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

2020-11-26 Thread Phake Nick
I think it depends on where yoj exactly are at, in Hong Kong the government established a few dozens indoor testing spots, tested a million people and a half, and then shutting down the facility knowing its positive rate isn't high. 在 2020年11月27日週五 01:25,Brian M. Sperlongano 寫道: > This [1]

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

2020-11-25 Thread Phake Nick
I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into OSM. 在 2020年11月25日週三 01:30,Tom Pfeifer 寫道: > Following the discussion on how to tag COVID-19 vaccination centres > previously on this list, > I have created a proposal for the vaccination key: > >

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

2020-11-22 Thread Phake Nick
Excuse me, what is the limitation here against tagging "Extremely long Amtrak relations"? Some of those Amtrak services, while long, in my knowledge are still far from the longest in the OSM database, like they're shorter than the train route between Moscow to Pyongyang, which have been tagged as

Re: [Tagging] Update - RFC - Special Economic Zones

2020-11-02 Thread Phake Nick
How do you identify different types of soecial ecobomic zones? For exmaple, in China, you have Hainan, which is a special economic zone for tourism, you have Shenzhen, which is for policy innivation, you have Tianjin Binhai new area, which is for logistics, you have a Cloud computing special

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

2020-10-26 Thread Phake Nick
See "Parking-Protected Bike Lanes | The City of Portland, Oregon": https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77882 在 2020年10月27日週二 01:45,Supaplex 寫道: > Do you have an example picture/mapillary or similar of such a street? You > call this case yourself "parking lane" and the way you describe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

2020-10-21 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年10月21日週三 17:37,Oliver Simmons 寫道: > Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as > doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future. > > > > Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s > informing and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

2020-10-21 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年10月21日週三 15:46,Rory McCann 寫道: > (I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype) > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > (1) I never understood "man made" as > > > "made by

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年10月21日週三 03:25,Justin Tracey 寫道: > On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias > >> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case, > >> English-speaking men) > > > > So, clearly, we need to change the

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Phake Nick
I feel like it is a cherry-picked list of comment. 在 2020年10月19日週一 22:42,Robert Delmenico 寫道: > > 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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Phake Nick
Breaking change come with a cost. Whether it is worth is a question should be asked. 在 2020年10月19日週一 21:04,Dave F via Tagging 寫道: > Irrelevant of any implied meaning, 'man_made' always appeared to be a > clunky, catch-all tag. OSM was being a bit lazy. > I mean, *everything* is either man made

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Phake Nick
No, it would still require a mass edit and breaking changes that will come with disadvantages already listed by other participant of this discussion 在 2020年10月19日週一 18:42,Robert Delmenico 寫道: > Nice investigating Nathan, > > I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made. > > > Would

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年7月31日週五 00:24,Alan Mackie 寫道: > > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 16:38, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie < >> aamac...@gmail.com>: >> >>> This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably >>> be to re-tag all

[Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-29 Thread Phake Nick
Cureently, the wiki say the admin_level=1 tag is for supernational border like EU, but it have not be tagged as such in the OSM database itself. Should it the tag be applied this way? Also, another thing is taginfo seems to be showing a number of current use of the tag admin_level=1 on different

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-07-03 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年7月3日週五 22:32,Paul Allen 寫道: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:43, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of >> the >> place doesn't give it away). >> >> No, that is a bad idea. The "description" field does not provide >> consistent

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-29 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年6月29日週一 20:12,Andrew Harvey 寫道: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 21:17, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> > On 29. Jun 2020, at 12:18, Andrew Harvey >> wrote: >> > >> > I think it's better to have some kind of high level tag like >> amenity=drinks or shop=drinks which you order at a counter (as

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-06 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03,Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道: > On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I need to reopen this thread. > > > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the > > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been > > replaced by roads with the

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-01 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26,Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道: > On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible > > objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some > > pieces that have been completely erased, but of

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-25 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月25日週一 19:35,Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> 寫道: > > > > May 25, 2020, 09:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > > sent from a phone > > On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale wrote: > > 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be >

Re: [Tagging] any valid usage of admin_level=1 ?

2020-05-25 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月25日週一 21:39,Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> 寫道: > > > > May 25, 2020, 15:27 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > > On 2020-05-25 14:58, Marc M. wrote: > > Hello, > > following a small thread on irc, I have review 20 usage of admin_level=1 > all are mistakes, often by

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-25 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月25日週一 16:12,Florian Lohoff 寫道: > > Hola, > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:52:21AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > > 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not > > be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other > > people's work should be set

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-25 Thread Phake Nick
I personally think such should still be tagged as long as the space, or the right of way, still remain, but not when it have been completely removed, integrated into surrounding area, and redeveloped, unless traces or marks of either the remain of the rail system itself or the space previous used

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-05-13 Thread Phake Nick
In South Korea/Japan/China/Taiwan, the minimal administrative level are usually equivalent of neighborhoods, and have little to no substantial administrative functions. For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3987250 this is admin_level=9 in South Korea,

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-13 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月13日週三 12:24,Mark Wagner 寫道: > On Tue, 12 May 2020 23:53:52 +0800 > Phake Nick wrote: > > > Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi > > and motorcycle taxi. > > Are there any differences that can't be explained by the fact th

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-12 Thread Phake Nick
Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi and motorcycle taxi. 在 2020年5月11日週一 16:04,Marc M. 寫道: > Hello, > > Le 10.05.20 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the > > airport and instead of a taxi

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-11 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月11日週一 09:18,Jarek Piórkowski 寫道: > On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick wrote: > > I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or > districts where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things > to be managed. > > If y

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-10 Thread Phake Nick
* Also, as have already been mentioned in other replies, there are various other differences between the two services other than number of wheels and whether they're enclosed. 在 2020年5月11日週一 09:04,Phake Nick 寫道: > I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or > dis

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-10 Thread Phake Nick
in the same format as that would lose the meaning of having the two types of mobility options. 在 2020年5月11日週一 08:58,Jarek Piórkowski 寫道: > On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick wrote: > > At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi > themselves. What's

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-10 Thread Phake Nick
At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi themselves. What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle taxis. What matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of another, would not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data when someone

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-10 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月10日週日 16:24,Martin Koppenhoefer 寫道: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 10. May 2020, at 01:31, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you > > guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek > ranks > > incorrectly at first, and perhaps

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-09 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月10日週日 07:08,François Lacombe 寫道: > > Le sam. 9 mai 2020 à 19:20, Phake Nick a écrit : > >> >> What you said doesn't make sense. >> The existence of a space within the word doesn't inherently make them >> separateable. >> Like for the tag amenity=c

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-09 Thread Phake Nick
Key chaining is the more complex form of representation, especially when there are no obvious relationship between different types of objects being represented. 在 2020年5月10日週日 04:50,Florimond Berthoux 寫道: > Yeah, that's the point... > > Keep it simple. > You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-09 Thread Phake Nick
> > Default to motorcar can lead to mistakes for consumers. > It's more valuable to consider vehicle unknown if absent (and encourage > mappers to explicitly define it) > And that make the tag valueless as that cannot actually indicate what exact type of place the tag was indicating. > Le sa

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-09 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月9日週六 07:07,François Lacombe 寫道: > Hi > > Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 20:48, Phake Nick a écrit : > >> motorcycle are not the same type of service as regular taxi. >> > > Then may I ask you why ? > I pay a driver to take me where I want to with his vehicle. >

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-08 Thread Phake Nick
That they exists doesn't mean they make a different. Taxi with low pollution and taxi with electric power are same type of taxi as regular taxi while motorcycle are not the same type of service as regular taxi. That is like saying we shouldn't have a separate tag for bus versus cars because there

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-08 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年5月8日週五 23:47,Marc M. 寫道: > Hello, > > > If these arguments were given beforehand > > except memory problem, I exposed this opinion here during the RFC > (=consider that taxi is a service independent of the propulsion > of the engine which is a sub-tag), and I have the impression that >

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-08 Thread Phake Nick
On 2020-05-08 Fri 20:45, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I > oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks > that, they think that. A discussion would just print the arguments > back and forth. > Given the

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-08 Thread Phake Nick
Since the wiki say, > Rejected features may be resubmitted, modified, and moved back to the RFC process. , and given most reason appeared on the voting page, I would say the correct action right now is to improve the reasons listed in the paragraph on why alternative tagging are not available,

Re: [Tagging] contact:google_plus status discardable ?

2020-04-13 Thread Phake Nick
Google Plus for Corporate is still functional. 在 2020年4月14日週二 06:25,Marc M. 寫道: > Hello, > > the service was shutdown on 2 avril 2019 > can we set the status as discardable ? > > Regards, > Marc > > ___ > Tagging mailing list >

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-28 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年3月27日週五 21:05,Paul Allen 寫道: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 12:31, Simon Poole wrote: > >> Pretending that they do isn't a useful concept and yes they typically >> won't have transliterations either. >> > I'm not pretending the street I'm on has a name in Mandarin. But the > country I'm in

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-27 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年3月27日週五 17:14, 寫道: > > > On March 25, 2020 11:50:15 AM GMT+01:00, Phake Nick > wrote: > >在 2020年3月25日週三 18:34,Frederik Ramm 寫道: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 25.03.20 11:19, Phake Nick wrote: > >> > My gues

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-26 Thread Phake Nick
Names in OSM map is to show the world reader what each objects are. Unlike Wikipedia and Wikidata, OSM map everything on the ground. Let assume the world's common language is now priparaish, and English is now only spoken by a small insignificant African tribe, and is also the only language in the

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-25 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年3月25日週三 18:34,Frederik Ramm 寫道: > Hi, > > On 25.03.20 11:19, Phake Nick wrote: > > My guess is that about 5% of name:xx tags in OSM actually represent a > > unique name in its own right; all others are either copies of the > name > > tag ("t

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

2020-03-25 Thread Phake Nick
在 2020年3月25日週三 17:27,Frederik Ramm 寫道: > Hi, > > the "name:xx" tags are something of an exception in OSM because while we > defer to "local knowledge" as the highest-ranking source normally, this > is not being done for name:xx tags. It is possible for no single citizen > of the city of

Re: [Tagging] Criticism of PTv2

2020-03-10 Thread Phake Nick
On 2020-03-11 Wed 06:03, Alan Mackie wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 20:54, Phake Nick wrote: > >> On 2020-03-10 Tue 19:47, Dave F via Tagging >> wrote: >> >>> > A platform is a platform, a perfectly flat bit of sidewalk isn't. >>>

Re: [Tagging] Criticism of PTv2

2020-03-10 Thread Phake Nick
On 2020-03-10 Tue 19:47, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > On 09/03/2020 21:00, Alan Mackie wrote: > > > > So it's better to label them all as platforms? I can't see any raised > area > > in a typical bus stop:... > > > > > > Why would we tag it as if it looks like this?... > > This is just one

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-10 Thread Phake Nick
On 2020-03-11 Wed 03:20,Richard wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:07:02PM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to > be > > re-routed to display or use them. How can you be sure the re-created > route > > is the one that is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-09 Thread Phake Nick
At 2020-03-09 Mon 16:04, John Doe wrote: > > Hey, thanks for sharing your views  > > 07-Mar-2020 03:01:41 Phake Nick : > > > [...] for such renderer to work, access restriction for public transit > vehicle need to be complete, which is rather difficult not just becau

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-06 Thread Phake Nick
As my personal biggest use of the public transportation relationship is to visualize the ways that public transit route would take, I must say I am personally against the idea. >From my personal experience of using a non-OSM website "wikiroutes", which is a website that let public enter public

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

2020-01-27 Thread Phake Nick
For disluted territory marked as country boundary, there is also https://www.openstreetmap.org/ this big box in South China Sea. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] a kind of name:XX-modern-not-used

2020-01-23 Thread Phake Nick
You can consider using BCP 47 extension T as language tag in OpenStreetMap follow BCP 47 practice. The extension T is for denoting content that have been transformed from one language into another, so if you write fr-t-frm then it would denote the content is transformed fron Middle French

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-07 Thread Phake Nick
With all those different types of parking facilities, wouldn't it be easier to create some tag combinations like the following? amenity=parking parking=bus bus=tourist_bus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-21 Thread Phake Nick
; In my opinion the options are: >>> >>> - deprecate roundtrip in favour of 2 tags with a generally agreed naming >>> convention (best at this point) >>> - keep roundtrip and closed_loop with the wiki definition I did change >>> (relations must

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-19 Thread Phake Nick
Problem with applying different road classification system from different places with their individual tags onto local roads is that: 1. Even if we ignore countries that have different rules within different part of a single country, there are still about 200 countries in this world. Each of them

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-19 Thread Phake Nick
Merriam Webster and some other resources you have quoted are dictionary for American English, not the variant of English used by OSM. Posts by original author of the topic on the wiki talk page have explained the meaning of the term in British English. 在 2019年12月20日週五 06:19,Francesco Ansanelli

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-19 Thread Phake Nick
The current usage is that, "Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the same location". As in a route from Paris to Milano to Frankfurt then back to Paris would be tagged as roundtrip=yes. You have edited the wiki against established usage to make it become a

Re: [Tagging] refugee camp

2019-06-10 Thread Phake Nick
If you look at it from a temporary residence for the group of people perspective, then I guess tags like place=village/town/neighbourhood could be better choices? 在 2019年6月10日週一 20:18,Joseph Eisenberg 寫道: > I understand why refugee camps have been mapped with > amenity=social_facility - it's

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

2019-05-24 Thread Phake Nick
Ah, and about the Chinese calendar leap month I mentioned a while ago, it seems like some algorithm nowadays would tweet those leap month as negative values, for instance if it is the 8th month that get leaped, then it could be computationally represented as Lunar month -8. 在 2019年5月24日週五

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

2019-05-24 Thread Phake Nick
then again, what about month numbering in Chinese calendar? There are no month name, only lunar month 1, lunar month 2, etc. 在 2019年5月22日週三 20:33,Paul Allen 寫道: > On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 09:16, Rory McCann wrote: > >> >> I don't know much about the islamic calendar. Could you give some >>

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

2019-05-18 Thread Phake Nick
That doesn't seems to solve the problem that would occur. For instance, how to represent the first Sunday (a feature in Gregorian calendar) after Chinese traditional ceremony X (a feature in Chinese traditional calendar) in the opening time syntax, if they're split up for "simplicity"? What about

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

2019-04-13 Thread Phake Nick
area=no would also applies to amenity=park or landcover=* if you are tagging them in the same object. 在 2019年4月14日週日 05:16,Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道: > As a closed way would normally be taken as an area,but in the case of this > barrier it is required not to be an area, why not use the

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

2019-04-12 Thread Phake Nick
>Example: I'm considering using the tag "area=yes" to check if a >barrier should be rendered as an area. Right now "barrier=hedge" is >rendered as an area in the Openstreetmap-carto if it is imported as a >polygon. This happens for all closed ways that are tagged "area=yes", >but it also happens

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

2019-04-03 Thread Phake Nick
There are religion=chinese_folk and religion=vietnamese_folk for indigenous religion for Chinese people and Vietnamese people, you might wish to check is there similar existing value in use for Australian aboriginal religious sites, if not you might wish to create a new value. 在 2019年4月3日週三

Re: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

2019-04-01 Thread Phake Nick
Then how to tag brt-bus-only road that ban regular buses? 在 2019年3月29日週五 05:40,Martin Koppenhoefer 寫道: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 28. Mar 2019, at 21:07, Phake Nick wrote: > > > > A problem with using something like service=bus is that it implies all > b

Re: [Tagging] Bus rapid transit: service=bus vs service=busway vs no service tag

2019-03-28 Thread Phake Nick
A problem with using something like service=bus is that it implies all buses can use it but in many cases BRT roads are only open to BRT buses and ban all other buses? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

2019-03-24 Thread Phake Nick
So, If I understand correctly, Mosque are more like a Islamic version Monastery? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up v4

2019-03-16 Thread Phake Nick
The scheme seems a bit unnecessarily confusing by being unnecessarily specific. Like what tag should I use for a place that can top up my Alipay account directly? 在 2019年1月29日週二 23:06,Daniele Santini 寫道: > The first voting for the Top up proposal was rejected. I have changed the > proposal

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

2019-03-16 Thread Phake Nick
the calendar of the year. 在 2019年3月17日週日 01:57,Simon Poole 寫道: > > Am 14.03.2019 um 23:18 schrieb Phake Nick: > > > > 在 2019年3月14日週四 20:38,Simon Poole 寫道: > >> Some more comments: >> >> - the OH values are currently always evaluated in the local time zone >

[Tagging] Proposal: add Tag:route=share_taxi and Tag:route=minibus for public transportation relationship

2019-03-16 Thread Phake Nick
In Hong Kong, it is previously decided that, when tagging routes or access restriction of public service vehicles, a large-sized franchised bus can be represented with key/value or "bus", a green minibus can be represented with key/value of "minibus", while a red minibus can be represented with

Re: [Tagging] Tagging disputed boundaries

2019-03-14 Thread Phake Nick
Come to think of it, if the goal is to represent different perspective of disputed territory, then mapping disputed territories as disputed territory using claimed_by=* controlled_by=* does not seems like a good idea, as such an area in OSM would need to include a line separating the disputed

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

2019-03-14 Thread Phake Nick
lid route 'll become unusable in all app. so sure that's the best/most need thing todo with PT version :( Le 14.03.19 à 23:25, Phake Nick a écrit : > It really depends on exactly how complex the route is, something like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4776035 this bus route can &

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

2019-03-14 Thread Phake Nick
It really depends on exactly how complex the route is, something like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4776035 this bus route can definitely use it. (and I haven't mentioned other similar bus routes with different numbers in different relationship yet) 在 2019年3月15日週五 03:31,Paul Allen 寫道:

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

2019-03-14 Thread Phake Nick
在 2019年3月14日週四 20:38,Simon Poole 寫道: > Some more comments: > > - the OH values are currently always evaluated in the local time zone > (or to go even a bit further in a local context as the location they > apply to is always known), so a time zone indicator would be only needed > in the cases

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

2019-03-13 Thread Phake Nick
iarize yourself with the actual > >> grammar > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification > >> first , in particular your proposal begins with a couple of non-starters > >> that conflict directly with the existing specific

[Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

2019-03-13 Thread Phake Nick
I found that the current way of mapping opening time of features in OSM map are too limiting, and the opening time of some features cannot be properly represented with only the current syntax, therefore I have written a brief idea about how the syntax in key opening_hours could have been expanded

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

2019-03-13 Thread Phake Nick
maybe we can use some keys like eta_link:shortnameofbuscompanyA=* and eta_link:shortnameofbuscompanyB=* to show different operators information 在 2019年3月13日週三 15:01,Graeme Fitzpatrick 寫道: > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 14:30, Phake Nick wrote: > >> but in term of GTFS I

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

2019-03-12 Thread Phake Nick
There are processed data for each stop, but in term of GTFS I don't think anyone in the world supply data individually for each stops. My understanding is that each GTFS file usually cover a line or a network. 在 2019年3月13日週三 10:32,Graeme Fitzpatrick 寫道: > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 11:18,

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

2019-03-12 Thread Phake Nick
relationship is the one they want. It's also unnecessarily increasing the number of route variants that need to be maintained by the order of magnitude of hundreds. 在 2019年3月7日週四 22:17,Martin Koppenhoefer 寫道: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 7. Mar 2019, at 15:02,

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

2019-03-12 Thread Phake Nick
月13日 05:58 於 "Martin Koppenhoefer" 寫道: sent from a phone > On 12. Mar 2019, at 16:15, Phake Nick wrote: > > It would probably be more appropriate to use lifecycle prefix if a shop have beeb replaced by another shop. For example name=KFC+was:name=McDonald's this is really

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

2019-03-12 Thread Phake Nick
It would probably be more appropriate to use lifecycle prefix if a shop have beeb replaced by another shop. For example name=KFC+was:name=McDonald's ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

2019-03-10 Thread Phake Nick
Is it actually a good idea to put everything under police=*? Like prison/detainment facilities, yes in China police have some sort of detainment facilities that can detain people for a given number of days, as an alternative to go through juridical trial and get into actual correction facilities,

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

2019-03-10 Thread Phake Nick
I have checked some of these features in Taiwan some are tagged office=educational_institution, some are tagged amenity=prep_school, some are simply tagged as shop=yes. A discussion on Japanese osm mailing list suggest using amenity=prep_school for this type of facility. On OSM Taiwan's hackpad

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

2019-03-07 Thread Phake Nick
Nope. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3352395 The route us currently operated by two different operators on coordinated timetable and each operator have their own ETA system. While they do not provide a GTFS feed for now, it can be expected that each of them will provide their

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

2019-03-06 Thread Phake Nick
In Hong Kong, we have many area that are officially destinated as "sitting-out area" that would fit the description. These area usually have a few benches along with little bit of plantation around them for people to sit inside. They are managed by government and usually sandwiched between

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

2019-02-11 Thread Phake Nick
Wasn't that only for the currently abandoned parts? 在 2019年2月12日週二 05:52,Jo 寫道: > The proposal was voted upon. > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 PM Tijmen Stam wrote: > >> On 31-10-18 00:54, Leif Rasmussen wrote: >> > Hello everyone! >> > I recently wrote up a proposal page for public transport

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-22 Thread Phake Nick
> > One reason that's of particular interest to me is that SIT is intended > to be compatible with 3D rendering, allowing for the creation of 3D > models that represent both the inside and outside of buildings at the > same time. > > At the moment, Simple 3D Buildings has no support for "half"

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Phake Nick
>M (for mezzanine) is often in between G and 2, and often but not always has some notion of being less than a proper full floor Speaking of which many editors, users, editing software, tenderer and such seems to assume levels must be integer which is not necessary to be correct. For instance, I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-09 Thread Phake Nick
I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain meet France, Indochina peninsula's boundary will probably be the southern border of China, and Sinai peninsula's boundary would be the current border

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type

2019-01-06 Thread Phake Nick
And there are also Tuk Tuk (Auto-Ricksaw?) in SE Asia, the use of golf cart to offer for-hire service at some specific enclosed locality like theme parks, and then maybe there are still places that you can ride on a Palanquin. (Tuk Tuk and Golf cart are automobiles but their different nature

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

2019-01-04 Thread Phake Nick
different claims on territory from existing government of the country, like Free France vs Vichy France? (in both the situation when such government in exile control some overseas territory and also in situation when such government does not control any territory) 在 2019年1月4日週五 20:22,Phake Nick 寫道: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

2019-01-04 Thread Phake Nick
I think there are some cases that might not be sufficiently covered by the current proposal and it might be a good idea to explain how they can be tagged in example section of the proposal if they can be represented by it: * Minamitorishima, where it is undoubtably a Japanese natural feature,