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

2020-11-25 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 13:28 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> 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 is permanent either.
> 
> We shouldn't map a one-off.  But such facilities are likely to
> operate for months,
> if not years.  Testing and vaccination facilities are generally not
> located in
> places like hospitals and doctors to minimize infection.  Often open-
> air
> for the same reason, which means they are going to be building=roof
> or building=marquee.  Most won't be constructed to last decades but
> will be there for many months.
> 
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.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

2020-11-04 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 07:26 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 23:14, Simon Poole  wrote:
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > We don't seem to have a tagging currently for dedicated pickup
> >   locations in this kind of context, bus stops etc are
> > naturally
> >   taggable), if considered really useful I don't see why we
> > couldn't
> >   introduce a amenity=...pickup... tag.
> 
> But if such a dedicated pickup location is a carpark then it needs
> amenity=parking, so it can't fit into the amenity key.  

A pickup point will be a node within a car park area.

Its is already common to add amenity=bicycle_parking nodes within
amenity=car_park areas.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

2020-10-31 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-10-31 at 12:08 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Sa., 31. Okt. 2020 um 11:36 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <
> si...@poole.ch>:
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   If there are actual legal differences between taxi and chauffeur
> >   access somewhere, we could use chauffeur or chauffeur-driven
> > as an
> >   access tag (better suggestions welcome).
> 
> 
> I can confirm that there are such differences, for example in Germany
> (Personenmietwagen vs. Taxi), in Italy (NCC vs. taxi),
> Legislation will probably vary across jurisdictions, e.g. in Germany,
> the Personenmietwagen is not part of the public transport, taxi is,
> in Italy, NCC is considered "servizio pubblico non di linea" (public
> service which is not line traffic).
> 

Much the same in the UK.

We have taxis (Hackneys) which are part of the public transport system,
can use bus lanes and do not need to be booked in advance.

Also private hire, which need to be booked in advance and have the same
access rights/restrictions on the public highway as a private car. For
some reason I cannot fathom, in London private hire are called
minicabs.

Uber and Lyft are legally private hire so whilst there may be a case
for access tags covering private hire there should not be a separate
tag. If different companies use different points at an airport that can
be covered by operator=*.

I would avoid the term chauffeur as it implies somebody who is part of
the staff for somebody who also has a butler and a nanny.

Phil (trigpoint)







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


Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-21 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 21 October 2020, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:20, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> >
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
> >
> > There is some more information available here:
> >
> >
> > https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20
> > .
> >
> >
> > The wiki is not the clearest on this
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
> >
> > You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
> > `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though not
> > sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
> >
> > disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would be
> > good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM wiki of
> > where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc" is used? Does
> > it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?
> >
> >
> > Parking discs used to be quit common in France, the Disque Blue areas were 
> > very common in towns where you needed to set the time of arrival on your
> >
> > disc and display it in the car.
> >
> >
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:58, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 
> > disc appears at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
> >
> > with proposed tag a parking:condition:*:maxstay=2 h
> >
> > with * replace by left/right/both depending on side
> >
> 
> 
> So it's just plain old maxstay, but you need to mark your arrival time on a
> device, could be paid or free. The only thing the tag adds over
> `parking:condition:side:maxstay=2 h` is that it describes that you need to
> use the disc device to record your time of arrival?
> 
> This part was unclear to me if it should be used for any maxstay regardless
> of if it uses the disk device or not.
>
Mapping  the disc requirement is important as without the disc you cannot park. 
Not so much of a problem if it is common and everyone has a disc but a problem 
if you drive into Stranraer and  end up driving out again because you don't 
have a disc.

Phil (trigpoint)  
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-21 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:10 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:32, stevea 
> wrote:
> > In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always)
> > arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking
> > lots (large and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for
> > three hours, but after that we have the right to tow your car
> > away."  (Sometimes punctuated with 'video surveillance active' to
> > make the point fairly direct and that "they mean business").  In my
> > experience of driving-and-parking for many decades, I personally
> > have never gotten towed (the few times I've gone over a time
> > limit), I've never heard of anybody (that I personally know)
> > getting towed, but I have seen the extremely infrequent tow truck
> > towing a car that has likely been there a while — perhaps it was
> > abandoned, used for illegal purposes or was otherwise a public
> > nuisance.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is
> > possible, it's rare.  And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly
> > turns into a fairly large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck
> > driver and storage charges (per day, usually) are added together
> > and paid to get one's car back from the impound lot.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts
> > of the world the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey
> > the full situation (on Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking
> > lots).  In short, what appears to be "simply" a fee can be fairly
> > full-throated when it comes to describing the entire semantic
> > richness of the situation.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A tag like maxstay is a good beginning.  An additional tag of
> > something like towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.
> 
> I'd just use the regular maxstay tag, I think most places if you
> overstay they can tow you.
> 
> `fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h` says you're allowed by the
> rules of the car park to park longer if you like, but you need to pay
> a fee to do so. This is different to the rules saying you're limited
> to 3hr and then issuing a fine or penalty for overstaying

This rule is quite common at Motorway Service Areas, you can park for
free for a couple of hours but if you wish to stay longer you need to
pay or have your vehicle authorised (hotel guests for example).
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-21 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico 
> wrote:
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is
> > free.
> > There is some more information available here:
> > 
> > https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20.
> 
> The wiki is not the clearest on this 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
> 
> You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
> `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though
> not sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
> 
> disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would
> be good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM
> wiki of where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc"
> is used? Does it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?

Parking discs used to be quit common in France, the Disque Blue areas
were very common in towns where you needed to set the time of arrival
on yourdisc and display it in the car.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disque_de_stationnement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking
Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-05 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2020-10-04 at 15:44 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 09:32, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > However, if we count that as a farm shop then the term essentially
> > becomes an alias of greengrocer.
> > A greengrocer with a single supplier, but still a greengrocer.
> > 
> 
> True, but under that theory, there's no difference between a
> convenience store & a supermarket.
> 
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 10:23, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> >  OSM even has a nice icon for the business
> > 
> 
> Just tried mapping one & iD calls it a Produce Stand, which I guess
> could also be an alternative name, possibly as shop=produce_stand?
> 
> & wondering about also listing what they sell, took me to the produce
> page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:produce :roll eyes:
> 
> Something that wasn't mentioned there though, is manure, & the only
> reference that I can find to it is as a content= for bunker_silos?
> 
> So, how should manure appear?
> 
> produce=manure + manure=horse, or
> 
> produce=horse_manure?
> 
 
It just surprises me that anyone would sell horse manure, around here
horsey people are only too happy for you to take it away. They will
often even throw in a free bag :)

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-05 Thread Philip Barnes
On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 01:53 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:On Mon, 5 Oct 2020
> Nope.  ID thinks you guys speak mostly Merkin. Somebody will have
> copied the Merkin language file for en_AU and maybe changed a few
> things. 
> Changed
> BBQ to Barbie, stuff like that. :)
>
I do remember that some years back there was a request to translate the
iD presets into other types of English. I did some en-gb which means it
has probably ended up as a strange mix of South Walian and
Leicestershire :)

Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

2020-09-11 Thread Philip Barnes
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.

Also many pubs have darts and dominos available for customers to play.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Philip Barnes
On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 01:57 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
> in the united states we say (portable)

I suspect the US word is potable, same as GB.

Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

2020-08-27 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 15:29 -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 8/27/20 12:35 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> > As is fair.  Without further qualification, I'd interpret "fair" as
> > a
> > (temporary, mobile) funfair: an annual event with fairground rides,
> > stalls, etc. I think American usage may tend more towards trade
> > fairs.
> > 
> > As for mapping the temporary funfair thing, that's difficult, at
> > least
> > around
> > here.  Every November the town's biggest car park is closed to
> > parking
> > for a week and is used for several fairground rides and a couple of
> > food
> > stalls.
> > As part of the same event, for a couple of days most of the town
> > centre is
> > closed to traffic and the streets are filled with market stalls
> > selling
> > all sort
> > of things of varying quality, from real bargains to absolute
> > garbage (like
> > eBay made physical).  Hard to map.
> > 
> > There is also an annual agricultural-based show held in some large
> > fields.
> 
> i'm fine with a british english equivalent if there is one.
> 
In British English they are showgrounds.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48473181

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35432806

Phil (trigpoint)




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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -Funeral hall

2020-08-19 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 10:26 +0200, woll...@posteo.de wrote:
> Funeral directors are a business, this is a public facility
> (generally) 
> on a cemetery. A mortuary is for storing corpses, that's often 
> associated to this kind of ceremonial place, but not necessarily.
> 
Looking around my local area these have simply been mapped as
amenity=crematorium. They are publicly owned and have a chapel within
them.

They are used by all religions and non-religions.

Phil (trigpoint)


> Am 19.08.2020 01:36 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> > There is already an existing tag with similar meaning for funeral
> > homes / funeral halls / funeral directors:  shop=funeral_directors.
> > The use of the key "shop=" is odd, but it's been used over 20,000
> > times so it seems to be well established:
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfuneral_directors
> > [4] -
> > documented since 2009:
> > 
> > "Also known as a "funeral parlour","undertaker", "funeral home", or
> > "memorial home".
> > 
> > A funeral directors [5] shop is a place where arrangements to
> > permanently store the physical body after death are made. An event
> > (sometimes with the deceased's body present) to honor the deceased
> > for
> > mourners are held here in conjunction with religious services which
> > are held elsewhere."
> > There is also a related tag amenity=mortuary -
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmortuary [6]
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:03 PM  wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear list,
> > > 
> > > Please comment on the following proposal:
> > > 
> > > Funeral hall: a building for funeral ceremonies which may be
> > > religious
> > > or secular
> > > 
> > > Proposal page:
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > > [1]
> > > Discussion page:
> > > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > > [2]
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Vollis
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3]
> > 
> > Links:
> > --
> > [1] 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > [2] 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > [4] 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfuneral_directors
> > [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Funeral_director
> > [6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmortuary
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

2020-08-19 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-08-15 at 22:13 +0200, Lisbeth Salander wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Paul Allen 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>
> 
>   
> > Yeah, we try to avoid putting two top-level tags on the
> >   same object because
> > of nasal demons:  
> > http://catb.org/jargon/html/N/nasal-demons.html
> >   
> 
>   That's awfully pessimistic, but I see your point. I suppose
> having some hairdressers rendered as generic healthcare
> providers will be confusing... and no general-purpose
> renderer
> will adapt to something as minor as this. So I'll relent.
> 
>   I'd really like a tag we could use for both hairdressers and
> specialists, but unless we find a less monstrous version of
> lice_removal_treatment_on_premise=yes
> I'll let it go.
> 
>   
> 
>   On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>   
> 
>   
> > Maybe it’s because I am not an English
> > native speaker, but I would expect something more than a
> > head
> > lice removal treatment place or a speech therapist when I
> > see
> > healthcare=clinic. I would see it as misleading promising a
> > „clinic“ to the map user just to find out that it is a head
> > lice
> > removal or speech therapist
> 
>   I'm in the same boat, actually. In Spanish these are never
> called
>   "clinics", they're either "centros de eliminación de piojos"
> (lice
>   elimination centres) or "peluquerías de piojos" (lice
>   hairdressers).
>   I don't know what's the expectation in English-speaking
> countries, but I find it difficult to categorise this as a
> clinic. I'm not even sure if they operate under the same laws
> as
> speech therapists and typical clinics in Spain; I think not.
It is difficult to speak for all English speaking countries as they
have different expectations of healthcare, however in the UK for any
health issues (except dentist or optician) our first point of call is
always our GP Medical Centre (amenity=doctors). From there you may be
refered to a specialised clinic. Such clinics are very unlikely to be
standalone, they may take place within the local medical centre or
within a hospital. 
I am old enough to remember when the the Nit Nurse came to schools.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/dec/16/nit-nurse
I would not expect this to be something my hairdresser would deal with.
Phil (trigpoint)



>   
>   The only reason I even proposed healthcare is because, well, it
> is a hygiene and health problem... and both amenity
> and shop seemed too generic.
> 
>   
>   On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>   
> > I've just had a hip replacement done, so
> > saw the orthopaedic surgeon this week for a follow up.
> > While I
> > was waiting, his receptionist took a call, & had to tell
> > the
> > caller that "I'm sorry, Dr doesn't work on wrists. He
> > specialises in hips & knees"  
> 
>   How would we map that? healthcare=orthopaedics +
> healthcare:speciality=hips;knees?
> 
> 
>   
> 
> ___Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-09 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 17:38 +0300, Alexey Zakharenkov wrote:
> As a person who have been monitoring and fixing rapid transit
> networks (primarity subways) for long I can say that railway
> stop_positions make more headache than advantage. Most of
> stop_positions look like here: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7966822#map=19/35.70290/139.74568
> i.e. they reside on rails near the station node (adding no
> information) and carry bunch of station's tags like wikipedia and
> name translations (adding info duplication or triplication). Mappers'
> eagerness to conform PTv2 in respect of adding stop_positions here
> and there results in many errors:
> *) stop_positions are created and not added to stop_area relations
> *) stop_positions are erroneously converted to stations and vice
> versa
> *) stop_position tags are transferred to another nearby node ignoring
> its membership in routes and stop_areas
> *) stop_position duplicates corresponding railway station object
> (public_transport=stop_position + railway=station)
> *) and so on.
>  
> All this makes subway maintenance (in state that allows routing)
> tenfold costly.
>  
> BTW, I could not find the definition where is the point of stop of a
> 150-meter train. In practice, the position of head or center is used.
>  
It is the front, that is where stop position signs are placed on the
platform. and are usually based on the number of coaches.

Some platforms have a single stop position, usually where the entrance
is at that end of the platform. Others have stop positions based on the
length of the train which ensures that the rear of the train is close
to the entrance.

One local station has different stop positions for different classes of
train. Basically it has a low platform to which a raised section has
been added so the stop position ensures one door is at this postition.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

2020-08-07 Thread Philip Barnes
On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 15:09 +0100, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original
> postis this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own
> value? Perhaps I'm against it because we don't AFAIK have these in
> the UK?

I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special
spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time
to clear the queue. Is that what this means?

We also have loading bays where you can stop for a few minutes to
collect things you have bought and cannot carry to the car park, there
is no specific time limit here but you are expected to not be far away.
Again is that what this means.

Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-06 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 13:58 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag
> overrides the less specific tag. And the transport mode section [2]
> of that has examples very much like those in your question.
> And:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
> 
> Means you can walk, drive or ride a horse, etc. but you can’t
> bicycle.
> 
Although I would question that combination if I found it in use, it
would be a very strange situation.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 20:15 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> > > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow  > > > wrote:
> > > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in
> > > height. Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or
> > > equal to 10cm
> > 
> > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> > like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
> 
> You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
> there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10
> cm,
> because both are impassable.

Wheelchairs have a large rear wheel so that they can be tilted just so
that they can get over kerbs. They have no problem crossing typical
raised kerbs. 25 cm is a bit excessive for a kerb.

Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-07-30 at 01:45 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height.
> > Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to
> > 10cm
> 
> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”

That sounds more like a sunken wall than a kerb :)

At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
crossing them.

In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek
I have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
experience normal.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

2020-07-25 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 18:07 +0200, pangoSE wrote:
> Fine by me to attach them to whatever.
> I would not map them twice.
> 
> Anyway I never met or heard about anyone who wanted to navigate to a
> signpost. Usually people navigate to attractions like a lake or a
> firepit or a viewpoint or simple follow a route and walk past the
> guideposts.
> 
Sometimes navigating to them is an important part of following a route,
they are often used in open spaces to indicate where the route changes
direction.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-23 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 22/07/2020 19.05, bkil wrote:
> > But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
> > foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
> > auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of
> > tags would
> > create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferred
> > tagging
> > practice in OSM.
> > 
> > I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you
> > dismount,
> > however if a certain combination of other tags are also present
> > (foot=no),
> > a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing
> > than
> > necessary (bicycle=no).
> 
> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you
> are 
> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...).
> Do 
> you know of any examples?
> 

I cannot think of many roads where you can walk but not cycle, other
than pedestrianised streets in town centres but you can walk on lots of
footpaths where you can push a bicycle. Some are too long and totally
unsuitable.


A few of examples from my local big town
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW9qSNB-1JlkQAC3SH_gZQ
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318709194

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC

2020-07-23 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 14:06 +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already
>   be covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use)
> shop=*
>   value?
> 
> 
> 
It is also a confusing term to have chosen as prior to reading your
page I had a Customer Services desk in my mind. Typically this is where
you go to exchange purchases, get refunds.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-22 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:32 +0200, bkil wrote:
> I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only
> want to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and
> pushing the bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and
> allowing people to push bikes around would risk them hopping on the
> bike when nobody is looking.
> 
> What does this sign mean exactly, does this only disallow pushing a
> bike or am I also discouraged from carrying one in, like a foldable
> bike? A foldable bike can be carried onto city buses as luggage
> around here without an extra fee. How could such a sign limit the
> type of luggage I can carry onto the premises?
> 
> Also, I'd invent something like this:dog=carried

I know this is a very old joke, but
The first time I went on the London Underground, I saw a sign saying
'dogs must be carried'. I then spent half an hour looking for a dog.

More seriously that tag does make sense. The sign is used on escalators
on the London Underground so imagine it applies on escalators
elsewhere.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-07-02 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 18:17 +, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote:
> 在 2020年7月2日 星期四 上午7:18 [GMT+8], Paul Allen< pla16...@gmail.com> 寫道:
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 23:59, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2. Jul 2020, at 00:44, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I cannot deny the possibility, but I have never seen a takeaway
> > > > kebab shop with seats for queuing customers. 
> > > 
> > > typical configuration in such places around here is a board
> > > (“table”)
> > > attached to the wall and bar stools. You can use it while waiting
> > > but
> > > also to eat if you want. 
> > 
> > example pic with limited outdoor and indoor seating, typical
> > situation:
> > 
> > I've never seen anything like that with a takeaway.  Cafes, yes. 
> > Seats
> > outside used when it's sunny, seats inside used when it's raining. 
> > Not
> > any takeway that I recall.
> 
> It's interesting to find the difference of the food shops between
> different nations, I'm surprised that seats for the takeaway queue is
> not common in your place. Let me introduce the Taiwanese fried
> chicken shop.
> 
I would have said that somewhere to sit in take-aways for waiting
customers is the norm, it may be a simple bench or in my local fish and
chip shop there is a window sill that people sit on. Places where you
have to stand are in the minority.

Chinese takeaways usually have seats to wait at and they don't mind if
you eat there providing you clear up.

Often a kebab shop will have a table you can sit and eat at and you are
expected to clear up when you leave.

The key thing is that takeaways will not have customer toilets which
are required by law in cafes, pubs and resturaunts. 

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 13:35 +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:02, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
> > 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 aMcDonalds sit-down area with the term "restaurant." 
> > Candle-lit quarterpounders for two?  Would sir like wine with that?
> > 
> > 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).  
> Come to think of it there isn't one in Aberystwyth even?

Answering my own post, there is one in Aber. Just couldnt picture it.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 14:45 +0200, bkil wrote:
> Yes, pretty much sounds like a cukrászda to me. ;-)
> 
> Especially if they prepare their own desserts and if they take custom
> orders (why shouldn't they if they already have a pastry cook?).
> 
> Do they have waited tables? Do they serve alcohol? It would be great
> if you could share a link to their website or some photos so we could
> see for ourselves.

I will see what I can find out, websites are not particularly helpful
at the moment as they are currently takeaway/delivery only.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:02, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
> 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
> aMcDonalds sit-down area with the term "restaurant."  Candle-lit
> quarterpounders for two?  Would sir like wine with that?
> 
> 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).  
Come to think of it there isn't one in Aberystwyth even?

> 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.

McDonalds is definitely fast food, it certainly doesn't fit either the
UK or continental definition of a cafe.

Whilst it has tables it is definitely a take away where you can choose
to sit down or walk out with your food, fast food with seating=yes is a
better definition. 

In Welsh McDonalds this is slightly different as you are charged for
paper bags so do have to specify when ordering, or take your own bag.
At Chirk drivethrough it is amusing to see Big Macs being passed to the
driver one at a time .

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-30 Thread Philip Barnes
On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:36 +0200, Gábor Fekete wrote:
> In Hungary in every restaurant before you pay the bill, the waiter
> asks if you want some dessert. She asks you, even if they only have
> pancakes as dessert. So one could tag every "amenity=restaurant" with
> "cuisine=*;dessert". But the restaurants do not want you to sit in
> only for a pancake, they want you to eat a whole course (food).
> 

Cuisine=dessert is perfectly valid, my local big town has
two restaurants which only sell desserts.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


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

2020-06-27 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 19:54 +0100, Cj Malone wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 17:15 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 17:03, 德泉 談 via Tagging
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > In previous discussion we haven’t clarify that “cafe” is a place
> > > serving coffee drinks
> > > or
> > >  a place providing seat for the consumer to have
> > > something like coffee or donut.
> > > 
> > 
> > In British English, that is exactly the meaning of cafe
> 
> Which one? That sentence has an "or" in it.

I would have said both and going back 30 years I would have said a cafe
was more about tea than coffee. At that time coffee 'out' was awful and
usually instant, it still happens.

I would certainly expect indoor seating in a cafe and food, most
notably in the UK/IE breakfast.

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 - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-27 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 09:48 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 6/27/20 09:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > I would be ok with fast food for bubble tea, although typically you
> > say “food and drinks”, i.e. calling a place where you can get only
> > things to drink and nothing to eat might seem a bit strange?
> > 
> > The fast food term has also some connotations about being not
> > healthy, synonymous to “junk food” (devouring hastily food with a
> > unhealthy relation of nutritional components). It’s probably
> > acceptable for bubble tea, but we shouldn’t see it as a general
> > category for takeaways, shall we?
> 
> I have been tagging Starbucks as amenity=cafe; I don't see what's
> wrong
> with tagging these the same way.

Starbucks in my experience has seating, I am unaware of any which are
takeaway only.

Phil (trigpoint)



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


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

2020-06-27 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 16:33 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 27. Jun 2020, at 16:03, Philip Barnes 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > I would call that a takeaway in everyday language which we map as
> > fast food in OSM.
> 
> I would be ok with fast food for bubble tea, although typically you
> say “food and drinks”, i.e. calling a place where you can get only
> things to drink and nothing to eat might seem a bit strange?
> 
> The fast food term has also some connotations about being not
> healthy, synonymous to “junk food” (devouring hastily food with a
> unhealthy relation of nutritional components). It’s probably
> acceptable for bubble tea, but we shouldn’t see it as a general
> category for takeaways, shall we?
> 
Very true. 

If you say 'fast food' most people would think of American imports such
as McDonalds and KFC, not the local fish and chip shop or Chinese (take
away).

Phil (trigpoint)


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


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

2020-06-27 Thread Philip Barnes
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 19:53 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> FWIW, I also believe these are very different from shop=beverages, as
> they are selling drinks ready to consume, while shop=beverages is a
> kind of shop that sells beverages to take home (while nothing
> prevents you from buying a single drink and consume it as soon as you
> leave the shop, this is not what typically is done and not how they
> are set up. 
> 
> Just compare these two images to get an understanding what they might
> look like and what kind of "style" it is:
> https://curiocity.com/toronto/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/screen-shot-2019-01-22-at-10.32.55-am.png
> https://www.getraenkefachhandel-meyer.de/file/8ae67d834b563d71014b6df0d7233baf.de.0/content-ueber-uns-anfahrt-getraenkemarkt-waldstetten-alkoholfrei.jpg?derivate=usage%3Dposter%2Cwidth~805
> 
> It is also about quantity. You will usually buy large quantities in a
> beverage shop like a weeks ration, while the bubble tea shop is more
> like a coffee to go or an ice cream parlour.
> 
I would call that a takeaway in everyday language which we map as fast
food in OSM.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 19:25 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> > 
> > > prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the
> > world
> > 
> > > where they actually are still in use (if they are).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I think if any I would use disused=yes as they still remain
> > „operational“ I guess, although not actually used.
> 
> True of brick/concrete/stone.  For wooden ones that are decaying,
> abandoned=yes
> may be more appropriate.  I've not had chance to take a look myself
> yet (and
> won't be able to look until there's a vaccine) but sources I cannot
> use for
> mapping indicate that the one nearest to me, embedded in a bank, has
> had
> the bank reshaped to cover the top of it (only the side is visible). 
> Using
> abandoned=yes in such cases would seem appropriate.
> 
> > The disused:key=value style seems more appropriate for functions
> > (amenity etc.) than for physical descriptions (man_made).
> 
> That is how I interpret it, but others on this list have a different
> opinion.  However,
> I'd go with was:man_made=milk_churn_stand if it had been repurposed
> in some way that it merited a different main tag.  A foolish
> consistency
> is the hobgoblin of little minds, according to Ralph Waldo Emerson.
> 
> That leaves the question of the name.  For older British English
> speakers the
> containers are called milk churns, even though they are not for
> churning
> milk.  This may cause confusion to younger speakers of British
> English
> and those for whom English is a second language.  According to the
> Wikipedia article these are sometimes referred to as milk cans so
> maybe milk_can_stand would be better than milk_churn_stand.
> 
I can remember milk churns on these stands waiting for collection being
a common sight when I was growing up.
These days milk churns are a common period prop on preserved railway
stations.For example here at Arley 
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4458834
When children see these and ask what they are they will be told that
they are milk churns rather milk cans.
Phil (trigpoint)




> -- 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> ___Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@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"

2020-06-20 Thread Philip Barnes
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

and sometimes British and American English borrow from different
languages
Courgette - Zuccini which is one I know

Aubergine 

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


Re: [Tagging] Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email

2020-05-19 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 09:43 +0200, European Water Project wrote:
> Dear All,
> I am looking for a way to create permanent links  to specific objects
> (fountains and cafés) with images within our application ... and I
> have a couple of questions. 
> 
> How quickly do OSM node and ways numbers mutate ?  What percentage
> should I expect to change each year.  If the percentage of
> ids mutates slowly enough .. maybe this is still the best bad short
> term option ? 
> 
> I was pointed to this wiki : 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permanent_ID  
> 
> On the discussion page, it is mentioned that a solution is being
> targeted for end 2020 . Will there be a tool to translate actual osm
> node and ways numbers to the new permalink ids. 
> 
> Apparently Mangrove uses GEO URI to create perma links towards
> objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI_scheme. How do they
> deal with node repositioning ?  I could create a link name with first
> 5 latitude num followed by first 5 longitude num... but as soon as
> someone moves the node I would get a broken link... 

I think that will depend very heavily on what the object is. Something
like a drinking fountain that is mapped as a single node and is too
small to be improved into a way will be quite stable as there is no
reason to improve it.

Other nodes may change, shops/pubs/restaurants mapped as nodes can
obviously be improved and the tags transferred to a building object.

Although relying on a node id is not the best way, something based on
maybe overpass that finds the tags seems a far more stable way to me.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-05-14 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-05-14 at 12:15 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 11:21, Colin Smale 
> wrote:
> 
> [Sub-divisions of health boards in Wales]
>  
> > I am sure someone knows where the boundaries are.
> 
> Yes,  But that doesn't mean they're making the information public.  I
> had a
> brief look around Hywel Dda's site and couldn't find even a statement
> that
> they covered the three counties of Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and
> Pembrokeshire.  The only place I found a list of the sub-divisions
> was
> on Wikipedia, but I couldn't see any pointer to the original source
> of
> those lists.
> 
>  
> >  Why should the fact that health in Wales is a devolved
> > responsibility make it any more difficult?
> 
> It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be
> made as to
> whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole as admin level 1 or NHS
> Wales
> as admin level 1.  Or some other hierarchical arrangement.  Or not
> bother
> mapping it.

And the main hospital for parts of Wales is sometimes in England,
operated by NHS England.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-05-12 Thread Philip Barnes


On 11/05/2020 10:29, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 5/10/20 7:36 PM, Cj Malone wrote:

I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and
phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the
definitions that really matter.

Why should we split these out?

In fact, I'm not sure how useful it is for us to tag phone numbers on
phoneboxes at all. Does anyone actually use this data for something 
useful?


This is OSM, people can map anything that is verifiable.

I do map phone numbers of phoneboxes and can see various uses for this 
data.


The number of the phonebox in the village where my grandmother lived is 
still ingrained on my memory, we used to phone her at the phonebox at 
the same time every Sunday, being able to find out the number to call 
someone without visiting first is useful.


Taxi firms could find this useful to locate a customer who is unsure of 
their location.


I used to let my parents know I was ready to be picked up by letting the 
phone at home ring twice, I had to be at a specific place for that to 
work. But being able to look up the location of the phonebox would have 
meant I could be at any phonebox.


I am sure others will see other applications.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


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

2020-05-06 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 14:03 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 6. May 2020, at 13:14, lukas-...@web.de wrote:
> > 
> > In the wiki I found bell_tower=* (but without a carillon-specific
> > value) and I think a carillon does not have to be a bell_tower at
> > all, so these are two different things.
> 
> I am aware of this instance:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37410673
> 
Also Loughborough Carillon https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156539835

To which I have added a few missing tags and bell_tower=carillon, it
doesn't seem far off the mark considering other uses in 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bell_tower#values

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-05-04 Thread Philip Barnes


On Monday, 4 May 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 21:59, Marc M.  wrote:
> 
> >
> > - avoid having 2 tags for the same thing.
> > it's bad for both contributors and data-uses.
> >
> 
> Except we don't all agree that they are for the same thing, not even phone
> and contact:phone  That's one of the reasons this argument goes around and
> around.

Exactly, we add phone to phoneboxes, but its not the number to call to contact 
someone about the phonebox.

Phil (trigpoint)

> The other is that those who agree they are the same thing cannot agree on
> which
> of the two to use.
> 
> >
> > - using namespace for contact: (like we do with addr:) it's useful for
> > the use of the data (you can group them without having to hard-code
> > all the possible variants that may exist in the world).
> >
> 
> But not all of them are necessarily contacts.  I've added URLs for
> historic buildings that give more information about the building.  There is
> nobody to talk to about it.  I've added websites for companies; there is
> a contact page on that website but the URL I've given is for the company
> website as a whole.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag way with two traffic signs affecting different directions?

2020-05-02 Thread Philip Barnes
Hi AntónioNormally I would add direction:forward or direction:backward
to a stop or give_way to indicate which direction it applies in.
Where speed limits are different you can use maxspeed:backward and
maxspeed:forward.
Phil (trigpoint)

On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 15:16 -0300, António Madeira wrote:
> Hi there.
> 
> Following this topic, I would like to extend the discussion to
> the
> mail list, because I think this is an important issue that should
> have a broad solution.
> 
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=69011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several months ago, I stumbled upon a problem which I found no
> solution to. At the time, I searched for help in the Telegram
> channel and someone gave me a solution that I've been using since
> then.
> 
> Meanwhile, another mapper contacted me in private and told me
> about
> another kind of solution to this problem.
> 
> I would like to know if these are both valid and/or which one is
> more useful for routing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm showing here illustrations of the problem and the two
> solutions
> given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem #1:
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/8MiiKFH.png
> 
> 
> 
> The selected way has a STOP at the end for those who turn left
> and a
> give way sign for those who turn right.
> 
> The "problem" is: how to map those two signs correctly and make
> them
> useful for routing software?
> 
> 
> 
> Problem #2:
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/cLFRtLG.png
> 
> 
> 
> There are no painted islands and no physical divisions. The
> middle
> lane as a STOP sign to turn left.
> 
> If you have
> 
>   lanes=3;
> 
>   lanes:forward=1;
> 
>   lanes:backward=2;
> 
>   turn:lanes:backward=left|through 
> 
> how do you indicate that there's a STOP on one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solution #1:
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/HDmvZiB.png
> 
> 
> 
> Use both traffic signs on the way and create one enforcement
> relation for each of them. A "from" enforcement on the STOP and a
> "to" on the left segment of "Rua Paulo VI" and a "from"
> enforcement
> on the give way and a "to" on the right segment of "Rua Paulo
> VI".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solution #2:
> 
> Just use the following tags:
> 
> highway=secondary
> 
> lanes=2
> 
> oneway=yes
> 
> name=Rua da Quinta
> 
> ref=EN 350
> 
> surface=asphalt
> 
> traffic_sign:lanes=stop|give_way
> 
> turn:lanes:forward=left|right
> 
> 
> 
> I never used traffic_sign:lanes tag, but it seems legit, although
> Taginfo only shows 20 uses for this:
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=traffic_sign%3Alanes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any considerations would be much appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards.
> 
>   
> 
> ___Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-05-01 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 13:52 -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:28 PM ael  wrote:
> 
> > I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything
> > but a track:
> > if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to
> > negotiate.
> > I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard
> > vehicle is
> > possible. In general that implies at least some sort of paving. I
> > would
> > not be happy if someone changed a UK track into something else
> > unless
> > they have established that it had a proper surface.
> These are all navigable with a regular vehicle. They go to people's
> year round residences.

I agree with AEL, people who live in there tend to take that into
account when they buy vehicles and tend to own 4x4s.

Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] Implied default access tags for barrier=stile?

2020-04-26 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sunday, 26 April 2020, s8evq wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Are any default access tags implied with barrier=stile?
> Similar to barrier=bollard 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard mentions 
> "By default access=no, foot=yes, and bicycle=yes is implied")
> 
> If it's on highway=footway, is foot=yes still needed on the barrier?
> 
> What if the barrier is on a highway=footway + bicycle=yes? Should the barrier 
> itself have foot=yes, bicycle=no or bicycle=dismount ?
> 
A stile should not exist on a way on which it is legal to ride a bike, unless 
as often happens on bridleways there is a stile beside a gate to save walkers 
having to open and close the gate.

It would certainly make me question the validity of the bicycle=yes.

More seriously, stiles are also a problem for many walkers with health issues, 
for this reason many on routes close to settlements are being replaced with 
kissing gates.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-03-15 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2020-03-15 at 12:42 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> On 3/15/2020 6:18 AM, Markus Peloso
>   wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
> >  
> > A small facility where people drop off and
> >   pick up various types of items in the sense of free
> > sharing.
> >  
> > Hi
> > After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining
> >   is the same as no vote" and the change of the Proposal
> > process
> >   page I reopen the voting, maybe someone wants to change
> > their
> >   vote or add a comment.
> >  
> > In the meantime we have got some new
> >   inputs:
> >  
> > Summary
> > - We hade discuss about give box, hiker
> >   box, public refrigerator, free pantry and food sharing
> > and how
> >   this things could be documented in OpenStreetMap.
> >   
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/food_sharing#Arguments_and_comments_from_the_Tagging_.5BPublic_refrigerators.5D_E-Mails
> > - New Proposed feature "food sharing" 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/food_sharing 
> > - New Proposed feature "donation of goods"
> >   
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods
> > 
> > - Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new
> >   amenity=give_box tag
> >   https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA 
> >  
> >   
> > 
> 
> Thanks for your patience and perseverance, Markus!
> It's clear that give boxes will be approved as a feature. The
>   only remaining questions I see are:
> 1. What's the best tag for them? (Some people don't like
>   "give_box" -- maybe an opportunity to experiment with
>   ranked-choice voting?) 
> 
> 
> 2. What related amenities are distinct enough that they deserve
>   their own separate tags?
> 
>- Public bookcase, obviously. 
> 
>- Separating the food sharing amenities seems like a good
> idea.
>   I'd be in favor of a single tag to which refrigerated=yes could
> be
>   added to indicate a public refrigerator.
> 
>- I like the idea of a separate tag for hiker boxes, because
> (as
>   I mentioned in the public refrigerator thread) it's very common
> to
>   have them as part of another map feature like post office,
> shop,
>   hotel, or campsite, so simply being able to add hiker_box=yes
>   would be great. 
> 
>- I've never heard the term "blessing box" before but it seems
>   like they'd best be classified as either food sharing or give
> box,
>   depending on the inventory.
> 
Blessing box sounds like some something religious to me, so not a good
term for this proposal.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

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

The big music festival in the UK is Glastonbury. The festival is not mapped as 
most of the time it is a farm.

However Worthy Farm is mapped in some detail and can be found in OSM quite 
easily.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Philip Barnes
I have commented on a recent edit near me asking both questions and pointing 
out the url they should use.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25.02.20 11:01, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either made 
> > by a single user, or the account is being shared between multiple users.
> 
> Has someone contacted them about the issue already? If they're a single
> person we could request that they remove the tracking information,
> rather than us having to deal with it.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25.02.20 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> > Ignoring they've just added an incorrect "website:" key when there is
> > already a "website" one, Hilton Hotels appear to be adding URLs with
> > WT.mc_id parameters to all their web site links.
> 
> The presence of such tracking parameters is an indication of the author
> considering OSM to be a "campaign" in some marketing scenario where the
> success of different "campaigns" is measured.
> 
> Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these situations
> remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking parameters.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either made by a 
single user, or the account is being shared between multiple users.

Should edits not be attributable to an individual?

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-19 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 19 February 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> OK, so "in-kind" is usually referring to a type of payment, in good or
> services, rather than a type of donation.
> 
> I'm sure the charity shops have to account the value of donated
> second-hand clothes as "in-kind" donation income for tax purposes, but
> that's not how an oridinary British person would talk about donating
> some used books or toys, right?

In kind is not the phrase we would use, we would call it a donation.

Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/19/20, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> > Hi Joseph
> > In British English the phrase has the same meaning as you describe.
> >
> > The most common usage is in taxation terms when an employee receives a
> > benefit that is not money. Examples can be a cars, housing.
> >
> > My reaction to this proposal was the same as yours, they are describing a
> > charity shop.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> >
> > On Tuesday, 18 February 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >> While "in-kind donation" is an English phrase, it is not commonly used
> >> and it also includes donations of services, rather than just goods.
> >>
> >> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind "in kind refers to goods,
> >> services, and transactions not involving money or not measured in
> >> monetary terms."
> >>
> >> "In Kind: consisting of something (such as goods or commodities) other
> >> than money" (Merriam-Webster) - also says "first known usage 1973".
> >>
> >> "In Kind: (of payment) given in the form of goods or services and not
> >> money" or "If you do something in kind, you do the same thing to
> >> someone that they have just done to you." (Cambridge)
> >>
> >> This might be difficult for mappers to understand, unless this phrase
> >> is more common in British English than it appears (I'm an American
> >> English speaker).
> >>
> >> I believe this proposal is focused on donations of things: physical
> >> objects which have some value, also known as "goods," "items",
> >> "stuff", "things", like those that you can commonly give away at a
> >> second_hand shop or charity shop.
> >>
> >> If that is the case, a better tag might be something like
> >> "goods_donation=", "second_hand_donation=",
> >> "donation=second_hand_goods" or something with one of those other
> >> common words for objects.
> >>
> >> But perhaps the key should include the type of things, since mostly
> >> people will say "donate used clothes", "donate used books" or "donate
> >> used furniture" rather than talking about all possible objects:
> >> internet searches for those specific phrases find more results.
> >>
> >> - Joseph Eisenberg
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my Sailfish device
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-19 Thread Philip Barnes
Hi Joseph
In British English the phrase has the same meaning as you describe.

The most common usage is in taxation terms when an employee receives a benefit 
that is not money. Examples can be a cars, housing.

My reaction to this proposal was the same as yours, they are describing a 
charity shop.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 18 February 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> While "in-kind donation" is an English phrase, it is not commonly used
> and it also includes donations of services, rather than just goods.
> 
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind "in kind refers to goods,
> services, and transactions not involving money or not measured in
> monetary terms."
> 
> "In Kind: consisting of something (such as goods or commodities) other
> than money" (Merriam-Webster) - also says "first known usage 1973".
> 
> "In Kind: (of payment) given in the form of goods or services and not
> money" or "If you do something in kind, you do the same thing to
> someone that they have just done to you." (Cambridge)
> 
> This might be difficult for mappers to understand, unless this phrase
> is more common in British English than it appears (I'm an American
> English speaker).
> 
> I believe this proposal is focused on donations of things: physical
> objects which have some value, also known as "goods," "items",
> "stuff", "things", like those that you can commonly give away at a
> second_hand shop or charity shop.
> 
> If that is the case, a better tag might be something like
> "goods_donation=", "second_hand_donation=",
> "donation=second_hand_goods" or something with one of those other
> common words for objects.
> 
> But perhaps the key should include the type of things, since mostly
> people will say "donate used clothes", "donate used books" or "donate
> used furniture" rather than talking about all possible objects:
> internet searches for those specific phrases find more results.
> 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-17 Thread Philip Barnes
Often used to make residential streets into deadends to prevent rat-running, to 
enforce vehicle bans, to prevent delivery vehicles parking on the sidewalk 
instead of the delivery bay.

In most cases bollards are fixed, there is usually only one or two removable 
bollards to create a gap wide enough to allow access for maintenance vehicles.

Phil (trigpoint)

 

On Monday, 17 February 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am So., 16. Feb. 2020 um 22:52 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > Umm...
> >
> > Bollards are there to protect people.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> they might be there to protect people, but not in all instances, their
> purpose is to either physically prevent or at least signal to vehicles
> wider than x to pass, while they allow people and narrow vehicles to pass.
> They could also be set up to protect buildings, parks / lawn strips, to
> prevent vehicles from making u-turns, etc.
> 
> Cheers
> Martin
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-16 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 13:21 +, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 15/02/2020 16:56, Markus Peloso
>   wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/in-kind_donation
> >  
> > For
> > a place that takes in-kind donations.
> >  
> > Hi
> >  
> > I describe a tag for shop and amenity that
> >   takes in-kind donations. I'm interested in your opinions.
> >   
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> My immediate reaction is that this sounds like a very similar
> concept to 'give box', which was the subject of a recent RFC. Do
> we
> need two ways of tagging such similar things?

As a native speaker, it sounds a lot like a charity shop to me.

Phil (trigpoint)



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


Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-12 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 12 February 2020, ael wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:15:42PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > 
> > >> > 
> > >> In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags 
> > >> such as asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.
> > >>
> > >
> > > +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
> > > unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
> > > quite irritating.
> > >
> > Have you tried commenting on their changesets?
> 
> Well, in the examples I have seen, they are not actually wrong. Just
> unnecessary in the UK when asphalt is the default. I know some here
> always want explicit tags, and that is fine in local conditions where
> defaults are problematic.

Asphalt is certainly not an unnecessary tag in the UK. 

Whilst its safe to assume all roads are paved unless tagged otherwise. A small 
number of lesser roads may not be paved.

The same assumptions cannot be made about asphalt, a significant part of the 
motorway and trunk expressway network are concrete, which is  evil noisy stuff 
and suffers from poor drainage. 

In my experience  some cars suffer handling issues on high speed concrete roads.

And of course very many residential roads are also concrete, although lower 
speeds mean noise and handling are not an issue.

Phil (trigpoint) 
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-12 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> OK, you confirm that the "paved is implied" statement in the wiki page is
> to be read as "assuming we are in Germany ... paved is implied" and is not
> referring to some wiki page that I have not yet detected (that was my
> question).
> I have no problem with the statement that most residential roads in Germany
> are paved, and hence a router can assume that any unpaved residential roads
> in Germany have a corresponding tag.
> 
In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags such as 
asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.

Phil (trigpoint) 

 
> 
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 17:14, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > > Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different street
> > > categories ? per country?
> > >
> > > I noticed this phrase
> > > "in many cases this is implied by the way itself (for highway=trunk to
> > > highway=residential, paved is implied) "
> > > on the page
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas:
> > > in the table entry "Surface".
> > >
> > > I thought there was no such agreement.
> > > (I hope to be wrong)
> > >
> > It is a safe bet in Western Europe, but I am not sure about the rest of
> > the world.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> > --
> > Sent from my Sailfish device
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-11 Thread Philip Barnes


On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different street
> categories ? per country?
> 
> I noticed this phrase
> "in many cases this is implied by the way itself (for highway=trunk to
> highway=residential, paved is implied) "
> on the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas:
> in the table entry "Surface".
> 
> I thought there was no such agreement.
> (I hope to be wrong)
> 
It is a safe bet in Western Europe, but I am not sure about the rest of the 
world.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2020-02-05 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wednesday, 5 February 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 16:11, Paul Allen  ha 
> > scritto:
> > 
> > 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render
> > as before,
> 
> 
> +1, any object with area=yes should be considered an area.
> 
> 
> > a hedge that has area.  This would exclude the cases like 
> > leisure=park + barrier=hedge which is a non-preferred way of
> > mapping a park with a hedge around it. 
> 
> 
> IMHO, area objects (like leisure=park) with barrier=hedge should display as 
> area hedges to demonstrate the problematic tagging ambiguity.
> 
> Cheers Martin 
+100

Phil (trigpoint)

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

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-04 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Universities may have faculties, that often deserved to be mapped separately.
> 
> For example university may take a large area, possibly disjointed area across 
> the city
> but Faculty of dentistry, Faculty of forestry, Faculty of mathematics etc may 
> be
> possible to be mapped as an area/node.
> 
> Currently typical way to do that is to either
> - map name on building
> - create fake amenity=university with amenity=university
> 
> It seems to me that amenity=faculty would be useful.
>
Or university=faculty and keep the amenity tag for the overall university, on 
the relation if it multi-site.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

2020-01-27 Thread Philip Barnes


On Monday, 27 January 2020, Thibault Molleman wrote:
> " A restaurant where the server fills up your bottle based on his or her
> humor should not be tagged as part of the refill scheme. "
> Maybe add a line to clarify that the sign requirement is specifically
> regarding schemes. A place doesn't need a sign just to have the
> "drinking_water:refill=yes" tag.
> (just so it's more clear on the page)

It needs a sign to indicate, so that it is verifiable. Schemes provide a sign, 
or a business can make its own 

Its not something that can be mapped by asking. They may say yes to you but no 
to someone else, or a different member of staff may not be so helpful.

Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:50, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Thank you for your suggestion.
> >
> > I have added links in a separate section and made the criteria in the
> > proposal section stand out more clearly.
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:34, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project <
> >> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Andy suggests :
> >>>
> >>> "drinking_water:refill=yes" and
> >>> "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]"
> >>>
> >>> As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or
> >>> "yes", this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one
> >>> being currently voted on-
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's better because it allows mapping places offering free refills that
> >> aren't part of
> >> a scheme (as long as the place has a sign stating it offers free refills).
> >>
> >> If you're rejigging the proposal anyway, how about providing links to the
> >> schemes
> >> you mention and also criteria for mapping (the main one being that there
> >> is a sign)?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively

2020-01-25 Thread Philip Barnes


On Saturday, 25 January 2020, Thibault Molleman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch
> their naming scheme for fuels at gas stations to the new E5/E10/B7 scheme
> (referring to the amount of bio-ethanol in the fuel.
> 
> Sources:
> http://www.flanderstoday.eu/petrol-98-and-95-labels-change-next-week
> https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/new-eu-fuel-labelling-clearer-information-for-consumers-and-operators_en
> 
> But I noticed on the wiki that nothing is mentioned about that.
> And looking at the taginfo for europe (I know it's not all of the EU, but
> only the Union countries. But it's a good approximation) it seems like the
> old tags are still used most often:
> 55 475 | fuel:diesel
> 47 010 | fuel:octane_95
> 29 636 | fuel:octane_98
> 12 232 | fuel:e10
> 40 | fuel:e5
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/search?q=fuel#keys
> 
> And B7 (diesel) isn't mentioned on the wiki and doesn't seem to be used
> either.
> 
> So I guess the questions are:
> - Should the wiki be changed to make it clear that in European Union
> countries octane 95/98 shouldn't be used and E10/E5 should be used instead?
> - Because there is only one type of Diesel, should that tag just stay
> Diesel or be replaced with B7 for consistency? (I think it makes more sense
> to keep it diesel since it does not matter and makes things more confusing
> potentially)
> 
> Would love to hear your feedback
> Cheers,

Whilst a section in the wiki and an adding an additional tag may be appropriate 
it is not a replacement for the octane as different octane ratings have the 
same E rating so would loose information.

In the UK I have noticed that pumps, now have the E number in addition to the 
octain  rating.

I had a choice of 95 octane with E5 and octane 99 which was also E5, the later 
being Shell V-Power.

So as demonstrated by one survey they are not the same thing. Changing to 
tagging E rating would loose important information.

As the owner of a classic car I have been watching the rise of ethanol, it is 
quite damaging to metak fuel tanks and fuel pipes so finding the lowest E 
number is important.

Phil (trigpoint) 

 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively

2020-01-25 Thread Philip Barnes


On Saturday, 25 January 2020, Thibault Molleman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch
> their naming scheme for fuels at gas stations to the new E5/E10/B7 scheme
> (referring to the amount of bio-ethanol in the fuel.
> 
> Sources:
> http://www.flanderstoday.eu/petrol-98-and-95-labels-change-next-week
> https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/new-eu-fuel-labelling-clearer-information-for-consumers-and-operators_en
> 
> But I noticed on the wiki that nothing is mentioned about that.
> And looking at the taginfo for europe (I know it's not all of the EU, but
> only the Union countries. But it's a good approximation) it seems like the
> old tags are still used most often:
> 55 475 | fuel:diesel
> 47 010 | fuel:octane_95
> 29 636 | fuel:octane_98
> 12 232 | fuel:e10
> 40 | fuel:e5
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/search?q=fuel#keys
> 
> And B7 (diesel) isn't mentioned on the wiki and doesn't seem to be used
> either.
> 
> So I guess the questions are:
> - Should the wiki be changed to make it clear that in European Union
> countries octane 95/98 shouldn't be used and E10/E5 should be used instead?
> - Because there is only one type of Diesel, should that tag just stay
> Diesel or be replaced with B7 for consistency? (I think it makes more sense
> to keep it diesel since it does not matter and makes things more confusing
> potentially)
> 
> Would love to hear your feedback

Whilst information on ethanol could be added to the wiki and as an additional 
tag removing the octane value would be entrirely wrong.

I have been noticing that filling stations in the UK do now display the E 
rating alongside the octane, but it can never be a replacement as, for example, 
the last time I filled up I had a choice of 95 Octane at E5 and 99 Octane at E5.

So whilst Ethanol tagging is important, as a classic car owner it is worrying 
and  seeking the

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

2020-01-22 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 22 January 2020, European Water Project wrote:
> Hi Paul et. al,
> 
> I would also be very supportive of this straightforward approach which
> would address many of the concerns regarding an over complicated tagging
> scheme covering cases that are often mandated by local legislation.
> 
> One clean solution could be the following or something similar.
> 
> drinking_water:refill_scheme=
>
 
Thank you.

Paul's response did clear up my reservations on the idea.

The webpage makes it clear there is a sticker that is verifiable without going 
in a asking. Not sure if that was mentioned before or if I had simply missed it.

This meets the gold osm standard of Verifable.

Now I know there is something to look out for I can start looking when I'm out.

Its a shame the website doesn't have location, I do not use Google play, but I 
guess thats why you want to put them into OSM.

As its a UK scheme, discussion on the talk-gb list would be more focussed and 
you will reach more mappers who are able to survey and contribute.

Cheers
Phil  (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

2020-01-22 Thread Philip Barnes
I would tend to agree with Frederik.

In GB (1) all licensed premises (2) must offer free tap water to customers. 
This covers all  pubs and bars, most restaurants and some cafe. The mappers 
time would be far more efficiently spent adding a tag to indicate which 
restaurants and cafes are licensed. This can be verified from outside, which is 
simple.

Retail mapping, and keeping it current, is hard enough. You cannot practically 
gather this information by walking into cafes and asking, that would not be 
efficient and if you rely on places you have been a customer you.will end up 
with very incomplete data.

Phil (trigpoint)

1. Wales, Scotland and England. Northern Irish law is different on this. 

2. Licensed to sell alcohol. 


On Wednesday, 22 January 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 17.01.20 07:37, European Water Project wrote:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Free_Water
> 
> My opinion on this is:
> 
> 1. It is not something that should be mapped in OSM at all; this is a
> volatile property like mapping menu items for a restaurant or product
> offers for a supermarket and may change at any time.
> 
> 2. Even if we wanted to map this property, insofar as a whole chain has
> been signed up ("all XYZ outlets in ABC country offer free water"), it
> is wasteful to add the tag to every single outlet and it should just be
> recorded centrally (i.e. an app displaying free water options should
> simply highlight all outlets with operator=X or brand=X).
> 
> 3. When we're talking about non-chain restaurants, the decision whether
> a random traveller will be offered a free refill for their water bottle
> can very well depend on the day of week, how politely the traveller
> asks, or how busy the place is - just because you've been given free
> water doesn't mean you should claim everybody gets it every time.
> 
> 4. Even if all of the above were ignored, I think "free=yes" is too
> limited, and would concur with those who have suggested a "fee=no"
> approach, because if you are charged a dollar for your refill you can
> simply put "fee=$1".
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

2020-01-17 Thread Philip Barnes


On Friday, 17 January 2020, Hauke Stieler wrote:

> 
> A shop at an airport where travelers generally pay no taxes would be
> tagged with "duty_free=yes" and optionally with "duty_free:refund=no".
> 
Not totally accurate, in my experience.

At airport duty free shops you have to show your boarding pass so the staff can 
determine if you are eligible for duty free depending on your destination.
 
Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

2020-01-16 Thread Philip Barnes


On Thursday, 16 January 2020, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I would consider explicit mention that typical shop should not be tagged with
> duty_free=no (only in cases where shop used to be or can be expected to be 
> duty free,
> for example in an airport it potentially makes sense to use that tag)

And in an airport you usually have to show your boarding pass so that they can 
decide to charge you duty or not.

A right pain when you just want a sandwich to eat while you wait.

Phil (trigpoint)



> 
> 
> 16 Jan 2020, 21:28 by m...@hauke-stieler.de:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > just a reminder, that the proposal "tax_free_shopping" [0] is still in
> > the state "proposed". However, I'd like to start voting soon, so please
> > take a look at the proposal and let me know if something needs to be
> > changed.
> >
> > Hauke
> >
> > [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tax_free_shopping
> >
> > On 04.01.20 19:47, Hauke Stieler wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> you may noticed the discussion "Tag for 'tax free shopping'" on this
> >> mailing list. This is the proposal for the new "duty_free" tag.
> >>
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tax_free_shopping
> >>
> >> Basically the new tag has three values:
> >>
> >> * yes:
> >> This shop does not collect taxes at all. This usually happens at
> >> airports in "duty-free stores".
> >>
> >> * refund:
> >> For shops outside an airport. Foreign travelers shopping in a shop with
> >> duty_free=refund can get an additional receipt which can be -- e.g.
> >> later at the airport -- exchanged so that the traveler gets the taxes back.
> >>
> >> * no:
> >> All customers of a shop with duty_free=no have to pay normal taxes.
> >>
> >> Feel free to comment :)
> >>
> >> Hauke
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-15 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 15 January 2020, marc marc wrote:
> Le 15.01.20 à 16:15, Jmapb via Tagging a écrit :
> > On 1/15/2020 12:55 AM, European Water Project wrote:
> >> Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain
> >> (whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and
> >> drinking_water = yes" )?
> > 
> > Don't forget about man_made=drinking_fountain!
> 
> omg, what's the diff with amenity=drinking_water ?
> the direction of water flow upwards?
> 348 out of 371 objects also have an amenity tag, which
> shows the problem.
> 
> it would indeed be a good idea not to forget it and to ask the user if
> it is a fountain in the osm sense (a bit artistic) or a water jet. and
> add the most current tag.
> 

Drinking fountains, water upwards can be drank from, whereas if the water is 
downwards from a tag a drinking vessel is needed.

Under UK law if the later is provided in the workplace then a supply of cups 
must be provided, the former doesn't.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] distance_from_road tag

2020-01-15 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 15 January 2020, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-01-15 13:52, Lionel Giard wrote:
> 
> > Yes this is something you can do with any distance algorithm in available 
> > in any GIS tool. That's not something that i would ever map as it would 
> > vary with any geometry change of the ways between the road the point you 
> > measure, added to the fact that it add nothing to explicitly map it (in my 
> > opinion at least). It is essentially what any routing app will calculate 
> > when you ask "find the nearest POI" for example.
> 
> Surely the question is not about straight-line geometric distance/time
> but about route distance along paths etc. in pedestrian mode. "Nearest"
> is not nearest in terms of geometric distance, but the POI with the
> shortest route.
It is, but surely in calculating that distance it is easier and better to 
simply map the paths?

Phil (trigpoint) 
> 
> > Le mer. 15 janv. 2020 à 12:45, Mateusz Konieczny  
> > a écrit : 
> > 
> >> I propose describing distance_from_road tag, defined as 
> >> "distance in meters from nearest road" as a misguided idea that should not 
> >> be used. 
> >> 
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:distance_from_road was recently 
> >> created by PangoSE and claims 
> >> "Useful for indicating the distance to nearest road accessible by a 
> >> normal car for people who cannot walk very long because of illness or 
> >> pregnancy but anyway want to get out in nature. " 
> >> 
> >> "I'm quite sure there is a clever GIS way of calculating this using a 
> >> routing engine, 
> >> unfortunately no tool or website has yet been created to easily visualize 
> >> this yet. 
> >> When this is available we could probably get rid of this tag or generate 
> >> its values by bot." 
> >> 
> >> I am 100% sure that such tags are not welcomed and especially bot idea is 
> >> really 
> >> poor, but I want to ask other for confirmation. 
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/taggin

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-14 Thread Philip Barnes


On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
> > guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no
> >
> 
> It's not meaningless at all.  It says that although the road is oneway to
> vehicular
> traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction.  This is not always the
> case:
> single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only walk
> in
> the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds.

Any real world/GB examples of this?

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,

2020-01-13 Thread Philip Barnes
In GB it is the law that licensed premises provide free drinking water.

So that , means all pubs, most restaurants and some cafes.

Phil (trigpoint)

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


Re: [Tagging] surface=block_paved, or surface=paved + paving=block

2020-01-08 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 07:15 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The picture shows clay bricks being laid as paving for a service
> road, in a herringbone pattern.
> 
> Perhaps this should be surface=brick/bricks? Both are used a few
> thousand times.
> 
That is definitely block paving, not bricks. Not 100% sure what the tag
is.
Phil (trigpoint)


> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 6:37 AM Mateusz Konieczny <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > Is following picture
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paving_being_laid_arp.jpg
> > depicting construction of surface=paving_stones?
> > 
> > Or is it incorrect to tag in this way and 
> > surface=block_paved, or surface=paved + paving=block
> > should be considered as preferable?
> > 
> > Posted to look for more feedback in
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:surface%3Dpaving_stones
> > discussion.
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> > Tagging mailing list
> > 
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > 
> 
> ___Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@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 - Tax free shopping

2020-01-04 Thread Philip Barnes


On Saturday, 4 January 2020, Hauke Stieler wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > I don't think it can be phrased that way. As for the VAT in the EU,
> > everybody who proves that the goods were exported is eligible for a tax
> > refund.
> 
> you're right, maybe saying that "this shop does not offer any service
> (prepared forms, memberships in organizations, etc.) for an
> tax-exemption" is better?
> 
Absence of such facilities surely applies to 99.% of shops. 

Nobody is going to want to start to tag the absence of such a service?

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vegan "cheese" shops

2019-12-18 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, marc marc wrote:
> Le 18.12.19 à 17:24, Philip Barnes a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, marc marc wrote:
> >> Le 18.12.19 à 16:58, Robert Skedgell a écrit :
> >>> I think creating shop=vegan_cheese might be excessively specialised.
> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6776593885
> >>
> >> ho yes, please don't create a new shop=* only to describe that
> >> the shop had a limited number of products.
> >> you may add vending=biscuits;vegan_cheese
> >>
> > 
> > Shouldn't vegan be in a diet tag?
> 
> indeed, but the product isn't a cheese, so fake_cheese ?
>
Calling something that is not made from milk cheese is I think illegal in the 
UK.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vegan "cheese" shops

2019-12-18 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, marc marc wrote:
> Le 18.12.19 à 16:58, Robert Skedgell a écrit :
> > I think creating shop=vegan_cheese might be excessively specialised.
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6776593885
> 
> ho yes, please don't create a new shop=* only to describe that
> the shop had a limited number of products.
> you may add vending=biscuits;vegan_cheese
> 

Shouldn't vegan be in a diet tag?

Not a shop but I have mapped a cheese vending machine, Cheshire Cheese country.

https://osm.org/node/5032616551

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

2019-12-07 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 14:46 +0100, Martin Scholtes wrote:
> Am 05.12.2019 um 12:41 schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging:
> 
> > Allows the tag the mapping of carpool meeting points?
> The proposal aims at marking parking places where one could meet to
> carpool or which explicitly provide for parking one's vehicle and
> forming a carpool.
> 
> An example would be a car park at a railway station, where you could
> meet and carpool, but the car park is not explicitly intended for
> this
> purpose, but for travelling by public transport.

In that case you could very easily be in breach of the terms of use of
that car park. Occasional use may go unnoticed but one a public
database encourages such use then action could happen.

This type of tagging should only apply to officially designated places.

I have local knowledge of changes to parking conditions resulting in
changes to the conditions of use aimed at preventing such usage.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sat, 2019-12-07 at 12:28 -0500, Jmapb wrote:
> On 12/7/2019 11:52 AM, s8evq wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 10:30:37 +1100, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > For nodes .. think the roles of ways should be done first, but
> > > some
> > > thoughts for later proposal/s.
> > > 
> > > Are they necessary?
> > > 
> > In my limited experience mapping hiking routes, I have not yet come
> > across any real use for nodes in hiking relations, but I'm curious
> > if other people have good uses.
> > As far as I know, there is also not much documented in the wiki on
> > the topic of nodes in hiking/cycling relations.
> 
> Possibly for checkpoints?
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:checkpoint
> 
Or for the waymarks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shropshire_Way#/media/File:Shropshire_Way_sign.jpg

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

2019-12-06 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thursday, 5 December 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:10, Martin Scholtes 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive
> > Definition: Information that can be taken on this parking lot to form a
> > carpool.
> >
> 
> I would prefer the key to park_and_drive.  It's longer, and more typing,
> but better English
> and less prone to confusion.  Particularly for those in the UK and New
> Zealand (and maybe
> elsewhere) who know of these:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=park+drive+cigarette

My first thought on seeing this, before reading, was a North American parkway 
where you drive through parkland.

Still not sure how this isn't carpooling.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

2019-11-19 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 18:04 +0100, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 19/11/2019 11:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > A search of "static caravans" and "for sale" finds many
> > previously-owned static caravans but does not show results for a
> > specialty retailer of these residential caravans.
> 
> The places that I've seen these advertised for sale in the UK have
> all I 
> think been existing static caravan sites, so an extra "shop" may be 
> considered a bit unnecessary.
> 
Most I have seen have been on existing sites however Salop Leisure in
Shrewsbury do sell and have them on display.

They do also sell Touring Caravans, Motorhomes and accessories so
doesn't justify a new tag.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

2019-11-19 Thread Philip Barnes
A static caravan is very movable, providing you have a hgv and the necessary 
equipment to lift it.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 05:53 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured
> > dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place
> > in a "trailer park" in the USA. Some of these look rather house-like,
> > if they are "double-wide" and have to be delivered in 2 parts, others
> > are somewhat similar to camping caravans but are designed for
> > year-round living in one place, in mild climates.
> >
> >
> 
> how "mobile" are those, e.g. compared to a container home, or a
> prefabricated single family home? (Intending with the latter term a
> construction that does not remain "mobile" once it is set up and put in
> place, and the former as "maybe" mobile = dismountable and reusable with
> some effort. Ultimately, every kind of construction can be dismounted (or
> moved entirely, if you don't mind an extraordinary effort), and often the
> material can be reused. Are we going to look at how complicated / work
> intensive / technically feasible without destroying parts, this will be, or
> will it simply follow the self-declaration of the vendor? (probably the
> latter).
> 
> To give a concrete example, is this a mobile home of the kind you are
> asking about?
> https://www.gilmorecityiowa.com/vertical/Sites/%7BAF493C7D-8EF8-4030-AA1E-B40B51320DEF%7D/uploads/over_sized_load.JPG
> 
> Or is it something like this:
> https://bestofhouse.net/wp-content/uploads/trailer-homes-sale-new-mobile_117483.jpg
> 
> This would be an example for a (bigger) container home:
> https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/shipping-container-homes-4.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> > Another user made the page shop=mobile_home but I'm guessing that this
> > is American English and might not be correct.
> >
> 
> 
> I would expect these "trailer homes" to be an american specialty, so I
> wouldn't mind if we used an american term for it (we generally do not have
> the possibility to transport oversized things on the roads in Europe,
> traffic is too dense, and too many obstacles like adjacent buildings,
> bridges and narrow roads, so with the legal requirements for such
> transports it would cost too much to do it for something like a "cheap"
> home.
> 
> There might also be other legal obstacles, like you could not live
> permanently in such a structure (maybe unless you set it up on ground that
> is zoned as residential area, but then this would cost too much to use it
> as extensively as these, or maybe there isn't cultural acceptance for
> these, or a mix of all these, in the end these are not frequent.
> 
> There are similar situations though, like alotment gardens with huts on
> them, where people may live occasionally (but usually not legally), or
> campsites with semi-permanent residents, generally used as holiday homes
> (and mostly only in the warmer period of the year).
> 
> 
> 
> > "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also
> > *trailer*
> > , *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, *residential caravan*)
> > is a prefabricated  > >structure,
> > built in a factory on a permanently attached chassis before being
> > transported to site (either by being towed or on a trailer).
> >
> 
> 
> so the chassis must be there, is a strict requirement? Would a
> box-structure (container) satisfy this requirement?
> 
> Cheers
> Martin
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

2019-11-19 Thread Philip Barnes


On Tuesday, 19 November 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I looked back at that discussion but it seems to be about
> RVs/caravans/motor homes/camper trailers.
> 
> I'm not asking about shops that sell "motor homes" or "RVs" or "5th
> wheels" or "camper trailers" or "caravans" or "camper vans". I
> understand that both self-propelled "motorhomes" and pulled "caravans"
> can be sold at a shop=caravan.
> 
> Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured
> dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place
> 
> Do they have shops that sell these in Britain?

They do, however not very common.

The only local place I can think of that sells them also sells touring caravans 
and motorhomes.

Most are sold as part of a package, with the pitch through the sites.

It is not uncommon to see examples to order on these sites. One observation 
about these sites is that the static caravans are usually identical indicating 
the site owners have deals with manufacturers.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-18 Thread Philip Barnes
Maybe to reflect driving licence requirements?

Only those with relatively recent licenses need a special license to drive a 
vehicle between 3.5 and 7.5t.

Many of us can drive a 7.5t vehicle on a car license.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On Monday, 18 November 2019, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Wikipedia includes pickups in the "Truck
> " category.
> But HGV  excludes many
> pickups because of the H in HGV ("GCM
>  over 3500kg").
> 
> An aside: in the EU, and hence for the time being also in the UK, HGV is
> superceded by LGV - no idea why, as the criterion is mass over 3500kg)
> 
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 22:34, Markus  wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 19:23, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> > >
> > > AFAIK, VW does not sell lorries/hgv/trucks. Their commercial vehicles
> > > are pick ups and vans (caddy/transporter/crafter) The largest, has a
> > > GVW of 5t.
> > >
> > > Which tags do we have to use in case the shop only sells those vehicles?
> >
> > It seems we don't have one, but it may make sense to use
> > shop=utility_vehicle or something similar.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-16 Thread Philip Barnes
Lorry has largely fallen out of use, truck is the more used word in British 
English nowadays.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On Saturday, 16 November 2019, Max wrote:
> Given that OSM language is British it probably should be "lorry" not 
> "truck".
> 
> 
> On 16.11.19 18:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > I have found a shop that sells Volvo and Volkswagen commercial vehicles 
> > (large trucks). Looking in the wiki, it suggested the tag shop=car 
> > should/could also be used for this, but I find it puzzling. How would 
> > someone looking at the map understand, that this shop=car, 
> > brand=Volkswagen;Volvo is only selling trucks? Wouldn't it make more 
> > sense to tag these with a different tag. e.g. shop=truck?
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcar
> > 
> > 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
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-12 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 18:04 +0100, Markus wrote:
> 
> I wouldn't look for a café if i were hungry. Instead i would look for
> a restaurant, pub or fast food booth.
> 
> In mainland Europe i expect from a café that i can drink a coffee
> there and maybe have a sweet snack. While some also serve salty
> snacks
> (like panini) or alcoholic drinks (like apéritifs), i wouldn't expect
> that every café serves this.
> 
On most High Streets in the UK, a cafe is certainly the place to go for
a traditional breakfast. Most pubs and fast food outlets will not be
open at that time of the  day, McDonalds for breakfast being an
exception in the fast food market.

International brand cafes such as Starbucks also serve Breakfast
Paninis, Croissants etc.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-10 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 17:20 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> "Take home" and "take away" share an important property: "not for
> consumption on
> the premises."  Whether you take the stuff home or take it off the
> premises and
> consume it nearby, you are not consuming it on the premises.
> 
> Try a related situation: a chip shop near me.  Some chip shops are
> takeaway
> only.  This one happens to have seats and tables, so it gets tagged
> as a
> cafe with take_away=yes.  Some people who buy fish and chips to take
> away
> go across the road, sit on one of the two benches there, and eat
> them.  Others
> take their fish and chips all the way home.  Taking the fish and
> chips home
> is one of the subsets of things you can do if you take the fish and
> chips away.

The big difference between the take away and take home is the packaging
quantities.

A fish and chip shop, as do most other takeaways) sells a meal that is
ready to eat (1).

A take away ice-cream is again ready to eat, it is a cornet/tub/or a
single lolly.

Ice cream to take home, as sold in supermarkets, is in large packs,
intended to be dispensed from your home freezer.

Whilst a group could split a pack of lollys or cornetos and sit on the
bench over the road, they are unlikely to do that with a 5 litre tub of
ice-cream.

Phil (trigpoint)

1. I doubt many Indian takeaways are eaten on the bench outside.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-10 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 15:57 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 15:30, Philip Barnes 
> wrote:
> 
> > I have never come across somewhere only selling Ice-cream to take
> > home.
> 
> Me neither.  But that's a bit of a false dichotomy.  It isn't just
> eat on premises or take home.
> There's also take away.  As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch. 
> Rather common at the
> seaside.  Or a kiosk selling only, or mainly,. ice cream.  You buy
> the ice cream to eat on
> the beach.
> 
> 
I was covering both take away kiosks and ice cream parlours in probably
too few words.

Take away is far more common in my experience.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-10 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 15:56 +0100, Markus wrote:
> Strangely enough, the page
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dice_cream
> 
> says that shop=ice_cream is "for places selling ice cream to take
> home", but shows an image of an ice cream parlour.
> 
> Are there really shops that only or mainly sell packaged ice cream
> for
> taking home?
> 
> Otherwise, it seems to make sense to deprecate shop=ice_cream in
> favour of the more used amenity=ice_cream.
> 
I have never come across somewhere only selling Ice-cream to take home.

As you say, it is either sold to eat now or to take home it is
alongside other frozen foods in more general food shops.

The only reason I can imagine for somewhere only selling ice cream, not
to be consumed straight away is a manufacturer/wholesaler who sells to
smaller shops and those operating amenity=ice cream. Shop implies
retail so this wouldn't fit.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-10 Thread Philip Barnes
On Sun, 2019-11-10 at 14:14 +0100, Jan Michel wrote:
> On 10.11.19 13:51, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Simple question (which I presume has been previously discussed) :
> > 
> > Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially
> > synonymous 
> > entities?
> 
> One of them takes care to put out fires, the other transports you to 
> hospital. There are regions where the two are mostly combined, but
> in 
> other places these are completly separate organizations.
> 
> E.g. in Germany they are mostly combined in the larger cities, but 
> usually separated in smaller towns. That's related to having 
> professional fire fighters and stations that are always manned
> compared 
> to volunteers who have to gather first.
> 
In the UK there area many more Fire Stations, so likely mapped much
earlier before the emergency tag happened.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

2019-11-08 Thread Philip Barnes


On Friday, 8 November 2019, Warin wrote:
> 
> There is simply too much other stuff to do that be worried by every 
> driveway. So I only map them where they are of some interest to other 
> than the resident.
> 
This has been mine, and many other OSM mappers view up until recently.

However home delivery has suddenly become big business, and OSM has become the 
goto map for one of the biggest in the business. Driveway mapping is important. 
It enables delivery drivers to effectively find their delivery points. The 
nearest public highway is not always the route to the front door.

Amazon Logistics have been mapping in The Shire for sometime now. I have 
generally found them helpful and willing to listen and learn.

I have helped them by taking photos of some of the places where  they have made 
mistakes to illustrate what is actually on the ground.

They are mapping in places they have no experience of. I have not really had 
any issues once the shared driveway concept is explained.

My view is be polite, explain things and remember that whilst I can interpret a 
lot from aerial imagery of the rural midlands, if I look at imagery of India 
the colours and shades are different as it is hotter and dryer and I don't have 
a clue.

One of the issues I do see is that there is a very high turnover of mappers so 
explaining things does need to be done a bit more frequently than I would have 
expected.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Supermarket pick-up service

2019-11-08 Thread Philip Barnes
Its not a shop, you don't buy anything there. Maybe 
supermarket=customer_collect or customer_pickup. Collect fits my British 
English ears better than pickup, that means something a bit different.

One supermarket uses the marketing term Click and Collect.

They are covered, so the customer can drive in, so maybe borrow the 
drive_through tag from fast food outlets.

Not all are attached to the supermarket, others are a separate building in the 
car park.

Phil (trigpoint )

On Friday, 8 November 2019, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> A supermarket chain offers to order groceries online, being collected and 
> packed, and picked up by 
> the customers themselves in a small shop in the local supermarket building. 
> Illustration [1].
> 
> How should the shop be tagged? shop=pick-up ?
> 
> tom
> 
> 
> [1] 
> https://shop.rewe-static.de/homepage/239036b7585997a3323062a8f5ee218f410147b2/img/hero/as.jpg
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-05 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 09:41 -0700, brad wrote:
> I live in a single family home with a shared driveway.  The next
> door 
> neighbor house is 7 meters from my house.  The driveway is about 10 
> meters shared, then it splits, about 10 meters to each garage.If
> it 
> were mapped, I think it should be tagged as driveway, but I don't
> think 
> it's relevant to map.
> 
A short driveway such as this is unlikely to get mapped, mine is very
similar although only to a single property. I live in a 70s/80s
development.

What I consider to be shared driveways, leading to 3 or 4 properties
are a feature of modern housing estates. Whilst mappers have tended to
ignore these as they are neither public or lead anywhere of interest
(not part of our usecase), after all UK mappers are mostly walkers or
cyclists. They are a big part of the usecase for the growing parcel
delivery sector, Amazon Logistics have been armchairing these at a rate
us local mappers find hard to keep up with. Often incorrectly as
residential roads. 

I am now seeing that we need to map these correctly and use our local
knowledge to map them correctly before they are mapped incorrectly by
mappers who lack the experience of having seen these on these features
on the ground.

Phil (trigpoint)


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


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2019-11-05 Thread Philip Barnes
On Tuesday, 5 November 2019, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/11/2019 13:11, Andy Townsend wrote:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65663472 (Meir Tunnel, dry even on a 
> > wet Wednesday in Stoke*) bans foot and bicycle traffic, so you can 
> > neither walk nor cycle through it.  A cycle router would have to 
> > flat-out avoid it, whereas it may choose not to avoid a short 
> > bicycle=dismount section if it saves a long detour.
> 
> Shouldn't the preceding ways also be 'no' back to the previous junction?
> 
It is, well spotted. Needs fixing.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-05 Thread Philip Barnes
Sections of shared, non-public service road, are certainly a common feature of 
modern housing developments.

I have considered them to be private driveways.

Private does not require a sign, walk down any suburban street in Europe or 
North America and you will see hundreds of driveways, without signs or gates 
and nobody will assume there is a public right of way there.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 5 November 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Personally, I would only call the short bits of tarmac that spur off that
> service road as 'driveways' because they each go to a single house. I'm
> sure that there are examples of shared driveways in the UK but I would
> consider them rare.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:52 PM Dave F via Tagging 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > In the UK, Amazon Logistics are adding useful data from their GPS'd
> > delivery vehicles. Mainly highway=service as the last part of their
> > journey to a destination.
> >
> > However, one of their contributors removed service=driveway from a
> > highway=service road. In the changeset comments they said it was because
> > it served multiple residential properties.
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76576604#map=19/51.33398/-2.27945
> >
> >  From memory, it wasn't signed as private, but it appears to be
> > unadopted by the local authority (There are no raised kerbed pavements,
> > drainage or lighting). I'm assuming it's shared ownership.
> >
> > For indicative purposes only. (The image is ten years old):
> >
> > https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3343975,-2.278377,3a,60y,185.39h,67.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5I6ruGYQsgQv4cC0iLM6SA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> >
> > Personally I see no problem tagging this as a driveway even if it's shared.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > DaveF
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2019-11-05 Thread Philip Barnes


On Tuesday, 5 November 2019, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 05/11/2019 13:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > I just created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount
> > to document why it is used and why it is anyway duplicate of bicycle=no.
> >
> > On the page I claim that
> > "In some places it is illegal to both ride and push bicycle,
> > there is no good tagging scheme to indicate it."
> > and I want to check is it correct.
> >
> ... "where it is legal to go on foot" is an important proviso.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65663472 (Meir Tunnel, dry even on a 
> wet Wednesday in Stoke*) bans foot and bicycle traffic, so you can 
> neither walk nor cycle through it.  A cycle router would have to 
> flat-out avoid it, whereas it may choose not to avoid a short 
> bicycle=dismount section if it saves a long detour.


For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507

and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048

Phil (trigpoint)

> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> * in English football, a "wet Wednesday in Stoke" is thought of as an 
> occasion when a top team's star players may struggle in adverse 
> conditions that the home side are used to.
> 
> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:42:27PM +0000, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > It is not just a British thing, I have encountered many when driving in 
> > France.
> > The rules and usage are the same as in the UK. 
> > The other rule that makes them different to other roundabouts is that you 
> > should not use them to turn around, do U turns.
> 
> So what is the difference then?
>
You can enter a normal roundabout, do 360 degrees and then be traveling in the 
opposite direction. It is a common and useful navigation decision. Turn 
restrictions are often used to force that behavior.

You should not do that with a mini roundabout.


Phil (trigpoint)

 
> What i know learned:
> 
> - You may traverse the center
> - No more than 4 exits as left/right/straight on wont work
> - You dont expect nav aids to be "2nd exit etc" but a "turn left at" as
>   the navaids are like a junction.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Flo
> -- 
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Philip Barnes
It is not just a British thing, I have encountered many when driving in France.

The rules and usage are the same as in the UK. 

The other rule that makes them different to other roundabouts is that you 
should not use them to turn around, do U turns.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Philip Barnes


On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:24:30AM +0000, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > > So, for those who like definitions: In the UK, a "mini roundabout" is
> > > simply a small roundabout that is either flush to the road or slightly
> > > raised so that large/long vehicles are able drive over it if they need to.
> > > If it has anything on it, like a lamp post, it is a "roundabout". It is 
> > > not
> > > the size, it is the being able to drive over it that matters
> > > https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561491/mini-roundabouts-report.pdf
> > >
> > There is also the rule that you should not do U turns at mini roundabouts, 
> > so it is important that mapping retains this important distinction.
> > 
> > These are a very common feature, it does seem odd that routers are not 
> > supporting them.
> 
> The point is that a mini roundabout does need a LOT of preprocessing to
> put it into some graph for your classical A* or Dijkstra. You need to
> eliminate the node and replace it with a circular road much like a
> junction.
> 
Not really, a drivers brain does not process them in the same way as a large 
roundabout, with exit number/exit angle. You still go straight on or turn left 
or right.

In the case of OSMand it would simply need some slightly different turn 
graphics. For example the turn left with the blue mini-roundabout sign on it. 
The important one would be the missing instruction to go straight on.

 Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> So, for those who like definitions: In the UK, a "mini roundabout" is
> simply a small roundabout that is either flush to the road or slightly
> raised so that large/long vehicles are able drive over it if they need to.
> If it has anything on it, like a lamp post, it is a "roundabout". It is not
> the size, it is the being able to drive over it that matters
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561491/mini-roundabouts-report.pdf
>
There is also the rule that you should not do U turns at mini roundabouts, so 
it is important that mapping retains this important distinction.

These are a very common feature, it does seem odd that routers are not 
supporting them.

Phil (trigpoint)
 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:28 AM Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > i just saw a changeset of someone makeing a mini_roundabout
> > from a junction=roundabout. I have never used mini_roundabout
> > as non of the routing/nav engines i tried actually supported it
> > when i did.
> >
> > Instead of making it some special type of roundabout with seperate
> > tagging i'd vote for deprecating the mini_roundabout and adding
> > a tag making the area of the junction=roundabout be an area which is
> > driveable. e.g. why not area=yes on the junction=roundabout.
> >
> > That would add a lot of information - e.g. the size of the roundabout
> > etc - and it would eliminate another "special" case which is mostly
> > unsupported.
> >
> > Flo
> > --
> > Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> > UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Hunting stands, bird and wildlife hides

2019-10-22 Thread Philip Barnes


On Tuesday, 22 October 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> You may need to look at the context, or ask local people.
> 
> For example many named peaks, streams, saddles have no explicit sign - 
> you need to ask local people or base it on your own knowledge.
>
Or use out of copyright mapping.

Phil (trigpoint)

 
> 22 Oct 2019, 16:36 by i...@zverev.info:
> 
> > I understand the reasoning, but I don’t see how can I follow the “truth on 
> > the ground” principle. Are there any guidelines on choosing the correct 
> > tag? For some reason people don’t write its purpose on a side. And again, 
> > images in three of these pages are the same.
> >
> > Ilya
> >
> >
> >> On 22 Oct 2019, at 10:46, Martin Koppenhoefer <>> dieterdre...@gmail.com 
> >> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am Di., 22. Okt. 2019 um 09:35 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev <>> 
> >> i...@zverev.info >> >:
> >>
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>>
> >>> Today we were looking for a tag to mark this structure:
> >>>
> >>> http://not.textual.ru/zverik/2/5/some_hide.jpg 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> Searching the wiki gave out FIVE options:
> >>>
> >>> - >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dbird_hide 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dwildlife_hide 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhunting_stand 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hunting%3Draised_hide 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> 
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dobservation 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> What’s confusing is that photos in the first three look the same, even 
> >>> with a book on birds featured on the wildlife_hide page.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I can imagine how tower:type=observation differs from the others, but 
> >>> what do you think about four others? Should we add a warning box on all 
> >>> three “_hide” tags to use amenity=hunting_stand instead? Or choose one 
> >>> “_hide” over others? Currently the wiki is very disorienting.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> a hunting stand is a place where hunters are waiting for animals to shoot 
> >> them. A bird hide or wildlife hide is a place where you can observe 
> >> animals / birds.
> >>
> >> I do not recall any discussion about hunting=raised_hide and it seems to 
> >> be a duplicate or sub-group of hunting stand. The tag should probably be 
> >> discouraged as stand alone tag (in favor of hunting stand), but it could 
> >> make sense to state the subtype of hunting stand.
> >>
> >> Observation towers are similar features, but usually higher and not 
> >> specifically for watching animals. The definition says they are for "long 
> >> distance" observations, while hunting stands are for observing within 
> >> shooting range.
> >>
> >> With regard to your photo, we cannot tell which is the correct tag, 
> >> because we do not know what the purpose is.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Martin
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> >> 
> >>
> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

2019-10-21 Thread Philip Barnes


On Monday, 21 October 2019, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 22, 2019, at 3:11 AM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> > 
> > leisure=amusement_arcade ?
> 
> This is between =gambling and =adult_gaming_center, two established tags that 
> both claim to be the proper way to map a Pachinko parlor. A Pachinko machine 
> is a type of "gaming machine" in the gambling sense, like a slot machine. It 
> is not an arcade game, like pac-man, though it uses steel balls like pinball. 
> Pachinko is a luck-based machine, not skil-based like pac-man or pinball.
> 
> Arcades are full of skill games (for the most part), and full of kids and 
> teens playing Street Fighter, Galaga, claw machines, and such. 
> 
> Pachinko Parlors are full of grandpas gambling away their afternoons the 
> nickel machines (5yen Pachinko or slot machines). 
> 
In the UK slot machines and arcade games are usually in the same space and are 
known as amusement arcades.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

2019-10-21 Thread Philip Barnes
On Monday, 21 October 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > while I am not, I’m pretty sure the British term is pavement, not sidewalk
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's as idiotic as us Brits calling underpants "pants"  because the
> sidewalk is paved
> but the road is also paved so both are pavements.  But that's what we do.

But the British English technical/legal term is footway, which has also found 
its way into OSM.

You will often see signs warning of no footway for .

And sorry Paul, I cannot remember the Welsh version.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

2019-10-21 Thread Philip Barnes


On Monday, 21 October 2019, Warin wrote:
> On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > I'm in favor of deprecating contact:phone now (and the other
> > contact:XXX duplicates later), but I don't know about your other
> > proposed changes.
> >
> > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.
> 
> It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it is 
> what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call that 
> number.
> So in the Australian Tagging Guidelines that are instructions on how to tag 
> phone numbers in OSM using +61.
> See 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Phone_Numbers
> 
> I would suggest similar guides for Indonesia and America.
> Where a phone number in OSM does not start with a '+' that can mean it needs 
> some attention, with some exceptions as a few phone numbers are not 
> accessible from outside the particular country.
> 
A + prefix is the standard way of entering phone numbers in OSM, but in the 
real world it is also the standard way to enter phone numbers in your mobile 
phone. If you enter numbers as would work at home, you will get errors when you 
try to call those numbers when roaming.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-17 Thread Philip Barnes
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 11:03 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 10:46, Vɑdɪm  wrote:
> > I think it's no more vague than some many other tags in OSM. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > For example have a look at 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > leisure=fishing
> 
> For most rivers in the UK, there are legalities around fishing
> rights.  There is often signage.
> There may be maps by angling associations (permission to make use of
> those maps must
> be gained before adding those details to OSM).

In the UK fishing ponds are a common feature, specifically dug and
stocked with fish for that purpose, the public can then pay to fish
there. 

So certainly verifiable.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Philip Barnes
Not just the driver. Routing software can be used to determine which vehicle 
can give the quickest response.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Friday, 11 October 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:57 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 11 Oct 2019, 10:50 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> > > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > > > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big
> > > > SUV
> > > > > you
> > > > > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big
> > > > your
> > > > > car
> > > > > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think
> > > > > that
> > > > > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be
> > > > > able to
> > > > > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for
> > > > example
> > > > an emergency vehicle...
> > > 
> > > Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some
> > > physical
> > > separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line."
> > > 
> > > So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the
> > > emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line.
> > 
> > Maybe it depends on location but in
> > Poland emergency vehicles routinely
> > ignore road paintings, one-way restrictions,
> > traffic lights, turn restrictions etc.
> > 
> > And I have never seen an emergency vehicle
> > crossing a grass median.
> > 
> > And it seem obvious that crossing a grass median
> > is trickier than crossing just a painted line.
> 
> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
> in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
> he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> tells him what he can do.
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Philip Barnes


On Friday, 11 October 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> 
> >
> > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you
> > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car
> > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think that
> > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be able to
> > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example an
> emergency vehicle...
>
+100
 
Also a cyclist can dismount and become a pedestrian to cross the road.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-09 Thread Philip Barnes
We also map the phone number of phoneboxes using phone=.

We do not generally contact phoneboxes.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. 
> > But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then 
> > either we find some way to represent that using other tagging, or we accept 
> > that a certain nuance will be lost.
> > 
> 
> there could be phone numbers with automatic announcements, so “phone” will 
> still be valid, but contact:phone would not suit well. To give an example. It 
> cannot be seen from the “phone”-key that this is the case though. I’m happy 
> with loosing the subtle differences that may make  “contact:”-prefixed tags 
> slightly more specific, in exchange for more universally usable 
> “almost-equal” more generic tags without the prefix.
> 
> Cheers Martin

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >