the node I was
talking about. That explains it being rendered.

El mar., 24 jul. 2018 17:38, Andy Townsend  escribió:

> On 24/07/2018 15:59, José G Moya Y. wrote:
>
> I've found some places of worship tagged with the undocumented
> "sym=church" tag.
>
>
> They're from Garmin waypoints.  See
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sym for other examples.  Don't
> just mechanically edit them, because there are likely other (different)
> issues with each one.
>
> Taking a specific example:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1420261739/history
>
> (according to Overpass that's the nearest "sym" to where I am right now)
>
> Here there are a couple of obvious issues:
>
>- It has an unfeasibly accurate "ele" tag
>- It has a "sym" tag which makes no sense
>- The "time" tag isn't really relevant to OSM
>- It's on a the T-junction of 3 walls.
>
>
> In this case I'd:
>
>- Verify the gate location from imagery if possible (likely it's north
>of south of the wall join)
>- Remove the "sym" tag
>- Remove the "time" tag
>- Remove the decimal points from the "ele" tag (or remove it
>altogether if it looks unfeasible)
>- Upload to OSM with a changeset comment that said what you did and
>why, and what imagery you used.
>
>
> What you would need to do would be different for the next one though.  You
> can't assume that (e.g. "sym=church" actually means a church on the
> ground.  You'll have to do this on a case by case basis.
>
>
> It's surprising to see how these places are being rendered as churches despite
> of this tag does not appear in the wiki (and no other tag related with
> worship is in the place).
>
>
> I'd be really surprised if any software (other than Garmin's waypoint
> display) actually renders these as churches.
>
> However, I'm sure that lots of maps renders things that aren't listed in
> the wiki (different types of shops is an obvious example).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] "sym" tag

2018-07-24 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
I've found some places of worship tagged with the undocumented "sym=church"
tag.
It appears to be added from some old software, since the"name" tag in the
same element is truncated to eight characters.

It's surprising to see how these places are being rendered as churches despite
of this tag does not appear in the wiki (and no other tag related with
worship is in the place).

Should I delete the "sym" tag after tagging the building with a more proper
tag?

Yours,
José G. Moya Yangüela
Spain
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Spanish "manors"

2018-07-04 Thread José G Moya Y .
Search in this list for "[Tagging] Manor tagging" around march 14th.
The manor is the area around the house (la finca)
The manor house it the house itself.
Yours,
José Moya

El 4/7/2018 12:36 PM, "César Martínez Izquierdo" 
escribió:

> Hi,
>
> I wonder the best way to tag Spanish historic farmhouses ("masías"
> [1], "caseríos" [2] "cortijos", "pazos", etc), since I find no proper
> value of "historic" for them.
>
> They are prominent buildings that are spread all over the country,
> dating from at least the XVII century and in some cases having Roman
> origins. Some of them are still used as farmhouses, but most of them
> are abandoned or have a different use nowadays: museums, hotels,
> private houses, etc. They had great importance in the past since they
> were used to administer the fields surrounding them. Nowadays the are
> relevant from the point of view of architecture and they are also
> important landmarks in the rural areas. They are named (e.g. "Masía
> Tristán") and its name has been extended to identify the area
> surrounding them.
>
> I think that the best way is to tag their current use (e.g.
> building=hotel, or building=civic+tourism=museum, etc) and then use
> the "historic" tag to note they are a historic farmhouse.
>
> I see different options for the proper historic value.
>
> 1- historic=manor
> 2- historic=farmhouse
> 3- historic=masia, historic=cortijo, etc
>
> I wonder if option 1 (manor) is too specific to UK or it can be
> applied also to these kind of building.
>
> OSM wiki states: "The manor tag is intended only for representative
> buildings that are in the same time the administrative center of a
> large agricultural estate. Buildings lacking this economic feature
> should not be tagged.".
>
> Regarding option 2, this would be a new value for historic, and I am
> not sure it will really catch the historic relevance of the building.
> We don't tag it as historic because it was a farmhouse, but because of
> its architecture and historic relevance in administering the lands
> surrounding it.
>
> The 3rd option (using different values for each kind building) looks a
> bit overkilling, since there are many different names (masía,
> alquería, cortijo, caserío, pazo, cigarral, quinta, carmen, etc, etc)
> and this would create too much tag fragmentation.
>
> Finally, there is also historic=farm, but it does not fit in this case
> according its definition.
>
> Opinions?
>
> César Martínez
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masia
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baserri
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortijo
> [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazo
>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>César Martínez Izquierdo
>GIS developer
>-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
>SCOLAB: http://www.scolab.es
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

2018-06-11 Thread José G Moya Y .
Thank you!

Regards,

José

El lun., 11 de junio de 2018 7:59, 
escribió:

> There is already:
>
>
>
> amenity=waste_basket + waste=dog_excrement
>
>
>
> often co-located with a:
>
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dexcrement_bags
>
>
>
> Tagging of collection bags and bins should probably make use of existing
> tags for such features instead of adding new ones.
>
>
>
> Same in regards to availability of water, though I haven’t looked into
> what if any existing tags are already used for that.
>
>
>
> *From:* José G Moya Y. 
> *Sent:* Monday, 11 June 2018 15:49
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area
> (dog_toilet)
>
>
>
> Hi!
>
> Just a question. I think someone else (or maybe myself) asked it on a
> previous discussion. You provide means to tag collection bags and bins.
>
> How do we tag when we only have the bins (but not a dedicated poop area)?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Greetings from Madrid,
>
>
>
> José Moya
>
>
>
> El lun., 11 de junio de 2018 0:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> On 11/06/18 02:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 10. Jun 2018 14:50 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>
> The four options could be moved somewhere else; I just left them for
> reference. What should I do with them? I'd hate to just delete it.
>
>
>
> I edited page to describe them as considered and rejected alternatives.
>
>
> I would move them (all the detail) to the 'discussion page' to remove
> clutter. Leave a comment on it on the main page referring to the discussion
> page if they want more info.
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - Dog poop area (dog_toilet)

2018-06-10 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
Just a question. I think someone else (or maybe myself) asked it on a
previous discussion. You provide means to tag collection bags and bins.
How do we tag when we only have the bins (but not a dedicated poop area)?

Thanks.

Greetings from Madrid,

José Moya

El lun., 11 de junio de 2018 0:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 11/06/18 02:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 10. Jun 2018 14:50 by joost.schou...@gmail.com:
>
> The four options could be moved somewhere else; I just left them for
> reference. What should I do with them? I'd hate to just delete it.
>
>
> I edited page to describe them as considered and rejected alternatives.
>
>
> I would move them (all the detail) to the 'discussion page' to remove
> clutter. Leave a comment on it on the main page referring to the discussion
> page if they want more info.
> ___
> 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=no for bus lanes

2018-06-09 Thread José G Moya Y .
IHi!
I think bike/charriot/horse/motorbike access should not be taked for
granted in bus lanes, as you said.

In my city, bikes are forbidden in bus lanes. They are too narrow to allow
a bus overpass a bycicle, and not all bycicles are faster than a bus.

In Madrid, bikes should use the rightmost lane that is not a bus lane; if
there are more non-bus lanes in the street, leftmost non-bus lane will be
considered a 30kph "shared" lane (and the other ones 50kph lanes).

Yours,
José.



El sáb., 9 de junio de 2018 11:14, Neil Matthews 
escribió:

> I quite often find "access=no", replaced by "motor_vehicle=no" by armchair
> editors -- I think they want to make sure that horses can use the bus lanes?
>
> Neil
>
> On 08/06/2018 13:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2018-06-08 10:44 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe :
>
>>
>> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find
>> this too restrictive.
>> Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot.
>> It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes actually
>>
>
>
> for bus _lanes_ access=no will typically make sense, for bus _roads_ (i.e.
> only busses allowed on the road, but there might be other non-lanes
> included in the highway, like sidewalks) I have sometimes found this
> applied by error, because mappers forgot about the pedestrians.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] marking shop as street vendor

2018-05-28 Thread José G Moya Y .
I forgot to include the point of my previous message -- I think that being
dismantled every night is not so important.

P.D. Enviado desde un móvil (celular). Disculpe las erratas. No veo bien la
pantalla...

El lun., 28 de mayo de 2018 7:51, José G Moya Y. <josem...@gmail.com>
escribió:

> Three years ago I read about rules for street vendors in my city, Madrid.
> The rules design as "street vendors" a mix of:
>
> a) Newsagent kiosks and similar (ONCE kiosks). Most of them are permanent,
> not dismantled at night.
> b) Churro/french fries/hot dog vans/kiosks. They operate on winter only,
> some of them are not dismantled.
> c) Mellon and watermellon kiosks. They operate on summer only.
> d) street markets.
> All of these have to apply in order to operate, and they are always
> "parked" at the same point. A list of all them is issued once per year.
>
> Despite this, many other "street vendors" operate out of official rules,
> either applying for a yearly event or asking permission on a per-event
> basis. These other vendors (including most hipster street food vans) are
> not considered "street vendors" on city regulations.
>
> And there are also the allegal-illegal street vendors, such piracy
> merchandise vendors and homemade tamal vendors, not covered by any
> regulation.
>
> P.D. Enviado desde un móvil (celular). Disculpe las erratas. No veo bien
> la pantalla...
>
> El lun., 28 de mayo de 2018 1:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graemefi...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 09:07, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How about outdoor_vendor?
>>>
>>> However, both of the examples you give are the sort that usually don't
>>> have fixed assignments for vendors
>>> so you couldn't map them at stall level anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough on both counts,
>>
>> Would you tag the entire area eg
>> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0641793,153.4386994,81m/data=!3m1!1e3
>> as outdoor_vendor though?, or is that considered implicit in it being a
>> marketplace?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

2018-05-27 Thread José G Moya Y .
Three years ago I read about rules for street vendors in my city, Madrid.
The rules design as "street vendors" a mix of:

a) Newsagent kiosks and similar (ONCE kiosks). Most of them are permanent,
not dismantled at night.
b) Churro/french fries/hot dog vans/kiosks. They operate on winter only,
some of them are not dismantled.
c) Mellon and watermellon kiosks. They operate on summer only.
d) street markets.
All of these have to apply in order to operate, and they are always
"parked" at the same point. A list of all them is issued once per year.

Despite this, many other "street vendors" operate out of official rules,
either applying for a yearly event or asking permission on a per-event
basis. These other vendors (including most hipster street food vans) are
not considered "street vendors" on city regulations.

And there are also the allegal-illegal street vendors, such piracy
merchandise vendors and homemade tamal vendors, not covered by any
regulation.

P.D. Enviado desde un móvil (celular). Disculpe las erratas. No veo bien la
pantalla...

El lun., 28 de mayo de 2018 1:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
escribió:

>
>
>
> On 28 May 2018 at 09:07, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> How about outdoor_vendor?
>>
>> However, both of the examples you give are the sort that usually don't
>> have fixed assignments for vendors
>> so you couldn't map them at stall level anyway.
>>
>
> Fair enough on both counts,
>
> Would you tag the entire area eg
> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0641793,153.4386994,81m/data=!3m1!1e3 as
> outdoor_vendor though?, or is that considered implicit in it being a
> marketplace?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

2018-05-23 Thread José G Moya Y .
El mié., 23 de mayo de 2018 9:28, Javier Sánchez Portero <
javiers...@gmail.com> escribió:

>
>
> Anyway, for your example of the LR-333 road, most of the time it isn't
> enough wide for two cars to pass comfortably (see here
> https://goo.gl/maps/6PC2Wfkfw7A2 like the van has to put the wheel in the
> border line and probably stop). In this case, lanes=1, oneway=no is the
> best tagging.
>

I don't know why is this image tagged as LR-333, since this is
CL--SO-Whatever (Soria side). My interest was in how to tag the Rioja-style
twoway-onelane roads, which are marked as twolane roads with a nonstandard
road sign with the text "línea central solo marca eje carretera" (middle
line just marks middle of road").
According to wiki definition, that way would be considered twolane (since
the only standard marking on it is a lane divisor), despite of being a
defacto onelane road.
(Painting a single line on the middle is cheaper than painting a line on
each border).

Anyway, the entire riad (all segments) should be tagged as Javier says.

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


Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

2018-05-23 Thread José G Moya Y .
@Martin:I don't want to be a troll, but I feel there is some inconsistence
between answers in this thread and answers in cycle:lanes last week.

@javier, yopaseopor: I don't drive, but I think you can overtake a Guardia
Civil car in two-way roads where there are one lane.
The cycle:lane thread told much about what is and isn't to be marked as
lane, and one case came to my mind.
 Think of the road from Villoslada de Cameros, Rioja, Spain and Montenegro
de Cameros, Soria, SameCountry. Rioja side is a two-fake-lanes road ("line
between lanes just mark centre of road") while Soria side is a two way one
lane road (markings at sides of the road). The width of the road is the
same.



P.D. Enviado desde un móvil (celular). Disculpe las erratas. No veo bien la
pantalla...

El 23/5/2018 7:16,  escribió:





*From:* yo paseopor 
*Sent:* Wednesday, 23 May 2018 04:11

*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings



oneway=no

lanes=1

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYQQwOGMPC6imwyGhMHMCg





I would consider that wrong.



lanes=1

oneway=no



is a road that is so narrow that opposing traffic can only pass by slowing
down and making use of shoulder/verge to pass each other. Or maybe even has
the need to look for a
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=passing_place to be able to
pass each other (like the example image shown on that page).



What your image above shows is pretty clearly a lanes=2, which you can see
very well by just following the street a few meters:



https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6QXgHLK26FTMlmovwuaxfg



as you can see, there are clear road markings establishing two lanes.





Here is an example of the roads I mean that should be tagged with



lanes=2

divider=no

(oneway=no is normally implicit, so no need to tag it when there is no
reason to wrongly assume a road should be oneway)



https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/KQjnvNHHcOLKZj2P4pB2WQ



You can see that the roads generally have no marked lanes, but at the
T-intersection there are markings that make it clear the road is intended
to be a two lane road.



Cheers,

Thorsten
___
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 LPG only station

2018-05-06 Thread José G Moya Y .
When I saw your email, I looked for a lpg station near my home and I saw I
had to include your lpg-only tags on it (changeset #: 58738167).

I still have to check if it is taxi only or general purpose lpg station.

Yours,
Jose

El dom., 6 de mayo de 2018 20:15, Thilo Haug OSM  escribió:

> fuel:diesel=no
> fuel:octane_91=no
> fuel:octane_95=no
> fuel:octane_98=no
> fuel:e10=no
> Am 06.05.2018 um 18:52 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
>
> How to tag fuel station with only LPG fuel?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfuel and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:fuel:lpg
> failed to help with that.
>
> amenity=fuel
> fuel:lpg=yes
>
> is a good start but how one may explicitly add that
> no other fuel type is sold there?
>
> I encountered https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1282285 and now
> I have no idea how to improve tagging there (and I prefer to know that
> before I
> check that anonymous reporter was right)
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] musical_instrument tag for publicly available musical instruments

2018-04-29 Thread José G Moya Y .
Yes, but how do you know you are tagging the right area? My gps has a error
of +-5 metres, more when indoors. And no one goes to a bar at 2 am and
starts asking drunk people to go away in order to measure its perimeter.

El dom., 29 de abril de 2018 12:02, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au>
escribió:

> Obviously, you would have to use a separate node inside the area that is
> tagged as the bar to tag the piano…
>
>
>
> If you want to go into this much detail about what’s inside the bar (or
> anything else for that matter), tagging the area and then putting things
> inside it is much more manageable then trying to tag everything on a single
> node.
>
>
>
> In that regards it’s the same as tagging e.g. a café inside a bookshop.
>
>
>
> *From:* José G Moya Y. <josem...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 29 April 2018 18:37
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] musical_instrument tag for publicly available
> musical instruments
>
>
>
> I think this is a good idea, but, in the suggestion of Thorsten, I find
> problematic the use of "access=" tag when instruments are in a bar. Imagine
> a bar with a private piano is tagged as a point:
>
>
>
> amenity=bar
>
> amenity=musical_instrument
>
> musical_instrument=piano
>
> access=private
>
>
>
> It does not make clear if either access to bar or access to piano is
> private.
>
>
>
> Also, since bars are amenities, a duplicate "amenity" tag arises. You have
> to either put two points or tag the bar as an area.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
> José
>
>
>
>
>
> El dom., 29 de abril de 2018 7:51, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au>
> escribió:
>
> The musical_instrument *key* is generally used to name the specific type
> of musical instrument:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/musical_instrument
>
> You are correct that it's mostly used in combination with
> shop=musical_instrument (a place selling them) or craft=musical_instrument
> (a place making them).
>
> But there are also a (very) few cases tagged as amenity=musical_instrument
> (a place where a musical instrument is available for use) and
> playground=musical_instrument (similar, but generally a more robust "toy"
> instrument aimed at a younger audience). Neither one of which is currently
> specifically documented on the wiki, but that shouldn't stop you from using
> them.
>
> So a piano in a bar that is available for people to play on should
> probably be tagged:
>
> amenity=musical_instrument
> musical_instrument=piano
> access=permissive (or access=customer in some cases)
>
> Either way, the piano is privately owned and the owner is currently making
> it available to other people, but may revoke that permission at will in the
> future.
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> P.S. is there a preference on this mailing list for top or bottom posting?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: e1k <emilea...@protonmail.ch>
> > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2018 15:12
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: [Tagging] musical_instrument tag for publicly available
> > musical instruments
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > (first post, plz be gentle!)
> > i'd love to see if there can be consensus on the use of the
> > 'musical_instrument' tag for publicly available musical instruments.
> > a growing number of bars, train stations and or other public places
> > have musical instruments around where i live (Amsterdam area), and
> > i've started noticing and collecting these places, and would love
> > to tag them in openstreetmap.
> > use case: as a musician that travels around a bit, i'd love to know
> > where i can find a piano or guitar to play on.
> > i see the musical_instrument tag is mostly (only?) used for place
> > that create and/or sell musical instruments, but i'm wondering what
> > the appropriate form of tag would be for a publicly available
> > musical instrument.
> > (if this has been discussed before, plz point me at it, i coudln't
> > find it)
> >
> > best regards,
> > emile
> >
> >
> > ​---
> >
> > All revolutions are impossible until they happen. Then they become
> > inevitable -- Albie Sachs​
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] musical_instrument tag for publicly available musical instruments

2018-04-29 Thread José G Moya Y .
I think this is a good idea, but, in the suggestion of Thorsten, I find
problematic the use of "access=" tag when instruments are in a bar. Imagine
a bar with a private piano is tagged as a point:

amenity=bar
amenity=musical_instrument
musical_instrument=piano
access=private

It does not make clear if either access to bar or access to piano is
private.

Also, since bars are amenities, a duplicate "amenity" tag arises. You have
to either put two points or tag the bar as an area.

Yours,

José


El dom., 29 de abril de 2018 7:51, 
escribió:

> The musical_instrument *key* is generally used to name the specific type
> of musical instrument:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/musical_instrument
>
> You are correct that it's mostly used in combination with
> shop=musical_instrument (a place selling them) or craft=musical_instrument
> (a place making them).
>
> But there are also a (very) few cases tagged as amenity=musical_instrument
> (a place where a musical instrument is available for use) and
> playground=musical_instrument (similar, but generally a more robust "toy"
> instrument aimed at a younger audience). Neither one of which is currently
> specifically documented on the wiki, but that shouldn't stop you from using
> them.
>
> So a piano in a bar that is available for people to play on should
> probably be tagged:
>
> amenity=musical_instrument
> musical_instrument=piano
> access=permissive (or access=customer in some cases)
>
> Either way, the piano is privately owned and the owner is currently making
> it available to other people, but may revoke that permission at will in the
> future.
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> P.S. is there a preference on this mailing list for top or bottom posting?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: e1k 
> > Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2018 15:12
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: [Tagging] musical_instrument tag for publicly available
> > musical instruments
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > (first post, plz be gentle!)
> > i'd love to see if there can be consensus on the use of the
> > 'musical_instrument' tag for publicly available musical instruments.
> > a growing number of bars, train stations and or other public places
> > have musical instruments around where i live (Amsterdam area), and
> > i've started noticing and collecting these places, and would love
> > to tag them in openstreetmap.
> > use case: as a musician that travels around a bit, i'd love to know
> > where i can find a piano or guitar to play on.
> > i see the musical_instrument tag is mostly (only?) used for place
> > that create and/or sell musical instruments, but i'm wondering what
> > the appropriate form of tag would be for a publicly available
> > musical instrument.
> > (if this has been discussed before, plz point me at it, i coudln't
> > find it)
> >
> > best regards,
> > emile
> >
> >
> > ​---
> >
> > All revolutions are impossible until they happen. Then they become
> > inevitable -- Albie Sachs​
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] When was the deprecation of location=kiosk for power=substation discussed?

2018-04-25 Thread José G Moya Y .
It was François Lacombe on this list 9n Jan 2, 2018.
El mié., 3 de enero de 2018 0:14, François Lacombe <
fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> escribió:

Hi,

Regarding this location=kiosk topic, a discussion was opened on talk page
of power=substation key.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:power%3Dsubstation#Kiosk_substations_in_street_cabinets

Since no big issue has been raised, I've updated mentionned wiki pages
(with French version when available) with man_made=street_cabinet.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtransformer#Location_values
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:substation%3Dminor_distribution
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsubstation#Location
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet

location=kiosk is not a recommended value anymore and it's encouraged to
replace it manually and carefully with man_made=street_cabinet +
street_cabinet=power

location key can now be used everytime to give the right
substation/transformer's location, in cabinet or not.
We can have underground or indoor cabinets like this :
man_made=street_cabinet
street_cabinet=power
power=substation
substation=minor_distribution
location=underground or indoor or ...

All the best

François

2017-11-04 11:45 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :

Hi

The man_made=street_cabinet key sounds suitable to map items described with
power=substation + location=kiosk.
They are actual small cabinets like those where no technician can enter to
work (opposite of building) :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:10kV_trafo_kiosk.jpg

Street cabinet is the container while substation is the function.

Wiki example on this page gives follwing tags:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsubstation#Examples
power=substation
substation=minor_distribution
location=kiosk

I propose to update it as such :
man_made=street_cabinet
street_cabinet=power
power=substation
substation=minor_distribution
location=pavement (or wherever the cabinet is located)

It works both for nodes or areas.
Additionnal advantage is to get location=* back to give cabinet position
instead of substation design (there was issues to tag underground kiosks
for instance)
There are 7k objects in db:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/location=kiosk

Pages to update are :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtransformer#Location_values
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:substation%3Dminor_distribution
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsubstation#Location
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet

How do you feel about it ?

There are no need of a time consuming formal proposal to deal with this
question.
Without further coments, i will update wiki pages in 15 days.
No automated edits.

Thanks for your time

François


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


El mié., 25 de abril de 2018 21:32, Michael Reichert 
escribió:

> Hi,
>
> while adding a substation to OSM yesterday I looked up the possible
> values of location=* and missed kiosk. A short glance in the history
> showes that it removed location=kiosk from the page on 2018-01-02. The
> edit description mentions man_made=street_cabinet+street_cabinet=power
> as a replacement.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:power%3Dsubstation=1542685
>
> location=kiosk was introduced by the approved Substation Refinement
> Proposal in 2013.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Substation
>
> man_made=street_cabinet was introduced by the Street Cabinet Proposal in
> 2014.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_cabinet
> This proposal does not mention substations or transformers at all.
>
> I think that small substations are not street cabinets because they are
> much larger than street cabinets and are usually not located on the
> sidewalk but next to it on a separate area.
>
> I don't remember a discussion of this change, do you? If no, I propose
> to revert this change on the wiki.
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
> ausgenommen)
> I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
>
> ___
> 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 cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network

2018-04-23 Thread José G Moya Y .
I like "training=traffic_education" for the ones addressed to children.
When i was on one of those, as a children, i was too young to ride a
bicycle (miniature bikes for children under six were not common in spain in
the early seventies).

So "training=cycling" is wrong, sine most of these parks are for pedestrian
education also, as someone said. training=cycling

There was one of those "traffic parks" in retiro park, Madrid. It was
flooded and turned into an artificial lake in the nineties.

According to my memories and the photo imaginery, there is one of these at
the "Veredillas Park" of Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, Spain. I've just added
a note about it on the map.
See:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58341755#map=19/40.46607/-3.46959



El 23/4/2018 16:31,  escribió:

[TIC] training=practical_application_of_traffic_rules



*From:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
*Sent:* Monday, 23 April 2018 22:20

*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on
simulating road network



2018-04-23 13:03 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :



I'd prefer something more structured than duck tagging a crowded amenity
tag, simply because we're likely to
encounter more types of training as time goes by.  amenity=training +
training=cycling works for me.



as you can train almost everything, we could make "training" "new"[1] key.

The proposed "training=cycling" already has everything, there is nothing
added with amenity=training. Still, training=cycling is very broad in its
possible meaning, could be a racetrack for people who ride bicycle races on
the street, it could be a place where people that perform tricks with
bicycles (or skateboards, etc.) exercise, it could be a place where
downhill bikers exercise, or one where you bring the kids to learn about
basic traffic rules.

"children traffic safety education" (is a generic function, as it doesn't
state indoor, outdoor, or maybe classrooms)
"children driver training area" (is about a physical place)
"children traffic training centre"
...

As always there's the question where to use subtags for "small" differences
(e.g. traffic training for bicycles and those for cars, or in golfing
driving range vs. the green), etc. and where it makes more sense to have
"main level" different tags because things are quite different. (e.g. the
driving range is quite different from a putting green, but they share the
same specific field of endaveour, both are golf training places).

"training" comes in all kinds, sauces and context, so a new "training" key
would be one possible way to do it, but it is not how the system of
established tags works (because a lot of training already happens behind
other tags).



Cheers,

Martin



[1] It is already used 1700 times, although there isn't a definition page
yet (AFAIK): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/training#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] isced:level

2018-04-10 Thread José G Moya Y .
Well, I see some edits in the past year adding info for Australia and New
Zealand. In a mail discussion this summer (I'm in a mobile so I can't
search mail while  writing) I think someone talked abou ISCED, but I'm not
sure. I used it to tag the school where I work, also.

I think ISCED is a nice standard, but, as it is not used by common people,
it is not very useful. If you are moving from a town to other, It is more
likely for you to look for schools in the official school department
webpages.

El mar., 10 de abril de 2018 16:46, Fredrik  escribió:

> The proposal
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED) for
> isced:level was marked as abandoned after 6 years of no real conclusion,
> but they key is used ~120,000 times so I created the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:isced:level and copied over the
> central information from the proposal page.
>
> Any additions, suggestions or objections?
>
> --
>
> FredrikLindseth
>
>
> ___
> 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] highway=stop and highway=give_way to traffic_sign=stop and traffic_sign=give_way

2018-04-02 Thread José G Moya Y .
Forgot to say I read somewhere the opposite of your proposal, translating
some traffic_sign to highway. Don't remember where.

El lun., 2 de abril de 2018 10:46, José G Moya Y. <josem...@gmail.com>
escribió:

> Hi.
> I'm also Spanish, and I'm very newbie. But here is my interpretation:
>
> I understand "traffic_sign" is not related to the subjacent way, so
> "highway" is used instead for signs that are relevant for pathfinding.
> Also, highway shows some implicit values not shown on "vertical signals"
> (i guess "traffic_sign" is used for "vertical signals" only, not for signs
> drawn on the path itself). This explains why maxspeed or weight limit are
> included in the category highway.
>
> El lun., 2 de abril de 2018 9:35, yo paseopor <yopaseo...@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm introducing myself. I'm yopaseopor . I'm from the Spanish and Catalan
>> Communities of OSM. Also I have a particular interest because of the map:
>> the traffic signs and their meaning.
>> Checking the map I have found a "glitch" on my mind: The situation of
>> highway=stop and highway=give_way.
>> I see traffic_sign=city_limit or traffic_sign=maxspeed but then I see
>> highway=stop or highway=give_way. I don't know why these two traffic signs
>> are under the tag highway and not the tag traffic_sign itself. Do you know
>> why? If you know it , please explain it to me. Thanks.
>>
>> Also I wish to make a proposal to the community: "translate" all the
>> highway=stop and highway=give_way to traffic_sign=stop and
>> traffic_sign=give_way.
>> What do you think about it ? Let's start the discussion. Thanks for
>> reading.
>>
>> Salut i senyals de trànsit (Health and traffic_signs)
>> yopaseopor
>> ___
>> 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] highway=stop and highway=give_way to traffic_sign=stop and traffic_sign=give_way

2018-04-02 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi.
I'm also Spanish, and I'm very newbie. But here is my interpretation:

I understand "traffic_sign" is not related to the subjacent way, so
"highway" is used instead for signs that are relevant for pathfinding.
Also, highway shows some implicit values not shown on "vertical signals" (i
guess "traffic_sign" is used for "vertical signals" only, not for signs
drawn on the path itself). This explains why maxspeed or weight limit are
included in the category highway.

El lun., 2 de abril de 2018 9:35, yo paseopor 
escribió:

> Hi!
>
> I'm introducing myself. I'm yopaseopor . I'm from the Spanish and Catalan
> Communities of OSM. Also I have a particular interest because of the map:
> the traffic signs and their meaning.
> Checking the map I have found a "glitch" on my mind: The situation of
> highway=stop and highway=give_way.
> I see traffic_sign=city_limit or traffic_sign=maxspeed but then I see
> highway=stop or highway=give_way. I don't know why these two traffic signs
> are under the tag highway and not the tag traffic_sign itself. Do you know
> why? If you know it , please explain it to me. Thanks.
>
> Also I wish to make a proposal to the community: "translate" all the
> highway=stop and highway=give_way to traffic_sign=stop and
> traffic_sign=give_way.
> What do you think about it ? Let's start the discussion. Thanks for
> reading.
>
> Salut i senyals de trànsit (Health and traffic_signs)
> yopaseopor
> ___
> 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] Attendant on amenity=fuel

2018-03-30 Thread José G Moya Y .
I understand you can tag "self_service:no" in case of attended fuel
stations?

As Javier says, disabled people use to need attended fuel stations. In
Spain (are you from here, Javier?) some administrative areas (atonomous
communities) are moving to enforce attended fuel stations.

In other countries, the situation is the one explained before in this
thread: some pumps are attended, some are not, and prices may be different
(I remember this happened to me in a travel to Italy, but 13 years have
passed from that).



El vie., 30 de marzo de 2018 10:39, Javier Sánchez Portero <
javiers...@gmail.com> escribió:

>
>
> El vie., 30 mar. 2018 8:54,  escribió:
>
>> While it has never been used before, the logical key to me would be
>> self_service:conditional following the usual rules for conditional keys.
>>
> I agree. It will require only a minor change in the conditional
> restrictions wiki.
>
> Javier
>
>> ___
> 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] Manor tagging

2018-03-20 Thread José G Moya Y .
Well, in some villages there are palaces that were never fortified. This is
the case, for example, of the Palace of Count of Superunda, north of this
point:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.25708/-2.63038

It is just a big abandoned house in the middle of a village. There are many
palace-houses like this in Spain. Tagging them as castle:type=palace sounds
ridiculous, since anyone looking for a castle in the village will get a "no
castle here" as reply.

El mar., 20 de marzo de 2018 22:39, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> escribió:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 20. Mar 2018, at 18:55, Colin Smale  wrote:
> >
> > What about modern palaces, or buildings still in use as a palace?
>
>
> Would you say historic=palace doesn’t apply?
> is “modern” referring to an architectural style? “In use as a palace”
> means “residence of someone”?
>
> 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] Manor tagging

2018-03-17 Thread José G Moya Y .
There are structures which are "manors" and I would't tag as a castle. As
an example, a Spanish "cortijo" is the center of a big (originally, feudal)
estate that is metonymically called "cortijo", too.

The central building has a defensive purpose. Historians would say some
walled villages are shaped  "in a 'cortijo' shape". But most people in
Spain would't consider a "cortijo" as a castle.

So I would left the assignment of a castle tag to "emic" local knowdledge.
French manors (châteaux) are castles; from your words, it seems british
manors are castles, but in some countries manors are definitely no castles.


El 17/3/2018 13:45, "Christoph Hormann"  escribió:

> On Saturday 17 March 2018, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >   I would remove the part that requires a current administrative
> > function.
> >
> >
> > Please do not remove this. This is the wording that made me use the
> > manor tag for the Venetian Villas, which have exactly this
> > characteristic. I believe, but am not sure, that the same applies to
> > the UK manor houses .
>
> I think Martin's point was that a historic manor house does not have to
> fulfill a present day function as administrative centre of an
> agricultural estate.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> 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 fraction house numbers?

2018-03-12 Thread José G Moya Y .
Here in Spain it is more usual 40 bis, 40 dup, 40-2, 40b/c/d... but seeing
this scheme I understand the "platform 8 1/2" in Harry Potter.

I would tag address number without special chars. I don't know wich set of
ascii does the government use in your country. In mine, the abbreviation
for "street" passed from "c/" to "CL" with the popularization of computers
in the government (despite of 7-bit ASCII having a sign for "/").

El 12/3/2018 17:04, "Vladimír Slávik"  escribió:

> Technical: Unicode will be hard to manipulate by hand without a table of
> characters/symbols to copy from. Subsequent editors or users down the chain
> of tools will break it. Most prominently, search may break, because users
> will not know how to input 1/2. (Oh look, I just didn't, either...).
>
> Is it common to have more complicated fractions? Here we append letters to
> do the same, and I have seen places where they had to go all the way to "h"
> - which would be 1/8 for you? Or 8/8? Does unicode even have 8/8? I haven't
> been able to find a decisive answer.
> -- Původní e-mail --
> Od: James 
> Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Datum: 12. 3. 2018 16:46:40
> Předmět: [Tagging] Tagging fraction house numbers?
>
> https://i.imgur.com/eigT5hX_d.jpg?maxwidth=640=thumb=medium
>
> How should this be tagged in housenumber? Using unicode ( ½ ) or ASCII(
> 1/2 )?
>
> ___
> 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] Campaniles tagging

2018-03-12 Thread José G Moya Y .
I think I send a message in the past about how to tag a Carillon that is
not a man_made=tower (Carillon in the wall of a building). I think I
finally put it in the tourist_attraction category.

El 12/3/2018 10:55, "Max"  escribió:

> Related information: What type of bell is in there?
> Just one, or a whole Carillon?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bell
> Missing info there is the material of the bells: Bronze, Glass, Porcellain
>
> On 12.03.2018 07:54, Tomasz Wójcik wrote:
> > Currently there are 2 tags for campaniles, which has no difference
> > between each other:
> >
> > * man_made=tower + tower:type=campanile
> > * man_made=campanile
> >
> > I think we should move "man_made=campanile" to "man_made=tower +
> > tower:type=campanile" combination, which will mach to the rest of a
> > towers tagging scheme:
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type
> >
>
> ___
> 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] wayside shrine tag definition page

2018-02-12 Thread José G Moya Y .
There could be some bias on the translation.

As an example, the name ID gives to it in Spanish (santuario al borde del
camino=holy place close to a road) is somehow arbitrary.
As most beginners read the translated
tag name only, and different languages make different segmentations of
reality, having translated tag names is prone to errors.

In Spanish we have "humilladero": any place to pray in the street;
"crucero": a column with cross to mark road crossings which is some times a
worship place; "picota": a simple column without cross intended to sign
road crossings were people was bound and executed (so its neither a worship
place nor a milestone), and "hornacina", that seems to be what you mean by
shrine here, a hollow wall containing an image. There are also small
pet-house like shrines we don't call "hornacinas" and I've marked them as
"shrines" -- did I do right?


El 12/2/2018 14:56, "Mateusz Konieczny"  escribió:

> For me it is something that I would describe as shrine and it is certainly
> the same in function.
>
> I guess that to solve that somebody should check how "shrine" tends to be
> defined (I am not a native speaker of English).
>
> On 12 Feb 2018 1:30 p.m., "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> wrote:
>
>> The wiki has an example for a wayside shrine which I wouldn't classify as
>> "shrine", it's rather a column, no space inside:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Eleonorens%C3%A4ule_Penzing.jpg
>>
>>
>> What do you think, shall we remove the image?
>>
>> Context:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dwayside_shrine
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Mixed paid, free and forbidden parking

2018-01-28 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ok, so if I use the example of complex conditions,
Should it be something like this?

   - parking:lane:left=perpendicular
   - 
  - parking:condition:left=no_stopping
  - parking:condition:left:time_interval=Su 08:00-15:00
   - 2
  - parking:condition:left:2=ticket
  - parking:condition:left:2:maxstay=120 min
  - parking:condition:left:2:time_interval=Mo-Sa 09:00-21:00
   - default
  - parking:condition:left=free

Yours,
José.



El 28/1/2018 13:53, "Tom Pfeifer" <t.pfei...@computer.org> escribió:

> Have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane which
> also discusses parking:condition for time dependance.
>
> I would not map the pollution restriction since it is very dependent on
> occasional situations.
>
> On 28.01.2018 12:40, José G Moya Y. wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>> Near Prado Museum in Madrid, there is a parking zone that is paid (with
>> time limit) from 9:00 to 21:00 on weekdays and saturdays, free (without
>> time limit) sundays from 15:00 to 00:00, free (without time limit) from
>> 21:00 to 9:00 on weekdays, free (without time limit) on saturdays from
>> 21:00 from sunday 0:00 and FOBIDDEN (no parking) on sunday from 8:00 to
>> 15:00.
>> Also, how can I map "do not park in case of high pollution"?
>>
>>
> ___
> 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] Mixed paid, free and forbidden parking

2018-01-28 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
Near Prado Museum in Madrid, there is a parking zone that is paid (with
time limit) from 9:00 to 21:00 on weekdays and saturdays, free (without
time limit) sundays from 15:00 to 00:00, free (without time limit) from
21:00 to 9:00 on weekdays, free (without time limit) on saturdays from
21:00 from sunday 0:00 and FOBIDDEN (no parking) on sunday from 8:00 to
15:00.
I have realized that this morning when I watched the police fining the cars
leaved on saturday night by people who decided not to drive after drinking
(the traffic signals are too spaced to be visible).
How can I map a zone wich mixes paid parking with do nor park?
Also, how can I map "do not park in case of high pollution"?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

2018-01-12 Thread José G Moya Y .
Please notice that, for doing something similar to what you do here
(reading a lot of maps and aerial imaginery, being only one of them [3]
google maps) I was forced to erase my edition and do it again.
Just to warn you.

El 12/1/2018 8:30, "Jo"  escribió:

> It definitely doesn't look like a public parking lot. It would be good if
> someone local could resurvey if the shop is still in that house.
>
> Jo
>
> 2018-01-12 5:19 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis :
>
>> is there street view imagery ? do you have local knowledge ?
>>
>> If not, you might consider not fixing it. Yes it will be a useless
>> polygon in the database, but isn't that better than changing it e.g.
>> to a parking lot while it is a private property ?
>>
>> just my .5 cents
>>
>> m.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:05 AM, OSMDoudou
>> <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Osmose is complaining an area is mapped but not further specified: [1]
>> and
>> > [2]
>> >
>> > Here is how the place looks like: [3]
>> >
>> > I was thinking it's a side walk, but they're not to be mapped as area
>> [4]
>> > and the place doesn't really look like a square or plaza [5] nor like a
>> > parking.
>> >
>> > How would you tag it ?
>> >
>> > Thx.
>> >
>> > [1] http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/error/15140678368
>> > [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223853253
>> > [3] https://goo.gl/maps/yhA3rx2WVhM2
>> > [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk
>> > [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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] Water source types

2018-01-11 Thread José G Moya Y .
I mark "amenity=drinking_water" only when the water is subject to
microbiological analysis. If it isn't, I mark it as either "fountain",
"spring" or "watering place".

It's up to "clients" (apps and people who uses the database) to decide
whether they'll drink from legal water taps only or they'll risk to boil
water from a watering place, stream, spring or pit.

Do you think I should explicitly mark as "drinking_water=no" the streams,
springs and pits known to be poisonous? They use to have a sign telling it.


El 11/1/2018 14:36, "Cez jod"  escribió:

Should be. There no exist non-drinking water:)

___
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] New tag for major recipient postcodes

2017-12-17 Thread José G Moya Y .
El 17/12/2017 21:17, "Tom Pfeifer" <t.pfei...@computer.org> escribió:

On 17.12.2017 14:36, José G Moya Y. wrote:

>
> National-wide phone numbers treated (such as +1-800-x in USA, cellphones,
> "vocal nomad" numbers (+34-51-xx in Spain, if I remember well)  are
> unlinked to physical addresses too. Are they directions about how to use it?
>

Simlarly, OSM is not a phone directory, or a worldwide compendium of
everything. No benefit for OSM adding those.


If I tell about phone numbers and web addresses is just because ID suggest
adding phone numbers and web addresses to things like bank offices or
shops.
Obviously, phone numbers and email addresses are not "on the ground", so
they are just as out of scope of OSM as PO boxes/special zips are.

I think I agree with you about this.



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


Re: [Tagging] New tag for major recipient postcodes

2017-12-17 Thread José G Moya Y .
Do you mean PO box? In some cities, massive PO boxes have a special Zip
code/ postal code. It could be a property of the PObox address.

Maybe an attribute at the POI is right, as POI use to list email addresses
and web addresses, which are independent from actual physical address (as
PO boxes are), also.

National-wide phone numbers treated (such as +1-800-x in USA, cellphones,
"vocal nomad" numbers (+34-51-xx in Spain, if I remember well)  are
unlinked to physical addresses too. Are they directions about how to use it?



El 17/12/2017 13:58, "Tom Pfeifer"  escribió:

> As these postcodes are kind of a virtual address that is not tied to a
> particular pysical location, my opinion would be _not to add them to OSM_,
> which is a geo database and not primarily a post code reference database.
>
> Typically for those companies in DE, there is an additional physical
> address which has a different postcode for the street address, which is
> regularly tagged on the physical location.
>
> tom
>
> On 17.12.2017 13:42, Rainer wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> recently I came across postal codes in POI addresses, which aren't the
>> classic scheme addr:postcode & addr:city & addr:street & addr:housenumber.
>> However it is a special postcode that is assigned to recipients that
>> receive a big amount of post every day, typically big companies or
>> authorities. This kind of postcode is used only together with addr:city and
>> does not require street and housenumber. So to say the post company has a
>> big sack for post to that special postcode, puts in all the letters that
>> are addressed to it and delivers the sack to the recipient.
>> After some discussion in the german user forum
>> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=60421 I want to propose
>> a tag for this kind of postcode and would like to discuss it here in the
>> tagging mailing list.
>>
>> The proposal is:  addr:postcode_major_recipient
>>
>> It should be used on POIs, because it is an attribute of the company,
>> authority or whatever, but not as an address of a building, because it is
>> not assigned to such directly. Target is to have a separate tag for this
>> kind of postcode to avoid a mix-up with the normal addr:postcode.
>>
>> As I am not a native British English speaker, I have asked one and
>> consulted the english page of the Deutsche Post. Reference:
>> https://www.postdirekt.de/plzserver/PlzSearchServlet?lang=en_GB -> goto
>> More -> Find major recipient
>>
>> Probably similar kinds of postcodes exist also in other post companies in
>> other countries, so inputs about that are welcome.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Rainer
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Road barrier

2017-11-28 Thread José G Moya Y .
This response makes me wonder if there is a way to mark the "thermoking not
allowed to park" sign I've read in some gas station truck parkings.

I imagine there are "dangerous goods no" and "dangerous goods designated"
tag values, also.


El 28/11/2017 18:10, "Paul Johnson"  escribió:

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Selfish Seahorse <
> selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28 November 2017 at 11:26, Georg Feddern 
>> wrote:
>> > Yes, unfortunately the european common-in-use traffic sign "VEHICLES
>> > PROHIBITED EXCEPT MOTORBIKE/SIDECAR" or "Prohibited for any
>> double-tracked
>> > motor vehicles" has no equivalent in the OSM access scheme.
>> > I think it is time for a =double_tracked (motor vehicles)!
>>
>> Are there places where only motorcars are prohibited, but other
>> double-tracked motor vehicles are allowed? Otherwise, the
>> description/meaning of motorcar=* could be adjusted.
>
>
> The degree of enforcement is usually low to non-existant, but this is not
> an uncommon restriction for parking areas on highway rest areas (Cars and
> motorcycles on one side, RVs, trucks and vehicles towing trailers on the
> other).
>
> ___
> 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 - Education Reform

2017-11-19 Thread José G Moya Y .
You are right, I meaned *specialty schools*. Somehow I mixed lines in my
copt-paste.

But the definition, as it appears in the proposal, keeps being confusing,
since you include "exam preparation but not cramming" into specialty
schools. Cramming is some kind of exam preparation, so maybe you should say
something like "preparation for speciality exams".

I understand you say that speciality schools include (but are not limited
to) schools that prepare for professional exam (such as Spanish goverment
"oposiciones", Microsoft Certification, American TOEFL... ).
On the other hand, cram schools prepare for academic exams (access to
higschool, university or college).
Am I right this time?

I think that adding more examples to your proposal would be nice.







El 19/11/2017 7:34, "Erkin Alp Güney" <erkinalp9...@gmail.com> escribió:

You have conflated test centers and specialty schools. Test centers, as
in my proposal, focus exclusively on _performing_ the standardised
tests. I do not know where in the world we have these, but we have a
government-operated one in Ankara, Turkey (ÖSYM computer-based
examination building). Cram schools, on the other hand, cram something
or prepare for an exam without having an academic objective otherwise.
Specialty schools are what the name says.


19-11-2017 01:52 tarihinde Steve Doerr yazdı:
> On 18/11/2017 22:31, José G Moya Y. wrote:
>> The proposal says:
>>
>> education=testcenter -
>>
>
> If it does, then it needs to be adapted to the convention of using
> British English spelling: the 'center' bit should be 'centre'. And I
> can't imagine anyone in the UK writing 'testcentre' as a single word.
> I think it would normally be 'test centre', so the tag value should be
> test_centre.
>
> --
> Steve
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_
source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>   Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_
source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature proposal - Voting - Education Reform

2017-11-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
I will vote +1 because I liked your proposal in September

But please refresh me, what's the difference between testcenter and
cram-school? I only remember cram-school in your proposal this September.

The proposal says:

education=testcenter -  Specialty schools including exam preparation
> schools, fine arts schools, crafts schools or language schools but
> excluding crammers
> education=cram-school - Cram schools, cram schools may be rendered
> differently from academic schools


But "exam preparation" is what crammers do, don't they?

Also, a note about
optional religion =*
In Spain the government pays some religious institutions for giving
educational services to people for free.
This leads to strange situations like islamic people bringing their
daughters to a school ruled by catholic nuns and requiring the girls to
study a non-religious curriculum.and even allowing girls wear a *hijab*.
Should we tag these schools as "religion=catholic" or leave it blank?

Regards.


2017-11-18 19:06 GMT+01:00 Erkin Alp Güney :

> This version is considered for voting:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/
> Education_Reform_Alternative
>
>
> 18-11-2017 21:05 tarihinde Erkin Alp Güney yazdı:
> > I am offering this proposal into voting as no replies arrived since last
> > month.
> >
> > Yours, faithfully
> > Erkin Alp
> >
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Metro Mapping

2017-11-16 Thread José G Moya Y .
Thanks for the suggestion, Marc.

Martin, I don't think authorities welcome a detailed map of inner areas in
stations/airports. They will show a security concern.
Yours,
José.


El 17/11/2017 0:27, "marc marc" <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> escribió:

> On 16. Nov 2017, at 23:17, José G Moya Y. <josem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> you can press the intercom button, wait for response, and get the door
> opened without having to buy another ticket
>
> wheelchair=limited
> ___
> 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 - Metro Mapping

2017-11-16 Thread José G Moya Y .
Just to clarify the situation:
I'm sure you can press the intercom button, wait for response, and get the
door opened without having to buy another ticket. But the question is you
are not making disabled people autonomous if you make them follow such slow
process.

There are other weird situations in Spain, such as the regional/short range
terminal of Atocha Station, Madrid, having the 50% of its scalators in
maintenance mode since September, without a notice suggesting people go to
the alternative doors on floor -1 to access the working scalators.


El 16/11/2017 20:25, "Mark Wagner"  escribió:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:23:47 +0100
> Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> > IMHO you should try to solve it on a political/administrative level,
> > rather than map this particular shortcoming in OSM.
>
> One of the things I like about OSM is that it maps the world as it is,
> not the world as the map-maker wishes it was.  I've spent enough time
> trying to follow hiking trails that a park manager wished they had the
> funds to build, or being side-tracked by logging roads they wished
> didn't exist to really appreciate a reality-based map.
>
> If you can't go from Line 1 to Line 6 in a wheelchair without paying,
> *map it*.  Sure, a policy change would be ideal, but until it's
> changed, map things as they are, not as you wish they were.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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 - Metro Mapping

2017-11-10 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
How do you map this situation:
You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station metro line 1.
You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station line 6.
You can't go with wheelchair from line 6 to line 1 (or vice versa) without
paying
your metro fee again. To do so, you have to go by foot.
(This is a common accesibility problem on old metro stations in Madrid).

El 10/11/2017 15:44, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
escribió:

>
>
> 2017-11-10 15:38 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> sorry for asking so late, but why should we deprecate mapping subway
>> stations with a relation or a way and insist on nodes? There are already a
>> significant number of stations mapped like this. I would also not write:
>> "The location of the node is irrelevant." or "There is nothing wrong with
>> putting the node near its entrance: it does not affect routing or anything
>> else." but explain more careful where the node should be put, and what it's
>> meant to know (if it wouldn't affect anything we could also not put it,
>> no?).
>>
>
>
> I've seen there is this paragraph: https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping#What_This_Affects
> but it doesn't mention deprecating station areas. Can you please make a
> complete summary of all things (tags and their intended meaning) that your
> proposal
>
> a) introduces (new)
>
> b) changes
>
> c) removes
>
> Thank you,
> 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] winter tyres

2017-11-01 Thread José G Moya Y .
El 1/11/2017 9:08, "Michal Fabík"  escribió:

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> possibly something like 'motor_vehicle:conditional=winter_equipment @
> winter'

Technically, this looks fine, but is it really necessary to specify
that winter equipment is required in winter?


In some countries, winter equipment is required to cross mountain passes
after a snowfall only. This is the situation here in Spain: a electronic
panel or hand operated signal informs you if the nearest mountain pass is
"open", "open for vehicles with winter equipment" or "closed".

In Spain we could only try to include some message to make drivers check
the signals in function of their route. Signals are placed in advance, but
usually placed when you can't choose an alternative route but go to the
nearest village and turn around.


Besides, I'm not sure
about the precise meaning of "winter" when using the opening times
syntax, but in many countries, the restriction applies roughly from
mid-autumn to mid-spring. If a consumer decides to interpret "winter"
literally (21st Dec - 20 Mar), it's going to be off by a long margin.


I've been stuck in the snow on May 1st, but the original message asks about
legal requirements and date values shown on signals.
That's the reason why people is asking how to insert access time along with
access conditions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] building=stands or building=grandstand?

2017-10-27 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
I don't see references to grandstand in "pitch", "leisure=sports_centre",
"leisure=sports", "riding" or other related wiki page. Having references to
"tag=grandstand" in the "how to map" sections of sports-related tags would
be useful for newbies like me.
I could do it by myself, but I dont know much of sports so I don't
understand what kind of sports have a grandstand without it being a
building=stadium.

Regards.


El 27/10/2017 23:19, "Tom Pfeifer"  escribió:

> On 27.10.2017 22:16, Warin wrote:
>
>> discouraging the new tag preferably,

>>> done
>>>
>> Object.
>> No contact with mappers using that value.
>>
>
> The usage was discouraged for this purpose, neither forbidden nor
> deprecated.
> No tagging in the database was changed (by myself).
>
> What was intended by the use of 'stand'? Was it truly a 'grandstand'?
>>
>
> We don't know, _because_ 'stand' is ambiguous. This exactly is the problem
> when people start using a new tag without any discussion in the community,
> and without checking a dictionary that would have revealed the multiple
> meanings.
>
> Feel free to research and contact the users of the 'stand' tag and discuss
> with them.
>
> Did not see the 'old tag' ... a link to it would be good?
>>
>
> As was said earlier in this thread, neither tag was documented, so the
> only reference to 'stand' is taginfo.
>
> tom
>
> ___
> 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] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

2017-10-27 Thread José G Moya Y .
But from the outside tou can't see if the office is in "Gran Via 1 shop 2"
or "Gran Via 1 shop 3", despite of the shop number being displayed in the
mailbox.

El 27/10/2017 8:03, "Colin Smale"  escribió:

> Time for a more philosophical discussion... What is the function of this
> thing we call "address"? Is it to identify a premises? Is it to describe a
> premises? Does it refer to the whole premises, or just the bit with the
> front door or letter box? Or is it "where to deliver post"?
>
> Here in NL buildings all have unique numbers in a big register, and there
> is a n..m mapping between addresses and buildings. Only enclosed
> constructions "where a person can stand" are counted as buildings. An
> address can include sub-units like "167A" or "23-3" (third floor flat for
> example). If there are multiple households or organisations sharing the
> same letter box, they have the same address. So you can say the address is
> a logical concept, not a physical one. So no problems with having multiple
> nodes with the same address if they represent different organisations.
>
>
> //colin
>
> On 2017-10-27 03:31, Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
>
>
> On 27/10/17 11:20, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> The OSM rule is clear - "One feature, one OSM element". Thus 3 offices, 3
> nodes.
>
>
> So 1 address 1 node (or 1 polygon if you know the spatial extent)?
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Street_furniture

2017-10-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ok. I will revert it. It just implies deleting a street number, reloading
my trace and repointing street number from my trace (~0.5 m difference). I
will correct it this time using PNOA only.
Regards.

El 18/10/2017 12:57, "Philip Barnes" <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> escribió:

> It has been pointed out to you by myself and others that you must not use
> Google when mapping.
>
> Any changes that have involved Google should be reverted.
>
> Cheers Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 18 October 2017 11:50:12 BST, "José G Moya Y." <josem...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Ok. I eventually used google to correct my own gps traces (i. e. seeing
>> if the point where i have tagged the third building in a row is really at
>> that point). I rechecked it with other imaginery, also, to avoid errors due
>> satellite angle and shadows so I didn't use google as main source (the
>> source was survey, GPS and PNOA aerial  imaginery).
>>
>> BTW most zones I map are better mapped by Spanish PNOA (wich uses the
>> same imaginery than ESRI).
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> El 18/10/2017 11:10, "François Lacombe" <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com>
>> escribió:
>>
>>>
>>> 2017-10-18 1:26 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the subject of street cabinets, what about pits / manholes?
>>>>
>>>> We have a lot of facilities (eg telephone / internet connections, water
>>>> / gas meters) especially in residential areas, located in underground pits,
>>>> with a concrete / metal lid, marked with what is in it - telephone, water
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Would these also be classified as "street cabinets"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never as street cabinets but sometimes as drawing rooms.
>>> The manhole is only the top of it, with the lid. We just cant assume
>>> what is under the man hole without removing the lid.
>>>
>>> These also are street furniture but not cabinets.
>>>
>>> François
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Street_furniture

2017-10-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ok. I eventually used google to correct my own gps traces (i. e. seeing if
the point where i have tagged the third building in a row is really at that
point). I rechecked it with other imaginery, also, to avoid errors due
satellite angle and shadows so I didn't use google as main source (the
source was survey, GPS and PNOA aerial  imaginery).

BTW most zones I map are better mapped by Spanish PNOA (wich uses the same
imaginery than ESRI).

Regards.

El 18/10/2017 11:10, "François Lacombe" 
escribió:

>
> 2017-10-18 1:26 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick :
>
>>
>> On the subject of street cabinets, what about pits / manholes?
>>
>> We have a lot of facilities (eg telephone / internet connections, water /
>> gas meters) especially in residential areas, located in underground pits,
>> with a concrete / metal lid, marked with what is in it - telephone, water
>> etc.
>>
>> Would these also be classified as "street cabinets"?
>>
>
> Never as street cabinets but sometimes as drawing rooms.
> The manhole is only the top of it, with the lid. We just cant assume what
> is under the man hole without removing the lid.
>
> These also are street furniture but not cabinets.
>
> François
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Street_furniture

2017-10-17 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
I'm just a novice, but after two months following this list I understand
that:

a) Tags are grouped by function. Some street forniture is just for people
to enjoy them, some needs to be located by GPS navigators (traffic lights,
barriers such as bollards) or emergency services (fire hydrants).

b) Some services need to use short tags due GPX file format restriction.
That was the motivation that raised up the proposal on new fire_hidrant
tags. If firemen were upset for having to put complicate
"emergency=fire_hidrant, fire_hydrant:flow_rate=blah blah" tags, imagine
the situation if they need to look for "street_forniture=emergency,
emergency=fire_hydrant..."

c) Street forniture is difficult to map accurately. You need precise GPS
hardware/software (my casual mapping has a 5 meter error margin), you need
precise aerial imaginery (google is now very precise for cities at roof
level, but shadows hide details at ground level), and you have a lot of
objects to map and a very short time until the maintenance contract expires
and the street forniture moves or disappears. That's the reason I map
picnic tables in the wilderness but I don't do it in parks: tables are too
close when inside cities.

I understand that tagging street forniture would be useful for local
authorities, since they (at least in Spain) do not take it in account
before giving permits to new street forniture or street bars, and the final
result is a sidewalk full of obstacles for pedestrians. But moving all
street forniture into a category of its own seems to raise more
difficulties than having it split into separate categories.

Regards.

El 17/10/2017 23:44, "François Lacombe" 
escribió:

Hi,

Let's not forget street cabinets :)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet

As Warin said, all those things (including cabinets) may not always be
along streets.
"street" term may be understood as "outdoor".

Would you create a key to move all the list from ma_made/maenity/... to one
like "street_furniture" ?

All the best


*François* 

2017-10-17 23:08 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> Some of these things are not all, necessarily, along side streets - e.g. a
> bench in a park.
>
> On 18-Oct-17 07:31 AM, hvdb wrote:
>
> my proposal = to make things simplier ; if there would be a key =
> street_furniture , all those 'things' mentioned (benches / fire hydrants /
> plant_containers / street_poles / streetlamps / bollards / traffic_signs /
> traffic_lights / etc. etc.) could then arranged in 1 key  . And if
> 'necessary', one could add more 'details' (for i.e. emergency / amenity /
> support / etc.)
>
> 2017-10-17 20:27 GMT+02:00 hvdb :
>
>> *Street furniture* is a collective term (used in the United Kingdom
>> [1]
>> , Australia
>> [2]  and
>> Canada [3]
>> [4]
>> ) for
>> objects and pieces of equipment installed along streets and roads for
>> various purposes. It includes benches
>> , traffic barriers
>> , bollards
>> , post boxes
>> , phone boxes
>> , streetlamps
>> , traffic lights
>> , traffic signs
>> , bus stops
>> , tram stops
>> , taxi stands
>> , public lavatories
>> , fountains
>> , watering troughs
>> , memorials
>> , public sculptures
>> , and waste receptacles
>> . The design and
>> placement of furniture takes into account aesthetics, visual identity,
>> function, pedestrian mobility and road safety.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_furniture
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread José G Moya Y .
What I try to say is that the original proposal tagged rivers according to
their relative importance in a country.

What's the criterium to know if a river is  "major"  inside a country? Is
it its occurrence in the school curriculum?

Iregua, which is a very small river (5 m width on its end) was in the
"Spanish river list" I had to learn in the school. I learned about Garonne
in highschool, when we reached the "European rivers" standard. But I only
knew it crossed Spain when, at the age of 30, I visited a remote village
and found a river named "Garona" that flew to France. (Here in Spain,
education is very chauvinistic: I passed all my degree in literature
without hearing a word about Shakespeare, Molière or Goethe. Latin-american
authors, despite of writing our same language, are being removed from the
curriculum).

El 16/10/2017 16:06, "Christoph Hormann" <o...@imagico.de> escribió:

> On Monday 16 October 2017, José G Moya Y. wrote:
> > Ilya,
> > As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking
> > about relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country,
> > Ebro and Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about
> > absolute size (compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are
> > small rivers. On the same hand, Garonne starts as a "minor" river in
> > Spain and ends as a "major" river of France and Europe.
>
> For better understanding: What the proposal tries to specify is an
> importance rating for rivers based on their name, i.e. the Garonne
> would by definition have the same rating everywhere it is named
> Garonne.  If the upper part of a river is named differently than the
> lower part it would be a different river - hence potentially a
> different importance rating (like Nile - Blue Nile/White Nile or
> Rhein - Vorderrhein/Hinterrhein).
>
> This has very little to do with the size of a river as a local property
> (like the width or the discharge) which a mapper would normally use as
> a basis for tagging the size of a river.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> 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 - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ilya,
As some people said, river "size" is ambiguous. If you're talking about
relative size of a river in term of rivers of the same country, Ebro and
Tajo are "major" rivers in Spain. If you're talking about absolute size
(compared with rivers in the world), Ebro and Tajo are small rivers.
On the same hand, Garonne starts as a "minor" river in Spain and ends as a
"major" river of France and Europe.


El 16/10/2017 12:22, "Ilya Zverev"  escribió:

Hi everyone,

Two months ago I suggested a way for tagging river size, from small to
major. It is a very simple proposal, offering just three tags —
river=small, =big and =major — and some numeric thresholds for these. Since
it hadn't attracted many comments, let's do a vote on that. I'm pretty sure
it would greatly help in making our maps look better, if we agree on using
these tags.

Please re-read the proposal and leave your vote in the "Voting" section.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Rivers_Classification

Thanks,
Ilya
___
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] Fwd: How to map a bin with dog excrement bags dispenser

2017-10-10 Thread José G Moya Y .
I forgot to say you don't tag a fruishop as "vending=plastic bags;plastic
gloves" "fee=no".

El 10/10/2017 17:05, "José G Moya Y." <josem...@gmail.com> escribió:

> Hi!
>
> What city are you talking about?
>
> In Madrid, "Cacacán" bin is intended to dispose dog excrements only. Also,
> some municipalities are discontinuing the bag dispensers since there are
> people who takes more bags than needed, even without walking with dogs.
>
> I.E. in terms of environmental agents, the bags dispensed should be used
> only to deposit excrements on the same bin. At least that is what my
> sister, a local environmental agent near Madrid, told me.
>
> If the bin is intended to dispose excrements only, a "recycle=pet
> excrement" (maybe "recycle=biological hazard") node should be used, and no
> reference to bags should be used.
>
> El 10/10/2017 16:41, "marc marc" <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> escribió:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 10. 10. 17 à 15:42, Alejandro Moreno a écrit :
>> > In Spain it is common to find litter bins that have attached a dog
>> > excrement bags dispenser.
>> it look like you have 3 questions in one :)
>>
>> one easy :
>> fee=no <> payment:none=yes
>> payment:*=* is useful when you need to add several
>> payment but when it is free, you 'll never have
>> another payment:* tag.
>> so imho free=yes is better
>>
>> the main question :
>> it is a waste_basket or vending_machine ?
>> the main function is related to bags.
>> the bin is useful only after you get a bag.
>> if you don't have a bag, you can not use the dedicated bin.
>> therefore the few that I have taged have :
>> amenity = vending_machine
>> vending = excrement_bags
>> bin=yes
>>
>> one node <> 2 nodes :
>> for me, one node is enough/better because the bin is related
>> to the vending_machine like a coffee machine with a bin
>> where you put coffee cup after use.
>> But if you still use 2 nodes, it is no need to move one away.
>> it like tagging for rendering and except for a very high zoom,
>> the rendering will in any case display only one.
>> This brings us back to the previous question: if rendering display only
>> one, which one ? if I see a vending machine on the map, I can expect to
>> have a trash nearby. by displaying a trash, I have no idea if a vending
>> machine exist nearby.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>> ___
>> 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] Fwd: How to map a bin with dog excrement bags dispenser

2017-10-10 Thread José G Moya Y .
I mean, a grocery.

El 10/10/2017 17:09, "José G Moya Y." <josem...@gmail.com> escribió:

I forgot to say you don't tag a fruishop as "vending=plastic bags;plastic
gloves" "fee=no".

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


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: How to map a bin with dog excrement bags dispenser

2017-10-10 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!

What city are you talking about?

In Madrid, "Cacacán" bin is intended to dispose dog excrements only. Also,
some municipalities are discontinuing the bag dispensers since there are
people who takes more bags than needed, even without walking with dogs.

I.E. in terms of environmental agents, the bags dispensed should be used
only to deposit excrements on the same bin. At least that is what my
sister, a local environmental agent near Madrid, told me.

If the bin is intended to dispose excrements only, a "recycle=pet
excrement" (maybe "recycle=biological hazard") node should be used, and no
reference to bags should be used.

El 10/10/2017 16:41, "marc marc"  escribió:

> Hello,
>
> Le 10. 10. 17 à 15:42, Alejandro Moreno a écrit :
> > In Spain it is common to find litter bins that have attached a dog
> > excrement bags dispenser.
> it look like you have 3 questions in one :)
>
> one easy :
> fee=no <> payment:none=yes
> payment:*=* is useful when you need to add several
> payment but when it is free, you 'll never have
> another payment:* tag.
> so imho free=yes is better
>
> the main question :
> it is a waste_basket or vending_machine ?
> the main function is related to bags.
> the bin is useful only after you get a bag.
> if you don't have a bag, you can not use the dedicated bin.
> therefore the few that I have taged have :
> amenity = vending_machine
> vending = excrement_bags
> bin=yes
>
> one node <> 2 nodes :
> for me, one node is enough/better because the bin is related
> to the vending_machine like a coffee machine with a bin
> where you put coffee cup after use.
> But if you still use 2 nodes, it is no need to move one away.
> it like tagging for rendering and except for a very high zoom,
> the rendering will in any case display only one.
> This brings us back to the previous question: if rendering display only
> one, which one ? if I see a vending machine on the map, I can expect to
> have a trash nearby. by displaying a trash, I have no idea if a vending
> machine exist nearby.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> 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] war_memorial

2017-10-03 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ok, so you agree in reserving  war_memorial for war memorials that do not
fit into plaque, statue and other "shape" categories?

El 3/10/2017 21:08, "Bill Ricker"  escribió:

> The Vietnam War Memorial is the first one in US history, to my knowledge,
to list all of the American casualties.
​
​Depending on domain of "all" ... it's the only national "all", but not the
first to list all for a smaller demographic unit than nation.

Harvard U's Memorial Hall lists all alumni who fell in the Union army,
sorted by Class year, on interior hall walls.​

Even some small town memorials ​attempted to list sons lost in Civil War,
Spanish American war, or WW1.

Even a larger town like Norwalk CT  lists all its WW1 fallen on 7 panels
below a piece of heavy artillery.
http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/
Lourde/155Mle1877Norwalk1.jpg
  c/o http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/
Lourde/FC155Lm1877Norwalk.html

​We don't seem to have that monument on OSM.  If we agree on how to tag
these, I could add it, as i've been there and taken my own pictures and
waypoint.
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.11840=-73.40806

Amusing, I found a history of how the monument and gun were once together,
then separated, each relocated separately, and finally re-united:
http://ctmonuments.net/2009/03/world-war-monument-norwalk/​
​
​(They are reunited now, at East & Park, in the Norwalk Green southern
apex.)​

___
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] war_memorial

2017-10-03 Thread José G Moya Y .
+1.
But I wonder if memorial=war_memorial was created with a shape in mind,
that of large walls with long lists of names on it we see on american
movies.

(In Spain, collective memorials are either big plaques, statues or
obelisks. The plaques, typical of the Spanish war of 1936-39, are being
removed in fulfillment of the Historical Memory Law).

El 3/10/2017 17:16, "Janko Mihelić"  escribió:

uto, 3. lis 2017. u 12:19 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
> There also a "topic" key in small use: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.
> org/keys/topic#values maybe rather than theme it could be
> "memorial:topic=war"?
>
>
Ok, memorial:topic=war.

Is this thread enough to deprecate war_memorial on the wiki? Or should we
first create a new wiki for memorial:topic=*?

I would also bring up the tag subject:wikidata=*, but I'm afraid the
current flames on other threads would spread here :)

Janko

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


Re: [Tagging] Devices key

2017-09-28 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ok. Now I understand it.
Thanks.

El 28/9/2017 17:04, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  escribió:

>
>
> 2017-09-28 16:50 GMT+02:00 marc marc :
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 28. 09. 17 à 16:32, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> > I prefer the generic solution (node relation) over a specific device
>> > solution, which still doesn't allow for more details (different
>> > properties, layering order, etc.)
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:devices
>> devices describe that there are many times the same element,
>> so it is no additional tag needed to describe
>> the differences between elements since they are identical.
>
>
>
> yes, you can only describe "devices" and only identical ones. If voltage
> or phases or anything else were different (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtransformer#Tagging ) you won't be able to tag it
> with this shortcut. If they are identical, it is a nice way to save work.
> Not sure how often it would be useful, i.e. if the effort to support it and
> the added complexity by introducing it, are justified by its usefulness.
>
> For steps we have the tag "step_count", maybe a simple "transformer_count"
> would be an alternative?
>
> 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] Devices key

2017-09-28 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi, François.
You ask for more examples. I don't know about power lines and transformers,
but these ideas came to my mind:

If you have a street light with a dust bin attached to it, the dust bin
goes in "devices"?

And if you have a bus stop that holds a recycling slot for batteries, the
recycling site goes in "devices" also?

What about a traffic light holding a traffic camera (on top) and a dust bin
(on pole).. ?.

Yours.

José.

2017-09-28 14:26 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> 2017-09-28 14:12 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe :
>
>> 2017-09-28 1:48 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>>
>>>
>>> there’s also a proposed relation to map different things on the same
>>> node (similar to how a multipoligon relation allows to reuse the same
>>> geometry several times).
>>>
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> What does this relation look like ?
>>
>
>
> sorry, could not find the proposal yesterday, it is here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Node
>
> It lets you map several different things on the same node.
>
> 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] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-27 Thread José G Moya Y .
Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>  I'm ignorant. The public (and for that matter, club) pools near me are
all
> at multisport facilities and multi-use parks. (Typical configuration:
fenced-off
> swimming facility; administrative building; bathhouse; playing fields for
> football, lacrosse, baseball, horseshoes, boules; picnic facility [often
with
> one or more pavilions]; playground; parking areas; possibly some walking
> trails in an adjacent wood.)

Hi.
Well, there are different possible situations here in spain.

a) Cities. In big cities, the public facilities for swimming are either
owned by sports clubs or attached to sports facilities operated by the
municipality. Around the cities there are some water parks, also.

b) Bath towns. Spas / thermal baths that have outdoor pools, but they are
scarce (look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.81439/0.71271 to
see a location where one of such outdoor pools is. The actual pool, covered
by a shadow area in the aereal imaginery, is unmapped).  Another bath town,
in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.20895/-2.24060 has its spa
outdoor facilities tagged as sports_centre.

c) Small municipalities. Small municipalities get their facilities in a
somehow unplanned way, since they build the facility when they have
budget/get funding to do so. Heres is an example:

If you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.25569/-2.62770
you'll see a swimming facility, a park, a school and a sports centre. Lets
see the site history:

   1. The first thing built there was the school. It was built on the 70s
   to give service to the Spanish baby boom of the 70s, and now is almost
   abandoned.
   2. On the early 80s the village got funding to build a swimming pool.
   The excuse was getting a service for the school (so you could think this is
   a sports centre). I don't know whether the swimming pool has been ever used
   by school.
   3. On the late 80s, neglected building practices ruined the local pelota
   court wall. After this, the village got funding to build an indoor sports
   facility in the school, where five-a-side football tournament were held
   after the ruin of the pelota court. Another pelota court was build, also.
   4. On the nineties, a park was created in the riverside.

So, the pool preceded the indoor sports centre. BUT you can consider it a
sports centre, since the excuse to build it was the practice of swimming as
sport, and aquagym and swimming classes take place inside it.



2017-09-27 12:13 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Liotier :

> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:38:15 +0200
> Selfish Seahorse  wrote:
> >
> (2) indoor swimming pools seem not to be tagged
>
> Because they do not appear on imagery, so fewer people are in a
> position to map them... But nothing keeps anyone from tagging them.
>
> ___
> 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] Deprecating shop=doors

2017-09-26 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi
Near my home, there is also a shop specialised in doors. It does not seem
to manufacture windows.
There are also shops that make doors and paneling for embedded closets, but
I think the later are more shop=forniture.

El 26/9/2017 10:34, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 26-Sep-17 04:58 AM, williaug GC wrote:
>
> Hello OSM community. Recently I stumbled upon the tag *shop=doors *in
> Taginfo. The tag *craft=window_construction
> * is
> used more than five times as often as *shop=doors* and as the wiki
> clearly points out that *craft=window_construction* can be used on a
> company that manufacters windows AND doors, I think *shop=doors* should
> be marked as deprecated.
> If we decide to deprecate the tag, the wiki page of *craft=window_construction
> *should be modified a bit so the text says that it can be used for a
> company producing windows and/or doors. Do you agree to deprecate it?
>
>
> No, I don't think it should be depreciated.
>
> There are shops specialising in doors .. just doors.
>
> e.g. https://www.doorsplus.com.au/
>
>
> Nor do I think that craft=window_construction can be expanded to include
> door construction as the tag name/value has  no suggestion of doors.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-25 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi.
It seems this conversation ended without an approval.

That's a pity. I really can't understand the world divided in "sport
swimming facilities" and "water parks". In Spain, we understand a "sport
swimming facility" like that containing swimming pools that open 365 days,
and where you can't really for pure recreation. Their lanes are not
suggested paths, but forced ways.

On the other way, there are "water parks" full of fun water slides. But
these are huge, mostly private, run facilities (though I know of a public
one in Haro, La Rioja).

Apart from these, there are the (summer) public swimming pools, where you
can do swimming for sport (if you don't mind to find people crossing though
your lane), but are most used for fun.

And there are also the standard private swimming pools, placed inside a
leisure=garden access=private.

Anyway, I will accept the resulta an I will turn my home village swimming
pool facility into a leisure=sports_centre, since it does not contain
slides, and despite it contains a small pool for children that is not
available for sport swimming (unless you can turn around in 50 cm). Well, I
remember the sports & education representative for the province saying some
words at the opening, so maybe it was really funded from the sports budget
as a "sports facility".

The main use of the out-of-water space is sunbathing and drinking beer. May
I suggest new sport=sunbathing tag? ;-)

Oh, I can't wait the return of summer! Regards!




2017-09-18 15:32 GMT+02:00 José G Moya Y. <josem...@gmail.com>:

> Hi!
>
> A park with s Pool with lanes => sports_centre.
> A park with trampoline, ramps, pools=> water_park
> A park with umbrellas and a pool where you have to pay a fee to enter the
> park itself (so you have to map the park, its access and its access
> conditions)=> park???
>  It's ridiculous! That's why I support this proposal.
>
> El 18/9/2017 13:18, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> On 18-Sep-17 07:33 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200
>>> Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18 September 2017 at 09:42, Jean-Marc Liotier <j...@liotier.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "sport=swimming for a centre containing one or more swimming pools
>>>>> that is mainly focussed on swimming as a sport, including swimming
>>>>> lessons. Use however leisure=swimming_pool to indicate the water
>>>>> areas"
>>>>>
>>>> This conflicts a bit with the definition of sports centre being a
>>>> 'distinct facility where a *range of sports* take place'.
>>>>
>>> Hello semi-colon value separator !
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
>>>
>>> sport=swimming;water_polo;fitness;scuba_diving
>>>
>>
>> Your forgetting that swimming sports themselves can be separated up in to
>> categorise;
>>  butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke, freestyle, medley and then relay.
>> Same with the sport running.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Apart from that, as José mentioned, the main problem is that sports
>>>> centre does not seem to be appropriate for an outdoor swimming pool
>>>> facility that is mainly used for recreation but doesn't meet the
>>>> criteria of a water park.
>>>>
>>> Lounging & splashing around is a common use of sport swimming
>>> facilities, but their designed use remains swimming as a sport. If it
>>> has swimming lanes, it is definitely part of sport=swimming. If it
>>> doesn't have swimming lanes, then it may lean on the side of the
>>> leisure=water_park
>>>
>>>
>> Where I have found pools with no lane marking then I have tagged
>> leisure=swimming_pool but no sport=* tag.
>> There are 'pools' too shallow for swimming too, those might be better to
>> have another tag?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping of Subway Stations

2017-09-24 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
After the 2004 Atocha station bomb it is illegal in Spain taking photos of
metro/railway stations to avoid helping terrorist find weak points/escape
routes (despite of this, metro/railway photo contests take place); I think
that, for the same reason, it is illegal, or at least problematic, to map
inside Spanish metro stations.

(This said, a mapping of metro stations would be of citizen interest, cause
it would show problems due to oversizing, out-of-station exchange routes
that are faster than inside-station exchange routes, accesibility issues,
and so on).

El 24/9/2017 10:52, "Ilya Zverev"  escribió:

> Hi,
>
> I had a task of extracting subway infrastructure from OpenStreetMap, and I
> found out that some things cannot be mapped at all (e.g. interchanges), and
> some are unclear or mapped differently in different countries.
>
> Please consider this proposal that clarifies tagging and mapping of subway
> stations:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping
>
> I have already started improving the mapping of several metro systems in
> different cities. Mostly that involves adding stop_area and stop_area_group
> relations.
>
> Adhering to this document would greatly simplify using subway data from
> OpenStreetMap in applications — both for multi-modal routing and for
> formatting pretty schemes.
>
> Thanks,
> Ilya
>
> ___
> 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 by permit

2017-09-24 Thread José G Moya Y .
Ok, Warin
My suggestion was only a last resorce if "access=permit" loses the vote
process again. I understand a permit is not a fee, is "some kind of
paperwork done in advance"

- José Moya

El 24/9/2017 3:37, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:

On 21-Sep-17 04:01 PM, José G Moya Y. wrote:

Hi
I agree with the permit system as it is discused here. I found it useful
for National Parks, specially for World Heritage Biosphere Reservations,
 where a small amount of people has to book in advance.
If it keeps getting a strong opposition, you could consider mapping as
access=fee and adding a "book" tag somewhere in the fee system, such as
fee=book, to make users know the access needs booking in advance.
But I prefer access=permit.


'fee' is an already established key. Don't change its use. fee=book makes
no sense considering the present use of 'fee'.
access is not used to signify fee. Don't change that.

access=permit  Yes
operator=* ... no - the permit organisation may not be 'operator'. I much
prefer the permit:*=* system as that does signify that it is strictly
related to the permit.
If a fee is required then permit:fee=* might be suitable ... similar to the
contact details permit:phone/website/email=* ?


Definitions??? Something like?
A permit is a formal process required to gain access, typically resulting
in a issue of a paper form.
It is not the membership of an organisation (e.g. sporting culb).


El 21/9/2017 4:48, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 21-Sep-17 11:24 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> I am in total agreement with the proposal as it's been developed in this
> thread.
>
> I too am unfamiliar with structuring the voting process but it may be
> enough to simply add a new section "Voting" at the end of the page, copying
> some boiler-plate from some other proposal, and advertising on this list.
> The voting, just like any discussion we engage in on these mailing lists,
> is open to debate and the result is AFAIK non-binding. People can do as
> they wish afterward.
>
> NO. The formal process is to;
> 1) create a proposal page -
> 2) then call for comments as a new subject here on this list.
> 3) After at least 2 weeks consider any comments made, modify the proposal
> and if that looks good
> 4) then call for votes as a new subject here on this list.
> 5) after another 2 weeks and some number of votes consider if it passes
>
> OR
> You can simply use the tag. There are some 235 uses from taginfo now, so
> it has been used.
> As there are few of these tags around then it should be documented  -
> create a new wiki page.
> 235 is not large but it does establish a use.
>
> Taginfo also has use of 'permit' .. no explanation of what these are for
> and the numbers are small.
>
> Comment - there are a few that use it for car parks in the US. But no
> information on where to obtain a permit.
> I do think that the permit contact details need to be available, and this
> should be suggested a a 'recommendation'? on the wiki page.
>
>
> Many thanks to Kevin for the work you've done on this tag.
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21-Sep-17 06:01 AM, marc marc wrote:
>>
>>> Le 20. 09. 17 à 20:39, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?
>>>>
>>> I do not see any difference between access=permit and (not tag for)
>>> access to a sports club : you can go there if you meet certain
>>> conditions and generally any sports club allows you to "buy a permit
>>> according to their formality"
>>> I see no difference with private property either. if you "follow"
>>> my formalities, you will have the right to come at home.
>>> I think that it would be preferable to improve access=private
>>> by adding a tag to describe any means of "overriding" this restriction
>>> rather than inventing a new type of access that is between sports clubs
>>> are public for the moment), access=private and paying infrastructure
>>> like tool roads.
>>>
>>
>> The primary difference between access=private and access=permit
>> is that a formal permit system exists that anyone can easily use.
>> Some permits are easy and free,
>> some you and I cannot get (unless you are the right tribe or have strong
>> cultural connections).
>>
>> Examples;
>> The Kokoda Trail is not 'owned' by the permit authority.
>> Here the Trail goes through many villages and is administered by a
>> government appointed body.
>> The practice here is to get a permit from the authority and not bother
>> wit

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-21 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi
I agree with the permit system as it is discused here. I found it useful
for National Parks, specially for World Heritage Biosphere Reservations,
 where a small amount of people has to book in advance.
If it keeps getting a strong opposition, you could consider mapping as
access=fee and adding a "book" tag somewhere in the fee system, such as
fee=book, to make users know the access needs booking in advance.
But I prefer access=permit.

El 21/9/2017 4:48, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 21-Sep-17 11:24 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> I am in total agreement with the proposal as it's been developed in this
> thread.
>
> I too am unfamiliar with structuring the voting process but it may be
> enough to simply add a new section "Voting" at the end of the page, copying
> some boiler-plate from some other proposal, and advertising on this list.
> The voting, just like any discussion we engage in on these mailing lists,
> is open to debate and the result is AFAIK non-binding. People can do as
> they wish afterward.
>
> NO. The formal process is to;
> 1) create a proposal page -
> 2) then call for comments as a new subject here on this list.
> 3) After at least 2 weeks consider any comments made, modify the proposal
> and if that looks good
> 4) then call for votes as a new subject here on this list.
> 5) after another 2 weeks and some number of votes consider if it passes
>
> OR
> You can simply use the tag. There are some 235 uses from taginfo now, so
> it has been used.
> As there are few of these tags around then it should be documented  -
> create a new wiki page.
> 235 is not large but it does establish a use.
>
> Taginfo also has use of 'permit' .. no explanation of what these are for
> and the numbers are small.
>
> Comment - there are a few that use it for car parks in the US. But no
> information on where to obtain a permit.
> I do think that the permit contact details need to be available, and this
> should be suggested a a 'recommendation'? on the wiki page.
>
>
> Many thanks to Kevin for the work you've done on this tag.
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21-Sep-17 06:01 AM, marc marc wrote:
>>
>>> Le 20. 09. 17 à 20:39, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
>>>
 Is this a minimal proposal that we can all tolerate?

>>> I do not see any difference between access=permit and (not tag for)
>>> access to a sports club : you can go there if you meet certain
>>> conditions and generally any sports club allows you to "buy a permit
>>> according to their formality"
>>> I see no difference with private property either. if you "follow"
>>> my formalities, you will have the right to come at home.
>>> I think that it would be preferable to improve access=private
>>> by adding a tag to describe any means of "overriding" this restriction
>>> rather than inventing a new type of access that is between sports clubs
>>> are public for the moment), access=private and paying infrastructure
>>> like tool roads.
>>>
>>
>> The primary difference between access=private and access=permit
>> is that a formal permit system exists that anyone can easily use.
>> Some permits are easy and free,
>> some you and I cannot get (unless you are the right tribe or have strong
>> cultural connections).
>>
>> Examples;
>> The Kokoda Trail is not 'owned' by the permit authority.
>> Here the Trail goes through many villages and is administered by a
>> government appointed body.
>> The practice here is to get a permit from the authority and not bother
>> with the property owners.
>> Typically normal people will use a guided 'tour' and that organisation
>> will be registered with the authority and get the individual permits.
>>
>> The Woomera Prohibited Areas (e.g. way 436098551) again are not 'owned'
>> by the authority.
>> These areas have both the rocket range and property owners.
>> The range operators have provided the property owners with shelters -
>>  most of the property owners use the shelters as cool places to shelter
>> from the heat (as well as rockets).
>> Here I would hope that people wanting access would negotiate with both
>> the permit system and the private property owner.
>> The permit system ensures that travellers are not present when the
>> rockets are being fired.
>>
>> 
>> There is enough difference that it should be tagged together with the way
>> that permits can be obtained.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: logo tag. Opinions?

2017-09-19 Thread José G Moya Y .
The logo value seems to be useful on the rendering side only. It's up to
the rendering app creators to decide if they want to display some shops
using its logos. In that case, the app would probably have some other way
to display them.
-1 to this proposal.

El 19/9/2017 14:19, "Philip Barnes"  escribió:

Ignoring the legal arguments for a moment, but what would OSM gain or do
with this information. How would it help us build a better map?

Phil (trigpoint)

On 19 September 2017 08:10:15 BST, SwiftFast  wrote:

> The logo tag would link to a Logo of a company/organization/shop.
>
> To avoid unreliable links, questionable licenses, and the rest of the
> drawbacks of the "image"[1] tag, the value must link to a Wikimedia
> Commons image. The value format is identical to the
> wikimedia_commons[2] format.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:image
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
>
> --
>
> 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


Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

2017-09-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
Thanks for the link to Low Emmision zone (LEZ) wiki. I've added a small
entry for Spain.
More information have to be added, but the webpage of Madrid city is
uninformative -- that's the reason it has been awarded.
-Jose M.

El 18/9/2017 18:39, "joost schouppe"  escribió:

> Kevin,
>
> What I wanted to make clear before is that you are not the only one who
> thinks access=permit could be useful. Also, don't make the mistake of
> conflating tagging and OSM-in-general opinion.
>
> That said, even if this hivemind of ours (and let me add to that "one of
> us, one of us, one of us") maybe does not like an extra value for the
> access key, I see no reason why you would need to use another database.
> There are very many things which are not mapped by just one key, but by
> many keys combined. You just need a key to classify WHY a thing has a
> certain access key. I see someone already suggested
> permit=registration_at_entry/registration_offsite/online/lottery. That
> could work as a subtag: access:permit=*, foot:permit=*. You could then
> simply tag it as *:permit=yes meaning "there is some permitting process in
> place". That would save you the hassle of defining all the many different
> permitting schemes. It would of course best be extended with some
> information about the difficulty of the process (on arrival, in advance and
> simple, in advance and complicated) and contact information. That would
> also be quite useful to extend the limited model now used on Low Emission
> Zones (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:
> boundary%3Dlow_emission_zone). It would certainly be better then the
> now-used access=green_sticker_germany :)
>
> I couldn't bring myself to read the previous discussion, I'm sorry if I'm
> repeating something said before.
>
> --
> Joost
>
> ___
> 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] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!

A park with s Pool with lanes => sports_centre.
A park with trampoline, ramps, pools=> water_park
A park with umbrellas and a pool where you have to pay a fee to enter the
park itself (so you have to map the park, its access and its access
conditions)=> park???
 It's ridiculous! That's why I support this proposal.

El 18/9/2017 13:18, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 18-Sep-17 07:33 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:56:59 +0200
>> Selfish Seahorse  wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 September 2017 at 09:42, Jean-Marc Liotier 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 "sport=swimming for a centre containing one or more swimming pools
 that is mainly focussed on swimming as a sport, including swimming
 lessons. Use however leisure=swimming_pool to indicate the water
 areas"

>>> This conflicts a bit with the definition of sports centre being a
>>> 'distinct facility where a *range of sports* take place'.
>>>
>> Hello semi-colon value separator !
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
>>
>> sport=swimming;water_polo;fitness;scuba_diving
>>
>
> Your forgetting that swimming sports themselves can be separated up in to
> categorise;
>  butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke, freestyle, medley and then relay.
> Same with the sport running.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Apart from that, as José mentioned, the main problem is that sports
>>> centre does not seem to be appropriate for an outdoor swimming pool
>>> facility that is mainly used for recreation but doesn't meet the
>>> criteria of a water park.
>>>
>> Lounging & splashing around is a common use of sport swimming
>> facilities, but their designed use remains swimming as a sport. If it
>> has swimming lanes, it is definitely part of sport=swimming. If it
>> doesn't have swimming lanes, then it may lean on the side of the
>> leisure=water_park
>>
>>
> Where I have found pools with no lane marking then I have tagged
> leisure=swimming_pool but no sport=* tag.
> There are 'pools' too shallow for swimming too, those might be better to
> have another tag?
>
>
> ___
> 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] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-17 Thread José G Moya Y .
Yes, please!!

It's inconsistent to have a tag to mark the outdoor area surrounding a
sports swimming pool or a water park and no tag to mark the outdoor area
around a not-for-sports, not-theme-park swimming pool. I said that in the
swimming pool discusion.

If you have a tag for the facility, you can map the access/entrance to the
facility.

Yours,

José

El 17/9/2017 18:56, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  escribió:

>
>
> 2017-09-17 18:20 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :
>
>>
>> The lack of a dedicated tag and the different tagging prevents
>> searching for nearby swimming pool facilities. Furthermore, it is not
>> possible to distinguish between indoor and outdoor swimming pool
>> facilities.
>>
>
>
> Thank you for bringing swimming pools up. I agree the current
> documentation does not go much into the details of what is tagged how
> (hence there is not much detail in the map in general).
> there is leisure=swimming_pool, but you are right there could be space for
> a swimming_facility. Typically I think they are tagged as sports_centres
> with sport=swimming and other subtags (e.g. "covered"). There's also
> leisure=water_park.
>
> see also here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%
> 3Dswimming_pool
>
> I am not sure about different typologies of swimming pools, but I think it
> is interesting to know, e.g. kids pool, length of pool, jumping pool, etc.
>
>
>
>>
>> It might make sense to create a new tag leisure=swimming_facility with
>> a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor. What are your opinions?
>>
>
>
> there are facilities that offer both, indoor and outdoor swimming, some
> only in some periods of the year (in central Europe), others all year long
> (still in central Europe, with heated outdoor pools). There are also
> thermal baths, both for recreative and for medical use, and as "facilities"
> or naturally occurring and without any kind of "facility".
>
> Outdoor facilities are also natural sometimes, e.g. at rivers and lakes,
> and might be tagged differently. At the sea there are beach resorts which
> might have swimming pools as well.
>
> 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 Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

2017-09-17 Thread José G Moya Y .
Thanks for your response, Erkin. The idea of putting driving license and
some speciality schools under "cram" schools came from the fact that,
despite of needind a special license, in my country (Spain) these centers
do not make exams, they only prepare for an official exam done by the
government. But I think you're right.

In this tagging list someone asked about farm schools (private education
centers that teach enviromental concerns to kids). Similar to these, there
are also "enviromental education" or "environment interpretation"  centers
(public education centers put inside parks or natural parks that make some
environment-related teaching).
How would you classsify farm schools and environmental education centers?

Another


El 17/9/2017 10:44, "Erkin Alp Güney"  escribió:

That was a leftover from previous proposal. Edited proposal page to
reflect that all educational institutions are covered.


17-09-2017 09:26 tarihinde marc marc yazdı:
> Le 17. 09. 17 à 07:54, Erkin Alp Güney a écrit :
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=
Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative
> +1 for good inventory work
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=
Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Features_
not_covered_by_this_proposal
> you said that driving school is not covered by this proposal.
> but a little further, you talk about the tag education=driving
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=
Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Abandoned
> a typo (min_age <> max_age)
> the same typo a little further in "Additional tags" section
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

2017-09-17 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi, Erick.

I'm just a newbie in tagging, but I find a reason for keeping school and
university at the "amenity" tag. These educative institutions are often
easy to spot (they span over an entire building and in many cases they have
a campus or playground), while other "education" institutions or businesses
in your proposal usually span over a small office inside a building.
Schools and universities can work as points of reference in places where
street names or numbers are difficult to spot (that's why I map electric
poles in open field: they are points of reference).

This said, I find your classification of educational businesses useful, and
I think that adding additional tags to already mappped schools is easy,
because your categories are probably easier to understand than ISCED.

Just a question. A school where you prepare exams to get a position in a
bank, in the government or in the police is also a "cram school"? And why a
school where you prepare an exam to get a driving license is not?


Yours,
José Moya
Spain

El 17/9/2017 7:56, "Erkin Alp Güney"  escribió:

> Two RFCs by me are ready. One of them are education reform(actually
> delayed a bit). This brings education key instead of amenity=school.
> Full proposal at
>  Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative>
> Another is magnetic levitation trains, this one having completed its
> draft quickly. This brings railway=maglev tag and its associated
> rendering.
>  Magnetic_levitaiton_train>
>
> Yours, faithfully
> Erkin Alp
>
> ___
> 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] electrical cattle grid

2017-09-09 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
I think it's listed in Fence.
barrier_type=fence
fence_type=electric.

Regards,
Jose

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dfence
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fence_type

El 9/9/2017 17:57, "joost schouppe"  escribió:

> Hi,
>
> I don't seem to be able to find an alternative for the electrical
> equivalent to barrier=cattle_grid. So basically some metal plating on the
> ground, which give electrical shocks to barefeet animals (and humans).
>
> Any ideas?
>
> --
> Joost Schouppe
> OpenStreetMap  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
> 
>
> ___
> 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] Any tag for tiny, pittoresque, tool store houses?

2017-09-08 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
In some parts of Spain, there are tiny igloo-like houses, smaller than a
person, traditionally used to store tools near the fields. They are called
"guardaviñas" ("vineyard guards") and resemble, by shape and purpose, the
italian "trulli" of Puglia, but they are smaller.
I was wondering if there is a tag for these pittoresque buildings.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] farm schools?

2017-09-04 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!
In Spanish it is farm_school.
Don't know about the tag.

Jose G Moya Y.

El 4/9/2017 17:41, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  escribió:

> I wonder how you call a farm which is open to groups of children for
> visiting and helping with the farm work (a place where they can learn about
> rural life, food production etc.). Might be either school classes or other
> groups (or maybe individual kids) visiting. Is "farm_school" a suitable
> term?
>
> Which key would you suggest? amenity/leisure/tourism? education?
>
> I guess tourism could conflict with other values sometimes.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> sent from a phone
> ___
> 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] Clothes subtags (was "Tagging Digest, Vol 96, Issue 3" and before that "shop=fashion")

2017-09-04 Thread José G Moya Y .
Hi!

I'm not an English native speaker, but I think that you should not use a
verb tense in third person in order to mantain formal coherence.

Personally, my two pence go to "retail", since it is a noun, though I
understand that "retail" is a special type of commercial activity.

But, if you have to use a verb to avoid ambiguity, what about "selling"?
The -ing form of verbs is, as far as I know, equivalent to a noun.

Regards,

José G Moya



El 4/9/2017 6:40, "Dave Swarthout"  escribió:

> I think before we can agree on this particular subtagging scenario we must
> resolve whether to use "sells" or "sales" as the action verb. I'm all in
> favor of using some sort of hierarchical structure to fine-tune the shop
> tag as Thilo suggests but as you can see from Taginfo, the confusion exists
> already and will only get worse down the road if it's not resolved.
>
> As a native speaker of American English, clothes:sales=yes makes sense. It
> does not _necessarily_ imply a special price or promotion but it's
> ambiguous. The verb sells makes it clearer and unambiguous.
>
> My 2 cents
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Thilo Haug  wrote:
>
>> I don't only refer to clothes shops,
>> but to shops in general :
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop_subtags
>>
>> I don't think it's useful to discuss every single shop type from scratch
>> if there's a couple of tags which MIGHT apply to most of the shops.
>> We'll then see if they will be used. And if certain shops need extra tags.
>> Kinda standardization, easier to handle for any tool referring to OSM.
>>
>>
>> Am 03.09.2017 um 13:43 schrieb Andy Townsend:
>> > On 02/09/2017 18:19, Thilo Haug wrote:
>> >> Please consider there might be more useful subtags for shops, like :
>> >>
>> >> shop=clothes
>> >> clothes:type=fashion/boutique/work/sport
>> >> clothes:for=woman/men/children
>> >> clothes:repair=yes
>> >> clothes:rental=no
>> >> shoes:sales=yes
>> >>
>> >> the "for" key is used here :
>> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility#Whom_
>> is_served_by_the_facility
>> >>
>> >> sales, rental, repair is used here :
>> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmotorcycle
>> >
>> > By all means map clothes shops with extra detail, although no-one does
>> > it like that.  "shop=clothes" has 180k examples, "clothes:for" 1 and
>> > "clothes:rental" 1.  "clothes:type", "clothes:repair", "shoes:sales"
>> > and even "shoes:sells" all get "nul points" from the taginfo jury.
>> > "clothes" as a subtag is however widely used:
>> >
>> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes (11k uses)
>> >
>> > Full range of combinations:
>> >
>> > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=clothes#combinations
>> >
>> > Best Regards
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> --
>>
>> Thilo Haug
>> Bismarckstr.37
>> 72764 Reutlingen
>>
>> Mobil: +49 177 3185856
>> Festnetz : +49 7121 3826414
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion shop=boutique

2017-09-02 Thread José G Moya Y .
Phil said:

>> Supermarkets for example will have a fresh meat >> counter, fresh fish
counter which is important stuff >>when you are camping.

Oh, really? Then I have to retag everyting.

Here in Spain we call "supermarket" a medium-sized self-service store,
while we call "convenience store" a 24/7 (or at least 14/7) small to medium
store where you can buy 25%-150% overprized last-resource goods. In
Spanish, both terms are translations from English, and "convenience store"
is a legal category.

A countryside Spanish "supermarket" will have a fresh grocery counter but meat
will be freezed, while a Spanish "convenience store" will have no grocery
or meat at all. (If you are camping in countryside Spain, you have to wait
for the weekly fish truck if you want fish).

(I think this example will be useful for the cultural difference between
boutique and fashion).

Phil (trigpoint)

El 2/9/2017 0:56, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 02-Sep-17 04:31 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
>> Is ignoring what the community did so far, a guideline ? People have
>> used the tag boutique. So why cannot we take this practice and use
>> that as the guideline ? Why change the currently used tags, causing a
>> cost of all involved parties ?
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a serious question. I want to understand why people think the
>> about differences are ok, but clothes and boutique not.
>>
>
> I lack the understanding of what is meant by 'boutique' and 'fashion'.
>
> I think the terms could be used for a very wide variety of features.
>
> The tag shop=cloths I understand and don't see any confusion over it.
>
> If 'fashion' simply means cloths with some added parameters then I would
> think it should be a sub tag. The same for 'boutique'.
>
> If they mean something different from cloths .. then what are they? And I
> don't want terms like - more expensive, finer materials, better design -
> these are either subjective and/or sub tags.
>
> Fuel stations that do not sell diesel are not given a separate main tag -
> they get a sub tag.
> And yes some things in OSM have been given main tags where, with more
> organisation, they could have been better with sub tags. 'Path' and
> footpath spring to mind.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 - building:architecture:preromanesque

2017-08-30 Thread José G Moya Y .
So you think I can add this tag to the wiki without prior voting?

El 24/8/2017 12:41, "Andy Townsend" <ajt1...@gmail.com> escribió:

> On 18/08/2017 10:22, José G Moya Y. wrote:
>
>
> In my country, this tag could be used to describe "mozarabic" buildings
> along with "visigothic" buildings. I hope this be useful to other european
> countries, too.
>
>
> Personally, I'd say that if you find a tag useful, just use it (and if
> it's not documented, document it).  If it takes off and other mappers use
> it too then data consumers will also use it.
>
> This is especially the case with "niche" tags which the majority of
> mappers won't understand, and for which any wiki "votes" won't be
> meaningful for that reason.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] oneway:bicycle

2017-08-27 Thread José G Moya Y .
In Madrid, in Puerta del Sol, there is a two-way bicycle way that shares
space with a one-way car street. I haven't checked how it is mapped, but I
guess a parallel line for bicycles would work.

Regards,
José Moya

El 27/8/2017 14:01, "Adam Snape"  escribió:

> An unknown value cannot be meaningfully used by routers etc. You could add
> a fixme tag so that a local mapper can clarify the signs on the ground. If
> there is no mention of cycles on signage then it should be assumed that the
> one-way restriction applies equally to cycles (unless the country's laws
> exclude cycles from one way restrictions).
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
> On 26 Aug 2017 6:22 p.m., "Alexis Reynouard" 
> wrote:
>
> Is there an accepted/good way to differ between *"it is a oneway for
> everyone, including bicycles"* and *"it is a oneway, but it is unknown if
> it is also a oneway for bicycles"*.
>
> From the OSM wiki:
>
> you can use oneway:bicycle=* to identify roads where the oneway rules for
> cyclists differ from the general oneway restriction
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:architecture:preromanesque

2017-08-23 Thread José G Moya Y .
El 23/8/2017 1:01, "Martin Koppenhoefer" <dieterdre...@gmail.com> escrib

> I suggest you also have a look at
> historic:civilization=* and see if this
> could be useful for your mapping.

I took a look to historic=civilization but none of the current values
matches it (well, maybe historic:civilization=germanic, but unsure about it
being applicable to Italian Ostrogoths, French Franks, and Spanish
Visigoths -- despite the fact that some Spanish pre-romanesque buildings
were not actually made by descendants of Visigoths, but by descendants of
romanized Iberians and Celtics).

Some one should make a proposal for the Andalusian civilization, also.



El 23/8/2017 1:01, "Martin Koppenhoefer" <dieterdre...@gmail.com> escribió:



sent from a phone

> On 18. Aug 2017, at 11:22, José G Moya Y. <josem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I propose this tag to describe middle age buildings created before the
"romanesque revolution" of the 11th century. I guess english people would
like something like "celtic", but I am using "preromanesque" instead of
"celtic" because in Spain there is no "celtic" middle age architecture.


I suggest you also have a look at historic:civilization=* and see if this
could be useful for your mapping.


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


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:architecture:preromanesque

2017-08-18 Thread José G Moya Y .
I propose this tag to describe middle age buildings created before the
"romanesque revolution" of the 11th century. I guess english people would
like something like "celtic", but I am using "preromanesque" instead of
"celtic" because in Spain there is no "celtic" middle age architecture.

In my country, this tag could be used to describe "mozarabic" buildings
along with "visigothic" buildings. I hope this be useful to other european
countries, too.

Help from art historians would be useful to refine the proposal.

See the link here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:architecture%
3Dpreromanesque


Yours,

José Moya (Jose M)

El 18/8/2017 10:17, "José G Moya Y." <josem...@gmail.com> escribió:

> I am proposed this tag to describe middle age buildings created before the
> "romanesque revolution" of the 11th century. I guess english people would
> like something like "celtic", but I am using "preromanesque" instead of
> "celtic" because in Spain there is no "celtic" middle age architecture.
>
> In my country, this tag could be used to describe "mozarabic" buildings
> along with "visigothic" buildings. I hope this be useful to other european
> countries, too.
>
> Help from art historians would be useful to refine the proposal.
>
> See the link here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> building:architecture%3Dpreromanesque
>
>
> Yours,
>
> José Moya (Jose M)
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging