Re: [Tagging] airport taqs
Hello, If the position of the front wheel is clearly identified on the ground, I'm in favor for a node. But in reality there is often more than one position, since depending on the Aircraft model the position of the front wheel can differ. Would be great to clarify in the wiki if the recommendation is one node per position/model (then suggest a tag to specify the model? This is often painted on the ground next to the position), or only put the last one which can be reached, or... Or use an area. If no discrete position can be identified (or having more than one node is not desired, see above), I think an area would be more accurate than a way. Also, I would tag the path leading to the parking position with something else than taxiway since they are not taxiways per say (like we differentiate parking aisles from regular service roads). See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_apron . Taxilane seems to be a valid word for that, and already in use by some in OSM, so I'm all in for it. Cheers, LeTopographeFou Le 01/02/2024 à 11:18, Warin a écrit : Hi Typically on an airport the planes parking position is marked by a small circle, the is usually tagged with aeroway=parking_position - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dparking_position. I believe this should only be a node, not a way. Some have mapped the planes path leading to the parking position as an aeroway=parking_position, I think it would be better to tag it with aeroway=taxiway or (low usage so may not render) taxilane. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dtaxiway https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dtaxilane Thoughts??? ___ 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] Elevated housing estate
The issue with building=stilt_house is that two things are mixed in one key. I would prefer stilts=yes (2945 occurences) + building=* or place=* or highway=* or even landuse=* for a full redidential area. LeTopographeFou Le 25/11/2020 à 09:59, Alan Mackie a écrit : This probably isn't too far off from many of the larger man_made=pier structures in resort towns, although it lacks the water underneath most of the time. Would man_made=bridge be appropriate for the surrounding area? I think this is becomming fairly common in some flood prone areas, so dedicated tagging seems like a good idea, both for the usually dry situation, and for buildings that sit over water but don't even have vestigial mooring areas. The wiki lists building=stilt_house, but this seems overly specific. Whether a building is tagged as being on stilts should be independent of building use IMO. Regardless in this case min_level=1 seems about right to me to denote the absence of a ground floor. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpier <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpier> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dstilt_house <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dstilt_house> -Alan On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 06:34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: add location=overhead on buildings and other objects? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:min_level <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:min_level> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels#Buildings_with_parts_that_don.27t_start_at_ground_level <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels#Buildings_with_parts_that_don.27t_start_at_ground_level> (not sure can it be applied if entire building starts above ground level) Certainly add also description=* tag with info what is happening here, maybe with link to this mailing list thread. Nov 25, 2020, 01:00 by graemefi...@gmail.com <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>: How do you tag an area, in this case an entire housing estate!, that is raised up above ground level? https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.065772,153.3799853,3a,15y,117.51h,89.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN_TJvFHJyLff1E4GmiCSjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en <https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.065772,153.3799853,3a,15y,117.51h,89.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN_TJvFHJyLff1E4GmiCSjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en> (with the usual not mapping from Google ...) Just draw the outline of the area & tag it as level=1? The main entry is via a bridge: https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0673717,153.3800556,3a,23.4y,28.84h,87.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBF_8z5ekricuuEFZnUJioQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en <https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0673717,153.3800556,3a,23.4y,28.84h,87.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBF_8z5ekricuuEFZnUJioQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en>, which is ok, but should all the internal roads also be marked as bridges? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <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] shared planter where you can harvest for free
This makes me think of two already used tags but I'm not sure I would use them on planters as they describe large lands: * landuse=allotments (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dallotments) (but they imply some parcel assignment) * garden:type=community (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type) (with this one you are close to what you are looking for, but it's not a garden... Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 04/07/2019 à 08:59, joost schouppe a écrit : Hi, I stumbled upon some planters that are privately operated, on public domain, contain nothing but vegetables, and are meant for anyone passing by to help themselves. They are part of a project called "Incredible edibles" or "Incroyables comestibles". Here's an example: https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/joostjakob?lat=50.6903739&lng=4.2589972&z=17&pKey=9sx6_zLDzHbXL8om62LfEg&focus=photo I went with this: man_made=planter self_service=yes fee=no operator=Les Incroyables Comestibles But it doesn't really grasp the concept IMHO. Any suggestions? When looking for other examples, I found a Google MyMaps and several umap instances with local gardens. Showing this community that you can "simply map them in OpenStreetMap" would be nice. But first a data model! -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> ___ 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] Surface on turning circles
My understanding is that surface=* can be used to describe any type of surface of a way/node, so yes it is ok to use it for turning_circle even if the Wiki might not explicitely suggest it (feel free to edit it). LeTopographeFou Le 02/01/2019 à 19:23, Tod Fitch a écrit : I am implementing a map rendering that differentiates roads based the type of surface. A number of these roads have turning circles which I would like to render too and I’d like to base the rendering on the surface. Looking at the wiki page for turning_circle [1] and at taginfo [2] it appears that there has been no discussion or use of a surface tag on a point tagged as highway=turning_circle. I suspect there are cases where a turning circle’s surface may not match the surface of the roadway so even if I could figure out how to determine the surface of the highway way the node was on it would not be a solution. So, what is the opinion on adding to the turning_circle wiki page a section on tagging its surface? My thought would be to simply use the same surface tagging as for a highway way [3] Thanks! [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=highway&value=turning_circle#combinations [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ___ 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] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia
I also reached this conclusion some time ago but looking at how it is difficult to change something regarding tagging I stop authorizing myself thinking that such situation CAN be changed. However I'm not affraid of such major change if it can bring enhancement. I'm ok to consider a proposal which would lead to the tourism=accomodation schema. But I think that whatever we do (new schema vs existing schema) an "Accomodation" wiki page (routing to hotel/motel/... tags) will be helpfull to today route to existing tags and maybe tomorrow explain the new schema. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 01/01/2019 à 03:23, Silent Spike a écrit : I've recently been more involved with wikidata and come to appreciate the benefits of having a structured set of data interlinked by well defined properties. You can see here <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q216212> that the current information there considers motels to be a subclass of hotels (so all motels are hotels, not all hotels are motels). Which makes sense to me, hotels are the short term accommodation part of your definition and then this can be further specified as a motel if it's build around a car parking area as the main attraction of the hotel. In terms of the splitting hairs and tagging conversation, this seems to support the tourism=accommodation idea mentioned, but yeah existing tags are so widely used already... On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:57 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: I am getting the same feeling for intermittent/seasonal and ephemeral ... should all be one top level tag. Sigh. n 01/01/19 02:37, Dave Swarthout wrote: Tobias wrote: "Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to think that we could abandon the tag altogether." +1 I agree. We tend to "split hairs" in OSM, when in some cases it simply isn't worth the effort. These objects are just temporary accommodations that, granted, have varying characteristics. Here in Thailand, it's virtually impossible to differentiate between a guest_house and a hotel. And how should one tag facilities that label themselves as a "resort" (รีสอร์ท)? A better approach might (have been) to use a generic term like tourism=accommodation as a top level and then describe the facility more fully with subtags. Of course, we're pretty much stuck with the present imperfect tagging situation. Dave On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 10:18 PM Tobias Wrede mailto:l...@tobias-wrede.de>> wrote: In Germany my experience is that actually most hotels in the cities charge for parking. On the other hand you find very very few that call themselves "motel". I can only think of one currently that does, and it is located within a motorway rest area. The exception is the chain Motel One which is a very typical _h_otel often located in city centers offering only limited parking. When I think of a motel I always picture those with doors opening to the car park from US movies. Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to think that we could abandon the tag altogether. What value does it generate for the data consumer if tourism=motel and tourism=hotel is all but the same and practical distinction could for both be made by subtags parking=y/n, parking:fee=y/n, etc? Tobias Am 24.12.2018 um 01:12 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg: In the USA, we would also assume a motel offers free parking. Hotels may charge extra for parking, especial if located downtown or next to an airport. Is this also the case in Europe and Australia? On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 8:55 AM Dave Swarthout mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com>> wrote: "Today the main difference seems to be the sign out front. If a hostelry calls itself a motel, it is a motel. If it calls itself a hotel, it is a hotel. Local licensing authorities do not differentiate between them and they are regulated identically, so far as I can tell. I'd say the definition should be based on what is written on the sign on the hostelry." +1 That's my main criterion for tagging an accommodation as a motel. I agree with Volker's points and Allan's view on this. Happy Holidays Dave On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:27 AM Allan Mustard mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote: Motel = MOtor hoTEL
Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia
You're right, I agree with you that we need to make things clear and that those pages may not be rewrote, because they have been wrote independently, at different point in time, and as soon as you add the issue bringed by translations you can measure how difficult it can be, if one does not master English, to pick the good tag for a given country or make sure translations are aligned. Consequently every input (coming from Wikipedia or from somewhere else) is valuable. On a separate note, a separate wiki page for comparing places to sleep sounds reasonable, but based on your concerns, I'm not sure what meaningful criteria we could list there other than one based on name=*. I was thinking on something like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport : You read it and there you have all concepts related to what you're trying to map. This "Sleeping accomodation" page (or any other appropriate name) would try, in one consolated single place, to route someone to the right tag (hotel, motel, hostel, camping, glamping, shelter, guest house...), maybe also considering some country specific contexts (and concepts foreigners does not know). A kind of "hub". Then, the (already existing) Tag wiki pages would still exist but more focused on the HOW: how to map an hotel, how to map a motel, how to map... What does other people think? If I have time I can give it a try, but feel free to start it and people will collaborate. Merry Christmas to everyone, a time to remember how fascinating is the Planet we are trying to map. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 23/12/2018 à 21:37, bkil a écrit : Unfortunately, if we only included the objective criteria based on a high interaction between the parking lot and the rooms, then the number of motels in Hungary for example would be near zero. As two of you have raised concerns regarding this change, I've reverted it and moved the text to my own space, see here if anyone would still like to comment: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bkil/Tag:tourism%3Dmotel But then again, the current page is almost useless in its current form: if we blanked the article and simply wrote "Tag an establishment as tourism=motel if its name=* contains the word 'Motel'", we would be providing at least as much help to mappers, if not more. This can't be right. At the same time, based on the proposed criteria, I could identify a large number of them around here and the result correlated very well with whether their nameplate contains the word "Motel" or not. Most points of my criteria are nearly objective. You simply sum them up, and the higher score you get, the more confident you get in your decision (a'la reCAPTCHA v3). Again, as mentioned in the text, none of those listed were requirements, this should only be understood as an implication. I.e., if we are talking about a hotel, it is perfectly normal that some points will not apply. Also, some points may be given more weight than others - so the so called "objective" points could be weighed more. On a separate note, a separate wiki page for comparing places to sleep sounds reasonable, but based on your concerns, I'm not sure what meaningful criteria we could list there other than one based on name=*. Let's read the Wikipedia article together and then discuss the matter further. I agree that as mentioned there as well, several providers use the term "motel" as a synonym for a budget hotel or pension, but that's still not the original meaning and this should not bias our perceptions. I've linked a few dozen in the changeset of my opening question so we are on the same page. Here are my favorite ones from a mapping perspective: http://www.momotel.hu/ http://www.lokomotivmotel.hu/en/photo_gallery.html I really look forward to keeping this constructive - as my motive is still to help others in making their mapping decisions when in doubt. Wish you all happy holidays On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 5:17 PM LeTopographeFou mailto:letopographe...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank you for asking. I go a lot to either motels or hotels and I also think that the difference between a motel and an hotel is mainly based on the design of the place, not on the number of nights, the proximity to tourist attractions or major highways or the cost of the land. Consequently I disagree with most of your criteria in the "How to tell apart from hotel" section and would reduce the list to objective criteria based on the design of the place, i.e an high interaction between the parking lot and the rooms (which often means that room access is made from the parking lot). Everything else may be your criteria but are not objective criteria IMHO. Speaking of the difference with a guest ho
Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia
Thank you for asking. I go a lot to either motels or hotels and I also think that the difference between a motel and an hotel is mainly based on the design of the place, not on the number of nights, the proximity to tourist attractions or major highways or the cost of the land. Consequently I disagree with most of your criteria in the "How to tell apart from hotel" section and would reduce the list to objective criteria based on the design of the place, i.e an high interaction between the parking lot and the rooms (which often means that room access is made from the parking lot). Everything else may be your criteria but are not objective criteria IMHO. Speaking of the difference with a guest house the main difference would be: Is the owner a company (i.e. an incorporated business) with employees (for check in, check out...) or is it a self-managed business? I think the question applies also to hotels. Also, I suggest you to sum up eveything in one Wiki page listing all scenarios of sleeping places (camping, glamping, hotel, motel and guest house), keeping the actual one as how to use the tags (not how to choose the best one) instead of keeping 5 pages which will never (?) be aligned. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 23/12/2018 à 12:05, bkil a écrit : Thank you for the insight, I'll try to figure out a better wording there. I'm also considering to improve the wording of the guest house and hotel articles in the future, though I'll need to find a way to do this without adding too much redundancy. Well, what I wanted to convey in those sentences was that I'd expect the average booked nights per stay to be lower for a motel compared to a hotel. Compared to renting a flat, both motel and hotel stays are considered short-term. However, if we used the exact same wording of simply "short term" on both wiki articles, we would be missing the opportunity for an important distinction: while one happily books a whole week in a hotel for the sake of enjoying the leisure, services and attractions nearby, motels by design have been more intended for transit traffic. Of course I'm not talking about a hard split, as in all or nothing. Surely a number of people on the budget will stay at a motel and commute from there daily to their real destinations simply because of the cost savings, but I'd say that the core business model of most motels relies (or have historically relied) on transient use. On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:17 AM Joseph Eisenberg mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: The one concern I have is the new sentences that suggest that hotels are “typically not [booked for ] single night” while motels are usually booked for 1 night. I have certainly stayed for 2 to 3 nights at a “Motel 6” and other motels. And I have never encountered problems booking rooms for a single night at 3 and 3.5 star hotels for business trips. On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 6:34 PM bkil http://bkil.hu>+a...@gmail.com <mailto:a...@gmail.com>> wrote: I've made a major rewording of this tag. Please review and don't hesitate to comment or improve if I've mistakenly changed the meaning of the tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dmotel&type=revision&diff=1755686&oldid=1561324 Source: based on Wikipedia and recent mapping experience: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65702446#map=9/47.1412/18.6632 It also looks like some have used the word motel for what should have been pensions and guest houses around here, I'll also fix these later. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping hotels on buildings or areas around buildings
You're right, I missed this point. I've made some searches, the actual sentence of the wiki has been pu in February 2017 (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:tourism%3Dhotel&oldid=1432264) but if you look at the previous revision it was a little bit different: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:tourism%3Dhotel&oldid=1428557 Wiki user Geozeisig has completely changed the sentence "How to map" section. I did not check all revisions nor the reasons/discussions for each changes. I don't like the Geozeisig change on this point. Whatever I'm in favor of having a consistent hospital, hotel, school... mapping system. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 29/09/2017 à 17:11, Bryan Housel a écrit : If you draw a “Hotel” in iD, you’ll see that it gets a `building=yes` tag added to it. (Users can change this if they like). Again, this is exactly in agreement with what the osm wiki page for `tourism=hotel` says to do. On Sep 29, 2017, at 11:06 AM, LeTopographeFou mailto:letopographe...@gmail.com>> wrote: This is how iD interprets the tag - as a building outline. I disagree, when you look for "Hotel" iD proposes both "Hotel" (in gray which means it is an area in the iD codes) and "Building Hotel" (in red and with a building picture which both means it is a building). Same for Hospitals. For me iD is already ready. But one may propose a new translation to replace "Hotel" by "Hotel Grounds" to be consistent with how hospitals are proposed in iD. By the way this is how I tag hotels now so +1 with the proposal. Yours, LeTopographeFou ___ 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 hotels on buildings or areas around buildings
This is how iD interprets the tag - as a building outline. I disagree, when you look for "Hotel" iD proposes both "Hotel" (in gray which means it is an area in the iD codes) and "Building Hotel" (in red and with a building picture which both means it is a building). Same for Hospitals. For me iD is already ready. But one may propose a new translation to replace "Hotel" by "Hotel Grounds" to be consistent with how hospitals are proposed in iD. By the way this is how I tag hotels now so +1 with the proposal. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 29/09/2017 à 16:50, Bryan Housel a écrit : Yes, but the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dhotel <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=hotel> page says "Set a node <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node> or draw as an area <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Area> along the building outline." This is how iD interprets the tag - as a building outline. So if we collectively decide to change `tourism=*` tags to be property outlines (like hospitals and schools), I hope: - somebody opens an issue on iD to let me know to change the wording of the preset. - somebody creates a challenge to cleanup the existing data that is not tagged this way. - somebody fixes the wiki (well somebody should do this anyway as it currently says 2 different things) Thanks, Bryan On Sep 29, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Michal Fabík <mailto:michal.fa...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Janko Mihelić <mailto:jan...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, should only the hotel buildings be tagged with tourism=hotel or the whole area that is owned by the hotel? I think if the hotel doesn't have more than one building, and if the hotel grounds are not very big, or if they are accessible by public, only the building gets tagged. But if there are more buildings, outside pool and/or parks accesible only by guests, we might consider tagging an area around those buildings. Does this thinking align with most mappers? Hi, I don't recall the last time I tagged a hotel but that's how I would to it. Actually, the wiki page for buildings confirms this: building=hotel: "A building designed with separate rooms available for overnight accommodation. Normally used in conjunction with tourism=hotel for the hotel grounds including recreation areas and parking." (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building#Values) Regards, -- Michal Fabík ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging attractions that are farms
Hi, Ok, principle is the same with tourism=attraction if it is in fact one atraction ;-). But there places with multiple interesting things - attractions in the tourism sense, not the rollercoaster sense. Just yesterday they announced they are making a "Ghibli theme park" in Japan (their famous animation studio)- which means a collection of spectacles - not rides (they don't do rides). This will be a *huge* attraction in Japan (on the level of a famous theme park) - each item inside is a tourism=attraction - so how do you tag a collection of tourism=attraction s? http://kotaku.com/theyre-making-a-studio-ghibli-theme-park-in-japan-1795712103 Tourism=* doesn't seem to have a way to define a non-ride "theme park" - a collection of tourism=attractions and other tourist amenities in one named place. I think we should consider having such a tag. It's not because there is no roller coaster (or ride) that it is not a theme park. I agree that it is usually the main interest of a theme park but there are many things to consider and the most important is probably What is the purpose of the area? To educate? Then it is maybe more a museum. To enjoy animal sight seeing? Then it is maybe more a zoo. To relax? Then it is maybe more a park. To have fun? Then it is probably more a theme park. And if it is mostly an outdoor closed and decorated area, with an admission fee, souvenirs, costumed people to play popular characters then it strengthens the first guess that is is probably more a theme park than a collection of attractions, even if there is no roller coaster. Having said that I don't know what will be "Ghibli theme park" but it is just to say that I would not focus only on rides. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 02/06/2017 à 22:32, John Willis a écrit : On Jun 2, 2017, at 7:01 PM, Marc Gemis <mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>> wrote: I would map it as tourism=attraction [1] and not as tourism=theme_park I totally agree that it is not a tourism=theme park. But there places with multiple interesting things - attractions in the tourism sense, not the rollercoaster sense. Just yesterday they announced they are making a "Ghibli theme park" in Japan (their famous animation studio)- which means a collection of spectacles - not rides (they don't do rides). This will be a *huge* attraction in Japan (on the level of a famous theme park) - each item inside is a tourism=attraction - so how do you tag a collection of tourism=attraction s? http://kotaku.com/theyre-making-a-studio-ghibli-theme-park-in-japan-1795712103 Tourism=* doesn't seem to have a way to define a non-ride "theme park" - a collection of tourism=attractions and other tourist amenities in one named place. I think we should consider having such a tag. Javbw ___ 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] traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*
On a node, traffic_signals:direction=* applies only to the traffic signals while direction=* applies to all other tags which may be associated with a direction (camera...). This is the additional meaning. Let say that traffic_signals:direction=* is a more explicit tag than direction=* (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespace). So why is there such a gap in use of the two keys between stop, give ways and traffic lights? For me several reasons: 1. Because of the wiki. Some people (including me) look at the wiki as guidelines when mapping (not only as a documentation): 1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals encourages traffic_signals:direction=* (even in the talk page) 2. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dstop encourages direction=* 3. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dgive_way encourages direction=* 2. Because editors use it that way... probably because they have implemented directions following the wiki! But also because they have implemented it for traffic lights, stops and give ways at different point in time (and iD for instance don't support direction for all of those features) and by different developers (and different point of view). When you see a field in iD (for instance), you often want to fill it when you know the answer. When you don't see it, you may not think to create the tag by yourself (or maybe not even know a tag exists). 3. Some quality assurance tools (such as Osmose) encourage (or have encouraged) one form over another one, sometimes involuntarily. 4. In real life a traffic light is more often associated to another device such as a camera, a pedestrian light... than stop signs which stands generally on their own. So direction=* might be enought for stops and give_ways most of the time for most of the mappers and editors. 5. Maybe massive edits or imports have dug the gap. I think that both stop, give way and traffic signals shall have a consistent definition of direction and shall be consistent in which key to encourage. As soon as direction=* is valid I would encourage it as the primary method, would not deprecate the second one but explain it is one way of avoiding ambiguities in some cases. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 20/03/2017 à 17:19, Jean-Marc Liotier a écrit : traffic_signals:direction=* is used on 27278 highway=traffic_signals objects: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=traffic_signals#combinations highway=stop is combined with a direction tag on about 77000 objects (direction=backward, direction=forward and the literal direction=*) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=stop#combinations highway=give_way is combined with a direction tag on about 43000 objects (direction=backward, direction=forward and the literal direction=*) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=give_way#combinations Given how widely used the direction tag is for highway=* signs, why isn't it also applied to highway=traffic_signals ? Does traffic_signals:direction=* bear additional meaning that direction=* does not convey ? ___ 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] shop=estate_agent and office=estate_agent
Hi, I will probably reopen an explosive case but I would like to know where we are reguarding shop=estate_agent vs office=estate_agent. On the discussion page for the original proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Estate_Agent) there is already some debates on this one but because the tag office was not yet created, shop has been prefered. And probably also because concensus was not strong enought toward office. Several years after this debate, the wiki page of the approved one (shop=estate_agent) have been tagged as "to be merged", both shop and office are documented and here are the statistics: * office=estate_agent <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Destate_agent> (status in use) => 17 227 use * shop=estate_agent <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Destate_agent> (status approved) => 3 818 use On editor side both JOSM and ID use office=estate_agent (unofficial) and do not recognise shop=estate_agent (official). This will definitively not help the approved one to grow. Consequently it looks like the "in use" one is killing (has already killed?) the "approved" one. => Is there any ongoing plan to clarify the situation? Any up to date discussion page/proposal I did not found yet? If one ask for my opinion, I would tend to say that we shall not think by purpose of the company but by purpose of the place we map (OSM is all about mapping right?): * a shop is where you can buy something, regardless it is a desk in the midddle of a room or nice rows of shelves with products and prices. Consequently a "place" at the corner of the street where you can enter and buy a real estate would be a shop. * an office is where people are working, usually at desks, and are not primarily dedicated to wait for customers, welcome them and sell products. Consequently, the headquarter of this real estate chain (or a building dedicated to an administrative or internal service) would be an office. If everything (selling and administrative) is at the same place, I think that shop should be prefered (but one can use both on the same object). This is like the HQ of a bank or a post company: it's more an office than an amenity (and sometimes there is no counter nor ATM inside). In this scenario shop=estate_agent and office=estate_agent would coexist, each one with its own meaning (or another mecanism to differenciate an open shop from a limited-access office, both working to sell/manage real estates, would be devised). Same principle can be applied to insurances, law firms... which are suffering from the same issue. Yours, -- LeTopographeFou ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future
Thank you Dave and sorry if I've been so strict :-). FYI: I've made the fix, plus some others to clean a little bit the tunnel values. Everything is explained here: * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23003_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dyes And to avoid a lng page next ones I will do will be in one single table with the third fix: * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23004_-_Typos I've located plenty of typos in taginfo (including misused of capital letters), so you should see the table increase soon. Feel free to comment and thank you for your support on this one. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 11/09/2016 à 16:05, Dave F a écrit : On 10/09/2016 13:21, LeTopographeFou wrote: By the way the subject of the mail was "Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future" and not a discussion on which tag to choose, so I restore it to not confuse people. Please don't associate with my question something else ;-) . I changed the subject so it wouldn't confuse. Dave F. ___ 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] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
I did not think of traffic directions, good point! I think oneway makes sense better than traffic_direction. This would means that oneway apply to traffic whether it is on ground, water, air, rail... much more easier for routing engines (and for amphibian vehicles such as Duck tours!). The usecase I've originaly found (but I did not check all 17596 usage) was a usage for intermitent streams (and some which are culverts!) in the middle of the desert of Colorado. In this specific case I don't think any traffic is feasible. So the question now is: does oneway apply to the direction of the stream or to the direction of the traffic? * The wiki pages says oneway is used to "indicate the access restriction on highways and other linear features" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway). * The wiki requires to draw waterways downward (which makes sense for me) * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Inland_navigation says nothing about traffic directions (but I think it's a real need) * JOSM stays silent on this one. So I would say that oneway is valid for traffic directions on waterways and oneway=yes means that this part of the waterway can only be sailed downward. If my understanding is right, I propose to update the waterway and oneway pages to say that oneway can be used on waterways to represent the traffic direction. But does it means that a river should be forked under a bridge whenever traffic directions go under different arches? Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 17/09/2016 à 14:45, Colin Smale a écrit : I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under bridges, around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on our old friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic direction is opposite to the flow direction". Having to create a route relation is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. //colin On 2016-09-17 14:35, Dave F wrote: I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction. If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with forward/backward roles. If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards? Adding a route relation would be preferable though. Dave F. On 17/09/2016 13:20, Andy Townsend wrote: I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense. There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in error to indicate water flow direction, but you'd need to ask whoever the previous mapper was in each case (or use a bit of common sense). Cheers, Andy *From: *LeTopographeFou *Sent: *Saturday, 17 September 2016 13:17 *To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org *Reply To: *Tag discussion, strategy and related tools *Subject: *[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways Hi According to the waterway=stream wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream): /If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/ As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes. Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete oneway=yes tags for streams? The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals... Yours, -- LeTopographeFou ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways
Hi According to the waterway=stream wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream): /If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/ As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways according to taginfo, 0.23%) with oneway=yes. Is there any undocumented purpose? Is it ok and safe to delete oneway=yes tags for streams? The same question can apply to drains, ditches, canals... Yours, -- LeTopographeFou ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future
Ok, I got the point. I will wait a little bit but i'm happy if there is no complicated process to follow for editing typos at a larger scale (22 is a small start but I've exemples with thousands of typos which are hopefully associated to millions of well-written and documented values). Yours LeTopographeFou Le 10/09/2016 à 15:35, ajt1...@gmail.com a écrit : On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote: I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to fix them when it is obvious. let's try that again but without pressing "send" instead of "edit" :) In the case of "tunnel=buildig_passage" it's pretty obvious what the previous mapper meant. The only caveat I'd add (which you may not have mentioned only because it's so obvious) is to check that the thing that you're fixing plausibly matches a building passage - if someone's drawn a doodle in the middle of the Atlantic and added a "tunnel=building_passage" tag I'd just delete it rather than "fixing" the tag. When I did something similar to odd "barrier" values in the UK a little while ago there was a roughly 3-way split - in a third it was obvious what the mapper had meant, so I just fixed those; in another third it wasn't, so I messaged the previous mapper or added a note, and in another third the source was just "Bing" and the mapper wasn't active any more so I just used my idea of what the imagery suggested to me. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future
By the way the subject of the mail was "Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future" and not a discussion on which tag to choose, so I restore it to not confuse people. Please don't associate with my question something else ;-) . Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 10/09/2016 à 13:35, LeTopographeFou a écrit : Thank you for your feedback. This is an important topic but I think that fixing a typo and approving a tag are two different needs. Whether this tag is validated or not, I think it should be fixed because the intent of those contributors was to put building_passage and not those fancy variations, even if they are wrong. It can also help to highlight errors in some tools. Yours, LeTopographeFou Le 10/09/2016 à 13:23, Simone Saviolo a écrit : Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :) Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and colonnades have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the building is over the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding balcony "covers" the way. Regards, Simone 2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>>: Hmm... The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage> Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624) http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered> I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a tunnel it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or river bed). These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level. Is there a difference I'm not aware of? Dave F. On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote: Hello, I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user, it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on this point. So I've made a proposal here for a first edit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage> Thank you for your feedback * vote is ok * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious * edit one by one/contact authors one by one * do nothing and let the time do his work * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos! * ... ? Yours, -- LeTopographeFou ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <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] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes
Thank you for your feedback.
This is an important topic but I think that fixing a typo and approving
a tag are two different needs. Whether this tag is validated or not, I
think it should be fixed because the intent of those contributors was to
put building_passage and not those fancy variations, even if they are
wrong. It can also help to highlight errors in some tools.
Yours,
LeTopographeFou
Le 10/09/2016 à 13:23, Simone Saviolo a écrit :
Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :)
Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a
colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and
colonnades have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the
building is over the highway, but it might even mean that a protruding
balcony "covers" the way.
Regards,
Simone
2016-09-10 13:09 GMT+02:00 Dave F <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>>:
Hmm...
The building_passage tag (65 445) is a new one to me.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage
<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tunnel=building_passage>
Looking at the wiki it's very similar to covered=yes (254 624)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered
<http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/covered>
I thought there was a discussion here where it was agreed to be a
tunnel it would need to be below natural ground (ie a mountain or
river bed).
These 'building_passage' all appear to be at ground level.
Is there a difference I'm not aware of?
Dave F.
On 10/09/2016 11:42, LeTopographeFou wrote:
Hello,
I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to
fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user,
it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide
and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right
contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless
there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those
object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I
want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a
vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on
this point.
So I've made a proposal here for a first edit:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage>
Thank you for your feedback
* vote is ok
* don't worry, document and do when it's obvious
* edit one by one/contact authors one by one
* do nothing and let the time do his work
* are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos!
* ... ?
Yours,
--
LeTopographeFou
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
___ Tagging mailing
list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<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] Typo fix for tunnel=building_passage and how to proceed in the future
Hello, I've noticed several typo errors in tag values. I would like to fix them when it is obvious. When they all came from one user, it's easy to contact him and agree on a fix. When it's worldwide and multi contributors it becomes difficult to identify the right contributor for each tag and contact them one by one (unless there is a tool to say "this value for this key of this/those object(s) have been assigned by Xxx, Yyy..."). In all cases I want to document the edit in the wiki. But do I have to ask for a vote/discussion for automated typo edits? The wiki is unclear on this point. So I've made a proposal here for a first edit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/LeTopographeFou#.23002_-_Typos_with_tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage Thank you for your feedback * vote is ok * don't worry, document and do when it's obvious * edit one by one/contact authors one by one * do nothing and let the time do his work * are you silly? automated edits are evil for typos! * ... ? Yours, -- LeTopographeFou ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing
Hi, When I add a way/node which has already been added in a relation JOSM warn me and ask me to confirm or to cancel. So there is no issue with JOSM, or at least with the actual revision, to add more than once a way/node in a relation. AFAIK order of members of type "way" in a relation of type route doesn't matter. The wiki states only that the stops should be ordered (a 'should', not a 'shall'). But I think that to order the ways is a good practice and should be recommended also. Moreover nothing is stating that stops should be gathered in the relation or placed between the two ways it is linked to. Finally, you can put "forward" and "backward" as roles of the ways to specify which way the route is taking. This is even more usefull when a way is added twice because the bus has to reverse. Please note that there is also forward:stop and backward:stop (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members). LeTopographeFou Le 02/09/2016 à 23:11, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit : On fös 2.sep 2016 20:54, André Pirard wrote: On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it doesn't remove repeats which were already there. I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways. Repeating nodes is not allowed but repeating ways is all-right. My statement applies, in my experience, also to ways. I haven't been able to add duplicate ways to relations for a long time (it was possible once but later disabled). It's been causing a lot of holes in the local bus relations since some of them go from A to B, circle around a neighbourhood until they return to B, and then go back to A. In some of those cases, being able to add duplicate nodes is essential for the bus route in OSM to reflect the actual one. - Svavar Kjarrval ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
