Re: [Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?
På Tue, 22 Dec 2020 10:14:39 +0100 Frederik Ramm skrev: >Hi, > >1. Should a routing engine automatically assume that something tagged a >"driveway" is not suitable for through traffic? We must have millions of intersections between driveways and cycle paths and sidewalks along roads. Certainly it is legitimate to route from e.g. a bicycle path through the beginning of the driveways to the main road. That is way to cross the road. >2. If you map such driveways, would you add access=private (or >access=destination) in OSM... > >2a. ... even if there is no specific signage locally? >2b. ... if there is a sign that says "access to houses X,Y,Z" without >saying that other access is forbidden? >2c. ... if there is a sign that says "private driveway"? > >Bye >Frederik > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky
Martin Koppenhoefer: sent from a phone On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:27, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise when a car drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any appreciable way like a speed bump/hump. I thought they would make people drive slower, while retaining a possibility for bicycles to pass in between. That is what the proposal says. But there is no way a bicycle could pass between those seen on the proposal page at anything near normal bicycling speed. If you want to allow bicycle In Denmark we have a larger version of round speed bumps. Usually only 2 or three in each direction. https://aarhus.lokalavisen.dk/aarhus_midt/2dzeno-Carsten-Hedegaard-Simonsen-kigger-ned-p%C3%A5-vejbump/alternates/LANDSCAPE_640/Carsten%20Hedegaard%20Simonsen%20kigger%20ned%20p%C3%A5%20vejbump They are named "pukkelbump" which translates as hump bumps. More informally they are called turtle bumps. So maybe we should call them hedgehog bumps and turtle bumps. I guess these would be counted in? https://www.durabump.com/ <https://www.durabump.com/> Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools
Hauke Stieler: Hi, today I encountered a drawing/painting school [0] that offers workshops and classes for children and adults. I do not not consider them real schools. I have taken inspiration from, Paint Your Style in Berlin: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4235447795 Which is tagged with a leisure=ceramic_painting tag. Similarly: amenity=dancing_school is strongly discouraged in favor of leisure=dancing,dance:teaching=yes so maybe leisure=painting painting:teaching=yes There is one existing leisure=painting: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677738107 which is https://www.paintingwithatwist.com/ And all those pictures of date nights where everyone have a glass of wine indicates to me that a leisure tag is correct. Now that I look at taginfo, I see that there are 5 leisure=ceramic_painting of which I created 3, and one leisure=pottery_painting POI (Color Me Mine). They all look very similar and Color Me Mine has a lot of studios: https://www.colormemine.com/locations/ So for consistency, which one should it be: ceramic_painting or pottery_painting? Is there a tag for these schools? I haven't found any, so how about establishing amenity=painting_school (or =drawing_school?) analogous to amenity=music_school. Any thoughts on that? Hauke [0] https://maldumal.de/hamburg/ (unfortunately there's no English version of that site) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
Volker Schmidt: Hi, In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the signing: * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like we do with speed limits I this it the best option. * by mapping the relative signs as nodes That often will not work. For example in Denmark on road with high speed limits animal crossing hazards are usually signed ahead of the hazard like this: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=7G5cfeYYHs7T_TQD4l-ifw=true=true=55.54605389678716=9.557919996586406=17 The same for hidden driveways in North America. Insertion of signposted hazards do not require any assessment of the presence of the hazard by the mapper. Signposted hazards are most often signalling dangers for vehicle drivers. Let's take the sign for hazard=cyclists (crossing), which warns clearly the vehicle drivers on the carriageway, that there could be cyclists crossing. There is normally no such warning on the crossing cyclists' path. We have warning signs for speed bumps on bicycle lanes and for low height when a bicycle lane go under a low brige. This of course should be tagged by using traffic_calming and max_height on the highway=cycleway Then we have also the asymmetric situations: e.g. car drivers are warned by a sign that there will be cyclists crossing, but the (bigger) hazard of cars hitting the cyclists on the same crossing is not signposted for cyclists. Around here I think that is reasonable because it is usually when a road is crossed by a small unpaved path, that is used by cyclists. If it is a real cycle path it would have a yield sign for cyclists. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
Brian M. Sperlongano: Niels, thanks for the list. I found another Danish hazard Crossing golfers: https://hopcycling.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/L9720954.jpg -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards
På Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:11:25 -0500 I am missing values for: horse riding: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_47.png hazard:animal=horse should only be for wild horses Crossing bicyclists: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_45.png Slippery road: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_50.png How do we map "slippery when wet"? Or ice? Loose rocks on the road: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_52.PNG Dangerous road edge: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_54.png low airplanes and helicopters: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_82.png https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_83.png Queue risk: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_44.png Dangerous intersections https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_85.png "Brian M. Sperlongano" skrev: >I am not opposed to including unsigned hazards, if that's the >consensus. I was trying to address anticipated concerns about tagging >unverifiable things. It could be verified in other ways. For example official reports based on statistics. Or newspaper articles on accidents caused by crossing animals on a certain stretch of road. > For example, someone in a western country >tagging a curve hazard on every instance of a bend in the road and not >just the signed parts. I agree. In fact there is not much point in tagging even the signed parts. The reason for those signs is that the driver cannot see road ahead or that it is difficult to judge the sharpness from the perspective of a car. But with a map it can be done. A data consumer is in a better position to decide if turns are hazards. When using a navigation system, I can look at the screen and judge if the next turn could be a problem. I could also tell my navigation software which vehicle I am driving and it could use that information together with my current position, my actual speed and the data on the road ahead to decide if I should be alerted. For the same reason there is also no reason to tag signed hazards for: Tunnels: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_68.png Steep inclines/declines: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_69.png level crossing without gates: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_71.png bridges that open: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_79.png Quays without guards: https://www.retsinformation.dk/image.aspx?id=196668=CX316_8_80.png because all those can be inferred from other tags. >On Thu, Nov 26, 2020, 8:06 AM Yves via Tagging > wrote: > >> And hazards for niche practices (climbing, whitewater sports, ski >> touring,...) that are actually mapped in OSM are not generally >> signposted or 'official'. >> Maybe we can't expect this proposal to cover them, but you can't >> prevent users to use the tag hazard to map them. >> Yves >> >> Le 26 novembre 2020 10:10:45 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer < >> dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via >>> Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: >>> - It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit mention - is it OK to tag hazard that - - - exists - - is unsigned - - government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is dysfunctional/missing like - in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher priorities - for example during war) >>> >>> +1. This may also depend on the context. The same kind of hazard on >>> a road may well be signposted, but not on a hiking trail in a >>> forest. >>> >>> 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] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres
På Wed, 25 Nov 2020 13:34:24 + Andy Townsend skrev: >As an aside, it's probably worth explaining why people sometimes say >that OSM isn't a place for one-off temporary things I mostly use OsmAnd. I update it every month, but that is of course mostly because i want to my own edits. I have added a lot of POI's. Mostly restaurants, cafes, bars etc. Some are pop-up restaurants, beach bars that might not be there next year, etc. Usually I add them because it is useful for users if they have for example agreed to meet in a specific bar. If there are lots of other options around there is little risk of annoying users. If it is in the middle of nowhere, we should be more careful. Currently everything in Denmark have to close at 22:00, but I leave opening hours for bars and nightclubs that are open late and even add later hours based on the establishments websites, because: 1. offline use. 2. I could not promise to revert them all back to normal then covid19 is over and I doubt that other mappers would. 3. It could change any day to 20:00, 23:00 or something else. 4. It would add no real information anyway because *everything* has to close at 22 and everyone here knows it. Many places are closed because of covid19. I do not delete them but add access:covid19=no >(for example, a >music festival that usually happens over a couple of days, once a >year). I see nothing wrong in mapping recurring events if they are tagged with something like opening_hours=Jul Sa[2],Su[2] or even: opening_hours="a weekend in august",website="https://xxx.example.org; No one will be traveling to a music festival unless they know that it is on. But if you are going there, it is useful to have in OSM. > The reasoning goes that although some people look at OSM data >"live", many do not. Many (perhaps most) 3rd-party consumers of OSM >update only rarely, and by definition all offline apps show data as it >was at some point in the past. If the data that they grab happens to >coincide with a temporary event in OSM their users will be very >confused. Only if it is not tagged as a temporary event or with specific dates. >There comes a point, of course, when a "temporary " thing is worth >mapping. I've mapped https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/601820045 as >closed because it's been that way for a couple of years and (despite >the council signage) is pretty unlikely to be sorted out in the next >few weeks. For me the most difficult to handle is roads. I was just driving on motorways that had roadworks lasting to next summer, changing max speed from 130 to 80. But other times I discover low max speed from road work that was finished a long time ago. I would like a good way to tell routers that for the next couple of months to expect going at half speed on a stretch of road. >At what stage something changes from a "one-off temporary" thing to >something definitely worth mapping is a question worth discussing, >though. I think that covid19 vaccinations centers are important enough. We also have a lot of Olympic villages in OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres
På Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:14:35 +0100 Francesco Ansanelli skrev: >Hello, >Covid19 have been used as suffix, so how about: > >healthcare:speciality=vaccination >vaccination:covid19=yes You are right. That is better. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres
Tom Pfeifer: Related tags & pages: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/COVID-19_-_How_to_Map related to the "staying open" mapping effort health_service:prevention:vaccination=yes|no (455x, 80% no, no Wiki page) which I see unsuitable as it does not use the healthcare key The wiki mentions healthcare:speciality=vaccination although it is not used/ Then we could have healthcare:speciality:vaccination=covid19;covid21 healthcare:covid19, 7x (covid_test, hospital, 1 user, no wiki) tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*
nnected to the grid. Unfortunately, it would then not be consistent with the use by the Healthsites Mapping Project, although this already has the inconsistent *electricity=none* tag which should probably be changed directly to *electricity=no.* Here is the link to that suggestion I made https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#multiple_values> and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/electricity#origin_of_different_sources> The whole point of the proposal process is to identify these potential issues, resolve them, and get community agreement. If the goal is just to implement someone else's standard then we can't use the wisdom of the community here to improve the tag, therefore I'm not too fussed about making this match what another project is using, instead we should aim to have the best tags and documentation as the outcome of this proposal process. Then if that's different, other projects closely tied to OSM can migrate to the OSM community accepted schema. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)
woll...@posteo.de: Thanks for all the interventions. To avoid that the discussion becomes inconclusive again, could everybody rate the following "favourable", "acceptable" or "unfavourable"? amenity=mourning favorable amenity=place_of_mourning amenity=mourning_room acceptable amenity=viewing_arrangements unfavourable amenity=deceased_viewing acceptable -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] User deleting many roads in Brazil
Erick de Oliveira Leal: Good morning, a user in Brasil is deleting many roads, I think all of its changeset need to be reverted. Could you give us an English summary of the discussion on the changesets. Examples of bad changesets: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/ <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676>92703956 <http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=92703956> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/ <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92345676>92610958 <http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=92610958> ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Robert Delmenico: I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest in changing the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in hearing the thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If there was no interest I would just abandon it and move on - that's how the system works yeah? Here's my thoughts based on the feedback received so far Regardless of the origin of the term, the current use of 'man' is to identify adult males. Not really, and "man_made" does not mean that it was made by males. I don't think the use of 'man_made' offends women, but who am I to decide that as I am a adult male. It seems to me that a lot of males like to speak for women on these issues. Why? Can't they speak for themselves? I feel that by using any masculine or feminine terms where a suitable alternative exists instills the stereotypes based on these terms. Marriam-webster: == Definition of man-made : manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings == We don't refer to firefigters as firemen anymore, not do we refer to airline attendants as airline hostesses. The world is changing and OSM should adapt to these changes if there is enough interest from the OSM community. As I mentioned in another email, we do use terms such as midwife. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
Jo: Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go: Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so... The same people that think that man_made=manhole* implies access:women=no But i guess that would become human_made=humanhole We will also have to make it healthcare=midhuman Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning: Mensch, ser humano, etc? Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses OSM data know and give them a chance to adapt to the change, not so much. Polyglot On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:16 AM Shawn K. Quinn <mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>> wrote: On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote: > Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the > present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago. > It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was > changed was a tag key. +1 In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly. -- Shawn K. Quinn mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>> http://www.rantroulette.com <http://www.rantroulette.com> http://www.skqrecordquest.com <http://www.skqrecordquest.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)
Simon Poole: Am 07.10.2020 um 01:13 schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen: ... You will probably have to let users add and remove blurs. That is what Mapillary do. They do not, they stopped providing that facility literally years ago, and they've gone as far as no longer storing unblurred images even for a limited time now. They stopped it for a while. Then they put it back in. Now (checked today) under edit there is a "edit privacy blurs" there is still a "Download unprocessed originals" option. Maybe they had too many positives. Then testing AI solutions, make sure to test it on images with a lot of street signs. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)
Wieland Kestler: > Hi everyone! > > > > Due to the discussion in the german OSM-Telegram-group I made a proposal for > tagging > points where people can buy e.g. game (meat) directly from the forester. What does "directly" mean? That forester probably did not shoot the animal himself. He most likely is not allowed to butcher it. And it might not actually be him selling the meat when you pick it up. shop=farm might be a stretch for game, although I do know a place selling deer meat that have all the deers inside a big fence. shop=farm is already used for eggs and honey. I would also assume that horse dung being sold usually does not come from wild horses. As for shop=farm not being permanently available, we have the "opening_hours" and "seasonal" tags. We can also use shop=farm,openeing_hours="by appointment" if there is not a shop infrastructure. > > > For more details see the proposal page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Ddirect_marketing > > For comments use the discussion page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/shop%3Ddirect_marketing > > > > Tanks! > > > > Wieland > > > > > > > _______ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? > > The page has > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community > consensus." > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or > mismatches it. I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots". Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is. This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page
Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information > > Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus? > > The page has > "This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect community > consensus." > and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well or > mismatches it. I think we should avoid language such as "There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots". Of course there is a need for someone somewhere to tag just about everything. For example, if you want to buy a house you would want to see where the plot is. This is not about needs, but about privacy, and maybe data quality. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > > > 11 Sep 2020, 12:21 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 11:39 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >> board_games=yes seems clearly superior >> > > +1 > > A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to play, or they > did in > normal times. > > Themed implies that is the raison d'etre for the pubs existance and you > would > only go there to play board games, which would attract a very limited > clientel. I agree. e.g., https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7179650900 Which have an entrance fee and then more than 400 board games to play. or https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5418045880 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7896767327 > Also many pubs have darts and dominos available for customers to play. > > Though it may make sense to somehow > distinguish pub with dominos and darts > from pub that has 100+ different board > games and "going there to play games" > is actually typical. could we have something like board_games=yes/no/permitted/designated ? -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] maps/navigation data source
Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 5. Sep 2020, at 16:43, ben.ki...@mail.de wrote: >> >> Which are the world regions OSM data is better in? Which are world regions >> OSM data is equal good? > > > generally urban areas and touristic monuments are covered, few countries have > good coverage in the country side, but there’s a lot to do everywhere, it may > also depend on the kind of data ;-) > > For example housenumbers are incomplete even in the most active countries, House numbers are complete in Denmark. They are imported from official data. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
Joseph Eisenberg: > RE: "Would something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = > sitting > be more clear?" I do no like negative formulations. > > While this is somewhat less ambiguous, it looks and sounds quite strange in > English, > and it's quite long. > > How about "lying_down=obstructed", "sitting=obstructed", "skating=obstructed" > or > something like that? Better. But why not sitting=no, etc. as for skating, could we not just set smoothness to something different than excellent. > I also think it would be a good idea to tag the physical obstructions, like > width=, > length=, slope=, arm_rests=, spikes=, skatestoppers=, etc, as others have > mentioned. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aerialway stations
dktue: > Hi, > > I was wondering why there's no way to distinguish valley and upper stations of > aerialways in OpenStreetMap. > > Usually an aerialway consists of > > * one valley station > * zero or more mid stations > * one upper station (or "mountain station") > > What do you think you tagging this information with You could tag the aerialway with incline=up/down > station=valley_station/mid_station/upper_station > > ? > > Cheers > dktue > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway=station > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:12:48 +1000 Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >OK, now you've all got me confused! > >I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general >public, while access=no means that it's not open to the public? The issue is that it becomes the default for all other transport mode access. I once had OsmAnd direct me to turn my car right on a very tiny path. It was tagged as highway=foot,access=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?
Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:04, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a >> higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have >> decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to >> the EU but that doesn't (in my mind) mean the EU is some form of >> super-state. Quitting the EU if you don't like it is much easier than >> seceding from a country. > > > To me it is not a question how easy it is for a nation to leave the > supranational entity. The EU does have legislative and jurisdictional powers > above the member countries, Yes. > guidelines they issue have to be converted into national law, directives have to. EU regulations are immediately enforceable > and the European Court is above the national courts. > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > > > 8 Jul 2020, 16:35 by elga...@agol.dk: > > Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Disclaimer: this is all US law. If you live in another country, YMMV. > > > Yes, facts are not copyrightable. > > In Europe we unfortunately have the Database Directive > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive > > Which is probably what Google would use. > > They might not win, but OSM should not spend unnecessary time in courts. > Who wants a new SCO vs IBM/(Linux)? > > > > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps > > == > The question has been closed for the following reason "The question has > turned into a > debate, which would be better suited for the legal-talk@ mailing list. > OSM's position > on sources is to be whiter-than-white, and not to use any third-party > sources for > which we do not have explicit permission. Please direct any further > follow-ups to > legal-talk@. Thanks --Richard" by Richard 31 May '12, 17:15 > > Exactly, we are not Pirate Bay > or Internet Archive or Wikidata > and we are not on exciting adventure > of what kind of copyright rules we can > ignore. Indeed, we are the ones that can say: we do not need your help. When it comes to mapping the physical world, we can do it ourselves, bottom up. > "hmm, it can be justified if we > interpret law this way" or > "they are unlikely to sue because" > are not a good reasons to do something > in OpenStreetMap. And I can see the point in that line of thinking. Because who can say that they do not need The Beatles or The Beach Boys or NYT articles because they can just make something better themselves? But wrt mapping, we can all just get in our car or on our bicycle today and make something that it better than Google Street View. It will be better because if we do it today it will be more current than Google Street View. For a while at least. > Why? See case of Internet Archive > that always was on kind of edge of > copyright law and recently went > too far. > > Now they are in a serious legal > trouble that has potential to end existence > of Internet Archive with Wayback > Machine and Open Lending Library > (where the trouble started). > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names
Matthew Woehlke: > On 08/07/2020 09.57, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> On 07/07/2020 18.04, Paul Allen wrote: >>> Copyright prevents us using Google Streetview for mapping, but we can use >>> it for >>> illustrative purposes. >> >> Honestly, I would *strongly* question whether that is enforceable in the US >> (maybe >> it is in some overprotective European nations?). When I take a picture of >> something, the *expression* of the scene I capture is subject to copyright, >> but the >> *subject matter* is not. (Well, not subject to *my* copyright, anyway; >> something >> like a sculpture or building can be copyrighted by the creator thereof.) >> Neither >> Google nor anyone else can copyright facts by recording them in a photograph. > > Sorry, but I feel like I need to clarify this further. > > Are the *actual photographs* in Google Street View copyrighted? Yes; in > theory there > was a "creative choice" about where and when to take the photographs. If OSM > were to > reproduce said photographs, or excerpts thereof, that would be a problem. > > Is the *content* of the photographs copyrighted? No, or at least, not by > Google, > except to the extent that content is a result of Google's actions. If the > photo has > not been materially altered (stuff like blurring faces and license plates > doesn't > matter for our purposes, because we wouldn't be "copying" that sort of thing > in any > way), then the *contents* of that photo are exactly as free of copyright > claims as if > someone else had taken a photo at the same time and location and declared it > public > domain. > > Whether or not the *contents* are subject to copyright (most likely *not* > Google's, > unless we're talking about e.g. the Google campus) is a whole other kettle of > fish, > that potentially affects *anyone* going to the site and recording information. > > Disclaimer: this is all US law. If you live in another country, YMMV. Yes, facts are not copyrightable. In Europe we unfortunately have the Database Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive Which is probably what Google would use. They might not win, but OSM should not spend unnecessary time in courts. Who wants a new SCO vs IBM/(Linux)? https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/710/can-i-use-google-streetview-to-help-create-maps == The question has been closed for the following reason "The question has turned into a debate, which would be better suited for the legal-talk@ mailing list. OSM's position on sources is to be whiter-than-white, and not to use any third-party sources for which we do not have explicit permission. Please direct any further follow-ups to legal-talk@. Thanks --Richard" by Richard 31 May '12, 17:15 == I have been adding speed limits to Danish highways. Something that would probably be a lot easier with Google Street View. But I use Mapillary, OSC, and sometimes my own surveys. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee
Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 8. Jul 2020, at 15:04, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: >> >> €20 espressos in Venice should quality. But I am not so sure about the >> specialty. I see that I made a typo. I meant "should qualify". > > > it’s not as if a coffee in Venice costs 20€ a cup, you will get good coffee > for 1€ in any normal bar. It costs 20€ if you sit on San Marco’s square in a > posh cafe with waiters and live orchestra music. It’s the location and the > presentation that you pay for, not the coffee. Yes that is what I meant. The same here in Copenhagen. The expensive places does not have the best coffee. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee
Jake Edmonds via Tagging: >> >> Price, maybe. Specialty coffee (or anything else) costs more. However, >> blind tasting of wine has shown that perceived quality is strongly >> influenced by presentation (if it looks expensive, people think it >> tastes better). > > Maybe that’s true but if people are looking for it, it should be searchable? Then we need something objective. Maybe coffee_species or coffee_brand in the same way that we have breweries for restaurants. If a restaurant only have beer from one brewery, then it is probably boring, especially if it is one of the big global companies. If it has beers from 10+ breweries on tap then it probably cater to customers interested in beer and some of them will be interesting or good. Even or especially if I do not know any of the breweries. >> So rather than tagging it as specialty, or of high quality, just >> tag it as expensive=yes. At least that is verifiable. If >> it's more than (say) twice the average price, it's expensive. > > Twice as expensive as what? €20 espressos in Venice should quality. But I am not so sure about the specialty. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venice-st-marks-square-cafe-prices-tourists-san-marco-a8481376.html >> Or maybe we just don't bother. That would be my preference. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee
Jake Edmonds via Tagging: > ‘Specialty coffee is a term for the highest grade of coffee available, microbrewery beer is not necessarily special or better. It is made on the premises. Specialty coffee is just about the quality and price which is very subjective. We also do not have special tags for specialty wine or whiskey or bread. For food we do have start but only stars that are awarded by recognised tourism boards. In short, how would we deal with verifiability requirement? > typically > relating to the entire supply chain, using single origin or single estate > coffee[1][2]. The term was first used in 1974 by Erna Knutsen in an issue of > Tea & > Coffee Trade Journal. Knutsen used specialty coffee to describe beans of the > best > flavor which are produced in special micro-climates.[3] > > Specialty coffee is related to what is known as the Third Wave of Coffee[4], > especially throughout North America. This refers to a modern demand for > exceptional > quality coffee, both farmed and brewed to a significantly higher than average > standard.’ > > 'While specialty coffee in North America is rarely offered in major coffee > chains, > the Third Wave of Coffee[4] has resulted in a significant increase in > specialty > coffee consumption. Independent, ‘Australian-style’, or artisan cafes have > opened in > multiple cities[13][14][12]. An SCAA report estimated the US had 29,300 > specialty > coffee shops in 2013, up from 2,850 in 1993[15]. This thing seems a bit US-centric to me. > Europe is already a major coffee market accounting for 30% of global > consumption, but > is seeing a growth in demand for specialty coffee while overall demand remains > stable[16]. Yes, there are many new very good coffeeshops here in Europe. But I would not know how to separate specialty coffee from not-specialty. Except that coffee-shops that are not part of a chain tend to have a better selection of coffee. > In 2016, specialty coffee was Europe’s fastest growing major restaurant > category, with an increase of 9.1% from 2014-2015.’ > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialty_coffee > > > amenity=cafe & cuisine=coffee_shop are used to tag establishments most known > for > serving coffee. This includes large chains like Starbucks that serve a > variety of > coffee based drinks made with commercially roasted beans, independent cafe’s > serving > either nothing but black, American style, drip coffee and those making > specialty > coffee drinks. > > There are tags for the preparation method: > > * drink:filter_coffee > * drink:espresso > * drink:coffee:automatic > > While consumers might have a preference for the way their drink is prepared, > the > coffee source is also an important factor. > > I have looked through the wiki and taginfo and the closest thing I could find > is one > use cafe of diet:specialty_coffee, but I’m not sure that’s an appropriate > namespace. > real_ale has 1819 uses for beer with no namespace. Are suggestions? > > Other tags: > microroasting=yes has 64 uses, mainly on amenity=cafe, in the same way > microbrewery=yes is used for pubs. > > Existing information: > European Coffee Trip has 1893 cafe’s serving specialty coffee in Europe. > https://europeancoffeetrip.com/city-guides/ > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 20:55:07 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >sent from a phone > >> On 1. Jul 2020, at 04:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Highly likely these are errors. However it is not impossible that a >> number could be used as a house name. > > >can you give an example? > >By which definition a number written as number can be a „name“? Here is a map of a hospital https://publikationer.regionh.dk/pdf/full-12684/kort-over-rigshospitalet-blegdamsvej.pdf e.g. "86" is tagged by me with name="86" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283107636/history#map=17/55.69781/12.56517 The postal address of the building is "Esther Møllers Vej 6" I tagged it like that because I had trouble finding it when I had to go there to visit a patient. > >If it is, I would suspect a tagging error, because if the name is >„fiftyfour“, you should not write it „54“ or „LIV“ > >Probably most cases can be solved remotely by looking at the >surroundings. > >I agree that we could ask the mappers in the remaining cases. > >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] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...
Paul Allen: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 12:58, bkil http://bkil.hu>+a...@gmail.com > <mailto:a...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer > > > > almost everytime find someone who does not agree, and while I have read a > lot of > things from Paul that made sense in other contexts, in this particular > discussion > it appeared to me that he was sometimes giving interpretations of > established > tags that didn't find other supporting voices. > > > So it appears to me, too. My mental taxonomy of what is and is not a cafe > clearly differs from that of other mappers in the UK. Well, here is a gourmet restaurant serving burgers: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5416925514 https://andershusa.com/the-noma-burger-rene-redzepi-reopens-with-take-away-and-wine-bar-copenhagen-denmark/ From the point of a user, when I am about driving with my wife and we want to stop for a nice lunch, I search for cafes and restaurants somewhat nearby. If we drive 10 Km to end up at a McDonals-like place we will be disappointed. If it is a gastropub selling burgers and french fries with a glass of wine or beer we will be happy. > For me the seating > is important. It is usually the case that a place without seating will > normally sell fast food because people don't like standing in a queue for > 20 minutes. But I appear to be alone in thinking of McDonalds as a > cafe with a particular cuisine and limited menu (and bizarre lengths of > crispy potato instead of proper chips). > > Approach it from the other direction. Cafes in the US (called Diners there) > sell burgers, amongst other things. A diner might have a menu very > similar to McDonalds. Is that now a fast food joint rather than a cafe? > If so, what if it limits the menu in summer and has a more expanded one > in winter? > > Things blur a lot in the real world and drawing lines is hard. Especially > when > marketers insist on erasing them. There is a chain of transport cafes in > the UK which describes them as "roadside restaurants." Over the issue > of seating versus food speed, I appear to be alone. > > -- > Paul > > > ___________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...
Paul Allen: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:02, Jake Edmonds via Tagging > <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: > > While it might be used in Paul’s area, McDonalds is not a cafe where I am > from, > and would put money on most British people calling it a fast food > restaurant > > > I am surprised that there is anywhere in the world that would glorify a > McDonalds sit-down area with the term "restaurant." Me too. >Candle-lit quarter > pounders for two? Would sir like wine with that? I do expect restaurants to offer wine. Around here at least. But I have also mapped restaurants in e.g., Jordan and Morocco where you would not expect restaurants to have wine. Those that do serve wine should be tagged with drink:wine=served. Something that I do bother about in Europe. > However, taking another look at the wiki for fast food, I see it covers > sit down as well as takeaway only. Which surprised me (never having > had to map a McD). For me there is a very, very big distinction between > a takeaway-only place and somewhere you can sit down to eat. Counter-only > service is not a biggie. Speed of the food is somewhat important but speed > is a continuous variable, even at a single establishment: I can go to a > chip shop and, if there's no queue, have my order filled in under a minute; > or I can go in and they've run out of chips and I have to wait 10 minutes > while they fry more. Whether or not I can sit down out of the rain > matters far more to me. > > But we have what we have: a tag that seems specially crafted for McD, > whether it has seating or not, as opposed to a tag for somewhere with > no seats at all. I do not think it is just for McDonalds. Here in Copenhagen there are some Pizza joints that have a couple of small tables, and sometimes a few more outside in the summer. They have no service, cutlery, napkings or anything and are mostly used by customers waiting to pick up a pizza. Put once in a while you see people eating there. -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?
Joseph Eisenberg: > The wiki page Key:boat <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boat> says > that tag > is to specify > > "Legal access restriction for boats. In the sense of OSM these are small > boats and > pleasure crafts, including yachts." > > The picture shows a "no rowboats" sign: File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg> > > But there is also a key canoe=* - the page Key:canoe > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:canoe> says: > > "Legal access restriction for boats without a motor or a sail like canoes, > kajaks or > rowboats." > > I can see how canoes and kayaks are basically the same, since both are narrow > boats > that usually carry 1 or 2 people and are propelled by paddles. And Stand Up Paddle? > But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key > canoe=yes/no/designated, or > are they under boat=yes/no/designated - or something else? rowboats are not canoes. We are missing a more generic term. In the international rules it is "vessels under oars" I checked the tags in Denmark. Gudenåen and Skjern Å has canoe=permissive. But rowboats are also allowed (I have rowed on Gudenåen several times). Tåning Å has boat=yes, canoe=yes, motorboat=no There was also a floating pier tagged with canoe=yes. And that is probably not for rowboats. Clubs typically have different piers for rowboats and kayaks. I would say that we could have both "canoe" and "rowboat" and that both canoe and rowboat are also boat, just as e.g., hgv is also motor_vehicle. rowboats should not be canoes. In particular canoe=portage and canoe=put_in is wrong for rowing boats. Rowing clubs: https://agol.dk/elgaard/roklubber.html -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:35:43 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:24, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> I agree with this, maybe we can make the description even more >> explicit to underline that these are specific features with a >> specific temporal and cultural background and formal solution, not >> just any underground aqueducts. > > >I'm not sure that we can, or should, map cultural background. I agree. The Wikipedia article mentions quanats in Italy, Luxembourg, China, Chile, etc. And who knows maybe someone will build quanats other places in the future. Just as biergarten might be german culture, but we use all over the world: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=biergarten > Nor >should two >identical POIs be tagged differently because of the date they were >constructed >(other than tagging one as historical or adding a date). For me the >thing about >qanats is that they differ in several significant ways from "ordinary" >underground >aqueducts and we shouldn't force square pegs into round holes. > > >> It’s a tag in arab language because it was developed in Persia and >> brought into the territories that “they“ settled/conquered. >> > >That happens to be why the British English name for them is "qanat." >Had the British managed to colonialize a different part of the world >first they might >have had a different name in British English. The tag is in British >English, >which just happens to be the same as the Arabic name for the feature. > >For me, it deserves a different method of tagging from somewhat similar >objects because it is a different thing. The name used for the tag is >taken from the British English name for the thing if British English >has a name for it, otherwise we argue and bicker for a week or two >here before settling on the local name. :) > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:16:52 +0100 Philip Barnes wrote: >On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 15:42 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: >> >> And we already have plenty of those: >> >> Piste >> Gabion >> Kindergarten >> chicane >> kneipp_water_cure >> bureau_de_change >> aikido >> krachtbal >> boules >> futsal >> adit >> gasometer >> >Bungalow >Robot Bugalow i knew. But now I learned that shop=robot is in the wiki. >and sometimes British and American English borrow from different >languages >Courgette - Zuccini which is one I know >Aubergine Yes, but they are not in the wiki. building=terrace is an example of the British english version. >In terms of food a lot of words are borrowed from different languages >and combined with a strange measuring system makes American recipies >totally baffling. > >Phil (trigpoint) > > > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
Paul Allen: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 13:17, Christoph Hormann <mailto:o...@imagico.de>> wrote: > > > I think this is a good idea. Both in the sense of establishing a distinct > tagging for it that does not engross qanats with other types of > underground > waterways and in the sense of using a non-English and non-European term > where the > most descriptive and clear term comes from a non-European language. > > > I agree with you there. Sort of. English has no equivalent term because > the UK has no equivalent structure. But English has done what it always > does with such things when it needs to refer to such things - it made them > loan words. And we already have plenty of those: Piste Gabion Kindergarten chicane kneipp_water_cure bureau_de_change aikido krachtbal boules futsal adit gasometer > Qanat IS a word that appears in English dictionaries and it IS > the British English name for such structures. Some languages prefer > to come up with new words of their own rather than borrow words from > another language; English, being a mongrel tongue, has no such qualms. > > > We have other cases of such tags in OSM but still in a proposal process > which > is dominantly discussed in English this is rare and kind of a litmus test > for how > culturally diverse tagging in OSM can be and if the cultural geography of > non-European regions can be mapped in the classifications used locally > just as we > are used to doing it in Europe and North America. > > > We should definitely map things that do not physically occur in > English-speaking parts of the world. But we should use the British English > name (which may or may not have been derived from the local name) to tag > them. > > -- > Paul > > > ___________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 13:12:49 -0400 Kevin Kenny wrote: >What do you mean by 'just unused?' Waiting to be demolished. >If I'm in the field, looking at the alleged powerline, and finding >nothing, why would I not simply make them go away (with a lifecycle >prefix to protect against someone else tracing from obsolete aerials)? Yes of course. But I usually do not do that. They seldom follow roads here and farmers do like that you walk through their crops to check for missing power lines. And the power lines and poles/towers are easy to spot on the aerials. > I see no poles, no wires, no markers warning people not to dig. If >there's still a cutline visible, I might tag `man_made=cutline`. >Otherwise, the power company might own the right-of-way, but we >ordinarily don't map that sort of cadastre. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:20:56 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: > >That is where the was: lifecycle prefix and notes are useful: to >prevent armchair mappers resurrecting something from imagery on the >internet. Yes. And I would not delete, e.g., power lines that are visible on aerials. Also because I would not be sure that were really removed and not just unused. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
Martin Koppenhoefer: == there aren't only written/drawn sources by the way. Oral tradition can also be relevant. Your grandpa told your dad and your dad told you, why not? == That is what the history is for. Also it does not scale to more than one change. The road where I live have been changed many times. Part of it just got replaced with a cycleway. Certainly there are oral tradition and tales about shops and restaurants. Even without a grandpa. I know places that have had 5+ different shops and restaurants. But do we really want to keep many objects representing different restaurants at the same place, when we already have Some stores are tagges as vacant or disused. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3405891059 Which makes some sense if there still is a physical separate store. And it could be useful, e.g. for someone wanting to lease it. But this one should not have the name. And it is not really a shop. I think it should somehow be tagged as retail space for lease. Because maybe it will be leased by a dentist or an accountant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:09:10 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: >On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 14:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen >wrote: > >> >> I have deleted some powerlines tagged >> as removed. >> > >Are they still visible in any of the aerial imagery available to >mappers? If >so, deleting those power lines tagged as removed may lead to their >resurrection. No. At least not in any of major aerials. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?
Martin Koppenhoefer: == Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap. == I have deleted some powerlines tagged as removed. Typically because they have been removed and replaced with underground lines, which are correctly mapped. I might take a year before traces of the poles are completely gone as farmes plow over the spots and put new crops there. But lines in the air will be removed without a trace. And of course highways are changed all the time. When a 4-way intersection is replaced with a roundabout we de not keep the four pieces of the road inside the roundabout tagged as razed. We have the history for that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
