### Re: [Tagging] Quarry lakes

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 17:24, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Should quarry lakes be tagged under a separate value from water=lake? > If they should, then you have to consider that some of them may be ponds. If there is consensus that quarry lakes should be excluded from water=lake, >

### Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 05:40, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I'm giving away all my favourite spots here but both of these the stream > is mapped a a way, and has the pool under the waterfall mapped as an area, > so you can determine pools under a waterfall based on the natural=water > area with one of

### Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 18:04, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > It seems like the convention for rivers is that the river's continuity > (and name) are carried with the waterway=river ways and not the area > polygons that cover the width of the river (regardless of whether you use > the

### Re: [Tagging] Cartpath RFC

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 08:40, Peter Elderson wrote: > It's not about an example, it's about using a general term for a specific > type. > When I saw "cartpath" in the subject, my first thought was NOT golf carts. My first thought was of a two-wheeled vehicle pulled by one or two horses. Around

### Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 21:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: I don't think I've had the situation come up, but if it did, I'd probably > map the riverbank only once, and split the river at the fall and at the > outlet of the pool. Do the ordinary waterway=riverbank or water=river > mapping for the river as

### Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:51, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > >> I think you need to expand a little on how to "conflate" a pool with a >> river. The >> disadvantage of doing so is that the pool then cannot have a name >> assigned. >> > > Sorry, my words were not clear enough here. By

### Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > "Occasionally a river or stream will form a stream pool or plunge pool, > which are bodies of water that naturally occur along the course of the > waterway. These waterbodies may either be tagged as a lake or (usually) > pond if they

### Re: [Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 15:47, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: The current data model works just fine for fuzzy areas: it requires a > polygon combined with tagging that indicates that the area is "fuzzy". > Since the current data model allows both polygons and tags, fuzzy areas > could be mapped

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 15:25, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Thanks for the pointer, but It does not help. I'm an iD occasional basic > user only. > Ah. I thought one of your main gripes was the iD was warning you about stuff you weren't editing. I am talking about the behaviour of JOSM. > I'm in

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:02, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > That we will have to live with two tags, or more, for the same thing is > nothing new, what I don't like is to be pestered continuously to do things > to objects that happen to be in my downloaded area, and which I had no > intention even

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 16:11, Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I agree. To be called a "pillow", it would have to be soft and not rigid. > IIRC there are traffic calming "pillows" that are filled with air and > deflate, if you drive over them slowly, but remain

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 15:29, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > In addition, please consider that deprecated features are being flagged by > editor sw on > saving any changeet that contains an deprecated tag, even if it has nothing > to do > with your actual editing, this would be adding another

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 15:05, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 20/12/2020 14:42, Paul Allen wrote: > > There may be many uncontrolled crossings (no lights, no > > zebra markings) in built-up areas, mostly at junctions. They > > typically have a dropped curb with tactile pavi

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 14:55, <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote: > traffic calming device often used in *Czech republic* > > I found this; > https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zpomalovac%C3%AD_pr%C3%A1h > >

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 13:57, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > From reading all these comments, it is clear a "crossing=priority" is not > a good tag. In many places, pedestrians always have priority at > intersections even if there is no crossing. The

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 12:32, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > "Hillock" is quite common in British English > > > To describe a traffic control device? > > It is not the first word that came to my mind when I saw a picture of them. Not the second, either. Maybe the 49th. The first word was

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 11:52, Peter Elderson wrote: > I'd say they are small mounds. > Talk to an archaeologist and mounds can be quite large. Talk to a baseball player and mounds are smaller than archaeological mounds but still quite a bit larger than these speed bumps. > > Hillock sounds

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:58, <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote: > it had the word bump in it. > Yes, it had the word "bump" in it. "Bump" is an English word. There are traffic-calming devices with the word "bump" in their name. The proposal talks of "bumbs." "Bumb" is not an English word. I

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:45, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:traffic_calming%3Ddynamic_bump > It's not a "hillocky." The proposal doesn't contain the word "bumb." It's not a rumble strip. Was there

### Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen wrote: > > one swallow doesn't make a summer but it makes a great BJ. > > > you must be talking of ice cream? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s > You

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:31, <80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> wrote: > Round Circle Speed Humps > > Indeed. But you responded with that information to a post of mine which was solely about the word

### Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 22:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > > > (& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't > necessarily make it historic! :-)) > > yes, but so far I didn’t read from anybody else that they would

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:19, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > https://streetsolutionsuk.co.uk/collections/speed-ramps/products/round-yellow-circle-speed-humps-50mm?variant=19772633645113 > > That didn't

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 22:45, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/is-the-uk-ready-to-rumble/ > I am not convinced that article pertains to "hillockys." It is about rumble strips and does not show these things. Somebody else gave a

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 19:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > > I wonder whatever there is even a British English name for that > (or is hillocky an UK name?) > As far as I can tell we don't use these in the UK. If we did, though, we wouldn't call them "hillocky" but we might call them

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 18:25, Tomáš Hurýn wrote: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:traffic_calming%3Dhillocky > Are the two mentions of "bumbs" meant to be "bumps" or are bumbs yet another undocumented calming device? -- Paul

### Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 20:49, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I understand pitch to mean "a playing field" (as "pitch" is not often used > in US English -- we would say "soccer field" for example.). > Pitch and field are almost synonyms. A lot of overlap, some differences. > I don't know if

### Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 19:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range? > Not in English as she is spoken. "Shooting range" is not a sport. "Shooting" is a sport. > > Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting +

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging sewage treatment basins

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 01:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > But there is also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwastewater_plant - > man_made=wastewater_plant so perhaps the key wastewater_plant=* would be > appropriate, e.g.: landuse=basin + content=sewage > +

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 03:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 23:55, Paul Allen wrote: > >> >> 1) Holiday cottages are rarely building=cabin, they are mostly >> building=house. >> > > May depend on where you are? I know of a num

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:07, Jmapb wrote: [On distributed motel cabins] > No indeed it does not. I would be uncomfortable using the tourism=motel > tag on any establishment with a minimum week stay, kitchens or no. Even a > 2-night minimum at a motel would wrinkle my brow. > There might be

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 08:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Dec 15, 2020, 03:33 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > How about tagging the whole area as tourism=chalet + name=Foo Cottages + > capacity=25 > then tagging each individual cottage / cabin as either >

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:38, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I suppose we also lack a way to distinguish extended-stay hotels which are > designed for 1 week to multi-month stays; > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment_hotel > If it's a single building, maybe it's still a hotel. Maybe some

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 19:41, Jmapb wrote: > > At least In the rural USA, there's a continuum between motels that have > an array of rentable rooms in one or two buildings and those where each > room is an individual cabin, or sometimes half of a duplex cabin. It's > common to see motels

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 10:57, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: So my questions are: what is the UK (or English in general) word for > location with group > of holiday cottages? > I can't think of an English term, other than "holiday cottages." These places

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 06:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > There are cases where there is group of multiple holiday cottages, > each rentable independently. I know about cases with just 2 and big > groups, 25 in one place. > I know many of those. It

### Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water + > water=reservoir *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir? > > The reality is that no matter what it says in the wiki and no matter what

### Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 12:56, Ture Pålsson via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > In many cases, the buildings are long gone and just the name remains. I > *thought* that those places were still labelled in upright letters in the > ”official” maps, but it turns out that I was wrong —

### Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 17:08, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Wikipedia says: "The British Armed Forces, also known as Her Majesty's > Armed Forces, are the military services responsible for the defence of the > United Kingdom"... so perhaps the best British term is "military service"? > We cannot be

### Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 07:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > So I suggest military_branch=* or military_service=* for the key. > > Though this is based on my US English understanding of the military > terminology. Do they call them "military service branches" in British > English too? > "British

### Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 20:43, ael via Tagging wrote: > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:07:52PM -0500, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > > > >- Hidden dip > > > > > > Maybe. There is a barely used tag hazard=dip. Is this a permanent > > feature? > > We have examples in the UK, even on major roads

### Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 20:01, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 09/12/2020 19:43, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > For the swing bridge, it's covered. But the text says "Opening or swing > > bridge." > > I have no idea what an opening in a route might be if it's not a mova

### Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > >> Here are the ones that I think are worth considering: >> >>- Opening or swing bridge ahead >> >> This is already covered by the approved tag bridge:movable and its > various sub-keys that describe different types of movable

### Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 16:53, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I think there may be other hazard warning signs in that document for you to >> consider. >> > Many of the signs on that list are already described by other tags. > It's a list of all warning signs, not merely hazards. But there are

### Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 14:26, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I have found examples of both falling rock[1] and fallen rocks[2] on > signage and it's not clear to me which is the more common. > The UK signage for this hazard doesn't have text. But the explanation of the signage in the Highway

### Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 13:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Add hazard=falling_rocks, landslide; deprecate rock_slide, rockfall > Kevin Kenny argued (I think convincingly) that the hazard is fallen, not falling, rocks. There is a very slight risk that a rock will fall on your vehicle but the

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I am not saying that these stones should or not get a historic tag, but > surely it isn’t an argument that one of the OpenStreetMap based maps > highlights things based on a wildcard selection. > Not an argument, merely a piece of

### Re: [Tagging] Many historic=wayside_cross are not historic

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 23:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > That includes everything from a homemade little altar on the fence of a > private home to a minute chapel-like shrine on a minor road crossing that > most likely sits on top of a Roman shrine for the local water goddess. > > My real question

### Re: [Tagging] Many historic=wayside_cross are not historic

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:33, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I am sure someone has made this observation before me: > We rehash this frequently. :) Many historic=wayside_cross and historic=wayside_shrine are not historic > objects in the sense of the definition of the wiki page Historic >

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 21:28, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: mostly for European use (I think), I propose a new node type barrier, > namely "guard stone": > Your proposal says these should be tagged historic=yes. Historic is not a synonym for old, or disused, or even historical. Historic means

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:01, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > This is probably a US-centric viewpoint, but I note that there is a > general lack of tagging under the military= key to indicate the military > branch associated with a military base. > Branch or branches. There are an increasing

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > But maybe emergency=marine_rescue (or amenity=marine_recsue) would be > better > than a brand new key rescue in rescue=marine_rescue tag? > I can see both ways. With emergency=rescue_station you

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > They do not imply that you have to fear airplanes on the street, they > are meant to prepare you for low flying aircraft. > Up until around ten years ago, a minor road went past the end of the runway at what passes for an airport. The

### Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 01:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:09 PM Paul Allen wrote: > >> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears >> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to >> happen. >> > &g

### Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 18:16, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +0000, Paul Allen wrote: > > > That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears > we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to > happen. > > > ht

### Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where > danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale > rock slide. > In the UK we do not appear to

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 22:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 22:24, Paul Allen wrote: > >> Here is a videoabout a bridleway. Which is also a footpath (by legal >> definition). In fact, >> it's also a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT). Most of th

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 04:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bridal ways are normally constructed. They normally remove obstructions to > have a convenient route. > You were wise to cover yourself by adding "normally." :) Here is a video about a bridleway. Which is also a footpath (by

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Setting it to 1s has the drawback of point clouds when you stand still (I > used to stop recording every time I stopped moving, but admittedly it > requires attention, also when you continue moving to set it back to rec). > That depends on

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 11:57, St Niklaas wrote: > A horse track is not a good choice to tend to walk on foot, it already has > its own tag bridle way. > There is a difference between tracks worn by wild animals and bridleways. Wild animal tracks may not be walkable on foot. Bridleways are

### Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things related > to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. Perhaps a > combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what we're describing? > Or not:highway=path

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (mine shaft)

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 21:56, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: I'm not sure if all mine shafts are hazardous or only some of them, but in > any case, > If the mineshaft is capped in some way, such as a grill, and the cap cannot be removed without special tools, it's probably safe. If the mineshaft

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (animals)

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 16:40, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:25 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >>- Why hazard:animal and hazard:species is needed instead of animal >>and species? >> >> I initially had it as just

### Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 02:35, stevea wrote: > I'm in California, where it's almost cliché we love our cars and car > culture, but it is true that not only here but in many USA states, we have > "drive-thru" COVID-19 testing centers. In the UK we don't have much of a drive-thru anything except

### Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 20:01, Philip Barnes wrote: Although in this case I would expect the approach to be to set up sessions > for schools, universities and at larger employers and for the general > population it will simply attend an appointment at their local medical > centre. > Even back in

### Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 13:15, Phake Nick wrote: > I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into > OSM. > How temporary is temporary? All of man's works eventually crumble and decay. No man-made feature is permanent. On a long enough timescale, no geological feature

### Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 08:45, Ture Pålsson via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > (And I agree with Kevin about reconstructing an area from a point + > surrounding coastline. I'd like to see at least an outline of an > algorithm for that! Having said that, I also recognise that >

### Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 22:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > I was having similar thoughts just a couple of days ago, about what to > call a pile of rocks that a farmer has cleared from, then piled up in, a > field? > In the part of the world I was raised, rocks cleared from fields were used to

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

On Sat, 14 Nov 2020 at 17:24, Lukas Richert wrote: The possible values for any of these subkeys is then yes/backup/no (i.e. > electricity:battery=no), where *yes *means the device/grid is always > connected and it is usually (daily?) used. The term *backup* then means > that the device is only

### Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Re: is water=* tag needed? > > But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs > man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not > providing this information. Since the previous tagging

### Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 15:02, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > If the consensus is to go with a limnological definition - I think that's > fine. Let's lay out the limnological description of "pond" and "lake" and > let mappers sort out edge cases based on their best interpretation of the >

### Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 13:12, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"? If so, > what is the difference? Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ > Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"? If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived > from and

### Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 20:06, stevea wrote: > > For example, you complain that natural=peninsula doesn't render. So? > That's not a problem with OSM, it is you assuming that a particular > renderer is going to display the semiotics you believe it should, when it > likely does not (exactly as you

### Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 14:26, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I note that "visitation room" is a term that describes "A room designated > in the funeral home for the deceased to lie before the funeral so that > people can view the deceased." > I hadn't come across the term in the UK, but that

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing the sam

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Do., 5. Nov. 2020 um 13:59 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > >> This may be a losing battle but I'll point out (once again) that historic >> is not >> a synonym for old, disused or repurposed. >> > > I agr

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 08:41, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Is there a subtag to distinguish an historical/protected amenity from a > straight/unprotected one? > heritage=* and associated tags. For Portugal, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage#Portugal For Spain, see

### Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 18:56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I'm not able to find any website which clearly talks about a specific > "mourning room", though it is certainly documented that the front room of a > house, often known as a "parlour" at the time, would be used to view the > corpse of a

### Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 18:19, Steve Doerr wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 1:14 PM Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:46, wrote: >> >>> > >> amenity=mourning_room >>> >> >> Unacceptable. "Mourning room" was the

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 17:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Nov 5, 2020, 13:56 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is used

### Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:46, wrote: > > amenity=mourning > Barely acceptable. It's a verb not a noun, an activity not a place. amenity=place_of_mourning > Acceptable. Some would say mourning could happen anywhere, and not necessarily for the dead. But those people miss an important fact

### Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is used for ones that are not > historic at all. > Those are tagging errors, then. > > Overall man_made=threshing_floor seems OK, though tagging also >

### Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 23:20, Peter Elderson wrote: > place_of_mourning then? Just like place_of_worship? > I could live with that. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

### Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

On Wed, 4 Nov 2020 at 20:50, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I was surprised that this tag is rushed into voting despite the arguments > against it even here in the tagging list discussions. > The proposal itself contains paragraphs indicating it is a work in progress rather than a finished proposal. I

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 12:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > these areas are usually not access=no, there will be no parking / stopping > signs, but otherwise these are "normal" areas where other activities (like > walking, playing with a ball, etc.) will take place. Think of it as part of > the

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:51, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > On 24-10-2020 15:58, Paul Allen wrote: > > I don't see any valid reason for wanting to de-emphasize them and you > > do not attempt to provide one. Maybe there is a valid reason but I > > don't see it. > > Thanks for

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 15:25, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > These two variants are mapping for the renderer, > Incorrect. They are approximations to reality. Everything we map is an approximation to reality, one way or another, because the map is a representation. That they happen to render in a

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 14:35, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > On 24-10-2020 15:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > As rendered it appears you need a skyhook or > > a cargo helicopter to park. Not good. You're probably as unhappy with > that > > method of tagging as I am. > > Tr

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:42, Supaplex wrote: I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = > street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are > directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly > from the roadway without having to

### Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > Also: > > > The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning > of "adult male human" > > Citation needed, particularly as the other thread contains a statement > which

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 14:04, Dave F via Tagging wrote: I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. > Unless you want to argue that humans are supernatural or unnatural, humans are natural. Therefore anything humans make is natural, just as beaver dams and wasps' nests are natural. If

### Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 10:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: buffer kisser (not sure this term exists in English) > I've not encountered it (but there's a lot I don't know). This WIkipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railfan doesn't mention it either. One of the few mentions I've found

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I fear in „human“ there is still a man, even in every woman there‘s a man, > as in female there is a male. Overall it looks as if English is not > suitable for gender neutral language, everything refers back to men. I propose to use

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 01:57, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is > commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been > adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias. > You are correct that there was a change

### Re: [Tagging] Should the tag proposal process force voters to vote for an option?

Apologies for previous incomplete message. I hate the keyboard on this laptop, which seems to interpret simultaneous depresion of some combination of control, shift and function keys on the left as "send mail." Grrr. On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 23:23, Andrew Harvey > wrote:I wrote about changing

### Re: [Tagging] Should the tag proposal process force voters to vote for an option?

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 23:23, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I wrote about changing from a for/against vote to a pick your preferred > option at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/394419 > > Interested to hear what others think about this. > There are inherent problems when using

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 22:44, António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > In Portugal, the Government's employment centre gets you a job and gives > you professional formation. It has a list of all the companies seeking > for workers and distribute them based a very

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 19:46, António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: Although an employment centre is not an office that governs, like Tom > Pfeifer wrote, (nevertheless we could argue they govern/regulate the > unemployed and the work market) > That depends how you

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

Sigh. Managed to hit some keystroke combination on this damned laptop that triggered a send. Now what I intended to write... On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 02:16, António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: Anyway, maybe the wiki could be updated to reflect the entire scope of >

### Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 02:16, António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Anyway, maybe the wiki could be updated to reflect the entire scope of > the office=employment_agency > Perhaps. With qualifications and exceptions. In the UK there were differences between