Re: [Tagging] TMC proposal - RFC
FWIW, there is also this proposal (currently only in German): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/New_TMC_scheme Thanks, I forgot to mention this one. I think I should put a link on my proposal page and briefly explain what are the differences and why. Best, Manuel ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] TMC proposal - RFC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everybody, I would like to propose the following tagging scheme for Traffic Message Channel (TMC) locations. This data is used to locate the roads and places to which traffic messages apply. See here for a description of TMC and the available data: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TMC http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TMC/Location_Code_List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Message_Channel See here for an overview of the location code tables for a few countries: http://manuelhohmann.dyndns.org/osm/TMC.html The plan of the overall proposal is as follows: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:tmc This proposal is in fact a collection of several independent proposals. Each proposal should thus be treated separately. The first stage of the proposal can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:tmc/TMC_Points Best, Manuel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS7Vg8AAoJEPvf9RrsekSyCEcH+wTZtzjBSFowaYuy5AzYE5yG J1+O/Az/8cD3SPTELjxF2KhoronUP4RqD6/DOJtaXqpBXRlpf4b8Mfosda7XiSWn iL7MWHNknUPZdSQ79RiXIws8O4svu/HTUMCvxN4kSs0YlqVjeA/YJJJiSnUE3Jmh jkDLZ2m7YP6Oa4RYMj0p1I5a+N198nqkQFjmuOalOI6sCPPmv7feVcWrVvmtExOm /ZGY+vjj61dgvQCGPmkgcu19d5MacrzlX8Yj1bx1diybzaS9ld8UrSh7yvWV7oqa uIKYfosuza7w9q1VJ0ru0BiTGdGQaEyvyFbtBsN8LVNSL0murJX9JWta83+YzHY= =9XXJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think it is pointless to continue discussing about a draw as the rules seem quite clearly to require a majority: A rule of thumb for enough support is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15 total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). the fact that some of the tags you propose are already in use (differently to what you propose) doesn't strengthen the idea that this should be considered approved despite the strong opposition. Of course I have nowhere written that my proposal has been approved or that it should be considered approved - simply because it did not reach a majority, and there was enough criticism against it. But with with the same argument one can oppose the statement it would have been clearly rejected, since it also received about as much support as criticism. I fully agree with Dan S here: The vote indicates a maybe, but not in this exact form, and this is just what I meant by draw all the time. I don't see any reason to discuss this either, since a discussion does not alter anything here. well, this is not an insurmountable hurdle, we should simply pay attention to how we precisely name those tags (e.g. the architectural element could be called roof_lantern). Sure, I agree. these terms IMHO don't fit well under the same key, lantern is a type of light defined by the design/construction, while warning and aviation are defined by the scope. Those were just quick ideas / making up examples. One can probably find better names for these objects, following the principle of carefully choosing as mentioned above. I would go for the established lamp_type as this is in use and has according values. AFAIK lamp_type is rather used as a sub-tag to highway=street_lamp and specifies the type of lantern (gaslight, electric...). Using this on its own in the form lamp_type=lantern would hopelessly mix up those different uses. See http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lamp_type#combinations for this. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlcivAAoJEPvf9RrsekSykmcH/jqKrybkuqOAqYZJixn7E8gD yAcw6TlUlYPL9JI1jxmnSBpg2FepGjt/bof2TKdryORwSBdBivnTc++AC74brAs+ 7tXcQjpCGgXd6LL6f6yuPARGifXRFJ546bbU3aBKWwErjCf0V9ZByKw8p4ffIi9C iNXg+SKAU52GQZHTm7ByvQQXc8yfBEVER23mKSBq8g0Cb7fmYZaYSjN3o8MZTHjK AdywhcBXqqjOiveNl85JqlMd8N2K8hYEuVy/IDBQQlvYrNficsxhmF/Mmd4KT92G I1zdOved4jjeD7ECXlbYrAuBxAZCFW0td0SPk+uWHrw2OP6c+bsJOt4+MA3fwBs= =gllt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You are cheating here, the voting period finished at 23 November, and by the 14th of November all 18 no-votes had already been cast, leading with this apparently clear rejection to desinterest by other potential rejecters. You are now counting post-voting-votes on the yes side in order to obfuscate the actual result. This proposal was rejected according to our rules and I now set it to rejected in the wiki. Just in case you did not get it the first time: - - The 14th of November does not have any relevance here - there is no counting of votes somewhere in the middle of voting. - - Everyone has been free to vote, no matter the current vote count. If someone does vote against the proposal, his vote cannot be counted. - - At the end of the voting period there were 18 yes, 18 no and one partial yes. If this in in any way a clear result, then it is a draw. - - Comments indicate that the dominant reason for opposing was deprecating highway=street_lamp, not the additional / new tags of the proposal. - - The positive votes, further comments and the fact that even after the official voting period someone handed in another positive vote indicate clear interest in this proposal, or at least into its continuing development. - - For the aforementioned reasons, this proposal is further being worked on. I therefore set it to proposed, and I did this for a reason. - - I am not obfuscating anything, I am stating facts, and these can be found in the wiki. I hope this is finally clarified. Your opposing vote has been counted, the reasons you have given were taken into account and have been commented on. If you would like to further contribute, feel free to reply to these comments, or make further suggestions, or feel free to create your own proposal. I will continue working on this one, and take into account any constructive criticism or other contributions, including the received comments during voting, from anyone who is interested in contributing. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlIXpAAoJEPvf9RrsekSyYCAIAKSaBBbzpEpigBp2j8/8oCWj O8fIwV5p7eC8309rTMUj9C1T3v4gsjozxg80N2ZVzr/8vPyvMP22nfLni2+toAzo UUZ0p42MAkMxZwUMn3E79G5Jg2JFoIDKGaDgInfjKe1lp56dqpUjeHBXBuG+Ddym tUtOeIEp+9NfXzliSVSdwA5u/CDjFOAvGLnsbNepo6rH6cDrbGgm/G973vUTYhqL zjf2Ii3Q9DzrsQ4Av2YVLoGg72Vq2ihRb0TsNP0NE+6rLDZ/BE+d37JEiF0uxFrV 1QQQZmf8FhV8JWjaHW6z7PFSbiFo0aZDC49i3+QA3gmhrsidTXUB9dMQRQTsswM= =j6/j -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A draw means rejected as it isn't a majority for yes. A partial yes like an abstain counts as vote that isn't yes, so for practical reasons you can count this like a no. At least this is what the rules had been so far. A draw is a draw, it's not a majority for no either. You can count an abstain whatever you want, it neither yes nor no. Here we had a partial yes. And besides, as I explained before, I also took into account the comments and reasons for opposing in the decision to keep working on the proposal. To make it clear, I am not in general against tagging lights and lamps (besides those that already get tagged), but I also do not think that all kind of light emitting objects have necessarily to go under one and the same tag. Generally substituting one tag by requiring two tags isn't desirable (IMHO). The tag highway=street_lamp is widely used and there is (IMHO) no reason to believe a street light/lamp isn't part of a highway. You can see it as one or the other and apparently there are not so few mappers who see it as a usable tag. Yes, this is the main outcome of the voting, as I said. And this will be taken into account in the further work on this proposal. The discussions here and in the forum have shown that both opinions exist - - regarding street lamps as part of the highway or not. Given that there is already a tag for the (supposedly) most required thing in this field to be tagged, why not invent a (or more) new tag(s) for what remains and you want to tag? Of course one can do this as well. My aim was to unify the tagging of these objects, since they all generate light. This idea is not new - think of public_transport=stop_position, for example. But of course one can have different opinions, as always in OSM. And when inventing a new tag, why not do it right (i.e. with the correct terminology)? Just as there are different words in German (Leuchte, Strahler, Scheinwerfer, Fluter as opposed to Lampe), there are also in English. I was using the term that was attested to me by native speakers to be most commonly used, and also understandable to others. Many people, especially non-native speakers, might not even know the term light fitting, even though it's correct UK English. Why not e.g. use a tag floodlights for certain typology of lights, or lantern for another? This is also possible, provided that one can easily distinguish these topologies. As a remark, lantern was also on my list, but as I figured out, it usually refers to portable light sources. As an analogy, we also do not use highway=street, street=primary because the way stuff went has brought us this distinction already in the main tag, and someone now trying to reinvent this wheel would most probably fail. Of course, highway=* is a key that already indicates some type of way or related feature, so one can immediately specify the type of feature in the value. highway=street, street=primary would thus make no sense. This is different for man_made=*, which does not give much information on the type of object. One could of course also think of not using man_made at all, and introduce light=floodlights etc. as a new primary tag, in order to group light sources with a more unified tagging. But honestly I have no idea whether this would be better or worse. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlJ11AAoJEPvf9RrsekSyp6sIAJUD+bqj2t8h/Z2nZsO7mD1f TE/p4R8BuY5K0CN1vJvECS/gyfn4jD8g3vSHpJ3pQBDfEjncjr2o3zpZXtWD+bp+ WPfE1BXr9ZHqmMH9qqbYXsmPL3UWdFrugE2b3Ll7UhvLWLU0ZRG7NWi4Mm1atwUX Y1ia7ggiAv+qlg/lh2yreIXTjGyl3EY8EM56Xn2A76+DaM2vRNeuVbSFvgR2DJez C/4kpqEHVimiCsqCmlGnEjrC0642BkWuM/dghlgS4ZgFp4GY5vWTz/R0Bs5iJ3ee 7p+ZDMTlJ2mrKczL8BVuDDASZ167m8mTO1jC6ibFP0Ob39/Om6141iRHc+WblcQ= =Jw6I -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 yes, rejected ;-) I'm really not sure what you don't understand about the word DRAW or about the fact that the total number of positive votes exceeds the total number of negative votes. But another fact is that your opinion does not alter any of these facts. a good example where it didn't work either: there are 1.2M of highway=bus_stop but only 200K public_transport platform and stop_position. I wouldn't call an approved proposal, which hat 200K applications so far (the same order of magnitude as highway=street_lamp), not working. there are also fixed lanterns, and there is even another use for it in architecture, probably you'll find it in this context as well (building:part etc.) Yes, there are indeed, I do not doubt that. It was just a general remark that this tag may also be misinterpreted (which probably applies to many words, one needs to choose carefully in any case). You could use man_made=pole / post / mast / tower /... for the support/structure (if mapped on a node). Sounds reasonable to me, but also raises the question: If something is tagged as man_made=pole + light=* or the like, and there are additional tags, what do these tags apply to? This is the same problem as with tagging tourism=hotel, amenity=restaurant, and then something like wheelchair=yes all on one node - to which does the latter apply? In this example one can usually separate the hotel and the restaurant, but for a street lamp, one would probably want to attribute the pole and the light source to the same node, as they belong to a common structure. What would be other values for this new key? I guess that would be things that I placed under lamp:type in my proposal. For example, just some quick ideas: - - lantern (which I actually like more than the lamp:type=street_lamp in my proposal, since it takes the street out of this name, and would be a lighting for maybe a railway, an area... or a street) - - signal_lamp (yes, I checked the term - see wikipedia) - - warning (a hazard warning lamp) - - aviation (like those lights at an airport runway) Checked it, actually light is taken: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/light#values but light_type seems available (zero usage as of taginfo). What about light_source? This is also not used so far, and it gives a rather accurate description of the object being mapped. Something ending in _type sounds more like a subclass to me (as we don't tag highway_type=*, but highway=track, tracktype=*). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlL60AAoJEPvf9RrsekSyzZkH+wXC5f2QVbnnGj0rtW3iG3w2 NA0GpIrwmkAGtTtHCx9/wrp/ePzps6jdpAyzxSX+TosCMgeneXEKIAM6RmOx1XBa BD2PKmhWFnzJG33FGAIWv0vED2J1d250Iz22aG1zIELhlFlwzCxHnWtGUcslf9mD pxYT8uzlzAJLWfJLuhWgKkl0LEtm4qGzIQU88Turqjp84GjLxoygcw1UjB9asK+Z /SJv6ZInAo6X4VZEJV7iHwHqQWQDHETicXClJkgH3LJz6TDNdWE+ME3HRl3YrBdg at6PyW/3Mn+jMuY9TYLVVc7VqfSsT5+2K5Nb7/x1rVVYttVE19HALS5l816sw3A= =nFWp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This means that by any traditional reading, the proposal has been rejected, even though you seem to avoid the word. I am not avoiding anything, I am simply stating facts. And as a matter of fact, there are 19 positive votes, 18 negative ones, and one partial approval. By any mathematical reading, 19 18. I don't see why the onus should be on those who voted against the proposal. I could also say that those who voted for the proposal need to work on it to make it more acceptable. For those who voted for the proposal it is already acceptable. But exactly as I stated before, the desires of the those opposing the proposal go in opposite directions, and since a proposal cannot be changed in both suggested directions simultaneously, this needs to be clarified. And this can only be done by those who have an actual desire which contradicts the proposal in its current form. That's a great idea, we simply get rid of the rejected status and anything that is not accepted remains in proposed forever ;) This is not a discussion about the rejected status in general. If there is a majority against a proposal and the creator buries it, of course he can do so. But if there are 1. 50% positive votes and 2. those who opposed the proposal indicate in their comments, that the reason for this was the single aspect of deprecating a high-use tag, there is more than enough justification to continue working on the proposal. Of course this opens the question - what if someone wanted to propose a *different* tagging of lamps, should they then overwrite the page with their proposal or should we simply have a ton of proposals in parallel? Of course anyone is free to propose whatever he wants to, including a different tagging of lamps, or to work on and improve an existing proposal. So am I. i.e. the proposal has been rejected. As stated above, there are more positive than negative votes. the question for the last point was not, whether this should all be tagged with different tags, but that you apparently want to map light fixtures and have chosen the wrong word for it (lamp). This is your opinion, but not even native speakers share this opinion. Let me remind you that the current tag is street_lamp, not street_light, and one may ask for the reason for this outcome. they could (and here I am), but they do not need to. It is up to who wants change to convince the rest, not the other way round. I have no intention to convince anyone to do anything. My intention is and always has been to propose a new tagging scheme, in other words, to develop such a scheme and to offer it to mappers who wish to use it. Who decides to use it and who decides not to use it is beyond my intention. you can always do that, but your proceeding doesn't look very logical then: usually you start a proposal and voting in order to find problems with the suggested tags, and if a proposal voting doesn't show a good majority it usually indicates that it was either poorly drafted or has some other serious problems e.g. with the proposed tags. In this case I wouldn't continue using these tags as if nothing happened. This is exactly what I have done. There has been a long discussion about these tags in the OSM forum, many suggestions have been made and included into the proposal, and as many positive comments from the same forum discussion indicate, they have lead to significant improvements of the proposal. Getting opinions on this proposed tagging, improving it and making it visible to the community, who can then use it or not, was my motivation for creating a proposal. Besides, I have nowhere indicated that I would proceed as if nothing happened. lamp mapping or lights mapping? Whatever you want to call them. I don't understand this, could you explain? No. But as a hint, tagging practice by a large number of mappers has usually more influence on tag usages than the status of proposals. IMHO you should start a new proposal and set the current one to rejected, because that's what it is. Two times actually. If you read carefully, you will find that the first voting was not even completed, but interrupted by myself after receiving 6 positive votes in the first two days. The reason was that there were some suggested improvements that I included into the proposal. And as I already stated before, the second voting received 50% of positive votes. And again, as I wrote before, comments indicate that for most people the only reason to oppose was the deprecation of a high-use tag, and this (and again further positive comments in the forum) justifies continued work on this proposal. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSk7n9AAoJEPvf9RrsekSyvd4H/j62YFJvg1/6VK+UAfQnNBW7 wSVNdnIMD08Vp3mIFLNl8+psLzmOW45UcNffYmAIpGSiwWnt3jeuW+PykEjTFY74
[Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, voting for the proposed man_made=lamp has been finished. The result and further proceeding can be found here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lamp#Results To summarize the results: In the two voting periods that this proposal has run through the following results have been obtained: - - First voting period: 6 times yes. - - Second voting period: 18 times yes, 18 times no, 1 partial approve. The reasons for opposing the proposal can be summarized as follows: - - Replacement / deprecation of the widely used highway=street_lamp. - - Introduction of new tags for a more complicated tagging. - - Introduction of tags which are not differentiated between light fixture, lamp and light. The reasons for approving the proposal can be summarized as follows: - - Deprecation of highway=street_lamp, since a lamp ultimately is not a highway or a part thereof. - - Introduction of new tags that allow a more detailed mapping of lamps. - - Introduction of new tags for light sources which are not street lamps. Obviously the proposal cannot be changed in such a way to accommodate these different desires, as they directly contradict each other (in favour of / against deprecation of highway=street_lamp, make the proposed tagging simpler / more differentiated and introduce even more complicated tags). This result therefore suggests the following possibilities for proceeding with this proposal: - - Those who voted against the proposal need to agree on how to change it such that it will become more acceptable. This step requires further discussion and finally a conclusion, since obviously the proposal cannot be changed simultaneously in the different directions which have been suggested during voting. - - Use the proposed features as they are. Since the comments from the voting indicate that also among those who opposed the proposal there is agreement with some of its parts, this appears reasonable. Further, it is likely to happen anyway, since the result has shown that there is a clear interest in detailed lamp mapping from parts of the community. The proposed tagging will evolve further through practical tag usage. For this reason the status has for now been reset to proposed, until there is further progress. Best, Manuel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSkbybAAoJEPvf9RrsekSyFIUH+gNiZmD0SoR5HnDKtzQxFLvb zoYjjeKhNGU/CKFY/I+xY0BYTSe2pMjE7Qp+Gu0eN1UgUm+T2qF2awKYtOhnklYV 6DZvls5EnUtQ1q0MSW4VeZDjYPvhRjZO2aoIFed7iPIZfrdAzqfq6a6ij/njjLSz FOBVFhVO8wgP57lOIhZJ3Hb4SLtmdwB/pYaVtJ/nlcQL/Vs4FG9ohxFzTQe+effc a7KP6h8mqNX7M10VkRNjJnoTIzsdVKwhiWNl4qGbjIdxw86GcXWb3Y1AXdyiFQRl AgiKwoLsY1hANkAJtRCxbCC65s58ywN1gPDnjC37yqWa4pIoFa2/LoY8/2KSAyo= =15/T -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposal - Voting started again - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, as already previously announced, I re-opened voting for the man_made=lamp proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lamp Best, Manuel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSfeddAAoJEPvf9RrsekSyvFEH/i5/zb34J58Ucq5zJbz5Ft5/ B/jGirSE9vWFQhfXMDKI3vXtEfUtIW73IZg63I9XDp9AMZhSbMvjBL7vm1qNDOHI ZGbR6UNBh6jv9/DJTToJd7iCsVRZZ1Ugnwkuac5Dbr9SEh7xBor1JsycsenQWlXG ckXEgklmOxvH+pfCtfr9mVOk8l0T4GvXjHGC9Erf20osQH6K0rZ3cJsKYVKdiqGF rWAeVsmp12pLOOo2EIzWRFHm3UBVPJz02CmyWl9JO4WOPmpsW5bcpCF8ejL86DRa hJf+eaSJlHV5G8X4CvjVj34xs56IY+hNdR8XS/ZTqmjDMQdp6Xdwga6DsVN2JcE= =+fs6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - RFC - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouldn't it make more sense use the tag light_fixture (de Leuchte)? Let me refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_fixture here. Yes, indeed I was thinking about this (or rather light_fitting, which should be UK English), which would be the correct technical term. I finally used lamp for the following reasons: - - The term lamp is in colloquial use for a light fixture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp) and used more often than the technical term. - - The term lamp appears in combinations such as street lamp (also called street light), signal lamp, and so on. - - Many of the sub-tags lamp:* actually refer to properties (colour, power...) of the lamp. Maybe a native speaker could comment on this, in particular on the first item and common usage of these terms. One could also think about light instead of lamp, as in street light, flood light... But I fear a confusion with traffic lights, which should not be affected by this. Best, Manuel PS: Unfortunately I'll be leaving for a several week business trip today and I don't know when I'll be able to do and OSM related stuff after this. So if anyone would like to adopt the proposal from me, please let me know. Otherwise, and if there is no urgent veto against it, I would open voting, and I'll be back when the voting period is over. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSeJ7zAAoJEPvf9RrsekSy/hsH+wd4uiYQE0RqVrjCxtAjqME9 DfMifmrzfr1F5gxnDMMvLvqGIxgdDMtTtdzhTi4eKMJixpYPkvjcVfTw2g/Sf/zp jfBZCT5EfdvPD8d9y7WFf2hmaZZGuKy2m05aWIU5YWLVAa/8ktY9b1ZdZfT4rpY8 OcIgFxBHXGfitl6Zaf1+wRlrouQCm8JYQ4djZzyNljJX2n3CHcdxzlRYps6Iy1ir l2fjb5QC38F9M/rwbmQjsJEPYfiLPLTdt9rRR89VZlarnlxrpv2k5CambJqwu6O4 e8JVcZpbtbfSi3svkZg/WEhkd7ipEYHDQwlvUzbQmrIMozzF/F5iZcrbuv0WCWk= =NY+e -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposal - RFC - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, I propose the tag man_made=lamp for lamps, together with a number of additional tags for lamp type, light source, power and so on. Central motivations for this proposal are: - - Lamps are clearly visible landmarks for orientation, mainly at night. - - Mapping lamps gives a detailed image of the lighting situation. The present tagging does not suffice for this: - - highway=street_lamp does not apply to any other lamp type. - - Tagging lamps as highway features is at least questionable. - - There is no tag for other types of lamps. - - There are no tags for lamp properties, such as light source and power. You can find the full proposal for a unified lamp tagging here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lamp This tagging has evolved from a thorough discussion in the German OSM forum: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=23041 In the forum it has also been suggested to start voting soon, since mapping lamps is done most easily during the dark time of the year, which is just starting (in the northern hemisphere, where most mappers are located). Voting will therefore be opened soon, unless there are further suggestions / improvement / discussions required. Best, Manuel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSdlUMAAoJEPvf9RrsekSyRBAIAKKJPEXvoMP4MFFkCqgUvGe/ 3yfvO4whc3Eiy3NI1xGhjj0sHH/mQ/qmJvTQhn23Sw1eRdCFY52dzrtN9uNmlSGG KGoDw/mKsN1BhpWB8lIfNBFjoYJCHLgTtsdo7XmZAkXzELmzV0DgtajR16CovCln 3pjrHe8Uc9IQ35/K3tYa9G7v1r8FOMQ5EzUEWrLR+8HD9jIi+Hqi+cYIul0iYL5F ac4Hy3fZ/hftVhLroqlvYZG30efxF98L8WjuL+rokESC2AwD7Uovod178u8ghG0H Wb6fUoebOXDNivs9HbY8LCJaf1RZUr1FB3EjWjw8l1W7gl8Hn0do9hvpTjT5HZo= =H7nz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - RFC - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 lamp_type has 20,000 uses and lamp_mount has 17,000; this proposal tries to replace them both? Yes. Frankly, this sounds like typical astronaut tagging. A group of people got together and thought: Now what could we *possibly* want to tag about a lamp? and everything has been written down. Basically that's the plan. Next thing, a helpful soul will create a JOSM template that has *every* *single* *one* of the 20 tags in that proposal, and gives people the impression that they should really know the aperture angle or else the tagging isn't good. The first part is true, the second is wrong. It is written in the proposal that these additional tags are optional and should be added only if known. This will also be emphasized in the JOSM template. Nobody is forced to enter any of this information. This is just the same as with parking lots, highways and so on - also there the JOSM templates contain lots of tags such as surface, width, maxheight, maxspeed and a plethora of access tags. Yet it works. I recommend to shorten the proposal to two or three tags and let people map a couple thousand lamps first, then see where the journey goes. As you wrote above, we already have thousands of lamps with 2-3 tags. Therein lies the quality of a proposal - to capture the essential bits, not to make endless lists of detailed stuff that could possibly be mapped. Of course, essential and non-essential things should be distinguished, I don't doubt that. I'll try to make this distinction more apparent in the proposal, which goes beyond the essential (and yet done) there is a lamp tagging. Creating a full blown feature catalog before the first lamp aperture has ever been mapped hasn't been our style in the past. Indeed it has been the past style that everybody starts mapping something and invents new tags, and when there is a number of conflicting taggings, it needs to be cleaned up. This is exactly the reason why I suggest tags for these things, before everybody comes up with their own tags and we get the same mess again. There is no link. Anyone can map lamps whether or not the voting has been started. Even if the proposal is rejected, people can still map lamps. If there is no agreed way to map something, people will either invent their own tagging or not map something at all. Of course I could just start mapping lamps, powers, colours and apertures right away, but if nobody else agrees with this, it does not make much sense. I had a quick scan through those, but it's not immediately clear to me what problem you're trying to solve. What nature of illuminated things are OSM mappers failing to capture in the absence of a lamp proposal? Have a look at the examples / pictures in the proposal which are not street lamps. Manuel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSdt8QAAoJEPvf9RrsekSyq+oH/jSQNN+3QEAa4vqF02uXOLR6 JJN2vWimStoWBgEj3qb6A0gUtUMlK9rxIhsItavSjdQmHtenrAx00eVS74imgTqx IRuwWwmirWAAkebbX2LVumzJrCOZ/jLqoO5ilbE5+QepD+Sk1e3d0KY5J5H7hCSE x87cBxi3znrScis8GVRDtZNedxG/y1fQxoabOFoPwP8Bn7oAD1ayyBd2D18R53k/ kx3vovF+Slo84kmJ2+IOzAkPQ95txlB3yjWUxKR37APoSzdiW07SHfqO4Le+BEvN E5/+955EXkv01IS1aKqTyFnQzEaX4FzMjIPlZBbXGbvM12RZgxnQbotB9DRt060= =beZ6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
