Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
On 8/6/23 14:18, NickKatchur via Tagging wrote: Hello, I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone service at nodes and areas, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception>. This is going to vary widely by service provider and weather conditions, among many other things. The given state of cell phone service at any one location is way too ephemeral to be a good candidate for OpenStreetMap tagging, as towers can be out of service for a number of reasons. -- Shawn K. Quinn ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What separator do you use for multiple value
On 6/14/23 04:10, _ _ wrote: Hello everyone, I was wondering what separator you most commonly use to separate several values of the same key. The space doesn't seem practical, but I've always hesitated between the period and the comma. What separator do you use, and what advantage do they have over the others? The standard that I've seen is the semicolon. Not sure how well data users could deal with spaces or commas, as I think most are expecting semicolons if they are expecting multiple values at all. -- Shawn K. Quinn ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM
On 10/11/22 19:45, Minh Nguyen wrote: None of this is particularly relevant to Houston, but I don't think there's any precedent or mechanism for formally deprecating a broadly defined tag in only the places that satisfy certain criteria. Houston has no zoning (the largest city in the US to not be zoned). Deed restrictions are used to get some of the same results accomplished by zoning in other cities. Note this applies only to Houston proper, not suburbs (Tiki Island, Pleak, and Jersey Village are known by me to be zoned, and there are probably others.) That said, many areas will still qualify as a de facto residential, commercial, retail, or industrial area, and so I avoid deleting landuse=* unless it is clearly wrong/outdated. If, like me, you want to see fewer unnamed landuse areas in your backyard, map more named landuse areas corresponding to retail and residential developments. These areas not only reduce the pressure to "fill in" the map visually but also add information about the shape of these developments that's often difficult to obtain from other map services. What I'd like to see less of is the use of dubious tag combinations like this: landuse=retail amenity=fuel shop=convenience name=Exxon or whatever the brand might be. First, the convenience store and fuel should be separately tagged; I tag the fuel canopy (or an area near the pumps if no canopy) as being the fuel station, and the building as the convenience store (which also gets the address data if known). Convenience stores may be inside a landuse area, but shouldn't be tagged on the same way as a landuse area as I understand it. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
On 9/30/22 10:44, grin via Tagging wrote:
Either service should mean "one level below unclassified" and soften
the wording even more ("generally" to "in many cases", for example),
or unclassified shall drop requirement for motorcars and suggesting
service for "narrow paved roads w/ private motorcar access". I'd
support the latter: I would rather use unclassified here, but that's
an opinion.
I would tend to use service when it's either not a government-maintained
road or it's not named and has no ref. Service roads can be named/have a
ref, of course, but this is by far the exception not the rule. I agree
completely on the motorcar requirement being dropped as unclassified
would otherwise arguably fit some bicycle roads quite well.
Related to this, I've been tagging the driveways inside apartment
complexes as service, but a lot of mappers tag them as residential.
These roads are more similar to shopping mall driveways than the type of
road I would normally tag as residential; also note they almost never
have names and are almost never tagged as noname=yes when mapped as
residential. For a lot of purposes apartments are often considered
commercial properties for many purposes (eligibility for city/county
garbage collection, among others) even though they are places where
people live long term.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road
On 12/9/20 08:36, Michael Tsang wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road > Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I > tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed > it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor vehicles > except buses. An edit war has appeared. It's definitely not highway=service. The access being restricted to buses doesn't change the road classification. You have a strong rationale for highway=secondary but it may not be quite important enough for that classification either; I am not familiar enough with the road network in Hong Kong to say either way. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools
On 12/8/20 16:12, Hauke Stieler wrote: > Hi, > > today I encountered a drawing/painting school [0] that offers workshops and > classes for children and adults. Is there a tag for these schools? I haven't > found any, so how about establishing amenity=painting_school (or > =drawing_school?) analogous to amenity=music_school. Any thoughts on that? > > Hauke How about amenity=art_school, with another tag to indicate the specific disciplines of art being taught? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 10/19/20 09:39, Robert Delmenico wrote: > There are a few ways to go from here: > 1: change man_made to human_made > 2: change man_made to artificial > 3: change man_made to some other term > 4: leave man_made as is What's so wrong with #4 here? What exact problem are we solving by changing 4 million objects in the database to some other key? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 10/19/20 15:01, Justin Tracey wrote: > I don't feel particularly strongly about this change either way, but > to say it has "zero actual benefit" seems like a pretty obvious > exaggeration. How about naming the benefits this has, from your point of view, then? It's a lot of work to change all 4 million of these tags, and we lose the last edited date when we do this (i.e. if something hasn't been touched for 5 years, and we make this frivolous change from man_made=* to human_made=*, the object then shows as last edited that day, not 5 years ago). > A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on > data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these > seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The > reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers > for community openness and understanding. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. > Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient > weight to accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO > being the impact on current data consumers), well that's the > discussion we should be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero > sense > and smacks of change for the sake of change" is not a helpful> part of that discussion. Maybe it's not helpful to you. But I would like to think that the opinion of someone who has contributed to the project for eight years actually counts for something. I'll repeat it: Making this change will destroy data on 4 million objects for zero actual benefit, and for a primary reason that make zero sense besides change for the sake of change. It should not be made for at least these reasons, if not others as well. In fact, looking at it again, the more I think this is likely a frivolous or joke proposal, and should not even go as far as a vote. Something tells me if this was a tag like highway=* we were talking about, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 10/18/20 16:04, Oliver Simmons wrote: > Doing this would make over 3M objects have their date updated to the > present, when the last meaningful change may have been over 5 years ago. > It creates the illusion of data being up-to-date when all that was > changed was a tag key. +1 In addition to this, it increases revision and changeset counts needlessly. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made
On 10/14/20 19:54, Robert Delmenico wrote: > Hi, > > I'm proposing that we change the man_made tag to human_made. > > I feel it is a discussion that we need to have as there seems to be > little discussion to date. [...] I will vote against this proposal and any like it, because it involves a lot of retagging work for zero actual benefit. At least healthcare=*, and the temporary dual tagging required to transition to it, made some sense. This, to me, makes zero sense and smacks of change for the sake of change. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues
On 10/14/20 09:19, bkil wrote: > It has been raised on a private discussion if we could mention whether > a private house or an industrial site has a guard dog that is easily > identifiable by its barking. It is my viewpoint that from a mapping > ethics standpoint, we should not map this because it may compromise a > home's security. What do you think? I don't think this is something that should be mapped, if for no other reason it's too likely to change quickly, and there's no guarantee a dog will bark at everyone walking/driving by. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)
On 10/1/20 14:46, Wieland Kestler wrote: > Hi everyone! > > > > Due to the discussion in the german OSM-Telegram-group I made a proposal > for tagging points where people can buy e.g. game (meat) directly from > the forester. > > > > For more details see the proposal page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Ddirect_marketing > > For comments use the discussion page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/shop%3Ddirect_marketing At least in the US, "direct marketing" usually refers to things like infomercials or mail advertising campaigns. Such a shop would typically not be mapped as such. shop=direct_marketing places too much emphasis on the method of sale versus what is sold (which is the usual purpose of a shop=* tag), and also is misleading in this case. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically
On 9/17/20 11:30, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >> On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. >>> As much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of >>> mapping happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked >>> and, in some cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot. >> >> I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and >> yield signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If >> you look carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), >> they are there. (Local knowledge helps too in some cases.) > > *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that > you can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not, > or that you can reliably identify other signage based solely on > outline. In Texas (possibly elsewhere in the US) a crossing is legally considered signal controlled even if there is only a three-colored traffic light and there is not a specific orange hand/white man pedestrian signal. Yes, it may differ elsewhere. > *Maybe* if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at the right > angle, but if you try to tell me you can identify > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign) > from a shadow in aerial imagery, I am going to be deeply suspicious > ;-). Are you sure you didn't mean node 42164543 or something west of it? That one, I'd need to survey or see street-level imagery to be confident enough to map it. The shadow, if present, is overlaid by another in the area. Nodes 6393986190 and 6393985684 do have the "shark's teeth" line used with yield signs (which I did add just now). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically
On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As > much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping > happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some > cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot. I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and yield signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If you look carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), they are there. (Local knowledge helps too in some cases.) > As someone who's generated a fair number of "uncontrolled" crossings > because that was the only "blessed" tag, I would much prefer > separating the presence or absence of features that can be verified > in an aerial (marked, unmarked, striped, island, ...) from whether or > not signals are present. I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch, particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a lot of previously tagged crossings. I think "island" is already covered by traffic_calming=island, no? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
On 8/23/20 19:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > One of our local councillors came up with her own way of deterring > teenagers from hanging around the bus stops in the CBD, & also homeless > from sleeping there overnight. > > She had vandalism-proof speakers installed over them, that play > classical music 24/7! Our local Murphy USA c-store/fuel station was playing classical music for a while, for a similar reason (to repel panhandlers/homeless). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On 8/22/20 23:53, pangoSE wrote: > And we have no statistics or functionality to mark a changeser as > revieed so nobody knows how many reviews are done and how many falls > through the cracks. We could make a tool that lists all changesets > with a review request and no comments. Good idea. I'd like to add that a new mapper's first changesets should probably be reviewed, even if a review is not requested. I do this for greater Houston, time permitting. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On 8/13/20 23:55, Peter Elderson wrote: > I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area > can be tree lined. A node feature, not so much. For example, A parking area mapped as only a node for the center could still have this attribute. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 8/1/20 12:02, Paul Johnson wrote: > For the way: > > name=Humble-Huffman Road > ref=FM 1960 Oops. I got the name wrong, it's Humble Westfield Road, and it only exists in OSM data because I haven't yet surveyed to be sure it's not signed. I'm pretty sure none of the current signs use this name. The "name" on the green signs is FM 1960 (not sure if they have "East" on them, but the addresses do use this directional). > For the address: > addr:street=FM 1960 East That we can agree on. [my original message:] >> I'm on the side that name=* should match what's in addr:street=*, even >> if there's some duplicity, but maybe there should be some other tag to >> say perhaps the name shouldn't be rendered on (most) visual maps and/or >> read out separately from the ref in navigation software. > Problem is, that does not necessarily match the ground truth. In > reality, a lot of addresses have a street name that radically departs > from what the street is signposted as, particularly if the street is > part of a numbered route. It's common because there's only so much > you can cram on an envelope and it's often shorter and easier to > scrawl out "Hwy 12" instead of the street name than whatever the > highway department named it. Drawing from my prior experience as a messenger/courier, there were very few situations where the address I was expected to deliver to did not match the name on the sign. There were a couple of oddball situations such as a couple of addresses off of FM 1960 West (now Cypress Creek Parkway) where the building itself was far enough from the road to make finding it difficult if you didn't know where to look (for the curious, they are 4550 and 4606 among others). The most egregious examples come where there's a complete lack of signage (county roads in Brazoria County being the one that sticks out the most), but again, it's more of there just not being an actual signed name versus a name that doesn't match the sign. It may well be different in greater Houston versus Oklahoma, upstate New York, etc. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes
On 7/31/20 14:29, Paul Johnson wrote: > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. How about the stretch of FM 1960 from I-45 or so going east into Humble? Addresses on it are " FM 1960 East", though I think it used to be signed as "Humble-Huffman Road" even though nobody puts that in the addresses anymore. I currently have name=FM 1960 East alongside ref=FM 1960 (and maybe an alt_name=* too). (For those outside of Texas, FM or RM is like a lower class of state highway called Farm-/Ranch-To-Market Roads.) I'm on the side that name=* should match what's in addr:street=*, even if there's some duplicity, but maybe there should be some other tag to say perhaps the name shouldn't be rendered on (most) visual maps and/or read out separately from the ref in navigation software. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging
On 7/24/20 17:20, Cj Malone wrote: > Alternatively if each storing when each tag has been validated is a > direction OSM wants to go, maybe it should be in the API. A client like > StreetComplete could "touch" a tag to rev it's edited timestamp without > actually changing the value. OSM does not store edit timestamps for individual tags, only for the object as a whole. Finding out when a tag was changed requires a review of the entire history. I had to do this once when I saw a clear highway=motorway_link tagged as highway=motorway, with me as the last user to edit that road segment. Turns out the original mapper was the one to make the tagging mistake, not yours truly, but I only found this once reviewing the history. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging
On 7/24/20 15:51, Tobias Knerr wrote: > The date when you last checked a shop's opening hours it is a fact. But > opinions on how often one should revisit a shop to check the opening > hours again may vary a lot between mappers. So I think the former is > more suitable to be added to the OSM database. There are places that change their hours seasonally, and remove all traces of the off-season hours when they do. Laser Quest comes to mind; as I remember it they tied it to about when the local school year starts and ends, something not easy to do with opening_hours syntax as we now have it. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?
On 7/10/20 09:04, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > (I would probably use access=permissive for e.g. a mall parking lot, > where it's not strictly public, but where you wouldn't be expected to be > visiting a particular building or organization such that it's much less > clear whether or not you are a "customer".) You would still most likely be expected to be a customer of some store within the mall, whether you're just popping into the food court to get a Big Mac from McDonald's for lunch or you're getting a new flat screen TV from Macy's (or for that matter, just browsing in Macy's). At least in the US, even though malls are nominally public spaces they are still private property and many of them around here (Houston area) specifically state certain non-shopping activities that will get you bounced from the property (usually things like protesting or unauthorized peddling). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a light that is always green for certain directions?
On 7/6/20 12:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7688734125 is a traffic light that is > always green for straight traffic (left turns get a cycle). Is there a > way to tag this? > > (I recall seeing a way to tag a signal as always green, but a) IIRC it > didn't distinguish always green *only* for certain directions, and > anyway b) I can't find it again, even using the wiki search or Google.) traffic_signals=continuous_green for the approach that has a continuous green. The left turn traffic should have a standard traffic signal node. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?
On 7/1/20 18:03, António Madeira wrote: > What is the criteria to tag a graffiti? > Since there's no wiki for this type of artwork, the only information > that exists is "A notable graffiti work", here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:artwork_type > > So, what is a notable graffiti? A signed one? A big one? An authorized one? > There are all kind of graffitis around cities nowadays, many of them > mere vandalism or simple drawings in abandoned or ruined places. > Wouldn't it be helpful to clarify and build an useful wiki for this? The one that first comes to mind is the "Be Someone" graffiti that has become a landmark here in Houston. Something well known among the general population, that when it gets defaced it makes the mainstream news, etc. This particular graffito was painted on the side of the railroad overpass, and the railroad company just left it there figuring it was more trouble than it was worth to abate it. However, now that I look at this more closely, I think the way the tag is set up is questionable, as technically (almost) any type of artwork could also be a graffiti or an equivalent thereof, though I would expect most to be at least nominally murals. Also, graffiti could either be a style (particularly when lettering is involved) or a characteristic of its original (lack of) authorization to be made where it was. Thoughts? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
On 6/27/20 09:55, Philip Barnes wrote: > Starbucks in my experience has seating, I am unaware of any which are > takeaway only. There are a couple out here that have outdoor seating only. Even if it was just a kiosk I would still tag amenity=cafe for consistency. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
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. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again
On 5/29/20 17:19, Clifford Snow wrote: > The user, chachafish, with more edits than anyone else I've > seen, 162,466, is still adding features. chachafish has a history of > commenting on changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply. More changesets doesn't really mean a whole lot, especially if every changeset is only one or two items. The number I would put more stock in is the actual number of data items edited (which, in chachafish's case, is over 7 million, dwarfing most of the other numbers I've seen). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways
On 5/24/20 15:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway > tag between the wiki pages key:oneway > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway> and motorway > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway> . > The former states: > "Some tags (such as junction > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:junction>=roundabout > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout>, highway > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=motorway > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway> and others) > imply oneway=yes and therefore the oneway tag is optional, > the latter states: > "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with > oneway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway>=yes" > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway%3Dyes> > > What is the agreed standard, if any? It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain
On 5/13/20 03:31, Colin Smale wrote: > These are two distinct user types or personas, each with their own list > of requirements/expectations. Let's recognise that and treat them > separately in this discussion. Okay, "map user" and "data user" then? Anything to get "consumer" out of the lexicon... it doesn't belong. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain
On 5/12/20 17:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > I'd really like somebody to come up with simple definitions of > > mappers, > > data consumers / customers, > > users? I'd consider "user" and "data consumer" to be the same thing (but would prefer "user" or even "data user" in light of the objection to "consumer" used in this context at <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer>). A "user" is someone who makes use of the data generated by the OpenStreetMap project including its volunteers. A "mapper" (or "editor") would be someone who creates and/or updates the data for the project. One easily can be both at different times, in fact, I would hope most if not all mappers "eat their own dog food" and use OSM data as much as possible in preference to e.g. Google or Bing maps. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
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? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On 5/7/20 1:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > So, what's the next step? > > 1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane, and get > that idea officially rejected (it appears it would be certain to fail), > or is that a waste of everyone's time? taxi=* is already used as an access tag, so I think taxi:type=* should be considered instead. Perhaps amenity=taxi can default to motorcar if there is no taxi:type=* tag. In theory we could even have taxi:type=tuktuk or similar if it's that important to differentiate it from other types of motorized transport. > 3) Propose amenity=ojek and just hold the vote in the Indonesian > community, like how the Japanese mapper community proposes > locally-relevant definitions? This might work but I'd rather not see a bunch of region-specific tags that all mean the same thing. It's as if we had shop=vacuum in the US and then shop=hoover in the UK (though that would run afoul of trademark infringement, but you get where I'm coming from). > 4) Give up on mapping things which are not found in western Europe, and > recognize that this is in practice a project dominated by > English/German/American culture, which will not accept new ideas which > were not invented in the West? Most ideas of this sort are implemented worldwide, just in different ways. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On 5/4/20 05:53, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote: > I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of > the contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be > replaced with the prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone, > Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website . The current situation harms > our database in a way that makes our data less useful. In order to be > successful we need to standardize to the contact: prefix.> No more multiple > keys for the exact same purpose with just > different names! Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has > experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that > mappers don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take > action and to clean up so OSM data gets more useful. As an alternative, why not get rid of the contact:* versions since most people are not using them? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement
On 4/29/20 14:34, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > Here is a 360° picture of a square in Dakar: > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA - larger than a > street (it occupies a whole city block), used as a multipurpose common > area (pickup soccer games are a staple but parking or lounging around > also occur, and the occasional popular event) and usually surfaced with > sand or whatever the ground is. > > We have long tagged it leisure=common (389 ways in Senegal and 486 in > Mali according to http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/TqN) - which is a bit of > stretch from the British legal definition, but worked well enough and > did not conflict with its British usage. But leisure=common is now > deprecated > > So, what should we use instead ? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dcommon suggests using > leisure=park - which isn't too much of a stretch functionally but evokes > greenery that does not occur here (though British commons are just as > green and we were happy with leisure=common)... Any other ideas ? Or I'm > going to use leisure=park+surface=sand ! While leisure=park might work, there is also leisure=recreation_ground to consider. Why exactly was leisure=common deprecated? I used it quite a bit on OpenGeoFiction (which follows OSM's lead for the data model). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons
On 4/19/20 12:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Generally, polygons are superior to nodes and should not be "converted" > to nodes, while converting nodes to polygons seems [ad]vantageous. I have noticed an issue putting things like the address on large buildings. Sometimes software that generates routings (OsmAnd) doesn't handle it gracefully and routes you to the wrong place. Other than that, I generally agree with putting info on smaller one-tenant building outlines versus adding a separate node. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Footways where pedestrians may only walk in one direction: oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no?
On 4/15/20 22:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > But as an English speaker, I find it difficult to immediately > understand the meaning of foot:backward=no (which uses a double > negative, as it were), while oneway:foot=yes seems clear right away. > > Is there really a reason to prefer the less common tag? Does it make > more sense in other languages? oneway:foot=yes has an obvious meaning. foot:backward=no may make sense to someone who has already read the wiki or other documentation, but is confusing and has the double negative aspect to it. It also does not jive with other tags already used on OSM. It would be as if we tagged one-way roads with motor_vehicle:backward=no, etc. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?
On 3/25/20 04:26, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Yesterday someone added a few dozen Klingon names to countries in OSM. I > have reverted that because of a copyright issue, but I think we also > need to discuss which languages we want to accept for name:xx tags. This is OpenStreetMap, not OpenStarTrekMap. I'm not even sure OpenGeoFiction (where I also have done some mapping, and where I "practice" adding certain features before OSM) would accept Klingon names, and that says a lot. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters
On 2/25/20 4:05 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 03:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >> Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, >> WT.mc_id, utm_*, fbclid, etc? > > I'd be in favour of their automated removal, and adding filters to > prevent their future addition. +1. I don't see why it's anyone else's business that I'm coming to their site from OSM data. > We should not, of course, remove either the full URLs nor the whole > PoIs, since that would open us up to attack from bad actors > masquerading as the companies whose commercial sites we depict. And > would in any case be a ridiculous over-reaction, and damaging to our > reputation. I don't think anyone is suggesting to remove whole URLs or POIs; it's all about removing the tracking rubbish and only the tracking rubbish. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?
On 2/12/20 05:51, ael wrote: > +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. The most I usually do without a survey is surface=paved or surface=unpaved, with exceptions when I can see clearly what it is from the satellite imagery (like surface=grass). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?
On 2/11/20 09:51, 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: > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas:> > in the table entry "Surface". I would think you can safely assume highway=motorway is paved (and probably highway=motorway_link as well) even in the most desolate of countries (those that cannot afford to pave will simply have nothing higher than highway=trunk). Beyond that it's going to depend on the country and the part of the country. In many rural areas (definitely in Texas, but probably most of the US) highway=residential and highway=unclassified are usually not paved, and further I wouldn't expect them to be explicitly tagged with the likes of surface=unpaved or a more specific value implying lack of paving. This, though, is due a lot of rural roads in the US coming from TIGER data and still, to this day, at least a fair amount of it is untouched and may never meet certain standards for accuracy (I've been known to refer to phantom roads that originated from the TIGER import as "TIGER barf"). Even in greater Houston, I've seen many highway=service that are obviously unpaved. For many years, the street that the house I am in backs up to (next door to the house I grew up in) was a gravel road; it was finally paved sometime in the mid-1980s. This is long after every other house in the subdivision was paved (this area used to be out in the sticks back in the 1950s, where I-610 marked more or less the end of the urbanized area, but had long since been annexed by the City of Houston). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0
On 2/5/20 17:15, Lionel Giard wrote: > In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main > tag was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in > most examples when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to > map them separately (one way for the barrier and one way for the other > main tag, even if they are exactly sharing the same node). This is in > order to keep the one feature to one object and keep things manageable > and without ambiguity. Thus to me, all the examples of "barrier=*" (+ > "area=yes" +) "leisure=playground" are a tagging error, that should be > two separate objects. JOSM's validator will flag ways that share the same nodes as a warning, or at least it used to. I think it's just more rubbish in the database to have one way for the fence and another for an area when they share the same nodes. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/30/20 15:14, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Oh, and a further corner case: Are we agreed that something like "Old > Route 7" has become a name? It's no longer a ref, because Route 7 is > now elsewhere. It appears on street signs like any other name, not on > a reference banner, and it's the 'addr:street' of the houses on it. "Old Route 7" or "Old Highway 7" etc might be used as the actual name of the remaining street after the highway is realigned to run elsewhere. I've seen this happen in Texas a lot. If it belongs in 'addr:street' for the buildings near it, usually it belongs in 'name'. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/29/20 17:21, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The road heads from here to Kimbim, then to Piramid. "Jalan" means way > (or path / road / street, and the verb means "to walk", "to travel"). > It's common for roads in Indonesia to be named by the places which > they connect, usually focusing on the further destinations We have a few of these around Houston, too: I think the legal name of part of Texas Highway 6 is Alvin-Sugarland Road, and if I remember right there's also an Aldine-Westfield Road, Humble-Westfield Road, and the Katy Freeway (which, interestingly, doesn't become the Houston Freeway as you get close to Katy). However, here, the names are consistent and that name on the sign is usually how mail is addressed. I can only imagine the chaos that ensues when there's no one legal name for the road as they apparently do it in Indonesia. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] road names and refs
On 1/29/20 16:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg > mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA > 96” but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. > > > I think you're confusing name=* with addr:street=* in that case, Joseph. JOSM has a mode where it renders highway=* with a color based on the name=* and nearby addresses with color based on addr:street=*. This is useful for finding misspelled and abbreviated road names either in the address or on the road itself. I've always thought name=* was to refer to the name of the road as used in addresses, usually indicated on street signs. Have I missed something? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country
On 1/27/20 18:31, Greg Troxel wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > >> Mateusz, offlist deliberately. > > While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO? I have working "Reply" and "Reply List" features. I don't see what's broken. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 1/10/20 00:04, Marc Gemis wrote: > Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient > to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on > the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or > floor). A lot of retail buildings here are set up such that the first shop has, say, 100, then the next one down 102, then 104, etc up to whatever number. Other times they will get suite/unit letters or numbers and the entire building will have one number; at least one case exists where multiple buildings have the same address number and different buildings have different suite/unit numbers at that same address. Just to be sure there's no ambiguity, I repeat the parts of the address that may be in common when I map new businesses. So far, JOSM's validator hasn't flagged that as an error or warning as long as something changes between each address. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 1/9/20 22:54, Marc Gemis wrote: > Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs, > and perhaps he was right. > Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell > the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is > properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor corridors > are mapped, the router should be able to take me there. Does it matter > that the POI has an address, or that it is put on the building, > perhaps not, as long as its coordinate are correct. Having the address can ensure one has the right POI when there are other similar ones in the area. Consider the rather infamous case of Houston's "Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks" (2029 and 2050 West Gray Street, near South Shepherd Drive). There are also the two different Starbucks locations in The Galleria (usually disambiguated by floor as one is ground level by the elevators and financial tower, one is on the second floor closer to the ice rink) which would at minimum have different unit numbers. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Incomplete addresses
On 1/7/20 02:16, Lionel Giard wrote: > The ID template must not be taken a mandatory field, but only as a > suggestion on what information is generally useful for this feature (in > the entire world, as i think that the template are not different by > countries ?!). :-) I'm pretty sure the iD template is different in the US and Canada as it includes state or province, which most other countries don't have. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 1/6/20 01:47, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Then there are buildings which is a single building with no seperation > inbetween but multiple entrances with individual housenumbers. I > use nodes on those. I had a weird case locally (within walking distance of me) where one business in a building had an address on a different street than the other three. I could have maybe split the building outline but decided to just use nodes instead. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings
On 1/5/20 12:37, Marc Gemis wrote: > This depends on the country. > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark, > It is not typical to do so in The Netherlands. > In Italy, the address belongs to a door, not to a building. In the US it can go either way. I've seen a shopping center where multiple buildings had the same address (number and street) but different ranges of suite/unit numbers. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"
On 12/20/19 16:35, Hauke Stieler wrote: > Using shop=duty_free would unfortunately remove possible existing tags > like shop=fashion, therefore I hope for additional tags as I mentioned. And I think this is enough reason to deprecate shop=duty_free in favor of e.g. shop:duty_free=yes or similar. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive
On 12/6/19 18:38, Martin Koppenhoefer via Tagging wrote: sent from a phone On 6. Dec 2019, at 23:28, Martin Scholtes wrote: What exactly don't you understand? Apart from your question, I can't figure it out. the name is misleading, rather than park_and_drive, the name of the concept and borrowing from the well known park and ride concept, you named the tag park_drive which means literally a road in a park. I also find this confusing. I have also seen this referred to as "park and pool" (short for "park and carpool"). Would this be too confusing of a name as well? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?
On 11/8/19 03:34, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > What is a Seveso site? The link to the directive on Wikipedia says: > > “a European Union > <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union> directive > <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)> aimed at > controlling major chemical accident hazards. Seveso III is implemented > in national legislation and is enforced by national chemical safety > authorities.” > > Are these chemical hazard sites? Inspection sites? My first guess is it's at least roughly analogous to a Superfund site in the US. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?
On 10/28/19 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged > type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign > > For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital > should be on hospitals > and nothing else. +1 Maybe destination:amenity=hospital instead? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict
On October 17, 2019 12:48:58 AM CDT, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >Sorry, can't help with Pachinko, but just in regard to it all > >On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 15:04, John Willis via Tagging < >tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> Amenity=gambling wiki page says: >> >> > A place for gambling, not being a bookmaker, lottery shop, casino, >or >> adult gaming centre. Games that are covered by this definition >include >> bingo and pachinko. >> > >Personally, I wouldn't really have called bingo "gambling" as such? >Yes, >you pay a fee & there is a chance of winning a prize, but gambling >seems a >little strong? > >Amenity=adult_gaming_centre says: >> >> > This tag is used for venues with gambling machines, such as slot >> machines. >> > >Didn't realise till reading this now that adult_gaming = gambling! > >I had previously used the tag for https://zerolatencyvr.com/ > >What do you then call a place that adults (min age 15) play games, but >no >gambling of any sort takes place? > >Thanks > >Graeme leisure=amusement_arcade ? Strange but true I guess -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=bank
On 5/26/19 07:42, Volker Schmidt wrote: > My personal experience is that banks typically occupy part of a building > only. > I could not describe any specific features that distinguishes a bank > building from other office or commercial buildings. In a lot of US cities, particularly smaller towns and older parts of larger cities, banks were built as separate buildings and many still are (this local branch of my bank -- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/672138199 -- comes to mind, and it's relatively new construction). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no
On May 24, 2019 4:08:45 PM CDT, Jmapb wrote: >On 5/24/2019 4:28 PM, Jmapb wrote: >> >> On 5/24/2019 4:10 PM, Paul Allen wrote: >> >>> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? >>> >>> This is a very popular situation in Poland. >>> >>> >>> I knew there'd be at least one. :) >> >> It's common in the USA too. >> >>> OK, so let me ask this. Do zebra stripes on their own have any >legal >>> significance? Can >>> you have zebra stripes without lights or are they only ever present >>> with lights? >> >> In *my* experience in the USA, stripes are basically there to give >> drivers a visual clue to look out for pedestrians and not to block >the >> crosswalk, and thus to inform crossing pedestrians where on the >> pavement is safest. Of course these marking and the relevant laws are >> decided on a local level, so officially there may be many differing >> legal meanings to the stripes. >> >Just to be clear -- zebra stripes occur at both with stop signs and >with >traffic lights. At a stop sign, pedestrians always have right of way. >At >traffic lights, pedestrians only have the right of way when obeying the >lights. > >In some localities zebra stripes may also be used for pedestrian >crossings that are specifically signed on the roadway to let drivers >know that pedestrians have the right of way at all times. > >But unstriped crossings are also used in all of these very same >scenarios! So the stripes themselves have no universal legal meaning on >their own. > >(I'm not aware of anywhere in the USA where there are stripes without >traffic signs/signals. I'm sure this exists somewhere but if I saw it >I'd think that a sign was missing.) > >J There is at least one such crossing near the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (1001 Bissonnet Street). -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1
On 4/13/19 15:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 13. Apr 2019, at 19:58, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >> >> It makes no sense to have to add separate ways for barrier=fence and >> leisure=park when the fence surrounds the entire park. > > you could make the park a multipolygon. This makes even less sense and is even clumsier, especially for those using iD if memory serves correctly. Single-member multipolygons are also a clear misuse of the multipolygon relation; the prefix "multi" means more than one. If, for some reason, the fence or the park boundary differ, I can see making one or both a multipolygon, but if they are the same then they should be tagged on the same way (at least as I see it). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1
On 4/13/19 04:19, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > Mapping two features with the same way seem highly efficient. > That OSM-Carto's software is unable to deal with it, is a long-standing > weakness & should be rewritten to solve it. However, regrettably those > involved in the project seem to like using the software's shortcomings > as an excuse not to sort out problems, so I don't see that happening any > time soon. +1 It makes no sense to have to add separate ways for barrier=fence and leisure=park when the fence surrounds the entire park. Also JOSM's validator will complain about overlapping ways if you have two ways with the same nodes. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fixing import
On 3/2/19 02:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 2, 2019, 4:42 AM by skqu...@rushpost.com: > > I'm already > a bit burned out from my attempts to clean up the massive number of > duplicated nodes from a botched import in 2012 that I just now found. > > Can you link the area? It should be fairly easy to do with JOSM > (one of funnier series of edits for me was deleting thousands of nodes from > botched HOT editing, all done by JOSM running in background) I was using JOSM, and the area is the US state of Texas, potentially everything originally imported by user TexasNHD. I have already merged well over 20,000 or so, no telling how many more are out there. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fixing import
On 3/1/19 21:31, Greg Troxel wrote: > Paul Johnson writes: > >> Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea for highway=road to be the default type for >> bulk imports, especially after the TIGER fiasco. > > Another view would be that if an import seems like it should be > highway=road, then it isn't good enough data to import. +1 Cleaning up miles and miles of highway=road is something I'd find very tedious and would discourage me from contributing to OSM if I wound up having to do it a lot just to get a decent quality of data. I'm already a bit burned out from my attempts to clean up the massive number of duplicated nodes from a botched import in 2012 that I just now found. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Appropriate tagging for Redbox vending machines
On 1/25/19 11:13, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: >> While looking to add appropriate "vending" tags into the name suggestion >> index project <https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index> I came >> across a US based Redbox vending machine brand. [...] > I think "rental" is more accurate. Some if not all RedBox machines do also sell used DVDs/games. Though their primary function is rental, adding vending=* in addition wouldn't be entirely inaccurate. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag
On 1/20/19 11:06, Roland Olbricht wrote: > we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged > structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making > "street level" a not-at-all defined concept. In case of the university > e.g. the main entrance is on level 7, and street level entrances range > from levels 2 to 10. I am also aware of dozens of buildings across > Europe with "street level entrance" on multiple levels. Deerbrook Mall in Humble, TX, is also like that, with an entrance on the second floor. I'm sure there are many others. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ATMs and cashback
On 08/24/2018 05:35 AM, seirra wrote: > Is there a way to put what currency denomination they output? for > example: whilst every cash machine here should theoretically output > £20/£10 notes, there are a growing number that output £5 notes I'm not sure this is something we should try to keep up to date in the OSM database proper. Maybe as an overlay on top of OSM data, but not in OSM's own database. Over here in the US every ATM I have ever used in the last 10 years or so only dispenses $20 bills. For a while (at least) Capital One had some machines with $20 and $10 bills but this appears to have been phased out. Very early in the ATM era (late 1980s/early 1990s) at least one bank had machines with $20, $10, and $5 bills, but I haven't seen this since. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging a gamesroom?
On 08/17/2018 08:37 AM, Bryan Housel wrote: > Probably `leisure=amusement_arcade`, which is not great but the best > tag we have. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Damusement_arcade > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=amusement_arcade> I would tend to think this is more for video game/pinball arcades. Perhaps there should be some additional tags to indicate exactly what kind of games are available? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] areas of risk
On 08/16/2018 02:32 PM, seirra wrote: > Hello, i was wondering whether there was a way to tag areas that may be > risky/dangerous to walk in? i can think of a few streets that could use > the tag, was there anything of the sort that has been agreed on? Past discussions have indicated this is not something which can be objectively mapped in the OSM database. A posted sign warning of a high crime area, as well as things like graffiti, the dilapidated/deteriorated state of buildings, etc. could be mapped or tagged on existing objects as appropriate. Crime data by police beat/precinct could be overlaid onto a map generated from OSM data as well. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary or tertiary ways?
On 07/12/2018 08:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Trunk, yes. Primary and lower, if it has exits intersections, are you > sure it's not a trunk? Allen Parkway in Houston is like this, it's most definitely not a trunk (anymore) but there is a section that has grade-separated exits. Fannin Street in Houston crossing Holcombe Boulevard also comes to mind as a non-trunk with a grade-separated exit. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?
On 06/16/2018 11:45 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`? If this is for bus stop/transit shelters, it would imply building=roof at minimum. The shelters here usually have three walls (sometimes only one wall) with the fourth side being open to the street, plus a canopy to protect from rain. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction
On 04/09/2018 01:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would >> need some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag? > > > > Following this logics, what about museums, aren’t they only > attractions when open, and we should use conditional tagging? Regarding museums, we have opening_hours=* for that, don't we? While opening_hours=* wouldn't be appropriate for a flower field, some tagging about the type of flower and possibly when it's expected to be in bloom could be added. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle
On 01/17/2018 03:45 PM, OSMDoudou wrote: > (B) > > This issue raises the question whether R50 should be tagged as trunk in > the first place. > > The Wiki page [6] refers to notions like "high performance" and road > signs F9. But the road is limited to 70 km/h and there are no F9 signs > on the entries and exits of R50, only C19 "No entry for pedestrians" and > C11 + C9 "No entry for bicycles" + "No entry for mopeds (and mofas)", > which tend to confirm it's not a trunk. > > I wonder if primary wouldn't be more accurate classification, although > the Wiki refers to a "highway linking large towns" [7], which is not the > case here as the highway is a ring around the city not a road between > cities. Not sure what the situation is in Belgium, but here in the US a lot of major city streets get tagged as primary. There are only two local roads I can think of tagged as trunk in my area: the non-freeway/motorway section of Texas 249 between Beltway 8 and I-45, and the controlled access section of Memorial Drive (from Detering to downtown Houston where it becomes Texas Avenue and Prairie Avenue). There are only a handful tagged as primary, one of which I upgraded myself even though it lacks a state/US highway designation (which otherwise seems to be a requirement by whoever tagged the others). -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: "slogan" tag. Opinions?
On 09/19/2017 02:13 AM, SwiftFast wrote: > The slogan tag would contain a company/organization's slogan or motto. > It is human-readable, similar to the "description"[1] tag. Multiple > languages are allowed with the "slogan:lang" format, just like > descriptions and names. -1 Slogans change, and personally I would prefer less ad copy (ideally zero) in the OSM database, not more. This is probably on the Wikipedia page for most given brands and thus the link to Wikipedia should suffice. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] contact:* for review websites
On 09/15/2017 05:56 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I have seen a few mappers recently adding > contact:[ yelp | tripadvisor | foursquare ] > to businesses. > > IMHO these are not means of contact, instead these are review websites. > While I personally think that we do not need them in OSM at all, they > certainly do not belong in the contact:* namespace. I agree that they don't belong in OSM. Some of these sites will function as means of contact, but I would tend towards only putting phone number, website, email, and similar established means in OSM. We already get rookie flacks/marketers cramming ad copy gibberish into description=*, and I feel like Yelp/Foursquare/etc reviews are just more of the same. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names
On 09/07/2017 04:31 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset > 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in > feet) to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown > Point 11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki doesn't specifically address the > issue of elevation as part of a peak name, it does say "Name is the name > only"[3]. > > Could we get feedback from the wider community on this? That's what this is for: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele The only catch is that it has to be in meters, so you would tag ele=3493.9 in your example. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging]
On 07/26/2017 10:10 PM, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote: > Yes but what if instead of 附壁式 it is a local type for which no > English translation exists? We either come up with the best English translation we can, or use some (transliterated, in this case) variant of the local word. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging]
On 07/26/2017 08:12 PM, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Which is correct?
>
>
>
>
E. None of the above
if Google Translate got the translation right ("wall type").
--
Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree
On 07/22/2017 08:18 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: > On 2017-07-22 13:50, Adam Snape wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Removing the name key from the JOSM preset wouldn't stop somebody >> adding a name tag in the few cases where a tree really was named. Nor >> would it remove name tags from existing trees. > > But what's wrong with having the name as an optional tag on the preset? > if it is not relevant for that particular tree, just leave it blank. > Yes it is the minority of trees, but I think there are quite a few trees > that have some sort of name. And it is often of historic interest, so > worth recording it. If I remember right, we have this field on highway=traffic_signals even though only one country (Japan) uses it. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Unsigned portions of signed routes
On 05/31/2017 04:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > personally, I don't think "unsigned_ref" is a good tag, as it still > refers to a "ref", so I would put a "ref" tag and if you want another > tag that says the ref is not signed (e.g. ref=PA 235 unsigned_ref=yes, > but admittedly, according to taginfo this is not how it is done), but it > might be discutable and if you'd really want to emphasize that there are > no signs, it would seem a good way to do it. And then you have situations such as US 90 through Houston where it is routed onto I-610 and I-10 but not signed. US 90 comes out as a signed route near Katy (going west) and east of I-610 as a freeway (going east). I-10 and I-610 are the signed routes, but US 90 is still there. I don't see an easy way to tag the unsigned status of US 90 and AFAIK it is just tagged in ref=* like it was signed. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM
On 05/21/2017 07:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2017-05-21 14:05 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl > <mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>>: > > WHY do we put traffic signs into OSM? > > > > I do it because in the past in many occassions I have found the maxspeed > I had mapped, later destroyed by mappers who had merged the ways with > different maxspeeds back into one way, This (losing information when combining ways) is a problem with iD and possibly other editing software. JOSM will warn you that two ways have differing maxspeeds when joining them. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Starbucks or Starbucks Coffee
On 03/20/2017 03:37 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote: > most of you know that place with the green mermaid logo serving coffee. > > But what is it's name/brand to be tagged in OSM? > > There is a wiki page suggesting "Starbucks Coffee". No references listed > how it was decided to be. It also mentioned that "Starbucks" was more > common. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/POI:Starbucks_Coffee > As of today there are 5565 "Starbucks" and 1191 "Starbucks Coffee". I'm all for "Starbucks" in the same vein that we tag "Chipotle" not "Chipotle Mexican Grill". Although, I've seen the latter tagged as alt_name which I'm fine with in that case, but if Starbucks itself is deemphasizing the "coffee" part (similar to Domino's and Apple) I'm a bit leery of adding "Starbucks Coffee" even as alt_name. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The direction=* tag
On 03/17/2017 05:24 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > The “highway=stop | give_way” tag on a node on way might be used by > map rendering, which probably doesn’t care if it has forward or > backward tagging. OsmAnd does a callout for highway=stop but unfortunately ignores the direction=* tag as of the version I have. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Charity storefront only used for receiving donations
See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3768401994 This is a small storefront operated by Goodwill for the express purpose of receiving donations. It isn't a full-blown Goodwill thrift store. I had this tagged previously as amenity=social_facility but JOSM's validator doesn't like this, and the more I think about it, I don't either. What to use instead? -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 03/13/2017 07:40 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I favor "landuse=disused". > That implies that there was previous significant human use, and now > there is no real use. +1 I really like this idea; it fixes the issue of using brownfield/greenfield, which imply "slated for future development". My suggestion including landuse=grass comes from JOSM presets. Should we change these to natural=grass or similar? I agree that it doesn't belong in landuse=* unless there's some subtlety about landuse=grass that I'm missing. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots
On 03/12/2017 04:42 PM, Tristan Anderson wrote: > What is the most appropriate landuse tag for vacant lots in urban areas? > That is, land that was previously occupied by a house or other building > that has been demolished, no trace of the building remains, and the land > is currently overgrown or covered in untended grass. In the past I have > used brownfield, but this is for land scheduled for redevelopment, which > is often not the case. Any of landuse=grass, natural=grassland, nautral=scrub, natural=wood depending on just how overgrown it is. Unless someone has a better idea? -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Invalid voting of proposed feature motorcycle_friendly=*
On 03/03/2017 04:56 PM, Warin wrote: > Would I use friendly:*=no ... yes. There is one pub/fuel stop in > Australia that is 'out of fuel' for motorcyclists ... but has it for cars. > Definitely friendly:motorcycle=no! Very usefull to know that a > motorcycle needs enough fuel to get to the next fuel stop! How can this be? At least here in the US, cars and motorcycles run on the same stuff. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine and vending=public_transport_plans?
On 02/16/2017 03:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > These don't fit well neither in "vending" nor in "dispensing" (because > they provide a service and no item is dispensed): > * parcel_pickup;parcel_mail_in > * parcel_pickup > * parcel_mail_in > * elongated_coin > * locker > * rice_polishing * shredding Yes, there exist self-service paper/media shredders. The ones I know of were up in Washington state but they were looking to expand. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-service laudry machines a camp and caravan sites
On 02/08/2017 03:28 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I see on the wiki page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site > the option > shop=laundry > > This does not seem to be appropriate to map caravan sites that offer > self-service coin-operated washing machines or dryers (and it seems not > to be in use anyway). > > Is there a common scheme that I have overlooked? If it's a small washateria within a campsite, then I'd think that would be an appropriate tag for that area, much the same as you might tag shop=gift or perhaps shop=convenience for an area of a gift shop inside a hotel. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM
On 01/18/2017 04:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2017-01-17 18:35 GMT+01:00 Nelson A. de Oliveira <nao...@gmail.com > <mailto:nao...@gmail.com>>: > > "ele" without any other attribute is valid? > > > > yes, you can do it, but there's the risk that following mappers will > move the node around if there's nothing visibly identifiable attached to > it, and the positional accuracy will remain opaque. (Some editors will > prominently highlight the node if it has any tag on it, others will not > make it very evident and someone might move it without noting). JOSM will highlight a tagged node it doesn't recognize as something else in bright cyan. iD, as of what I remember from the last time I used it, does not differentiate between an untagged node and a tagged node it doesn't recognize. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Differentiating streets with official name from non-official yet name
On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 09:57 -0200, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > Situation: there is a city where all the streets are named (using the > "name" tag). > Some of the names are official (recognized by the city hall, by law, > etc) and some are not yet officially recognized. > > Is there a way to differentiate official names from non-official? > > Using only official_name in the recognized streets won't make sense. > Using name + official_name, both with the same exact value, won't also > make sense I guess. > > Do anybody know a good way to say that some streets are officially > named, please? For the streets named but not officially recognized, maybe something like name=* + name:official=no perhaps? (where name:official defaults to yes if not specified) That's the only way I can think of doesn't break anything. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amphitheatre or outdoor non-sports venue
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 14:04 +0900, johnw wrote: > I’m trying to tag an outdoor venue I would call > an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphitheatre. It is a “natural” one, > with a stage near a lake, with terraces seating for picnics or > standing for a crowded performance. [...] > Large camps, outdoor parks, and other places will have a outdoor > stadium-like place, but has no ability to host a sporting event - it > is a “performance” venue - people on a “stage" doing something for an > audience: a music concert, standup, religious performance > > > Event Venue, music Venue, and proposals are abandoned. "Stadium" seems > to be focused on sports, as it should be. Sports Arenas and stadiums > can be adapted for music events, but like a movie theatre or > performance hall, these are primarily a performance-only venue. these > are outdoor versions of a performance hall. > > > is there some amenity=* tag I am missing that I should be using? > Putting “stadium” or sports venue on these seems pretty wrong. Is there anything about amenity=arts_centre that says it has to necessarily be indoor? I propose: amenity=arts_centre and either: arts_centre=ampitheatre or arts_centre=outdoor -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for palapa
On Sun, 2016-07-24 at 13:22 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: > There are some structures on a beach I’d like to tag which I believe > are called a palapa [1]. Not my photos, but there are images of others > on the web, for instance [2] and [3]. > > I don’t see anything under ‘palapa' in the wiki. And while there are > some things I see in taginfo that have “palapa” in their names, I > don’t see anything with that as a tag or value. I’ve checked leisure, > amenity and building in addition to a general search. [...] > So, how should they be tagged? I can see something like: building=roof roof=palapa (the latter to distinguish it from the garden-variety gas station canopy, which could be tagged with roof=canopy or similar) -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] adding sport detail to sport=multi using sport=x; multi
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 18:31 +0900, John Willis wrote: > Sometimes a pitch is defined by what is not allowed. > Most sports pitches in Japan, where you would find soccer or other > grass-field sports, often don't allow rugby or American football > because of the damage to the turf. It would be nice to say yes/no on a > field that has "multi" that this doesn't include rugby. More granular > tagging would be very helpful for that. How about: sport=multi sport:rugby=no sport:american_football=no and maybe even pitch:turf=fragile ? -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned
On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 17:24 +0200, Richard wrote: > my 2c, avoid any automatisms. Some proposals need a lot of time to > ripe. > > Using talk page, contacting original author(s) would be highly > recommended. This proposal, in particular, is probably due for a revisit, especially given that it was the example used to show a huge problem our community didn't even know it had (and which, unfortunately, has been mostly ignored). -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned
On Sat, 2016-03-26 at 11:06 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > FWIW, the actual reason for this mail now is this edit, but I'm more > interested to learn about your general considerations: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare2.0=next=1128997 I can agree with setting this proposal as abandoned. However, we do need better tagging for childcare facilities and it is disappointing that the talk Monica Stephens gave back in 2012 has apparently fallen on deaf ears. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] AirBnB
On Sat, 2016-03-19 at 11:41 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. The only authoritative source for the houses currently offered on Airbnb is Airbnb itself. There is a reason Airbnb does not show exact address or even exact locations on the map. This data absolutely, positively, does not belong in OpenStreetMap, as there would be no end of ethical, moral, and possibly legal problems from doing so. If you've added any of these already, I'd recommend quickly reverting the changes. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is a reference a name if it is actually used as a name on the ground ?
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 00:14 +0100, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> For residential streets, we have a well-known and documented naming
> scheme as follows:
>
> - name=* bears the official name
> - loc_name=* bears a local name, which is often an old name but what
> matters is that it is a locally well used name
> - ref=* bears a government official universal reference, which
> abbreviates the district and suffixes it with a number (for example
> "GY-63")
>
> So far, so good. Now, the problem is that not all streets have a name
> -
> actually most streets are unnamed, so value of the ref=* is actually
> what people use as a name... It is not a name but it is used as a
> name.
> If it quacks like a duck... So here is the dilemma:
Occasionally, in the US, the value of ref=* is used similarly to a name.
("Turn right onto US 59", etc.) I see no issue with leaving name=* blank
in those situations, unless mail is actually addressed to something like
1234 GY-63, Somecity, Senegal. It is not uncommon for rural roads at
least in the US to have only a ref=* and no name=*. However, sometimes
there are things like name="County Road 123" and ref="CR 123".
--
skquinn
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link
On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote: > I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link. > Please comment. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway > > Proposal: > Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must > also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=* > status of this way is undefined. Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in the real world is motorway_link a two-way road? > - For rendering purposes ways with undefined oneway should be > displayed like the default, i.e. without oneway arrows. This I support... > - For routing purposes it is recommended to not route over ways with > undefined oneway since any assumption may be wrong and it would be > best to correct the data. This I don't. In a lot of cases the likely direction of a motorway_link can be inferred by the angle of the junction, even if not explicitly tagged. > - In map editors undefined oneway should be displayed as tagging > error. This makes sense, but will cause a fair amount of grief while the existing data is fixed. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin EmBassy is place_of_worship???
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015, at 02:28 PM, Marc Zoutendijk wrote: I was higly surprised to see the Bitcoin emBassy being tagged with: amenity=place_of_worship. See for yourself: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2839982498 http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2839982498 Nowhere in the wiki do I find one single word that would allow for this strange combination of tags. Fixed, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33671803 -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 19:56 +0200, François Lacombe wrote: Hi Mateusz, It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes. I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two different information in one value. I agree. This was an absolutely awful, boneheaded choice for a tag, when we already had a much better way to tag the same thing. I have no issue with automatically replacing the existing waterway=derelict_canal with waterway=canal and disused=yes. There's just no reason to keep the former tag. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Concrete kerbs in highway
On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 16:58 -0700, Clifford Snow wrote: https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipN7JZ5SUnvtE-lBS9isblsmQQ2NEbjKq9Wxldyo https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipOvKFy5lPRf85fW77Kgt4feBHKxLJk54bgL11MA Both of these are 404 as of a minute or so ago. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 01:26 +0200, Andreas Goss wrote: Don't know why people are so keen on subtags on this one. Nobody would tag a fastfood restaurant buildng=yes + food=burgers. But we do: building=yes amenity=fast_food cuisine=burger -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
