[Tagging] historic memorial (was Re: "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat")

2020-06-21 Thread Marc Gemis
What about a plate that remembers a police officer that was killed in 2002?

regards

m.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 3:28 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 08:11, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> you are raising the bar higher than it is. Every memorial is tagged as 
>> historic for example.
>
>
> That is not a good argument.  It is not (usually) the memorial itself which 
> is of
> historic interest but the event or person it commemorates.
>
> For example, this plaque was unveiled in 1993:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cardigan_Eisteddfod_Plaque.jpg
> The event it commemorates took place in 1176 and is considered to be
> of great cultural and historical significance:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1176_Cardigan_eisteddfod
>
> That plaque could be destroyed by a car driving into it and be replaced by
> a new plaque.  That new plaque would still qualify as historic=memorial
> the moment it was installed, because the historical interest is in the event
> it commemorates.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] relations & paths

2020-05-11 Thread Marc Gemis
Can you point to some examples?
In Belgium and The Netherlands we have node-networks. and some of the
routes that are mapped in those networks can be pretty short. The
shortest I know is only a few meters long:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1696883#map=19/51.01511/4.44965

regards

m.

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:17 AM brad  wrote:
>
> I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short
> trails/paths.   This is wrong isn't it?   Do you suppose that folks are
> doing this to get better rendering?
> Brad
>
> ___
> 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 ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Marc Gemis
>   2) Use ele:datum=unknown as a clue that the data is not that high
>   quality.

or make that the default, so that when there is no ele:datum data
consumers have to consider it as unknown .
Any ordinary mapper, including myself, just wants to put the number
they see on a sign into the database. Why do they need to add
ele:datum=unknown?
Let people that do know the datum (a much smaller group I assume) add
ele:datum explicitly.

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

2020-05-06 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Florimond Berthoux
 wrote:
>
> Hazard tag seems to be used when there is a sign, so I'm not confident to use 
> it for doorzone.
>
> There is two choices :
> 1. describe the layout of the street lanes + cyclelanes + : parking lane + 
> sidewalk
> then add the widt of the cycle lane.
> Data consumer can deduce if the lane is dangerous or not
> + objective
> + complete without feature tagged twice
> - harder to compute doorzone state
> - harder to tag (a cyclist willing to tag doorzone has to tag parking lanes 
> and width)
>
> example :
> cycleway=lane
> cycleway:width=1m
> parking:lane=parallel
>
> => doorzone
>
> (I could add more tags, for buffer, but I keep simple as possible.)
>
> 2. just tag doorzone feature
> (opposite arguments +/-)
>
> example :
> cycleway=lane
> cycleway:left:doorzone=yes
>

but in the end, someone will probably have to add
parking:lane=parallel as well, not? The second style of mapping
nothing says nothing about the parking lane. Or does
cycleway:left:doorzone=yes implies parking:lane:left=parallel?

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Is there any tagging scheme for carillons already?

2020-05-06 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:54 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> I'm not sure we need to tag the carillon.  The ones in churches I've
> encountered or read about aren't operated as attractions.

Not important for tagging, but perhaps worth mentioning.

Normally, in summer there are concerts in 3 Flemish towns on
carillons, called beiaardconcerten [1]
I wonder whether that classifies as "operated as attractions"
It seems that in some towns you can visit them as well [2].

regards

m.

[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiaardconcert
[2] https://bib.kuleuven.be/over-ons/Index/beiaardbezoek

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


Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

2020-05-04 Thread Marc Gemis
Are you planning on repeating this request every 5 months?

I thought 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone
failed.
Wasn't the outcome about 50-50? How will you ever convince half of the
voters to accepts the other scheme?


regards

m

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Valor Naram via Tagging
 wrote:
>
>
>   I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the 
> contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be replaced with the 
> prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website 
> . The current situation harms our database in a way that makes our data less 
> useful. In order to be successful we need to standardize to the contact:
>  prefix. No more multiple keys for the exact same purpose with just
> different names! Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has
> experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that mappers
> don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take action and
>  to clean up so OSM data gets more useful.
>
>
> Having two keys for the same purpose (the current behaviour) has no 
> advantages but many disadvantages:
>  * Data customers need to be aware of both tags to cover all
> requested and available information. So to get telephone numbers they
> need to look for Key:phone and Key:contact:phone . This makes a bad
> impression.
>
>  * Normalisation of that data is required. Key:phone must be
> translated to Key:contact:phone or backwards. It is good to prevent the
> need of normalisation through standardisation as far as possible to
> prevent errors and misinterpretations from happening.
>
>  * Having two schemes leads to confusion of mappers (especially
> for newbies) which they should use. Some need clear guidance ( e.g. On
> request I created a translation table for mappers of the old diaper key
> to help them to switch to the new Key:changing_table as you can see
> here: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:changing_table#Comparison_with_the_deprecated_diaper.3D.2A_key
>  . I also notified some of the mappers and stakeholders about that change)
>
> See also:
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7566
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19184
> OpenStreetMap contact schema unification
>
> --
> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
> Developer (not Founder) of the Babykarte: https://babykarte.github.io
> Participating in "MapDiscover" project: https://mapdiscover.org
> "Community Support" for Trufi Association:
> https://trufi-association.org
> Documentation for Trufi Communities on mapping bus routes:
> https://github.com/trufi-association/mapping-documentation
>
>
> Ein Gag zu Hamsterkäufen: https://klopapier.mapdiscover.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] insurance health

2020-04-22 Thread Marc Gemis
I think so, yes.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 4:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 16. Apr 2020, at 11:41, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > It's a health fund, and every adult Belgian needs to have one
>
>
> judging by their names, are they all mutual insurance companies?
>
> 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] insurance health

2020-04-16 Thread Marc Gemis
Hello,

I created the preset as we needed something to map offices of

* Christelijke Mutualiteit (CM) https://www.cm.be/ - on Wikipedia:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsbond_der_Christelijke_Mutualiteiten
* Socialistische Mutualiteit https://www.socmut.be/
* Liberale Mutualiteit https://www.lm.be/
* Onafhankelijk Ziekenfonds https://www.oz.be/
* there is one other

They are not insurance companies as Allianz (which was mentioned in
this thread).
According to CM (https://www.cm.be/over-cm/wie-zijn-we) they offer all
kinds of services (some kind of outreach programs related to health &
family) and even state that they are social movement.
They also have shops where you can buy/rent e.g wheelchairs, diapers
for adults, etc.
When you are injured and cannot work for longer periods, you have to
go to one of their offices and get checked by one of their doctors.

More info on the Wikipedia page:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziekenfonds_(Belgi%C3%AB) -- In Dutch.
It's a health fund, and every adult Belgian needs to have one.


Perhaps we should use a different tag for them. Open to suggestions.

regards

m.


On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:08 AM Agustin Rissoli  wrote:
>
> In Argentina we want to correctly tagging offices of companies dedicated to 
> what we call prepaid medicine, by paying a monthly fee you access a series of 
> medical benefits.
> We are hesitating between these tags:
>
> office=health_insurance
> It has no wiki, it has 185 uses, the majority in Belgium since it was created 
> in 2013, they even have a preset in JOSM.
>
> office=insurance + insurance=health
> It has a wiki, curiously created by a Belgian user in 2018, it has 66 uses. 
> It is the only documented insurance=* key.
>
> What do you think would be the correct use?
>
> --
> AGUS!  :)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Veterinary pharmacy

2020-03-30 Thread Marc Gemis
AFAIK in Belgium, you can get all medicins for your pets from any pharmacy.
In addition, some vets have a small supply of often used medicins that
they can sell.

Perhaps some of the larger veterinary clinics have a separate counter
where you can only get medicins for animals. If you want to map those,
you might want to use a separate node and tag. But even one of the
largest vet clinics in Belgium (the one from the Univ. of Ghent), does
not have a separate counter and the medicins are provided by the vet
or by the person where you pay for your visit.

Of course, this might be different in other countries, but I haven't
heard anything like that from dog owners around the world.

regards

m.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:41 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 09:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/3/20 7:51 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 28. Mar 2020, at 08:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> veterinary medical supplies, how to choose what amenity?
>>
>> On 28/3/20 6:12 pm, Francesco Ansanelli wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I have a question about this tag:
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dveterinary_pharmacy
>>
>>
>> It's not much adopted and in unknown status. Should we use it?
>>
>> Some pharmacies also sells veterinary medical supplies, how to choose what 
>> amenity?
>>
>>
>>
>> Map both as separate nodes.
>>
>>
>>
>> but it’s the same shop.
>>
>>
>> Different OSM features.
>
>
> Really?  I suppose there might be such a place, with different shop counters,
> different staff, different back rooms full of medicines, etc., but I'd expect
> it to be a normal pharmacy that also carries some veterinary medicines.
> There are 3 pharmacies in my town and one vet (there used to be two
> vets; there's another pharmacy being set up).  None of the pharmacies
> have a separate counter for veterinary medicines but I know that at
> least one of them dispenses them because my next-door-neighbout
> with three dogs and two cats gets them from somewhere, and she's
> not travelling to either of the two cities over 30 miles away to get
> them.
>
> In a really big city I suppose there could be a veterinary-only pharmacy.
> So we may need amenity=veterinary_pharmacy for rare cases but
> for most instances we'll need something that goes along with
> amenity=pharmacy (and/or healthcare=pharmacy) to indicate
> it also handles veterinary medicines.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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 pumps

2020-03-02 Thread Marc Gemis
Please note the existence of

man_made=water_well + pump=manual
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Historical_Objects/Karteneigenschaften
(search for Handschwengelpumpe)

This might have to be mentioned in your proposal.

regards

m.

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 5:11 PM François Lacombe
 wrote:
>
> Thank you all for answers
>
> Let's go for man_made=pump
>
> There are indeed many sorts of pumps and they would require a bunch of tags 
> to be described.
> We'll see that point in a formal proposal
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> Le sam. 29 févr. 2020 à 13:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 28 Feb 2020, 23:51 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> One simple question : according to you, what is the most suitable key to use 
>> to map pumps?
>> A device intended to raise pressure level of any fluid.
>>
>> Depends on a pump.
>>
>> Some are not mappable (pump in small
>> private aquarium, thousands of pumps
>> in a factory/refinery).
>>
>> Some are part of mapped objects
>> (pumpjacks).
>>
>> And there are many remaining -
>> though mapping pumps pumping
>> - sewage
>> - water as part of water supply
>> - water as part of irrigation
>> - water as part of power storage
>> - oil in petrol stations
>> - oil in pipelines
>> - ? in pipelines
>> - ? in ?
>>
>> Are unlikely to be benefiting from
>> tagging as a single 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

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


Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

2020-02-26 Thread Marc Gemis
What about music festivals? I live close to the area that hosts one of
the biggest festivals in the world: Tomorrowland. [1]
The festival takes place in a former quarry, which is a park for the
rest of the year, although it hosts some smaller yearly events as
well.
The festival started as a one-day festival, but is now spread over 2
weekends, typically the last 2 weekends of July and attracts more than
400.000 participants from all over the world (spread over the 2
weekends).
The camping site for the music festival is spread over the meadows in
the neighbouring villages. Should those be mapped as well?

regards

m.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrowland_(festival)

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 3:37 PM Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > These shows do take place at a permanent site.
> >
> > They take place annually, floods, fire, droughts and wars excepted.
> >
> > The dates may vary depending on various things, but usually around the same 
> > time each year.
> >
> > They are part of Australian culture, and it would seem British culture.
>
> I also wish for a settled tag for a regular, locally important event
> that is repeatedly or always held at a given site.
>
> I have tagged location of one such in Canada with landuse=fairground
> but this doesn't seem perfect and landuse key doesn't logically lend
> itself well to specifying details about the events that might be
> taking place there. A lot of fairgrounds in Canada end up being tagged
> as a park for lack of a better description.
>
> See also related discussion in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents
>
> --Jarek
>
> ___
> 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] Photo-stand-in

2020-02-25 Thread Marc Gemis
Hello,

would it be OK to use photo_stand_in as value for the playground key?
Or is there a better British English word to describe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_stand-in ?
Or do you think it does not belong under playground?

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

2020-02-10 Thread Marc Gemis
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU  a écrit :
>>>
>>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent of 
>>> the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
>>> Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag. 
>>> Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
>>
>>
>> I don’t understand, for me a mixed cycleway has no sense, if it’s mixed well 
>> it is a path segregated or not.
>
>
> It's common in North America.  Sometimes it even switches between a path and 
> a cycleway.  Galloping Goose Cycleway and Trail in Canada's a fantastic 
> example of both.
>
> 1. Cycleway that allows pedestrians: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail#/media/File:Galloping_Goose_Regional_Trail,_Saanich,_British_Columbia,_Canada_17.jpg

Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.

regards

m

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-07 Thread Marc Gemis
for me, this discussion can be closed if you start rendering
natural=hedge in the same colour as barrier=hedge.
I would have been nice that we just had such an alternative the moment
you changed the rendering.

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-06 Thread Marc Gemis
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:27 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> On Thursday 06 February 2020, Marc Gemis wrote:


>
> > And I want to end with a quote from {1]
> >
> > "My approach to this matter has been – from the beginning of my
> > contributions to OSM-Carto – to regard the role and task of the
> > project as mapper support without active steering."
> >
> > My feeling is that in this case that principle has been broken (I am
> > not going to repeat the arguments given here by the others in this
> > thread)
>
> Your feeling is wrong, possibly due to you misunderstanding the concept
> of mapper support.  Mapper support does not mean doing what the loudest
> mappers want you to do.  There are tons of nonsensical or
> non-verifiable tags loudly promoted by mappers.  Rendering such in
> OSM-Carto would not be mapper support, it would be sabotage.  Mapper
> support in style design primarily means - as i like to phrase it -
> supporting mappers in consistent use of tags.
>
> The irony here is that - as i mentioned in another mail - OSM-Carto is
> to a significant extent responsible for encouraging mappers to use this
> ambiguous tagging and we now get criticized for trying to fix this
> counterproductive incentive.

I still do not understand why area=yes is a bad tag. So far, the only
argument I have seen is that you have problems to implement it in your
workflow. Someone Else had to problem to implement it.

Area=yes is imho usefull for features that can be closed ways and
areas, such as hedges and a few other  barrier tags that were
mentioned in this thread. It makes no sense for
landcover/landuse/natural/leisure/amenity, which, AFAIK, cannot be
closed ways, but are always areas when represented by a closed
polygon.

So when area=yes is used in combination with barrier I expect the
polygon to be filled. The other people tat to the time to respond to
your question on what does the following mean to you, had the same
opinion.

So when barrier=hedge, landuse/amenity/leisure/natural/landcover and
area=yes are placed on the same closed way or multipolygon, the only
interpretation is that the hedge fills the area. This is probably
wrong, but it should still be rendered as such.

Even if there are a few 10k-100k of such instances, they can easily be
fixed with a Maproulette challenge..
This has been done before when the landuse=farm stopped rendering or
during the multi-polygon cleanup. Although the numbers might be of a
different order.

If OS carto-team would have chosen this route, the fix would have been
straightforward, though time-consuming. WIth your solution, people are
forced to come up with new tagging proposals for each of the barrier
types, go through the approval process and then start the retagging.

I have little hope that you will revert the change and take a
different approach. Given earlier discussions on landcover, I feel
that people trying to properly map green areas are left in the cold.
The approach seems to be take: one of the features that colours green,
then you are fine, do not bother about the details.

regards

m

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-05 Thread Marc Gemis
> And please keep in mind that - as i mentioned - barrier=hedge is not the
> dominant tag for mapping hedges with polygons in the first place - as i
> have shown with various links earlier.

I only clicked on a few of your examples and had to figure out which
areas you meant. But they were outside of urban areas. I used the
combination barrier=hedge; area=yes for micro mapping areas of hedges
in urban areas, e.g. near parking lots.
As Paul Allen pointed out earlier none of your alternatives (forest,
scrub) are a good match for those.

I accept that not a lot of people are mapping such objects yet. But,
as Joseph points out in another mail, there is a need to be able to
map all kinds of green areas inside build-up areas such areas of
hedges, flowerbeds, grass areas, and areas with a combination of them
and trees.

And I want to end with a quote from {1]

"My approach to this matter has been – from the beginning of my
contributions to OSM-Carto – to regard the role and task of the
project as mapper support without active steering."

My feeling is that in this case that principle has been broken (I am
not going to repeat the arguments given here by the others in this
thread)


regards


[1] 
http://blog.imagico.de/some-thoughts-on-the-roles-and-responsibilities-of-developers-and-project-maintainers-in-the-openstreetmap-community/

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-05 Thread Marc Gemis
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:16 AM Lionel Giard  wrote:
>
> In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main tag was 
> wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in most examples 
> when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to map them 
> separately (one way for the barrier and one way for the other main tag, even 
> if they are exactly sharing the same node). This is in order to keep the one 
> feature to one object and keep things manageable and without ambiguity. Thus 
> to me, all the examples of "barrier=*" (+ "area=yes" +) "leisure=playground" 
> are a tagging error, that should be two separate objects.

That's exactly what I do as well.

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-05 Thread Marc Gemis
My interpretation is the same as Paul's. Including the not thought
through part, as I never needed that.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:24 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 21:09, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>>
>>
>> closed way, barrier=fence
>
>
> Linear fence
>
>> closed way, barrier=fence, area=yes
>
>
> Not sensible.  Fences are linear structures.  Tagging error.
>
>> closed way, barrier=fence, leisure=playground
>
>
> Playground with a fence around it.
>
>> closed way, barrier=fence, leisure=playground, area=yes
>
>
> Tagging error.  Interpretable as a playground with a fence around it if
> you want to special-case it, but probably not worth the effort.
>>
>>
>> multipolygon, barrier=fence
>> multipolygon, barrier=fence, area=yes
>> multipolygon, barrier=fence, leisure=playground
>> multipolygon, barrier=fence, leisure=playground, area=yes
>
>
> Not sure.  Never needed to do that, not really thought through the
> implications.
>
>> closed way, barrier=hedge
>
>
> Linear hedge.
>
>> closed way, barrier=hedge, area=yes
>
>
> Area hedge.
>
>> closed way, barrier=hedge, leisure=playground
>
>
> Playground with a hedge around it.
>
>> closed way, barrier=hedge, leisure=playground, area=yes
>
>
> Tagging error.  Could be handled by ignoring area=yes if you want to
> special-case it, probably not worth the effort.
>>
>>
>> multipolygon, barrier=hedge
>> multipolygon, barrier=hedge, area=yes
>> multipolygon, barrier=hedge, leisure=playground
>
>
> As above, but with holes in the area hedge or the playground, if there are
> interior polygons.
>
>> multipolygon, barrier=hedge, leisure=playground, area=yes
>
>
> Tagging error, as above.
>
>> closed way, barrier=ditch, waterway=ditch
>> closed way, barrier=ditch, waterway=ditch, area=yes
>> closed way, barrier=ditch, waterway=ditch, leisure=playground
>> closed way, barrier=ditch, waterway=ditch, leisure=playground, area=yes
>
>
> As for hedge, not for fence.  Ditches can have a significant width.  There's
> a dry ditch I know of that is part of a castle fortification where the ditch 
> is as
> broad as it is long that could usefully be handled that way (specifying a 
> ditch with a
> width doesn't render as a wide ditch).
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes on foot-cycle-paths

2020-02-04 Thread Marc Gemis
Hello Volker,

you seem to have a typo in the "foot:lanes=no|dsgnated"
But when I look at the Mapillary photo's I think there are 2 bicycle
lanes (one for each direction) and a sidewalk (there is a kerb) for
pedestrians.

regards

m

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:02 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> Please have a look at way 41506101 where I have used bicycle:lanes and 
> foot:lanes to indicate the relative position of the foot/cycle lanes on a 
> foot-cycle path with segregation.
> Is that a good approach to map this ?
> Are there better approaches to map the relative position?
> NB: I would not map this as two separate parallel ways as they are not 
> physically separate.
>
> Volker
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis
> So for pedestrians, you would add a node on the blue line where it crosses 
> the centerline of the sidewalk tagged highway=crossing, 
> crossing=?

yes (or combine the crossing for pedestrians and cyclists into one node)

and you can add a highway=give_way (or stop) near the node for the
kerb as well to indicate that you have to give way to the traffic on
the Bezuidenhoutseweg.

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


Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis
I made a quick sketch:
https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Screenshots/Screenshots-1/i-w92ZnDZ/0/90e60837/X4/Bezuidenhoutseweg%20-%20Google%20Maps-X4.png
Of course, this info is then only available for the cars following the
blue road. Cycling navigation along de Bezuidenhoutseweg will not be
able to take this info into account. If you want that, you will have
to draw the cycleway as a separate OSM way.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:37 AM Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
> crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
> cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
> time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
> follow crosses the road for the cars.
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
> >>
> >> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
> >> for crossing?
> >> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
> >
> >
> > (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways but 
> > with sidewalk=yes?
> >
> > Best, Peter Elderson
> > ___
> > 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Marc Gemis
Add a node where the way, which represents the road for the cars,
crosses the cycleway. There does not have to be a way representing the
cycleway. We do the same for zebra crossings for pedestrians all the
time. We add the node where the path that the pedestrians have to
follow crosses the road for the cars.

regards

m.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:49 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 07:38 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
>> for crossing?
>> And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.
>
>
> (How) would this work where sidewalks are not mapped as separate ways but 
> with sidewalk=yes?
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
> ___
> 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] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-23 Thread Marc Gemis
could this be solved with highway=crossing and a new, dedicated value
for crossing?
And you could map the kerbs before and after that crossing.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:29 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> YM like here? 
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0817214,4.3213884,3a,48.3y,87.48h,90.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sb8Aiyn4YOsRoPIQEZWIe4w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Db8Aiyn4YOsRoPIQEZWIe4w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D153.47363%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl=0
>
> Traffic from the right has to cross the continuous pedestrian pavement. In 
> Nederland, pedestrians have legal priority here, comparable to a car exit 
> over a sidewalk. It is called "exit-construction".
>
> I pass many of these every day (the street I live in exits like that). 
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.9653872,4.6089884,3a,75y,66h,76.98t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sd-J60SxVJrAWf3fp1_x-qg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i47?hl=nl=0
>
> If priority is deemed important enough for mapping, a mapping solution is 
> needed. We had some discussion on this, but no solution was found.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op do 23 jan. 2020 om 21:11 schreef Florimond Berthoux 
> :
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ?
>> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first try 
>> to tag this:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk
>>
>> The main idea is to use the tag:
>> junction=continuous_sidewalk|continuous_cycleway
>> on node or ways of a feature.
>>
>> Helpful comments are welcome.
>>
>> --
>> Florimond Berthoux
>> ___
>> 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] Disused/abandoned bunkers (was Re: building=disused)

2020-01-17 Thread Marc Gemis
What about disused bunkers? I would expect them to follow the same
rules as "buildings" and other physical objects

The wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker
says you can combine military=bunker with building=bunker. This makes
sense to me.

but also adds

abandoned:building=* - when it is abandoned
ruins:building=* - when it is in ruins (destroyed)

however, it does not mention "disused'

Should we use

disused:military=bunker
+ building=bunker

or

abandoned:military=bunker
+ building=bunker

instead for abandoned/disused bunkers, as the bunker is still there as
object, but no longer used for military purposes. This would be more
in line with what people wrote about the other physical objects.

Not sure about the ruins:building, maybe that is OK.


regards

m

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


Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-14 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical 
> objects???
> They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some 
> think they should be rendered, but how is that rendering to be done?
> A good answer to that question may well see the 'standard' render take 
> action, otherwise there is no hope.


I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants
to show buildings that were used as shop, but are now vacant/disused,
might show them very prominent.
A map showing windmills might show working windmills in black and
disused one in grey or without vanes or ...

On a general-purpose map, like osm.org, I don't know.

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


Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-12 Thread Marc Gemis
I was thinking of speciality beers (which do not come in crates), but
especially of wine bottles. AFAIK, there is little to no difference in the
bottle, but it might depend on who bottled the wine. If the wine is bottled
by the supermarket itself, you can return the bottle, otherwise not. At
least that is what I think.
That why I was confused by Martin's remark "typology of container that is
accepted". I thought he meant crates vs single bottles, but he meant thin
and thick glass.

I agree with you that brand for beer and soda drinks is important on
whether they are accepted or not.

But in the end, I,, as a consumer do not know whether the bottles that I
bring back for reuse, will actually be reused. Perhaps after a few
reuse-cycles, the bottles are recycled.

To come back to tagging: so people seem to have a problem with
amenity=recycle in case of reuse, but do not have a problem with
amenity=vending_machine for such a machine (that does not sell anything).
Or am I mistaken?


regards

m.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 6:26 PM Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Here is the list of brands accepted at three stores near by. I also
> checked two others, one had a picture of various shapes and colours (with
> no labels) of bottles and the other lists ‘beer 0,33l, beer 0,5l) but both
> did have a list of which brands of plastic crates are accepted
>
> Fresh
>
> Fresh 2
>
> Billa
>
> Birell
>
> Birell
>
>
> Budwar
>
> Budwar
>
> Budwar
>
> Budweiser
>
> Budweiser
>
>
> Corgoň
>
> Corgoň
>
> Corgoň
>
> Heineken
>
> Heineken
>
> Heineken
>
> Kachelman
>
> Kachelman
>
> Kachelman
>
> Kelt
>
> Kelt
>
> Kelt
>
> Kozel
>
> Kozel
>
> Kozel
>
> Krušovice
>
> Krušovice
>
>
> Pilsner
>
> Pilsner
>
> Pilsner
>
> Šariš
>
> Šariš
>
> Šariš
>
> Smädný Mních
>
> Smädný Mních
>
> Smädný Mních
>
> Starobrno
>
> Starobrno
>
> Starobrno
>
> Zlatý Bažant
>
> Zlatý Bažant
>
> Zlatý Bažant
>
>
>
>
>
> Steiger
>
> Steiger
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Budiš
>
>
>
> Fatra
>
>
>
> Gambrinus
>
>
>
> Gemer
>
>
>
> Grošák
>
>
>
> Martiner
>
>
>
> Sitňan
>
>
>
> Staropramen
>
>
>
> Topvar
>
>
>
>
> 14
>
> 15
>
> 21
>
>
>
> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>
> On 12 Jan 2020, at 18:15, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average
> consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put
> the item into landfill?
>
>
>
> first of all it is indicating the (rough) typology of container that is
> accepted, secondly it would seem strange to tag something “recycling” when
> it’s actually much more beneficial for the environment because of reuse.
>
>
> I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some
> glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a
> shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the
> only difference is a mark on the bottle itself.
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-12 Thread Marc Gemis
> > Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average 
> > consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b)  doesn’t want to put 
> > the item into landfill?
>
>
> first of all it is indicating the (rough) typology of container that is 
> accepted, secondly it would seem strange to tag something “recycling” when 
> it’s actually much more beneficial for the environment because of reuse.

I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some
glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a
shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the
only difference is a mark on the bottle itself.

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-10 Thread Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:58 AM Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>

> Footways are not part of the by car routeable network. And
> access=no/access=private or highway=track and neither.
>

This depends on the router, AFAIK Magic Earth navigates over private
roads. It even combines it with access=destination roads that are
connected to them.

> > IMHO, this also does not matter for POIs with an address on a building. The
> > satnav should take the coordinates of the POI, not the centre of the
> > building in which it is placed. Taking the centre of the (large) building
> > might lead to problems.
> >
> > So yes, one should try to map as many service roads, paths, internal
> > corridors as possible to help routers. And yes, the coordinates taken by
> > the router for the endpoint are important.
> > but is this caused by addresses on buildings vs. on nodes ? no, not always,
> > e.g for (apartment) buildings with multiple entrances with only address
> > info on the building, it can go wrong. Not for small detached family houses.
>
> Commercial dataset map addresses back to nodes on the road - On specific
> points. We as OSM rely on algorithms to do this automatically - And
> fail in an astonishing large amount of cases.
>
> If you go to the center of a park by car there is no way the algorithm
> can decide on the best spot to go there by _car_. So it uses the centroid
> of the park, tries to find the nearest highway usable by your mode of
> transportation. If that happens to be by car you might end up multiple
> kilometers away from the optimal place to be. And there is nothing
> we can do about it with this level of data abstraction.

There is no single 1 spot that is the best, even not for cars (or
vehicles). Satnavs should allow you to refine the search for
centroids. After telling the system that you want to drive to a park,
it should (or could) offer you a few choices. Whether this is based on
park entrances being mapped or parking places nearby is up to the
software. I think this is not always solvable by mappers.

As for car navigation not taking paths and driveways into account.
Again, that is a problem of the navigation software.
I know OsmAnd uses driveways, as it always took my neighbour's
driveway since in OSM it comes close to my house than my own driveway.
OsmAnd does ignore any fence you draw. BTW, the private footpath to
the frontdoor is not mapped.
I do not think mappers should try to work around software limitations
of their favourite satnav program. Those programs should be improved.

We are so used to give an address and assume the software will bring
us to the right spot, perhaps that flow has to be changed and not the
data driving that flow.

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-10 Thread Marc Gemis
>
>
>
> OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A
> nearer to Road B. So you get navigated to the wrong spot on the road
> network.
>

I don't understand what this has to do with addresses on buildings vs.
nodes. I would expect that an address is converted to coordinates. Then a
route is created to get as close as possible to that point, regardless of
the street names.
So yes, if the router does not take services roads, footpaths etc. into
account (or when they are not mapped), you might end up in the wrong
street.

IMHO, this also does not matter for POIs with an address on a building. The
satnav should take the coordinates of the POI, not the centre of the
building in which it is placed. Taking the centre of the (large) building
might lead to problems.

So yes, one should try to map as many service roads, paths, internal
corridors as possible to help routers. And yes, the coordinates taken by
the router for the endpoint are important.
but is this caused by addresses on buildings vs. on nodes ? no, not always,
e.g for (apartment) buildings with multiple entrances with only address
info on the building, it can go wrong. Not for small detached family houses.

regards

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


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
> amenity=reverse_vending_machine
> reverse_vending=bottle_return
>
> Machines may take more than one type of item. Some here take bottles and 
> bottle creates. Some take metal cans.
>
> Reverse vending machines are not the only vending machine type that’s not 
> technically a vending machine, although you are exchanging one thing for 
> another.
>
> I propose
> amenity=vending_machine
> vending=reverse_vending (or keep bottle_return as its already in use)
> recycling:glass_bottles=yes/no (already is use)
> recycling:=yes/no

Since you use recycling tags, why not use amenity=recycling with some
subtags to indicate that you get money. Why stick to vending machine?

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient
to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on
the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or
floor).
Although I now think that person said that it would be OK to have the
address on a separate node next to the POI, which does not work if you
only see a list of nearby Foobar POIs. In that list you want to see
addresses as well.



On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 6:40 AM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
>
> On 1/9/20 22:54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
> > and perhaps he was right.
> > Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
> > the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
> > properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
> > are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
> > that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
> > perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.
>
> Having the address can ensure one has the right POI when there are other
> similar ones in the area. Consider the rather infamous case of Houston's
> "Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks" (2029 and 2050 West Gray
> Street, near South Shepherd Drive). There are also the two different
> Starbucks locations in The Galleria (usually disambiguated by floor as
> one is ground level by the elevators and financial tower, one is on the
> second floor closer to the ice rink) which would at minimum have
> different unit numbers.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
> http://www.rantroulette.com
> http://www.skqrecordquest.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] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs,
and perhaps he was right.
Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell
the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is
properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors
are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter
that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building,
perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct.

OTOH, when one of my friends lives in a large apartment building
complex, I do only have an address. So perhaps the building has
multiple entrances, which are marked with different house numbers,
groups of flat numbers, or something else. In that case, I want to be
able to navigate to the correct entrance. For that, the navigation
software needs to bring me to the correct entrance. Unlike malls,
apartment buildings often require you to choose the right entrance and
you cannot go from one part of the building to the other. So here the
address(es) should go on the entrances.

Furthermore if I want to send a mail (paper-type) to a shop, it is
interesting to know its correct address, and having only a general
address on the building does not help.

So yes, different usage might require different mapping.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:06 AM marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 06.01.20 à 08:47, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> > If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address.
>
> it's amazing the difference in usage.
> I find that addr nodes are very problematic for hudge buildings like
> shopping malls or train stations. the localisation of the node forces
> the routing to go to a specific location when you may be closer to
> another entrance.
> By putting the address on the building, you can not only allow quality
> reverse geocoding for the whole building, but also allow advanced
> routing to select the closest entry instead of going to the preferred
> entry of the contributor who entered the address.
>
> ___
> 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] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing
the roads, not on the relation.
As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle
route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so
on, should be determined from the characteristics of the roads in the
relation, not from some tag on the relation.

If we go back the Joost's original question of cycle highways vs. node
network or local roundtrip routes. Do we need a tag on the relation to
distinguish one as commute and the other as recreational? Where is
this information useful?

Suppose I want a fast commute, can the router give me a ride over a
lot of bicycle highways without tags on the relation? Or can that be
done just by the characteristics of the roads in that relation? Or
because they form an almost uninterrupted straight line next to a
railway?

On the other hand, can the system give me touristic routes that allow
me to explore an area, or will it send me over cycle highways which
are not meant for that purpose? A node network or a local round trip
is meant for that.

The original question was how can we tag the difference between a
route representing a cycle highway and a note network. Peter, you
recently worked hard to introduce a new tag to distinguish cycle
networks from other routes. Can we use that tag, with a different
value, for cycle highways to separate them from the others?

But then we do not solve the problems for touristic car routes and for
the examples Florimand gave.

regards

m

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:08 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven
> >
> >> I think;
> >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes.
> >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes.
> > I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...
> >
> > Hint: Nederland.
>
> Ahem.  How can I put this tactfully - the Netherlands doesn't exactly
> have the widest variety of cycling terrain in the world, and has a
> generally good network of separated cycleways.  That isn't true
> everywhere - regularly when I'm out walking I'm asking myself "how do I
> tag this so that a poor mistaken cyclist doesn't think it'd be a good
> shortcut".  An example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353193650 ,
> where I was on Monday - is an example.  It's a public bridleway in the
> UK, so as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists can legally use it
> too - but any horse bigger than a small pony wouldn't fit (not without
> the rider being impaled on a tree branch), and the 45 degree angle of
> the hill, and the slippery mess on the ground, make it challenging for
> walkers never mind cyclists.
>
> Not so far away is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9487#map=13/54.3595/-1.2685 which
> is actually part of a cycle route.  The worst of that section is
> probably "only" mtb:scale=1, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a
> normal road bike user (or someone used to comfort as they're riding along).
>
> Outside of "small" countries like the Netherlands or England other
> factors such as sheer scale come into play - for example the
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munda_Biddi_Trail that has opened between
> Perth and Albany in Australia (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5810814 ), or one of the long US
> routes.
>
> 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] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-07 Thread Marc Gemis
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:30 PM marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit :
> > Comments most welcome!
>
> keep it simple !
> advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl
> a single node is not enought ?

The problem I see with this approach is that the node has to be placed
on the other street than the one the cyclist is using. In the picture
of the original mail, suppose a cyclist is coming from the south and
wants to turn to the west. The logical place to put the box is by
adding a node on the street to the east. But how wouldn't that
complicate things for routers, as the road to the east is not part of
the itinerary?

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-07 Thread Marc Gemis
AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with
https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I thought at on
some signs there is also the silhouette of a car)

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:39 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> joost schouppe :
>
> > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes 
> > for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in 
> > France
>
> Are these routes waymarked as special routes?
>
> > ___
> > 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] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Marc Gemis
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:32 AM Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:23, Dave F via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > > This depends on the country.
> > > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address
> > data to building polygons in OSM?
>
> Of course nothing is truly forbidden in OSM as long as you are mapping
> in good faith ("any tags you like" spirit) but local community
> consensus can discourage some tagging schemes (such as separate ways
> for sidewalks in Germany) and this is likely what Marc had in mind
> when writing "forbidden" in quotation marks.

indeed, that's why I used quotation marks.

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


Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Marc Gemis
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 7:21 PM Markus  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 19:39, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
>
> Says who? And why?

The Danish community, as the address nodes were automatically
imported, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Denmark

Dave F wrote a longer explanation.

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-05 Thread Marc Gemis
This depends on the country.
It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
It is not typical to do so in The Netherlands.
In Italy, the address belongs to a door, not to a building.

regards

m.

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:24 PM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>   I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?
>
> - rob -
> --
> https://www.senecass.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] Business names in capital letters

2019-12-29 Thread Marc Gemis
> That said, on the ALDI UK website, only the logo depicts "ALDI."  Everywhere
> else on the page that the company name is rendered as ordinary text it is 
> "Aldi."

But the German sites (https://aldi.de/ and
https://www.aldi-nord.de/unternehmen/verantwortung.html) seem to use
ALDI (or ALDI Nord) all over.

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane

2019-12-04 Thread Marc Gemis
But we are not mapping the users of the lane, we are trying to map the
construction, not?
The construction is some paint on a surface that would be used by cars
if there was no paint.
Since the "construction" is the same for pedestrian lanes and cycle
lanes, I thought that having a similar tagging scheme for both would
be beneficial.

After all, we do use highway=footway and highway=cycleway as well,
although they are constructed for different groups (pedestrians and
"vehicles").

regards

m

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 13:06 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis :
>>
>> I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping.
>
>
>
> IMHO these are quite different, bicycles are generally considered vehicles by 
> the law and pedestrians are not. It doesn't seem to make sense to have 
> "consistency" here, provided this would imply dealing in the same way with 
> them.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane

2019-12-04 Thread Marc Gemis
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:36 PM Markus  wrote:
>
> In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the
> following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part
> of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path).

But isn't this exactly the same as we do for cycleway=lane?
I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping.

regards.
m.

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


Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-26 Thread Marc Gemis
Typically, the websites of the vendors use "Commercial Vehicles"

some examples:

https://www.volkswagen-vans.co.uk/en.html
https://www.peugeot.co.za/range.html
http://www.usedvans.mercedes-benz.co.uk/ (window title)

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-17 Thread Marc Gemis
AFAIK, VW does not sell lorries/hgv/trucks. Their commercial vehicles
are pick ups and vans (caddy/transporter/crafter) The largest, has a
GVW of 5t.

Which tags do we have to use in case the shop only sells those vehicles?

regards

m.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> I have now changed this back to shop=truck, seems the most convincing of all 
> options, and the most frequently used specific tag
>
> 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 - sunbathing

2019-10-09 Thread Marc Gemis
Does this include places like the one see in the images here [1]
Those depict what we call ligweide or zonneweide in Dutch. Those are
grass areas typically next to a open-air swimming pool.


[1] 
https://www.google.com/search?q=ligweide=isch=univ=X=2ahUKEwjytMDY647lAhWSKFAKHQGFDKoQsAR6BAgJEAE=2438=1256=2

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:15 PM Vadim Shlyakhov  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm proposing to use leisure=sunbathing to tag an outdoor location
> where people can sunbathe:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sunbathing
>
> Rationale:
>
> There is no currently a standard way to tag an outdoor location
> (probably designated) where people can practice sunbathing. Swimming
> and bathing suggests using landuse=grass to tag a lawn for sunbathing
> which is actually more suitable for a lawn in general than for a
> sunbathing area specifically.
>
> Such locations can be usually found next to swimming and bathing areas
> like beaches and swimming pools, for example at a
> leisure=beach_resort. But they can also be located somewhere else
> there is no accessible beach or even access to the water available.
>
> Regards,
> Vadim
>
> ___
> 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] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

2019-09-27 Thread Marc Gemis
>> A "find a pint of beer near me" app which does a proximity search
>> for amenity=pub won't work very well if some of those pubs... aren't pubs.
>>
>> amenity=pub means "actually a pub", not "thing that looks like a pub".
>
>
> Which is why, for this one, I used disused:amenity=pub.  Which (currently, on 
> standard
> carto) doesn't render as a pub.  It still looks like a pub because of the 
> sign, which they
> cannot legally remove.  In another case, where I knew a pub had shut 
> temporarily
> (because of a fire) but would eventually re-open, I tagged it as 
> disused:amenity=pub.
> Both of those continued to show up on various pub websites as still being 
> pubs because
> not all websites use OSM data to decide what is and isn't a pub.
>

so disused:amenity=pub ; building=pub (it looks like a pub);
building:use=house (or is it :usage?)

There are similar problems in my area with

- windmills (with or without vanes) that are now ruins/residential
house/museum/...
- watermills (no longer functioning, but the outside still looks like
a watermill, now used as house, etc.)
- bunkers (typically unused)

They could be mapped with building=windmill/watermill/bunker and
disused:man_made=windmill/watermill or disused:military=bunker.
I assume that disused=yes could also be used on bunkers, as they
usually have no other function today. So there is no confusion with
any other tags to which the "disused" could be applied.
This is unlike the windmills and watermills that still function as
house or museum or ...

regards.

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


Re: [Tagging] oneway street with two combined foot-cycle lanes

2019-09-18 Thread Marc Gemis
but oneway:bicycle=no is understood. I would simply add that as well.
So a router can use that for navigation(but it will not tell you on which
side of the road you have to drive because that is hidden in the other tags
you mention)

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:10 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> Maybe:
>
> highway=residential
> footway:left=lane
> footway:left:bicycle=designated
> footway:left:segregated=no
> footway:left:oneway:bicycle=yes
> footway:left:width=1.5
> footway:right=lane
> footway:right:bicycle=designated
> footway:right:segregated=no
> footway:right:oneway:bicycle=-1
> footway:right:width=1.5
>
> But this will certainly not be digested by any router or renderer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-8469788303536114779_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


Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features

2019-08-06 Thread Marc Gemis
I probably should have used "desirable" instead of "required" (*), but
even then this is not "desirable" for countries where postal code
boundaries are mapped as relations.

(*) please look at the video and see which text is pasted in the
Wikibase definition for addr:street.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 3:51 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 2019, at 12:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> > wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 6. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> >>
> >> When I walk down a street collecting house numbers I have no indication of 
> >> the ZIP code of each building. If you require ZIP codes then I am forced 
> >> into an import situation rather than a field survey
> >
> >
> > you might survey this by asking locals about their address, or by looking 
> > at addresses that businesses publish about themselves.
> >
> > Cheers Martin
>
> When I map businesses I do look to see what they publish about themselves and 
> the ZIP code as well as hours of operation can be easily determined. But if 
> you are asking me to knock on doors in residential areas or ask total 
> strangers who look like they might be locals what their ZIP code is as I 
> collect non-business addresses you are asking too much.
>
> In the suburban sprawl of my country I am guessing there are far more 
> residential addresses than business addresses. So putting postal code 
> requirement on my collecting house numbers means that either we will never 
> have a critical mass of house numbers or we will be doing it all with 
> imports. By critical mass, I mean a sufficient density of numbers so people 
> use OSM as their first choice for looking up an address to navigate to. At 
> least where I live, ZIP codes are not needed or normally used for when giving 
> an address for a navigation destination. ZIP codes are used really for just 
> one thing: Delivering mail.
>
> I can see a suggestion in the wiki that acquiring a postal/ZIP code for an 
> address is desirable to provide completeness. But making it a requirement? No.
>
> Cheers Tod.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features

2019-08-05 Thread Marc Gemis
and what if I do not agree with the English text. I saw the example
for addr:street in your movie.
The description now says you have to add addr:postal_code. This is not
true for countries whare postal code boundaries are mapped. I do agree
that this is needed in countries that use ZIP codes though. How do we
solve such issues (before they get translated in too many languagues)
?

regards

m.

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> Thanks, I've got it now.
>
> The problem with the wikibase data item "labels": if you go to add the
> description in another language for a recently created wiki page, the
> top left of the page has a very large, gray text heading like "No
> Label Defined" (but in Indonesian, or Spanish, etc), which suggests
> that something is missing.
>
> I suspect this happens because the English "label" field may not have
> been created in the data item?
>
> Also, when adding the description, the next field to the left is the
> blank label field, with grayed-out text "No Label Found". It's quite
> tempting to fill this in. Do we really want wiki users to feel they
> should add translations for the "key" and "value" of each tag?
>
> On 8/5/19, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:
> > Joseph, you don't need to use preferences - just click the language
> > switcher at the very top of the page, and you only need to switch to
> > Indonesian and back once -- the interface will always offer both choices to
> > fill out.  Please see the video, and let me know if what you see is
> > different. You might be using mobile version of the site?
> >
> > Filling it out labels in every language is a bit silly - there are
> > thousands of languages, why would we want to store identical information in
> > every one of them, when the system automatically does fallback to English?
> > I could create some sort of a javascript gadget that hides the label column
> > when the item type is a key/value/relation/relation role (multilingual
> > labels are still useful for other item types), but some people have already
> > added some alternative language-specific labels, essentially localizing
> > keys - not sure if we should just hide those.  BTW, if anyone wants to hack
> > on it (I'm looking at you Minh :)), it would be awesome!  Or at least we
> > should maybe give a warning when user tries to add a label identical to
> > English?
> >
> > Every wiki page, including the data items have a "history" tab at the top
> > that will show every edit done to that page.
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 12:17 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> > 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, yes, changing the language under “preferences” for the wiki
> >> works,
> >> though it’s a little annoying.
> >>
> >> You should set the label field for all languages to the key=value or
> >> remove this field and display the key=value at the top of the page
> >> anyway.
> >> It’s quite distracting Now.
> >>
> >> Is there a way to see the wikibase data item history? One big concern I
> >> have is that it won’t be easy to see when something is changed. Can you
> >> get
> >> notified if someone changes a description?
> >>
> >> Joseph
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:05 AM Yuri Astrakhan 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> P.S. I made a short video on how to add descriptions and translations
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI1NDD4MtC4
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 11:56 AM Yuri Astrakhan 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Joseph, before you click "edit description", change your language at
>  the
>  top of the wiki page (make sure you are logged in.  Also, if you change
>  the
>  language a few times to the ones you know, e.g. to Indonesian, to
>  Spanish,
>  and then to English, I think interface will always offer you to enter
>  description in the last few you had picked.
> 
>  Thanks for adding translations!
> 
>  On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 11:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
>  joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > You're right, I was a little confused. Almost all the features on Map
> > Features have a wiki page (and those that don't should get a page or
> > more likely be removed), so I understand that they have an OSM
> > wikibase entry, now, and creating the data item isn't an issue.
> >
> > But I still can't figure out how to add description in another
> > language?
> >
> > I tried to get the Indonesian translation by:
> > 1) Open the English wiki page (eg from the link on Map Features in
> > this
> > case)
> > 2) Click on the little pencil to edit the OSM wikibase data item
> > (which I can't see, because I have images disabled, but I just hunt
> > around...)
> > 3) Click on "edit" next to description
> > 4) Click "all entered languages" - wait, how do I add Indonesian?
> > ?
> >
> > Maybe I don't see Indonesian because I'm using a satellite internet
> > connection from Australia and I haven't edited Indonesian before. I
> > try 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tag:insurance:health

2019-08-02 Thread Marc Gemis
I think this tag is useless for Belgium, but that does not mean it is
useful in other countries.
Let me explain the Belgian situation, so perhaps you can help me here to
decide whether it should be used or not.

Everybody in Belgium has public health insurance by one of the 4
"ziekenfondsen". Every health care provider works with them. In some cases,
you have to pay the full amount upfront (e.g. dentist), and send the bill
to your health care insurance to get some refunding. In other cases, the
health care provider only charges you with the amount the public health
insurance providers do not pay. (Think hospitals). Typically not the whole
amount is refunded, but special tariffs apply for certain groups of people.

On top of that you can have a private insurance, which e.g. pay for a
single room in a hospital. Sometimes the hospital will send the bill
directly to them (*) in other cases you have to pay the remaining amount
(not covered by public insurance), and send the bill to your private
insurance. Depending on the case and your individual insurance plan, they
will pay you back some amount.

(*) it is still possible that you have to pay a small part of the total
bill.

So I doubt it makes sense to map them in Belgium, what do you think ?

m

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 10:19 PM Mhairi O'Hara 
wrote:

> Voting is now open for the proposed feature insurance:health
>
> "Indicates the type of health insurance accepted at a health facility"
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
>
> Please read the page, then add your vote and any additional comments here:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health#Voting
> 
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Technical Project Manager
> mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web 
>  |  twitter 
>  |  facebook 
>  |  donate 
> ___
> 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] Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

2019-07-19 Thread Marc Gemis
But isn't the main characteristic of a village green / village common
that is is a rather large, open area ?  I am thinking of a large grass
field in the centre of the town, but it could probably be paved as
well (or sand or ...)
OTOH The use of landcover=greenery is meant for "small" patches of
bushes / flowers/ trees/ grass that you find in and out of towns.

m.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:38 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think they are at least close to the village, if not within it, in the UK 
> and Australia.
>
> On 19/07/19 16:04, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Hm.. village_common still says village, where often these areas are no longer 
> in a village.
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 00:42 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>  As Kevin Kenny says.
>>
>> The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.
>>
>> And this predominately is because of the tag landuse=grass.
>> While this exists OSM can expect the key 'landuse' to be used (misused) for 
>> land covers of all descriptions.
>>
>> If the key 'landuse' is only used for the human use of the land - free of 
>> any hint of the cover then there may be some hope of resolving 
>> 'village_green'.
>> In Australia there is the 'village common' - land held for common use, this 
>> might get away form the 'green' aspect of grass. The rendering colour could 
>> also be closer to that of schools and hospitals, again away from the colour 
>> green.
>>
>>
>> On 19/07/19 07:59, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>
>> In Nederland there are many of village_green like areas, used for community 
>> events, but without a formal status. I would support tagging these as 
>> village_green. Larger cities tend to have several of these areas, often 
>> because villages have been incorporated but the central area has retained 
>> its function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the 
>> countries that already do this.
>>
>> I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green. 
>> It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a 
>> clear convention.
>>
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>
>>
>> Op do 18 jul. 2019 om 23:31 schreef Kevin Kenny :
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc  
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
>>> > this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
>>> > by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag
>>>
>>> landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landcover rather than
>>> a land use, but it's plausible for those things that aren't village
>>> greens.
>>>
>>> If you make an exception inside the UK for 'village_green', remember
>>> that some of us former colonies have them too. Lots of New England
>>> villages follow the general pattern of villages in Merrie Olde
>>> England, and (at least historically) have a village hall, a school, a
>>> church, and shops clustered about a village green or common. (All the
>>> buildings in modern times may have been repurposed, but the village
>>> green is likely still there.)
>>>
>
> ___
> 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] Sluice gate vs valve (was Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing

2019-07-17 Thread Marc Gemis
Is the second picture a valve ?
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-sluice-gate.htm  This page calls it
sluice gate. I'm not familiar with the terminology, so perhaps experts
can enlighten me.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 8:23 PM François Lacombe
 wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Le mer. 17 juil. 2019 à 15:07, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>>
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dsluice_gate
>>
>> The person that added this page, is not happy with
>> waterway=flow_control; flow_control=sluice_gate
>> (discussion on Belgian Forum:
>> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66728 )
>
>
> I'm sorry I can't be part of Ducth discussions.
> Both waterway=flow_control + flow_control=sluice_gate and 
> waterway=sluice_gate aren't properly described on wiki and used respectively 
> about 500 and 250 times each.
> A proposal remains about the first 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sluice_gate
>
> As a reviewed key valve=gate exists, I'd be in favor of a third possibility : 
> waterway=valve + valve=gate
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:valve%3Dgate (I know one of the 
> examples involves a sluice gate and described as pipeline=valve).
> This would be consistent with pipeline=valve (equivalent of flow control 
> device) + valve=gate.
> waterway=valve would be designed for every situation where pipeline=valve 
> isn't suitable (i.e when the duct isn't a pipeline, for free flow canals, 
> tunnels and so on...)
>
> All the best
>
> 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] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcove

2019-07-17 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:30 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
> I recently edited some of this pages (primarily mentioning that competing tags
> are used 50 to 50 000 times more often).
>
> I would welcome review of this pages (and edits where necessary).
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgreenery

This one was created after a discussion on the Dutch forum. The
problem is that there is no tag to add areas with a mixture of plants.
landuse=village_green is often misused for that.
It's a very long discussion over many years, but the idea for
landcover=greenery came up around here :
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=755300#p755300

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dsluice_gate

The person that added this page, is not happy with
waterway=flow_control; flow_control=sluice_gate
(discussion on Belgian Forum:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66728 )

Both threads are in Dutch, but I hope this info gives you an idea on
the reason for the pages.

regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

2019-07-12 Thread Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM Pee Wee  wrote:
>
> I understand but numbers don't always say much. A great part of this number 
> is caused by an (afaik  undocumentend and highly arbitrary)  import in the 
> city of Tilburg
>

and how many private, residential gardens are mapped (around the
world) without this type tag? This number is pretty hard to determine,
but should be taken into account if you want to change a definition
from 2010.

Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
No, we refine this with additional tags.
This method can be applied to private gardens as well.

regards
m

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


Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm

2019-06-25 Thread Marc Gemis
Since OSM is used in commercial products, all exceptions you mention
for non-commercial use is not applicable.

The debate of many persons copying 1 fact from another database has
been discussed in the past, but OSM always tries to err on the safe
side. IMHO It would be more damaging to the project to have to remove
data when a company or organisation start filing copyright claims (as
there is no money to pay lawyers).

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:04 AM "Christian Müller" via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> Shameless plug:
>
>
> At least in Germany copyright does have limits, so an individual
> may use/recite/remix parts of a copyrighted work or database, in
> particular for non-commercial and scientific use - just as it is
> popular to cite and quote parts of scientific publications in
> others. See in particular Unterabschnitt 4 "Gesetzlich erlaubte
> Nutzungen für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Institutionen" of
> UrhG [1] (link in German only, sorry).
>
> I don't know to what extent this is applicable for an international
> project such as OSM, but there are fair-use and non-commercial ex-
> ceptions in the copyright statutes of many countries, that generally
> may apply to what has been practised and afterwards ban'ed here.
>
> So while a systematic copy of an ODBl non-compatible work or database
> for sure breaks OSM rules, researching for individual names or generic
> geographic facts (that are also verifiable on-ground e.g.) does not.
>
> Merely reusing names of watercourses is not a breach of copyright, if
> you research them in non-database publications _or_ if you do copy
> few excerpts (UrhG speaks of 15% for scientific, non-commercial use)
> out of a foreign database dedicated to listing watercourse names and
> their history (and that is non-ODBl compatible).
>
>
> However, not supplying a source or explanation for others to validate
> the changes made in a changeset, is hindering others to find and fix
> mistakes later on.  So even if the above may grant some use of other-
> wise incompatible data sources -to a specific an often fuzzy extent-,
> it surely does not grant using foreign sources without attribution.
>
>
> I'm not a lawyer, so you have to validate the claims made yourself
> if you do want to use foreign sources based on those claims (!).
>
> In any case it may be easier to use PD sources, like Frederik suggested,
> but license-incompatible sources are /not/ sacredly forbidden by default
> if you adhere to some principles outlined in UrhG and consider the legal
> type and status of the organisational aspect of OSM.
>
>
> Greetings
> cmuelle8
>
> [1] 
> https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html#BJNR012730965BJNG004800123
>
>
>
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Juni 2019 um 12:19 Uhr
> > Von: "Frederik Ramm" 
> > An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm
> >
> > You cannot continue to use one inadmissible source and then when you're
> > told this is wrong, use a different inadmissible source and so on ad
> > infinitum. This is not a contest of who finds a loophole.
>
>
> ___
> 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 - juggling spot

2019-05-22 Thread Marc Gemis
For me, a sport means competition, rankings, trophies. Is this the
case here? Otherwise, I think leisure is better.
A pitch a place specially designed for a certain sport. I think this
is not the case here. It's just an open space, which can also serve
other purposes.

I fear that a juggling spot is not something we should add to OSM,
We do not map places where you can skateboard, unless there is a
dedicated area to practice containing ramps, etc.

As a solution, you create a umap with spots for juggling.

regards

m.

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:28 AM Pablo  wrote:
>
> Thx for your answers :).
>
> I m speaking of juggling as a sport and not as entertainment. These meetings 
> are not organised to earn money or to make shows, but to practice and meet 
> each other.
>
> I don't know any spaces primarily used for juggling, bukers, scuba diving, 
> slack line, or other sport that don't need peculiar infrastructures. (Even 
> ski station are not primarily used for ski in summer). So why not use the tag 
> leisure = pitch sport=juggling?  And if needed adding another sport=whatever.
>
> Verifiability : it s only verifiable in the dates where people meet (in 
> winter theses places are commonly not used). As, you can't verify the 
> proprieties of a shop went it's close. Sometime the address can be find on 
> the website of the juggling association or on Facebook groups, sometimes you 
> have to find the people who know where and when theses meeting occurs. In any 
> case it can be verified but not anytime.
>
> However, this ephemeral  spaces exist and are used. So I think it could be 
> usefull to create a maintag "for sport that does not take place on a delimited
> sport field". This wild resolve the problem of the format leisure = pitch 
> sport = juggling. Don t you think ?Le 22 mai 2019 00:05, Jmapb 
>  a écrit :
> >
> > On 5/21/2019 3:34 PM, Pablo wrote
> > > A new feature proposal which could be very useful for the juggling 
> > > community. Usually, jugglers meet in specific spaces in cities (usually 
> > > open spaces like parcs). There is often a day of the week which is choose 
> > > to meet in priority. It s like a informal sport center. I thinks it s the 
> > > same thing for slack lines and acrobatics but I m not sure. Osm could 
> > > help find theses spots which is very usefull when you travel. If this tag 
> > > is accepted, I will inform the juggling community so they can add their 
> > > spots.
> > > You can find it here :
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/juggling_spot
> >
> > juggling=spot is not a great tag, since it doesn't follow the existing
> > tagging conventions. Better would be sport=juggling -- but the sport=*
> > tag has to be added to some other physical feature; it's not a valid tag
> > all by itself.
> >
> > If there's a signed or otherwise documented and verifiable place that's
> > *primarily* designed/used for juggling, it could be tagged leisure=pitch
> > + sport=juggling.
> >
> > If this use not verifiable by other mappers, the juggling tag will
> > probably be deleted.
> >
> > J
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Marking temporary traffic organisation change

2019-05-14 Thread Marc Gemis
There is the abandoned proposal for temporary:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/temporary

regards

m.

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 5:02 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
> Sometimes traffic organization changes for some time - road becomes 
> temporarily oneway,
> or oneway road becomes accessible in both direction.
>
> Obviously short term traffic organisation changes (for hours/days) are 
> generally not
> worth mapping, though one may use oneway:conditional / access:conditional for 
> that.
>
> But sometimes change is applied for months or longer, as it is related to 
> closure of road.
>
> For example road around
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.04484=19.94562#map=19/50.04484/19.94562
> are closed for reconstruction, what is covered by highway=construction.
>
> But there are also other changes
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25029841#map=19/50.04537/19.94788
> become oneway=no.
>
> How one may mark that such change is temporary?
>
> It would be useful for at least two reasons:
> - it would easier to catch roads for retagging after road recontruction 
> completes
> - it would be possible to skip such roads in some QA checks - for example 
> that road has
> cycleway=opposie_lane, oneway:bicycle=no with oneway=no what would usually 
> indicate
> some mistake - but here it is a result of temporary change so validators 
> should not complain
>
> Is there some existing tag for that? If not - what would be a good name for 
> that?
> temporary_traffic_organisation=yes is awful
> ___
> 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] Is there any use of shop=general/general_store not covered by shop=convenience/supermarket/country_store?

2019-03-25 Thread Marc Gemis
> My conclusion is that this is an old shop type, currently getting rare but 
> there are still some valid uses
> but many cases would benefit from retagging to more popular shop values
> (where shop=convenience/supermarket/country_store describes it well).

Please add https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dvariety_store as well.
The only store that is mapped as "general" in a 20 km radius from me,
seems to be a variety store (only cheap stuff, clothes, toys, office
material, etc.)

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

2019-03-25 Thread Marc Gemis
I wonder whether you will ever get the right answers to this type of
questions on this mailing list.
Only if people on this list have used those tags themselves or
interacted with people using the "wrong" tags you might get an idea of
what is going on.
Otherwise, it seems to me that we just might guess the correct answer.

The only people that know what they meant with a certain tag (that is
not documented) are those that used it. But finding the people that
used to tag and contact them is a daunting task.

regards

m

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:59 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
> What is the difference between these shops?
>
> My expectation is that
>
> - shop=plumber is poorly tagged office of a plumber
> - shop=plumbing is unclear tagging of shop with primarily plumbing supplies
> - shop=plumbing_supplies is a good name for plumbing supplies shop but rarely 
> used
> ___
> 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] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

2019-03-19 Thread Marc Gemis
Which situations can one theoretically have in a oneway street that
allows contraflow for bicycles and moped/mofas?

- no separate lanes (rather typical in Belgium)
- separate lanes, one lane on each side, lanes are 1-way
- separate lane only in contraflow direction, lane is oneway, (e.g.
flow direction shares lane with cars, or is track)
- separate lane only in flow direction, lane is oneway
- lane(s) on contraflow side, lanes are both way
- lane(s) on flow side, lanes are both way


On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:55 AM Markus  wrote:
>
> By the way: aren't all contraflow cycle lanes located on the left side
> in countries with right-hand traffic or on the right side in countries
> with left-hand traffic? If so, cycleway*=opposite_lane could simply be
> replaced by cycleway:*=lane, as the direction of the cycle lane is
> already implied by oneway:bicycle=no – thus no need for
> cycleway:*:oneway=-1.
>
> ___
> 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 old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

2019-03-13 Thread Marc Gemis
> > If I decide to meet with a friend AGAIN in front of Whizzo, we both
> > already know where it is.
>
> congratulations if you ever need gps to go to a place where you have
> already been (I wonder in this case why commercial gps have a "go home"
> shortcut since everyone has already been there)
>

totally off-topic:

 I know plenty of people that cannot do that without GPS, including myself.
Can you drive without GPS to any destination that you have visited the
last 20 years? I can't, especially not when I drove there following
the GPS.
For example, I won't be able to drive without a map/GPS to any my
holiday destinations, even not the one from last year. I cannot
remember all the turns we made during a 1000 km trip.

Some people cannot navigate back home from any town center where they
have not been before without using your GPS, especially when there are
a lot of one-way streets, so the trip back is different.

m.

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


[Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

2019-03-12 Thread Marc Gemis
What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo.
In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant Eatwell.
If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they
might not be overly familiar with the area and don't know the place
has changed.
They will also see the new name and the new function within the tags.
So they now know they have to meet in front of a restaurant now.


BTW, this is of course if you use Nominatim. OsmAnd, Magic Earth etc,
do not search on old_name AFAIK.

So for me, the old_name seems useful, even though the representation
by some renderers (Nominatim in this case) might not be perfect.

m.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:36 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 00:51, marc marc  wrote:
>
>> When one shop is replaced by another, I always keep the old name with
>> old_name even if no one else uses it to designate the new store. the
>> primary purpose is to prevent someone from re-encoding the old store
>> with an older source than mine.
>
>
> I do that with a note because Nominatim will return answers for old_name as 
> well as name.
> So if the supermaket chain Whizzo (fictional name) has closed down its store 
> in one town,
> using old_name=Whizzo will lead people from out of area searching for their 
> nearest Whizzo
> to think it's still there but has rebranded (it's still Whizzo but with a new 
> name).  That's why
> note=* exists, to let other mappers know why a thing is mapped a certain way 
> when reasons
> exist to assume it ought not be.
>
> There are cases where I'd use old_name: where the name has changed but not 
> the function.
> Houses of significance (such as listed buildings, mansions, etc.) which have 
> changed name
> but references may be found in older books (and even on-line) to the old 
> name.  You may not
> know that Castell Malgwyn Hotel became Hammet House after you find a 
> reference to
> Castell Malgwyn somewhere (still a hotel: it may revert to theold name soon, 
> and if it does
> I'll swap name and old_name).  Pubs sometimes change name with a change of 
> landlord,
> and again references to the old name abound.
>
> Where I'd definitely not use old name is where (for example) a general store 
> closed down
> and a restaurant re-opened in its place: Siop y Cardi (general store) in 
> Cardigan is now Crwst
> (restaurant).  Using old_name for that would be highly misleading and benefit 
> nobody.  If I
> thought another mapper might come along and rename back to Siop y Cardi then 
> I would have
> added a note saying that was the building's previous incarnation, not used 
> old_name.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] discouraging shop=fashion

2019-03-11 Thread Marc Gemis
Before deprecating the shop=fashion tag, shouldn't we reach out to the
mappers that use shop=fashion ?

Maybe they have a lot more domain knowledge than the people on this
mailing list and can explain why they used shop=fashion and not
shop=clothes; clothes=...

(you know diversity and white privileged men and things)

m.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:11 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 23:29 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> :
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Looking again, there is a category for this with "women;men;children" 242 
>>> times used, "women;men" even has 489. "fashion" is also present with 184 
>>> uses (0,9%).
>>
>>
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
>>
>>
>> & there's also myriads of men;women;children, women;children;men, 
>> women;babies;children & every other possible combination you could ever 
>> imagine (or create by a typo!)
>
>
>
> yes, these exist as possibilities, but in the real world people use 
> "women;men" and "women;men;children". The other combinations are in low 
> numbers.
>
>
>
>>
>> Yeah, 230k shop=clothes but only 20k of all "types" of clothes combined, 
>> then 7000 =fashion & 15000 =boutique, but from the comments here, you have 
>> to wonder how many of those "boutiques" are actually selling high-level 
>> (very expensive!) clothing?
>
>
>
> Not sure what you expect from "boutique". There are shops where a sweat shirt 
> is 1000 Euros and others where it is 100. Both may be "boutiques" but the 
> price differences are significant to most of us ;-)
>
> 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] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

2019-03-06 Thread Marc Gemis
There is a very long thread on the same subject in August/September 2017.
It started here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-August/033127.html

The arguments of the emails in this thread regarding
boutique/fashion/clothes stores were given back then as well. So
nothing has changed in the meantime.

m.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:43 PM dktue  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I currently found out that shops that sell clothes are either tagged with
>
>  shop=clothes
>
> or with
>
>  shop=fashion
>
> but I can't find out when to use which.
>
> Can anybody clarify?
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> ___
> 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] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

2019-03-06 Thread Marc Gemis
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:52 AM OSMDoudou
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> > AFAIK emergency vehicles are exempt from limitations of traffic law 
> > (including oneway roads, forbidden access roads, speed limits, red lights, 
> > forbidden turns)
>
> Belgian law requires they stop at traffic lights and exercise caution. Not 
> only exercise caution, but explicitly stop. Also, they can’t go opposite 
> direction of one-way streets, except motorways.
>

If there was an explosion due to a gas leak and the road is blocked by
debris, I guess they can go in the opposite direction of a one-way
street as well.

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-28 Thread Marc Gemis
> emergency=yes is the most common value, it's a modal/class exception.

did you check whether that is on highways or on amenity=hospital ?

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


Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

2019-02-25 Thread Marc Gemis
AFAIK, the limit in Belgium depends on the card. You can within
certain limits set by the issuer, change your limit. Furthermore,
there is a daily and weekly limit as well (see e.g.
https://www.kbc.be/particulieren/nl/product/betalen/betaalkaarten/bankkaarten/bankkaart.html
in Dutch).
Any tagging proposal should make it very clear that it is the limit of
the ATM. A tag that should not be used in Belgium.

Regarding fees, it depends on your account, the ATM you use, the brand
of the bank and the number of times you have used ATM's in a certain
period.

Banks and shops prefer that you pay with your debit or credit card in
the shop I think, that's why they make it more expensive to withdraw
money from an ATM.
More and more shops also offer payment via Smart Phones.

m.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:27 PM <0174  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'd say we stick to stuff that is explicitly signposted on the machine -
> if the machine says what the limit is or what the network is or what
> currencies it has, then map that, but don't map data gathered by
> interacting with the machine.
>
> one use case:
>
> I was recently in Nepal and the ATMs there have very low withdrawal limit (c. 
> 10,000 to 25,000 NPR, that is about 200 €) and always a fee. Withdrawing 
> larger sums of money i.e. for several weeks of trekking can get quite 
> expensive if one chooses an ATM with low limit.
> There are many ATMs in cities and towns, but since the limit is not written 
> on the ATM, the only was to find the good ones is to use them (and to risk 
> losing your card).
>
> That's one reason why I would suggest to not dismiss tagging with info taken 
> from interacting with the ATM. I suppose sometimes the max. amount can differ 
> based on the card issuer, but I believe we should reflect such cases in the 
> tagging scheme. Sometimes there is no other way and this information could 
> help a lot.
>
> <0174
>
>
> čt 14. 2. 2019 v 12:52 odesílatel Joseph Eisenberg 
>  napsal:
>>
>> Here in Indonesia the ATMs are universally limited to dispensing no more 
>> than 25 bills, and they only offer one type. So you can get 2,500,000 in one 
>> withdrawal if they dispense 100,000 Rupiah bills, or 125 if they 
>> dispense 50k bills.
>>
>> The size of bill dispensed is often shown on a sticker (at least for newer 
>> ATMs)
>>
>> (100,000 rupiah converts to about $7 US)
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:08 PM seirra blake  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> some providers already make it publicly available knowledge. for example in 
>>> the UK link ATM has an app, and you can use it to find nearby ATMs. most of 
>>> the things it tells you are pretty standard, but some things that may need 
>>> new tags are pin management services, audio assistance and £5 notes 
>>> (because otherwise you're limited to denominations of 10). I was thinking 
>>> with these tags included, link ATM may feel encouraged to import their data 
>>> and maintain it on OSM allowing them to save costs on their end and have a 
>>> more detailed map. when I tried proposing minimum denominations before on 
>>> here though it got shot down very fast.
>>>
>>> On 2/14/19 7:17 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>>
>>> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The 
>>> normal limits are set by the card issuer, and I can see many people 
>>> mistakenly putting their personal card limits into these tags on the ATM.
>>>
>>> More relevant here would be the denomination mix. ATMs have a fixed number 
>>> of canisters (maybe 2/3/4), each of which can hold a single type of note. 
>>> Which denominations are loaded depends on historical usage patterns. 
>>> Stocking low denomination notes might be good for user convenience, but bad 
>>> for the possibility of running out of money in a busy location. Knowing the 
>>> normal mix for a particular ATM, in particular the smallest denomination, 
>>> is useful for knowing which amounts can be dispensed, and which not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So instead of min_withdrawal on the ATM, I would suggest min_denomination.
>>>
>>> In the case of multi-currency ATMs there will need to be a 
>>> currency-specific variant, like min_denomination:EUR=20
>>>
>>> Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions from 
>>> small to large to work out the mix and we need to keep mappers merging the 
>>> data from their experience, and not overwriting the valid data from a 
>>> previous ATM user, while recognising that the denomination mix can change, 
>>> even according to the days of the week (weekends might be different to 
>>> weekdays in city centres).
>>>
>>> On 2019-02-14 07:29, OSMDoudou wrote:
>>>
>>> The minimum can also differ.
>>>
>>> Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 
>>> EUR, whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks 
>>> will not be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.
>>>
>>> So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as options 
>>> on the 

Re: [Tagging] Clarification of fire_hydrant:diameter

2019-02-01 Thread Marc Gemis
Hi Viking,

here is one for Belgium. It's on my photo website and I release it
hereby in Public Domain, feel free to download it and upload it to the
wiki.
https://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2017/2017-01-01-Dikkelvenne/i-5MQMcZ3/A

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:27 PM Viking  wrote:
>
> I've fixed fire_hydrant:diameter legend on wiki page.
>
> > If you ever need pictures of those signs, please contact me, I have plenty 
> > of them, but I have to look them up.
>
> Marc, and anyone that has pictures of these signs, can you give them to us, 
> to insert them on wiki page?
>
> Thank you,
> Alberto
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
> 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] crossing=cycleway as a node

2019-01-28 Thread Marc Gemis
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:30 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Jan 2019, at 12:29, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > But often, the cycleway crossing the road is not mapped. How would you
> > map a bicycle only crossing if the parallel cycleway is mapped as
> > cycleway=lane on the highway=x ?
>
>
> foot=no on the highway=crossing node
> Also if the cycleway is mapped explicitly it would make sense (if it were 
> forbidden for pedestrians to cross the street there), because it could still 
> mean there’s an implicit footway crossing otherwise.


foot=no means that pedestrians cannot pass that node for any way
passing through the node, not ?


so if you have


--X--->

representing a way in OSM, and foot=yes on the way (can be implicit),
but foot=no on the X representing the bicycle crossing, pedestrians
cannot pass point 'X'.
At least that is how I understand the current access rules in OSM.

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


Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

2019-01-27 Thread Marc Gemis
But often, the cycleway crossing the road is not mapped. How would you
map a bicycle only crossing if the parallel cycleway is mapped as
cycleway=lane on the highway=x ?

Then you need a point, and as you wrote access=bicycle or foot=no do
not work, as pedestrians and cars can follow the highway=x.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:42 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/01/19 19:51, OSMDoudou wrote:
>
> >> can only be used by cyclist
> > The “access” tag allows to express this.
>
> If it is only used by cyclist ... what  do the cars on the street do? Turn 
> around to find another route?
>
> As stated before ...
>
> The ways say what is on them. One way for the bicycles in this case and the 
> other way I assume for motor vehicles.
>
> The node states the crossing features - traffic lights, uncontrolled ...
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] crossing=cycleway as a node

2019-01-26 Thread Marc Gemis
Someone proposed highway=bicycle_crossing [1]. The rationale is to be
able to express crossings that can only be used by cyclist.

m.



[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bicycle_crossing

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


Re: [Tagging] Clarification of fire_hydrant:diameter

2019-01-25 Thread Marc Gemis
Perhaps it's my fault, I just found

DN = Diameter Nominal. The term Diameter Nominal refers to the
internaldiameter of a pipe. Together with the nominal pressure rating
and the materials class, all dimensions of a piping line, e. g. flange
dimensions, are defined by indicating the nominal diameter. Steel is
often not specified, but assumed as material.

So perhaps I should have translated binnendiameter to "internaldiameter" ?

m.


On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM François Lacombe
 wrote:
>
> Hi Marc
>
> Le ven. 25 janv. 2019 à 09:07, Marc Gemis  a écrit :
>>
>> In Belgium it is the inner diameter of the water main. Lowest value
>> I've seen is 50, highest 400 or so.
>
>
> Are you sure it's the inner diameter instead of the nominal diameter?
> They're not always equals
>
> ISO 6708 defines the nominal diameter (DN) and it is way more used in 
> plumbing than the internal one.
> https://www.techstreet.com/standards/din-en-iso-6708?product_id=1072836
>
> OSM diameter=* regards the nominal diameter
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diameter
>
> All the best
> ___
> 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] Clarification of fire_hydrant:diameter

2019-01-25 Thread Marc Gemis
In Belgium it is the inner diameter of the water main. Lowest value
I've seen is 50, highest 400 or so.
It's nicely explained on
http://brandweerbrasschaat.be/site/content/hydranten (in Dutch) with
pictures of the signs. The small ref number in the upper right corner
is not always there.
If you ever need pictures of those signs, please contact me, I have
plenty of them, but I have to look them up.

m.

p.s. the current JOSM preset & associated validation gives warnings
for 90, which is not uncommon here.

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


Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-23 Thread Marc Gemis
I wonder how puzzled someone would be when they look at the original
question "how to map scrub in forests" and then, without going through
the whole thread, sees e.g the following mail in that thread:

p.s. Joseph, please don't take this personally, I could have picked
another mail, but yours was the last.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:09 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> Chillagoe sounds like a village. It’s “only” 205 km (127 mi) W of the city of 
> Cairns
>
> Does it have a secondary school, eg for 14 to 18 year olds?
>
> The only town-level service is the “hospital”, but does it really offer full 
> services?
>
> > There are another half a dozen other small/er settlements within ~150k of 
> > Chillagoe for which it is "town".
>
> A town should usually serve more than a half dozen hamlets. That’s a 
> “village.”
>
> > “literally hundreds of similar towns.”
>
> That’s probably too many towns for a country with as low a population at 
> Australia.
>
> > “SW US”
>
> Americans in the rural West are used to driving for 2 to 3 hours to the 
> nearest town, 200 to 300km away. We used to drive 150km to town once or twice 
> a month. So most small settlements are losing their shops and businesses.
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:49 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 12:09, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/01/19 12:50, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>>
>>> It’s not possible to have “town” level services with less than 1000 people. 
>>> A town has a major market (retail area) serving the surrounding area, as 
>>> well as basic educational, cultural and government facilities.
>>
>> That is the usual interpretation (& certainly matches the Western Europe / 
>> US definition) but here is an example of what I'm talking about: 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-17.1494/144.5257
>>
>> Chillagoe has a population, according to the 2016 census, of 251 people, so 
>> it "should" only be a =hamlet. However, it has a school, police station, 
>> general store, hardware store, post office, 2 pub's, 2 museums, hospital, 
>> bitumen airfield &, as it's a tourist destination in it's own right, about 6 
>> caravan parks / camping grounds!
>>
>> Dimbulah is ~100k to the east & is a bit bigger, but doesn't have a 
>> hospital, & only an unsealed airstrip.
>>
>> The next major town west is Normanton, which is ~700k away!
>>
>> There are another half a dozen other small/er settlements within ~150k of 
>> Chillagoe for which it is "town".
>>>
>>> In your area of the world I agree. You have a 'good' population density.
>>> In some places the nearest neighbour can be 400 km away. The population 
>>> 'centre' may have much less than 1,000 people in the local residential area 
>>> .. but may service 1,000s of square kilometres.
>>> Necessity makes this population centre very important for the few people 
>>> living in that area.
>>
>>
>> Yep! Have just started a discussion on the Australia list concerning this 
>> very point, after taking to somebody who lives in this area, & who made the 
>> comment that OSM is a bit useless, because when you open it, all you see is 
>> a massive blankness :-(
>>
>> & this, by no means, is an isolated example - Australia would have literally 
>> hundreds of similar towns. I would think the same would probably apply in 
>> places like Canada, Alaska, SW US, South Africa & a number of other 
>> civilised but empty countries?
>>
>> 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

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


Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-23 Thread Marc Gemis
I'm not talking about large areas like the Black Forest, but smaller
forests such as Hondsbossen,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=sint-kathelijne-waver#map=17/51.07041/4.54562
Typically there is a map of the area near the entrances where the
exact area is shown. That map is similar to the one you see on
http://www.mechelsrivierengebied.be/index.php/natuurgebieden/natuurgebieden-sint-kat-waver/hondsbossen
For an ordinary mapper it might be difficult to map the exact extend,
but what about a government agency contributing to OSM ?

 In this case there is no lake in the middle, so no reason for a
multi-polygon. But in case there is a lake,  what do you do ?
Perhaps could map many of  them as protected areas, but that's
something we are investigating in the Belgian community.


On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:51 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> This idea of a wood or forest as a whole region, rather than the area that 
> actually contains trees, may be culturally limited.
>
> I grew up in a town that was surrounded by national forest on all side, but 
> the valley floor had some pasture and residential areas (300 people). Did we 
> live in the forest? Not sure. The official National Forest boundary and signs 
> were miles away, surrounding our hamlet, but the land was all privately 
> owned, unlike the actual forest land
>
> So it sounds like some people, especially in Europe, want to be able to tag a 
> whole region with the name of the forest.
>
> Would this mean that the whole, very large “Black Forest” region in Germany 
> would get tagged as landuse=forestry or whatever, even though it includes 
> towns and farms and many other types of landuse?
>
> I don’t see how that would be helpful.
>
> If you want region names, there was a proposal before. These have been used 
> to name mountain regions (eg sections of the Alps) for example. But here as 
> well as in the “Black Forest” example, the borders will be very hard to 
> define. Who’s to say where the Alps end and the foothills or valley begins?
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 23. Jan 2019, at 08:55, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>> >
>> > And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the
>> > outer way ?
>> > I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named
>> > area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that
>> > correct ?
>>
>>
>> we generally do not have a working concept for names of many kind of natural 
>> landscapes and features. These things typically have fuzzy borders and 
>> consist of different landcover and landuse. When I wrote the landcover 
>> proposal the idea was to separate named entities from both, landuse and from 
>> physical landcover, hence enabling more detailed mapping of landuse and 
>> landcover by not being constrained by the name question for the creation of 
>> objects .
>>
>> I had envisioned natural as key to define “natural features” with their 
>> names, because by then this was still a possible reading of the largest 
>> parts of the values (wood, beach, spring, cave, wetland , coastline, heath, 
>> grassland, cliff, peak,...) with few outliers but now we have so many things 
>> like “mud” , “sand”, “bare_rock”, “grass” that it became less probable it 
>> can be agreed on.
>> Maybe we could use “place” for it? In the end, place is about cultural 
>> objects, you could see named entities as result of a cultural process (they 
>> exist somehow in parallel to the “micro” reality, inside a forest you can 
>> find things that aren’t forest areas, but a person would still say they are 
>> inside that forest, e.g. a lake or a clearing or small fields. The locality 
>> nodes already are used like this.
>>
>>
>> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-23 Thread Marc Gemis
I think in many cases place=location would be fine.
A forest or wood ("bos" (small) or "woud" (for bigger area) in Dutch)
is typically an area with primarily trees, but also grass areas,
pools, cuttings for paths and tracks, etc.

So I was thinking that natural=wood (or landuse=forest) should only be
rendered as an boundary. It can have a name (which should be
rendered).
 For the describing the land-cover inside that area, one would use
landcover or natural=water. Those would be used to "fill the map with
colour". The landcovers areas can be multi-polygons, e.g. to cut out
water areas from landcover=tree

m.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:08 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nice question Marc.
>
> What is this named area?
> Does it have some (taggable) function?
> Is it 'just' a location? place=location?
>
>
> On 23/01/19 18:55, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the
> > outer way ?
> >   I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named
> > area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that
> > correct ?
> >
> > m.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23/01/19 18:25, Peter Elderson wrote:
> >>> The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be
> >>> based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern.
> >>>
> >>> I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area
> >>> landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest.
> >>>
> >>> Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of the
> >>> landcover key for the three main values: trees, grass and scrub. Then,
> >>> bump the issues with the main renderers and editors. How to do that is
> >>> not for this list, you are absolutely right about that.
> >>>
> >>> Only after that step, rediscuss the landuse key.
> >> This developed from a simple question of how to map a tree area that has
> >> holes in it of scrub etc.
> >> A fairly simply question?
> >>
> >> The simple answer is to map the tree area as a relation with;
> >> natural=wood (even if not 'natural' as OSM acepts that the key 'natural'
> >> encompass things that many regard as not 'natural'), type multipolygon,
> >> The surrounding closed way with the role outer.
> >> Then place simple closed way/s for the hole/s tagged natural=scrub as
> >> appropriate .. and then place them in the relation with the role 'inner'.
> >>
> >> 
> >> The problem came the simple use of the word forest!
> >>
> >> There is no need to wait for other steps to use the tag
> >> landuse=forestry, it does not conflict with 'landcover' or 'natural'
> >> tagging.
> >> Many keys and values are developed in parallel.
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-22 Thread Marc Gemis
And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the
outer way ?
 I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named
area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that
correct ?

m.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 23/01/19 18:25, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be
> > based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern.
> >
> > I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area
> > landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest.
> >
> > Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of the
> > landcover key for the three main values: trees, grass and scrub. Then,
> > bump the issues with the main renderers and editors. How to do that is
> > not for this list, you are absolutely right about that.
> >
> > Only after that step, rediscuss the landuse key.
>
> This developed from a simple question of how to map a tree area that has
> holes in it of scrub etc.
> A fairly simply question?
>
> The simple answer is to map the tree area as a relation with;
> natural=wood (even if not 'natural' as OSM acepts that the key 'natural'
> encompass things that many regard as not 'natural'), type multipolygon,
> The surrounding closed way with the role outer.
> Then place simple closed way/s for the hole/s tagged natural=scrub as
> appropriate .. and then place them in the relation with the role 'inner'.
>
> 
> The problem came the simple use of the word forest!
>
> There is no need to wait for other steps to use the tag
> landuse=forestry, it does not conflict with 'landcover' or 'natural'
> tagging.
> Many keys and values are developed in parallel.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-19 Thread Marc Gemis
It certainly makes sense. As I wrote before, there are quite few
parkings in the center of small villages where they put up information
maps. They might be candidates for trailheads.
We'll see whether people will start mapping them as trailheads.

regards

m.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54 AM Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>
> Am 18.01.2019 um 09:48 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> > So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the
> > tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking
> > node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere.
> > This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk.
> > Just take a look at
> > https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=9!50.9966!4.9715 and see how
> > fine mazed the orange networks are in Flanders and The Netherlands.
> > Note that not all network routes are mapped in Flanders yet and they
> > also rolled out a virtual network, which is no longer marked along the
> > way, but for which you need an app or GPS. So some holes will have to
> > be filled on the waymarkedtrails map.
> >
> > So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
> > trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
> > clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.
>
> I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks. While I haven't
> really seen any for hiking yet personally, they are also growing here
> for the cycling network. And of course they are mapped as route
> relations. I'm not sure if I should reconsider my earlier suggestion to
> put trailheads on anything in a route relation or not. While you clearly
> also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
> navigation aid than a "trail". Whenever I use them I start from home or
> wherever I am, find my way to the closest node in the general direction
> and take it from there. I don't go to that node by car or bus first.
> It's probable that I already enter the network somewhere inbetween two
> nodes.
>
> So I wouldn't consider every node as a trailhead. And i would not put a
> trailhead on every intersection of a road and a network leg. If there
> was a somehow designated or customary place, though, where you would
> start hiking/cycling on the node network that could be marked as a
> trailhead with the same rights as on a "classical trail".
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Tobi
>
>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-18 Thread Marc Gemis
Thanks Tobias and Graeme before for your views on trails.

I first try to understand what a trail/trailhead is in the USA and
Australia, before deciding on how to apply it locally.
Of course, it would be different in Europe, especially in a small
country like Belgium with not a lot of open space.

I understand that in areas with a low density of footpaths, any
junction of a trail and a road can be a trailhead.
However, there are many such junctions in Flanders, as there are many
short stretches of paths and tracks. Those short stretches are usually
connect, but you often have to cross a road.

So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the
tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking
node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere.
This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk.
Just take a look at
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=9!50.9966!4.9715 and see how
fine mazed the orange networks are in Flanders and The Netherlands.
Note that not all network routes are mapped in Flanders yet and they
also rolled out a virtual network, which is no longer marked along the
way, but for which you need an app or GPS. So some holes will have to
be filled on the waymarkedtrails map.

So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.

m.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:25 AM Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>
> Am 17.01.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> > A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
> > of a trail yet.
> >
> > An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
> > wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
> > interpretation correct ? Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
> > you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
> > trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).
>
>  From my European view I would exclude the wilderness bit. A lot of
> marked trails here path trough built-up area. There are even specific
> trails mostly through very urban area. I would say a trail is anything
> that would qualify for a route=hiking/bicycle/mtb/horse (possibly ski,
> snowmobile, inline_skates,... , I've never dealt with the latter ones).
>
> I would also encourage including the trailhead in the respective route
> relation(s) with role=trailhead.
>
> Tobias
>
>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-16 Thread Marc Gemis
A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
of a trail yet.

An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
interpretation correct ? Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

2019-01-15 Thread Marc Gemis
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:55 PM Georg Feddern  wrote:
>
> tourism=caravan_site is the one where you (at least in Europe) only can
> stay with motorhomes (selfpropelled) - but not with caravans (towed).
>

but the wiki states on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site
"A caravan site, caravan park or RV park is a place where people with
caravans / motorhomes / recreational vehicles can stay overnight"

only tents are not mentioned.

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


Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

2019-01-14 Thread Marc Gemis
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:01 PM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> Round and round we go and ne'er the twain shall meet.
>
> Mobile home simply will not work in this use case. Nobody camps or travels 
> from place to place in a mobile home.
>

Except when you live in Flanders, as we use "Mobilhome" for motor
homes :-) , while the Dutch use "camper"

 and "stacaravan" (roughly translated to "standing caravan") for what
you call mobil home

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-11 Thread Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 9:03 PM François Lacombe
 wrote:
>

> Then we'll obtain waterway=canal for artificial waterways whatever their 
> usage and waterway=river, stream and ditch for natural or not-lined 
> watercourses.

The wiki page for ditch [1] explicitly states that it is an artificial waterway:

"Use waterway=ditch for simple narrow artificial waterways"


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dditch


regards

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-11 Thread Marc Gemis
Just as we do not map a wikipedia link to shop=car to explain the
concept for shops selling cars, we should perhaps not map wikipedia
links to explain TOPs.
We do not link nodes and routes of walking networks to wikipedia pages
(or other sites) explaining how you have to use them.
We do not link highway=motorway to a wiki page on osm.org to explain
the meaning of that concept.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia 
> reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept 
> described on the wikipedia page.
> Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g. brand:wikipedia 
> or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and it's not an 
> operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12 operators in 
> the end).
> So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads using 
> the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same information, on 
> exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the existing referencing 
> mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are useful if multiple 
> wikipedia references are applicable (according to the mapper).
>
> But again, this is local additional tagging which other mappers may or may 
> not like.
>
> I would like to focus on the idea of basic mapping of trailheads fitting all 
> trailheads that mappers find useful to map. The basic proposition is:
>
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location 
> for starting one or more trails.
> I move to add name=* as important second tag, because I think the place will 
> almost always have a designated or customary name which makes it that much 
> more usable for searches, lists and maps, but I understand there are examples 
> of trailheads without a name.
>
> This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes locations 
> where a trail just crosses a road. Of course, the whole thing is not an 
> obligation. There is no rule that every place fitting the description Shall 
> Be Tagged As A Trailhead, just the ones mappers find worth tagging.
>
>
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 17:47 schreef Mateusz Konieczny 
> :
>>
>> wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia article 
>> is about this specific trailhead
>>
>> AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages 
>> describing type of feature, and
>> at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though 
>> sooner or later someone would use it
>> to link "Tree" article from every single natural=tree)
>>
>> Maybe tagging operator (and operator:wikipedia) will be enough?
>>
>> Jan 10, 2019, 5:06 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>>
>> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
>>
>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>
>> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis  het 
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]
>>
>> "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
>> from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
>> Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
>> that operates it is not (see section below)."
>>
>> what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
>> Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
>> your problem.
>>
>>
>> The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
>> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
>>
>> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in 
>> Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for 
>> that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.
>>
>>
>> Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
>> Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
>> linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
>> should be discouraged.
>>
>> m.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-11 Thread Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location 
> for starting one or more trails.

So how do we translate the American idea of trail (head) to Belgium
and The Netherlands.
Maybe for you it is clear, but I still have no idea what is we should
consider a trail in Belgium or The Netherlands.

Are the following items trailheads ?

- parkings near Hoge Veluwe (NL), Zoniënwoud, Kalmthoutse Heide and
any other nature reserve. Many nature reserves in Flanders are very
small and you cannot walk for hours in them unless you run in circles.
- parkings near parks (Park van Tervuren) or "landgoed (NL)" (aka manors ?)
- many signed circular walks start at the square or the church in
little villages, are they trailheads ? What about the ones starting in
the bigger towns ?
- any place where you can start walking on the walking networks ?
- what about MTB trails or cycling networks ?
- parkings near the beaches/dunes ?


m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-10 Thread Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:40 AM Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Can anyone please explain the difference between waterway=ditch and drain?
> As far as I understand the description on the English wiki they differ in 
> usage:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
>
> drain - usually lined with concrete or similar and used to carry superfluous 
> water like storm water or industrial discharge
> ditch - used for irrigation

The wiki page you link to defines a ditch as "An small artificial free
flow waterway used for carrying superfluous water along paths or roads
for drainage purposes."
I do not see the word "irrigation" in that definition. It corresponds
more to what Graeme wrote

"I've always worked on "drain" looking more artificial eg lined with
concrete / rocks etc, while "ditch" is more-or-less only dirt, but
I've never been really very happy with the distinction?"

I was always under the impression that the ones I encounter between
farmland and meadows, which typically are surrounded by dirt, ground,
plants are ditches. That drains are constructed with concrete or
similar material and that there are normally no plants on the bedding
of the drain.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between ditch and stream,
because many streams were straightened along the borders of the
farmland.

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-10 Thread Marc Gemis
When I said "struggle", I mean that you still haven't given a
definition of a trailhead that covers what non-Dutch mappers
understand as trailhead and that covers all TOP-defined trailheads (as
Andy pointed out in one of his last mails).
If you are not struggling, please point me to the definition of a
trailhead that fits all your TOP places and that can be used outside
the TOP-context too.

m.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:27 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Someone asked what the requirements for a TOP in Nederland were. Not the OSM 
> definition, but the actual requirements for the operators. I've answered 
> that, without implying that these were OSM requirements or definitions. I 
> have made that explicitly clear in several messages. Please do not suggest 
> otherwise.
>
> For OSM tagging, I am consistently working towards a basic tagging for all 
> designated/customary trailheads, including all TOPs en Natuurpoorten, for 
> existing and future mappers who find these worth mapping.
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:19 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> So we are back to what I wrote a couple of days ago, after I saw that
>> Peter was struggling to come up with a trailhead definition that fits
>> all the "TOP"s.
>>
>> We have on one hand trailheads (for which we seem to have a consensus)
>> and on the other hand TOPs, which sometimes fit the definition of
>> trailheads and sometimes not.
>>
>> m.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:22 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>> >
>> > On 09/01/2019 18:35, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> > > Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only
>> > > Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies?
>> > >
>> > The reverse of that, actually - based on my limited knowledge of these
>> > in Noord Holland (which to be fair Peter said weren't typical of the
>> > Dutch ones) they didn't look much like trailheads to me.
>> >
>> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-10 Thread Marc Gemis
On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]

"only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
that operates it is not (see section below)."

what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
your problem.


The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>> >
>> > The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in 
>> > Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for 
>> > that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.
>>
>> Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
>> Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
>> linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
>> should be discouraged.
>>
>> m.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-10 Thread Marc Gemis
So we are back to what I wrote a couple of days ago, after I saw that
Peter was struggling to come up with a trailhead definition that fits
all the "TOP"s.

We have on one hand trailheads (for which we seem to have a consensus)
and on the other hand TOPs, which sometimes fit the definition of
trailheads and sometimes not.

m.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:22 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> On 09/01/2019 18:35, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only
> > Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies?
> >
> The reverse of that, actually - based on my limited knowledge of these
> in Noord Holland (which to be fair Peter said weren't typical of the
> Dutch ones) they didn't look much like trailheads to me.
>
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-10 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in 
> Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for 
> that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.

Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
should be discouraged.

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

2019-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:04 PM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> It’s not documentation.  It’s just a bunch of prescriptive advice by random 
> people.  Most of the  people involved don’t even work on software.  They’re 
> just really into tagging and arguing, and I don’t have time for it.

Wow, you leave me speechless. Not the attitude that I expect from a
developer of one of the major editors of OSM. Developer of editors
should write software that supports the tagging schemas defined by the
mappers, not enforce their idea of tagging based on a design decision
they made for their software (as Simon pointed out before).

m

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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

2019-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
I was referring to the 'organisation'.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 05:17 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis :
>>
>> While I was first thinking of brand like Warin, I think this is the
>> better solution. Just as, we do not map the share holders of companies
>> (even when they are other companies) on shops, man_made=works object
>> etc., we typically do not map properties of the operator (besides
>> brand).
>
>
>
>
> I am not sure which property of the kindergarten you are refering to with 
> this text, but if it is about the operator being related to a religious 
> entity I would reject the idea that this could be seen as an isolated 
> property of the operator and isn't also a property of the facility.
>
> 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] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

2019-01-08 Thread Marc Gemis
While I was first thinking of brand like Warin, I think this is the
better solution. Just as, we do not map the share holders of companies
(even when they are other companies) on shops, man_made=works object
etc., we typically do not map properties of the operator (besides
brand).

m.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:22 AM Topographe Fou  wrote:
>
> Personnaly I don't think I would map umbrella organisations... I would put 
> operator and operator:wikidata and let Wikidata update partnerships between 
> associations. It is not a property of the kindergarten, it is a property of 
> the operator.
>
> LeTopographeFou
>
>   Message original
> De: t.pfei...@computer.org
> Envoyé: 7 janvier 2019 11:14 PM
> À: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Répondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Objet: Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable 
> operators and organisations
>
> On 07.01.2019 19:08, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > if it is a religion related operator, I usually also add religion and 
> > denomination tags, i.e. in
> > your Caritas example it would be
> > religion=christian
> > denomination=catholic
> >
> >
> > I would not be sure how to handle this:
> > Are these "access" tags, in the sense that (in the example) the 
> > kindergarten only accepts Roman
> > Catholic children, or is it only indicating the religious background of the 
> > institution, but they
> > accept children with other religious backgrounds as well.
>
> I have never considered the 'religion' tag as an access tag. Typically I can 
> freely enter a PoW, and
> listen to the ceremony, without being a member of that community or believe 
> in that religion.
>
> Similarly, educational institutions in my scope mostly accept children with 
> different background, in
> particular if the receive state funding. E.g. Ireland, the majority of the 
> schools is operated by
> the catholic church, and as a recipient of public funding they have to accept 
> everybody, equally.
>
> Back to Konrad's question, any better ideas to tag the name of the operator's 
> umbrella organisation?
> I drafted:
> > operator:umbrella=* would be more suitable, or more self-explanatory but 
> > longer
> > operator:umbrella_organisation=*
>
> 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

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


Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

2019-01-07 Thread Marc Gemis
Graeme,

You might have to change the picture and the rendering icon in the
right "summary" bar.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:22 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> & here we go: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shop%3Dcaravan :-)
>
> Known problems
>
> Languages - how do I edit them all out?
>
> service=parts has moved one box too far across
>
> Have to change the photo & (suggested) icon
>
> Wikidata reference
>
> Any & all other comments welcome!
>
> Seeing that apparently it's already been used 130 odd times, can I take that 
> we don't actually have to RFC & vote on it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 17:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 11:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is what I do .. it works and leaves the original page alone...
>>>
>>> 1) get the "car" template
>>> On the page you want to copy Click on "edit Source" - Copy all of it and 
>>> paste it over to your your word processor as a new document.
>>>  Exit out out this "Edit Source" without saving "cancel" I think is it - so 
>>> it stays the same.
>>>
>>> 2) edit the template
>>> Now in your word processor find and replace all the "car" and replace with 
>>> "caravan". Perform similar edits here - much easier than the editor you may 
>>> not be familiar with on the wiki.
>>> When your finished here ...
>>>
>>>
>>> 3) create the new page
>>> Type the title of the page you want to create in the wiki search box ...
>>> It will come up with a suggestion to create the page you want .. click on 
>>> that and you have started to create the new page :)
>>> Copy all of the stuff you have on your word processor page over to the new 
>>> page (copy and paste) .. and save it ... Done.
>>
>>
>> Warin, that is fantastic! :-)
>>
>> Now you just have to write a page titled Creating pages, so everybody can 
>> find it!
>>
>> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-06 Thread Marc Gemis
But are you adding
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/conservation-and-heritage/national-parks/australias-national-parks
to all national parks  (because that is what Peter's link is doing).

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 8:49 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 21:15, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>>
>> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>>>
>>>
>>> As a side note: Looking at the examples I found that you added keys like
>>> wikipedia=nl:Toeristisch Overstappunt
>>> url=https://gpsfietsroutesnederland.nl/toeristische-overstappunten/
>>> website=https://www.natuurpoorten.nl/
>>>
>>> These are all generic references that could be added to the OSM wiki
>>> page. On the individual trailheads I would expect a website of the
>>> specific trail.
>>
>> I think the Wikipedia and website links should be very specific to the 
>> individual object and not replace a dictionary.
>
>
> I can see the advantages of listing both general & specific info.
>
> Examples in our area:
>
> General info about Lamington National Park 
> https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/lamington/
>
> Specifics about the individual walking tracks 
> https://www.binnaburralodge.com.au/activities/bushwalking-hiking & 
> https://oreillys.com.au/walking-tracks-at-lamington-national-park/
>
> 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] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-04 Thread Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
>> / "information".
>
>
> Current usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=trailhead
>
> Overpass shows most usage is in the US, Canada and Japan, now also Nederland, 
> and some in Italy.
>
> highway can be applied to nodes and ways, and it compares nicely to 
> highway=bus_stop. A trailhead is then seen as a "trail stop" for trail 
> "passengers".  I think that's why it was chosen in the trailhead proposal. I 
> saw no compelling reason to change that, even though I can see your argument 
> to use tourism=.
>
> Advantage of highway= is that you can still add the tourism= key for an 
> information board if it coincides with the trailhead.
>
> Do you see an actual problem with this usage?

since the "key" is not really that important IMHO, I'm fine with "highway"

>> Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
>>
>> trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
>> tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
>> the tourist agency as TOP"
>> It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
>> many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
>> "picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.
>
>
> Lots of places give access to trails, of course. But if they are not visibly 
> designated/designed and operated (not just picked!), I would not map those 
> places as trailheads. No one has to do that. On the other hand, in other 
> countries useers may see fit to map those kind of locations as trailheads, 
> because they want to search/list them and see them on a map.

I am not convinced that your definition of trailhead as a placed
selected by the tourist agency for their "TOP" list of places is
compatible with the attempts you and others made to define trailhead.
If it's incompatible because you require less or other characteristics
I see that as a problem.
And what if someone maps those trailhead-like places that you do not
consider as trailheads ? Is your list broken ?

Extra question:
How do you determine the facilities of a trailhead if that is mapped
as a point ? Does one have to do a "in the neighborhood of" query ? Or
would it be better to map the trailhead as an area or site-relation to
explicitly map what belongs to the trailhead and what not ?

m.

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


Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2019-01-03 Thread Marc Gemis
I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
/ "information".

Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
the tourist agency as TOP"
It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
"picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.

Given that the Dutch community has a very specific definition of
trailhead, I wonder whether this can  be solved by a dedicated tag
(tourism=top) or subtag (tourism=information;information=top) ? The
benefit would be to avoid confusion with a more general definition of
trailheads (whatever that might be).

m.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:21 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> Please note that the description of official TOPs in Nederland is not 
> intended as a limitative requirement for trailheads around the globe.
>
> If we would mark every access point to a route as a trailhead,  Nederland 
> would be covered with trailheads, and nobody would have any use for the 
> information. So we limit it to these specially designed "official" transit 
> places. These can be usefully listed, searched, and presented based on the 
> OSM data. Other countries may differ in what's useful, thats fine.
>  And that's why the idea is just to mark a node as highway=trailhead and 
> (usually) a name.
>
> About the name: it's common to list places with names. The operator must have 
> some kind of name or reference. Even when there is no special name on a sign, 
> you still need to describe the thing, maybe using the name of the trail and 
> which end (north, or a town name, road name, or..).  Or name of the park and 
> numbered acces points, something.
> If there really is nothing of the sort, and the place is still deemed as 
> useful to map, fine. Could still be useful to display them on a POI map or 
> hiking map, but search by name is then impossible.
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 09:23 schreef Mark Wagner :
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
>> Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>> > Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for
>> > multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole
>> > or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space
>> > nearby. This one is in a small village:
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
>> > parking is the actual access point to the trails.
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
>> > recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course
>> > lists/presents them as well.
>> >
>> > These points are designed for trail access.
>> >
>>
>> There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.
>>
>> Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
>> nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933
>>
>> only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
>> about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
>> or otherwise.
>>
>> Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
>> western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
>> trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226
>>
>> None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
>> Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
>> pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
>> and information boards as well as markers.
>>
>> (Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
>> point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
>> for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
>> starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

2018-12-23 Thread Marc Gemis
I think the parking place for the Precipice walk in Wales
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/394294583) which also has a toilet
and a picnic table would be considered a trailhead.
There is also a nice sign
https://xian.smugmug.com/Vacation/Wales-2018/i-hC7kWcK/A to tell you
that you are at the right place to start the walk
(http://dolgellau.wales/walks/precipice-walk.php)

But given that all the facilities and paths are mapped, I wonder which
additional information "trailhead" brings in this case.

m.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> Can you give a few examples of what trailheads are to you?  There's a clearly 
> defined American concept, it isn't not really used much in British English.  
> Also what do you mean by "official" below - is there some kind of VVV list or 
> similar?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> On 21/12/2018 11:54, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> I would like to revive the trailhead proposal, 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead
>
> After discussions in the Dutch user community, a list of all Dutch trailheads 
> was compiled and systematically entered as nodes tagged highway=trailhead, 
> name=, tourism=information, information=board or 
> map. Many trailheads were already present in OSM, there we just did some 
> additional tagging.
>
> In the US, trailheads are all maintained on OSM by a national operator. Japan 
> has lots of trailheads, I don't know how they are maintained. In Europe, no 
> systematical OSM-tagging appears to take place, except for the Dutch base.
>
> I think it deserves a push.
>
> Any thoughts on the matter?
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
> ___
> 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] Printing company for newspapers

2018-12-14 Thread Marc Gemis
and you  forget the digital sign printers that use inktjet printers.
Don't try to compare them to the printer on your desk though.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 4:45 PM Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> On 2018-12-14 15:23, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Even so, the primary distinction between a jobbing printer and a 
> newspaper/book printer is not
> the equipment used or the size of the operation but the type of output.  That 
> said, jobbing printers
> tend to be smaller than newspaper/book printers and the older/smaller jobbing 
> printers tend to use letterpress rather than offset litho.
>
>
> A better distinction would be that newspaper presses are web-fed (the paper 
> comes on huge rolls) not sheet-fed. They also have fully automated collation 
> and other post-press processing.
>
> Not sure about book printers... Most likely they use sheet-fed presses for 
> smaller runs, and web-fed for best sellers.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Printing company for newspapers

2018-12-14 Thread Marc Gemis
'craft' typically indicates small, artisanal.
I would rather go for man_made=works+product=newspaper

m.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM dktue  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to tag a company where newspapers are being printed, but I
> feel that shop=copyshop doesn't fit well.
>
> My suggestion would be to go with craft=printer. Any opinions on that?
>
> Cheers,
> dktue
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


Re: [Tagging] leisure=hammock_hook

2018-12-09 Thread Marc Gemis
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:44 AM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
> Wow! Either those things are high enough that a would be suicide could make 
> good use of them, or sooner or later a kid will loose an eye on one of those 
> hooks...  :-/
>

So we should stop mapping railways because people commit suicide by
throwing themselves in front of trains ?
You cannot be held liable for mapping that something exists. You could
write the city council though if you have concerns about the safety of
the equipment.

m.

p.s. you reaction immediately reminded of texts like
https://www.metv.com/lists/12-reasons-kids-from-the-60s-and-70s-shouldnt-be-alive-right-now
about how (overly) protective we became.

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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >