Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling
On 14 November 2013 11:54, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nlwrote: Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw cranes? I'd call it an amusement arcade, but that's probably just a local term. Also games arcade. Are there in fact countries where there are distinct places for gambling machines and gaming machines? Yes. In Queensland, Australia (other states may have slightly different rules) they are very distinct. However, just confuse things, the gambling machines are officially known as Gaming machines here, and their location is know as a Gaming room. Generally they are called pokies or poker machines, though, no matter what type of gambling it actually is. Gambling machines must be licensed (and there a limited number of licences for the entire state) and can only be found in casinos or in Gaming rooms in clubs or pubs. These locations are restricted by age, and always licensed premises (can serve alcohol). I've never heard of video (non-gambling) games being in one of these rooms. Non gambling machines, which include games where you get tickets/points for doing well that you can trade for prizes, are in Amusement arcades, which are often in shopping centres, near cinemas, etc. They are often have games designed for children, there are no age restrictions, and the machines do not need to be licensed in any way. Perhaps game arcade is also be a useful term? For the Americans on the list: Dave and Buster's and Chucke E. Cheese are mentioned on the wiki as examples of video arcades. What kind of games do these places offer? I suppose no gambling? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging On 14 November 2013 11:54, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nlwrote: On 11 November 2013 18:02, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, fly wrote: What I miss so far is a way to better describe what kind of gambling is possible, no weather what kind of place it is, similar to gambling=* Do we need a tag for each machines ? How do I tag a bar with some machines ? a backdoor room ? I agree that that would be useful to have, but I would prefer to leave it out of the scope of this proposal. I think it is important to first have the main type of venues right. After that we can always define new tags for slot machines in pubs, etc. The proposal is already quite big, so I think we should not increase the scope of the proposal for now. I would agree here, playing for pleasure does need to be distinguished from gambling. Gambling will imply age restrictions on entry, whereas playing video games does not. Hmm, difficult to get the difference right. How would you call a place with video games and pinball machines? What if there are also claw cranes? Are there in fact countries where there are distinct places for gambling machines and gaming machines? Perhaps game arcade is also be a useful term? For the Americans on the list: Dave and Buster's and Chucke E. Cheese are mentioned on the wiki as examples of video arcades. What kind of games do these places offer? I suppose no gambling? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop values for _supply, _supplies, _supplement, _supplements?
On 23 August 2013 03:29, Ferenc Veres l...@netngine.hu wrote: English is not my native language, so I don't know if plural or singular is correct for this, or which wording would work best grammatically while also fit in OSM tagging scheme, that recommends plural. medical_supply medical_supplies pet_supply pet_supplies nutrition_supplements nutrition_supplement It depends on whether you are talking about the store or what it sells A medical supply store (or a medical supplier) sells medical supplies A pet supply store sell pet supplies etc Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bakery,confectionery
On 27 June 2013 18:15, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: - Baked on site is an important distinction. For amusement: In the USA much packaged bread is sold with a label or sticker reading Baked fresh daily or just Baked fresh. As if... there were some other way to bake bread? Baked fresh daily two weeks ago just does not have the same ring to it. Well, there was a bit of controversy in Australia recently when it was pointed out that one of the big supermarket chains that advertised baked today was actually selling bread that had been created and par-baked in another country, shipped to Australia, and then just finished baking on the spot. I'm not sure if that would count as baked fresh or not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Narrow Bridge (was: Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»)
Eric, The English version did say that at one point, as well, before it was changed back to the current definition. Maybe the French one was copied from it during that period. Stephen On 13 October 2012 04:49, Eric SIBERT courr...@eric.sibert.fr wrote: Indeed, as pointed out by Martin, I have to use lanes=1. I had a misunderstanding with the lanes=* key. I thought lanes=* indicated the number of lanes in each direction, not the total number in both directions. The French wiki lanes=* page need a strong update, compared to the English one (todo list...). So, I will go on with lanes=1. Éric __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On 15 August 2012 21:15, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? The problem at the moment is that we have two types of tags (landcover and landuse) scattered throughout a whole bunch of categories. Even worse, we have tags that are used as landuse=* that are not landuse type, but landcover type. It makes explaining the difference and training people close to impossible. I personally don't care if we set up a landcover= tag or not, as long as we get these tags out of the landuse= tag space. Long version: Landuse tags say what an area is used for - residential, retail, school, park, military base, hospital etc. As a general rule, there is only one landuse tag covering a given area. Not all of these tags are of the form landuse= Landcover tags say what is on a given part of ground - grass, sand, swamp, etc, but also buildings, rivers, roads, sports pitches, gardens, fields etc. Again, as a general rule, landcover areas don't overlap, though ways will often be put through areas rather than split the area in two. It's quite common and even expected for landcover and landuse tags to overlap, however. A single landuse may contain many different landcover tags - the school nearest my house has buildings, car parks, grass, sports pitches, a farm area (animal paddock and crops), a sports hall, and that's just what I can see from the road. It's still all one landuse of school, though. This is confusing enough to mappers without having to say some of the landuse=* tags aren't actually landuse ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts
I was away most of last month, and missed most of the discussion of mini and normal roundabouts. However, looking at the wiki now, from what I can tell the differences now are -Roundabouts can be mapped as a way or node (though way is preferred), mini roundabouts only as a node -Roundabouts cannot be traversable, mini-roundabouts must be So what do I do about a roundabout that has been mapped out as a way, but is traversable? This weekend I ran across a couple of new (to me) traversable roundabouts on a street that used to have normal intersections. When I checked to see if they have been updated, they have been mapped as roundabout ways. However, both these roundabouts are fully traversable, in fact I saw a bus go across one. How should this be tagged? I don't particularly want to remove the mapped way to tag as a node - if it wasn't mapped as a way and was a normal capped roundabout I'd probably be mapping it as a way myself. Can we use a way marked as mini-roundabout? Photo of one of these here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21448164/IMG_0169C.jpg Or another idea - since there are many mini-roundabouts tagged that aren't really, so the tag is quite polluted at this time, and the only big difference I can see now is if it is traversable or not, maybe we should ignore mini-roundabout all together, just use roundabout and traversable=yes/no. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
Here's an example of the same type of sign in Australia http://goo.gl/maps/Pao1 Stephen On 2 June 2012 05:20, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 19:02 +0200, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 01.06.2012 um 15:01 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: On 01/06/2012 14:19, Jason Cunningham wrote: On 1 June 2012 08:09, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. The example given is within the UK. Within the UK signs or signposts haver no 'status' unless they're listed within official documents and linked to legislation. I am confident this unsuitable for HGVs sign has no legislative status. It's existence may be due to local residents asking their local politician to find a way to 'stop' HGV's following satnavs down this road because the noise reduces they're enjoyment of their evening cocktails (Very unlikely, but a possibility). Therefore it's more than possible that an 'unsuitable status sign' may refer to a road that is very suitable. People or business will place signs adjacent to UK roads in rural areas which attempt to alter the actions of drivers, and we should not map these. And if these signs are placed by the highway authority? I think these most definitely do have a place in OSM. It's then up to the data consumers whether they attach any value to them. By making the data available, we are enabling e.g. HGV routing programs to take these hints into account. Without these hints, trucks may be directed down unsuitable routes. The political process leading to their erection is not important - only their existence. Political pressure has a large influence on speed limits as well. You are both correct in my opinion. As I wrote earlier this doesn't feel like something that belongs into an access tag to me especially as you are still allowed to use that specific way. But if those signs have some official character they should have a place in OSM. What do you think about using some other key for this? The blue 'Unsuitable for HGVS' and 'Unsuitable for Motors' signs are placed by the highway authority, i.e. local councils, which maintain all UK roads except for Trunk roads and Motorways. They do not prohibit vehicles from using the roads, and certainly with the 'Unsuitable for Motors' usability will depend on all sorts of things, such as type of vehicle, ground clearance, skill of the driver, the weather and recent weather. A 4x4 will usually be ok, and a low ground clearance Ferrari will struggle with many roads a normal car will clear easily. But I can think of at least one that is probably there so noisy cars don't spoil the summer cocktails as I can see nothing along that (single track road) that makes it unsuitable or in any way difficult, or any more difficult than any of the others in this area. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
The problem with this, is many mappers are not even aware of what implicit assumptions they are making, and hence won't map them. Saying that they should map them won't help. Do we need a database* of explicit default settings for different areas, to be used by renderers, routers and other tools as appropriate? Rules like In Germany, motorway implies foot=no if there is no foot tag on the way. This could also help give sane guesses of defaults for roads that haven't been tagged at all yet. * either a separate database, or polygons inside OSM with tags, whatever. That's not the point at the moment Stephen On 13 April 2012 04:35, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: With trunks and motorways, as with any other way unclassified and larger, it's best to explicitly define restrictions rather than expect them to be implicit. So, if horses are allowed in Texas motorways, we should add horse=no in German motorways ? Or if camels are allowed in Egyptians motorways, we shoudl add camel=no in Canadian motorways ? Not necessarily that specific given the realms of possibility, but yes, more detail is better. A somewhat random example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/60957683 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Turn Restriction usage
I've been clearing up some routing bugs reported in my area on Mapdust. Some of them are valid errors, and I've fixed them. Some I'm not so sure about. In one case there is a road where a two way section comes to a divider and becomes two one way sections for a while. The suggested route came along one of the one way sections, then turned about 340 degrees to go down the other side of the road. It may be legal to do a u-turn there, but I don't think it's safe, or even possible for most cars. I was thinking about it, and many other divided road are similar where they split/join. Should we be putting no u-turn restrictions on these? There's no actual signs. The other thing I was wondering about is traffic lights. Where I live, it is illegal to do a u-turn at an intersection with traffic lights unless there is a sign allowing you to. There's no signs saying not to, you're just supposed to know. There has been some discussion in the past with routers that have this sort of knowledge built in. Did anything come of this, or should I just start putting four turn restriction relations on all the traffic light intersections in my neighbourhood? That's going to be painful, not to mention causing a lot of road splitting. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turn Restriction usage
On 11 April 2012 22:12, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: Likewise as below the router should not make u turns at traffic lights. I don't have a problem with this, except we then are going to need some way to tag U-turn allowed to mark the cases where you are allowed to turn. These are generally traffic lights that have a turning lane for cross traffic and a dedicated turn signal. If we started using a U-turn allowed turn restriction, would that be too confusing? Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] reference_point and landmark for addresses
On 21 March 2012 20:22, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: And your example about from where the Cinema was before is a bit a problem if we don't see any evidence on the ground (like old signs but afain we don't have tags yet for that). This is exactly the kind of problem we have with neighbourhoods as discussed here a few months ago. There may be no official standing or signs of any type that you can point to on the ground, but the majority of local people still know what you mean and use the term. I think if we want to put these kind of items in the data (and I think they may be quite useful) then verifiability might mean eight out of ten locals can tell you where it is. But I do think we need a tag that clearly shows it as a search location, not necessarily to be shown on maps by renderers. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] gym as an amenity value
I *think* a fitness station is a stop on a fitness trail. Some parks and children's camps have a marked trail that you travel along, and at each stop there is some sort of activity to do - a rope climb, step climb, balance beam, tire running, pull up bar, that sort of thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_trail Stephen On 9 March 2012 22:04, Andreas Labres l...@lab.at wrote: On 09.03.12 11:04, Erik Johansson wrote: You mean: leisure=sport_centre probably leisure=sport*s*_centre ;) But leisure=fitness_centre would make sense to me (it's different from, say, a soccer club). BTW, can anybody tell me what is ment with those 622 fitness_stations? http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=fitness_station /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: highway=tidal_road
I can see both sides of the argument. We don't want too much proliferation of special road types - we already have ice roads, now tidal is suggested, there could easily be dry weather only (or not-monsoon only), 4wd only, summer only, etc. How far do we want to take this? On the other hand, we don't want dumb renderers treating these as ordinary roads by mistake. They can of course do it on purpose, if they wish. If we do want to separate them out, my suggestion is to use a single road type tag to indicate one of these special roads - highway=special_road (and maybe highway=special_path). Then extra tagging to differentiate them (special_type=ice_road/tidal/etc). This way we separate them out from the normal roads, if we think that's important, but don't create too many extra main tags. And a renderer can treat these as a group for special display, without having to know about the specific road types. Stephen On 25 November 2011 09:01, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote: From a hikers point of view I'd like to see some differentiation of tide affected ways. There's a number of tracks I didn't put on the map because I wasn't sure the tidal info placed in side tags would get to rendered. Use of difficulty scales doesn't quite warn someone either. I know given the current state of the map it can't be relied on for hiking. But one would hope it was heading in that direction. Though I dislike 4 wheel drivers stuffing up the landscape - it exists and it's requirements should be mapped where it is allowed. Gary P.S. As an australian english speaker 'tidal' works well for me ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: highway=tidal_road
On 23 November 2011 16:00, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Don't know, but it is certainly not tidal_road, as that proposal says a road that gets tidally flooded. You are not describing a road. What would you classify it as if the same way happened to be inland, with no tides involved? Figure that out, then we'll be getting somewhere Stephen What would the correct highway classification be for an Oregon beach? These fall under the Oregon Department of Transportation's jurisdiction despite not being improved for vehicular use (and trying will seriously screw up a bicycle, based on experience). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - entrance/door
Andreas, The number of wings tag sounds odd to me, a more general term would be leaves or panels, or even doors - ie, single or double door. If we're using these tags to help disabled access, I would add some tag about the door sill - it doesn't matter if the door opens easily or not if there is a raised door sill, sliding track, etc. Stephen Hope On 17 November 2011 22:16, Andreas Balzer andreas.bal...@live.de wrote: Hello, I've added a proposal on how to tag doors. It would be nice to get your opinions on this. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance/door Thanks, Andreas ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] different access restrictions for different entrances to an area
Have you actually driven through the roads, or just verified signs at the entrances? From only looking at the map, I would expect that cast, resort guests, business invitees etc can enter at C, but only to go to the car parks right by the entrance, and further down that road the restrictions would change to the same ones as for A B. They would be expected to exit by the same gate they came in. I could be wrong, of course, but I've seen that setup used elsewhere. I've seen a similar case to the problem you described elsewhere, though. There's a complex I've been to where only vehicles with a key/transponder of some sort can use most of the entrances. All other vehicles have to go through the main entrance, which (usually) has security personnel. Once you're inside, though, you can drive around and exit anywhere. So most of the entrances are restricted one way, but not the other. I'm not sure how you'd tag that, either. Stephen On 26 October 2011 04:43, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=28.42073,-81.58224z=15t=Kmarker0=28.41788%2C-81.57674marker1=28.41250%2C-81.59031marker2=28.42977%2C-81.57694 This is the area behind the Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World. Signs going northbound at A and B say Service Authorized Vehicles Only. Southbound at C, a sign says Private Property / Walt Disney World Resort Guest, Cast, and Business Invitees Only. (I verified A and C a few days ago; it's possible that B has changed recently.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=?
I've heard many terms for them over the years. Some are proprietary names, some can be confused with other types (traffic spike). The most generic term I've seen is one way traffic spike, maybe we can make a tag from that. Stephen On 21 October 2011 03:34, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: While we're at it, you also sometimes find barriers on car park exits which have fierce, curved, spring-loaded spikes which are pushed into the ground if you drive over them in the intended direction, but which would rip your tyres to shreds if you attempted to go in against the flow. Like a fixed stinger. Any ideas for barrier=? I've found them referred to on manufacturer sites as 'alligator teeth' and 'traffic spikes' David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
I have no problem with some people just mapping it has traffic lights and others adding more detail, if they feel a need for it. Most people are never going to need (or have the time/knowledge to enter) more than there are lights here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option for more. But if the only knowledge I have is there are lights here, I'd rather be able to mark that than have to fake up some light pole positions or leave it without. Having said that, I do have some questions about marking in detail Should we use different tags for this whole intersections has lights and there are lights in this exact spot. My first instinct is to say yes, so that data users can easily search for one or the other. You could say that any lights not on a way are one, and lights on a way are the other, but what about overhead signals that hang over the centre of the way/intersection? Is there a problem with marking an intersection both ways? Should we mark where the pole is, or where the lights are? Many of our traffic lights hang over the road, with the pole base off to one side. Should we be somehow marking which ways the various signals control? The same pole pole can have signals facing different directions, or just one. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
On 1 September 2011 11:41, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: In the US, the problem is that address place names depend on which post office serves the area, and there is no freely available accurate data showing this. Many suburban areas outside Orlando city limits have Orlando in the address, and there are some cases where a place in city A uses an address that is not city A. That's interesting, and a bit weird to me. Here, post offices open, close, move around, merge and split - and it makes no difference to my address. There is no post office in my suburb, though there are two near by. I have no idea which (if any) of those two my mail delivery actually comes from, and it could be neither - there is a bigger one a bit further away and for all I know the delivery people are based there. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
Brad, Where I live, suburbs are well known, have fixed borders (though they can be and are sometimes adjusted), and are part of your address according to the post office and local government. They are part of a larger residential area, which may be a city or town. Villages don't have multiple suburbs, though by some definitions you could say they have one. Where I live, the local government area has maybe 25-30 suburbs in it. Neighbourhoods are named areas of a larger place that are not suburbs. They are smaller (usually - not always), may not always be in one suburb (they can straddle boundaries), and are names that are not given by official organisations, but are known to locals and may be searched for. For example, I used to live near a housing subdivision on a hundred or so acres of land. It's part of a larger suburb, but all the locals know that area as Oak Grove, which is what the farm and then the housing development was called. The subdivision was finished 15+ years ago, but there's still a sign that says Oak Grove where the main entrance used to be, and people talk about it as a place. It's not an official suburb, and if you addressed a letter to 1 Smith St, Oak Grove I have no idea where it would end up, but it is a place name that would be useful on the map, and to be able to search for. Stephen On 31 August 2011 22:25, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: First off, I like this proposal too and think it's a long time coming. But, some references made me go and read the place=suburb wiki page again, and that tag seems very similar, so can that distinction be clarified? That is, why would one choose suburb over city/town/village or neighbourhood? The distinctive thing about suburb as far as I can tell is that it's an area located outside a city center, and this distinction is pretty much self-evident from the map itself. Maybe there's a particular country or culture where suburb makes more sense. Thanks, Brad ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of place=suburb (was Re: RFC: place=neighbourhood)
In Australia (and New Zealand) a suburb is a named, legally defined area that is part of your address. It is usually (always?) smaller than a local government area (My local government, Moreton Bay Shire, has 25-30 suburbs, could be more). The borders are routinely shown on street maps, or the names shown at the very least. Out in smaller towns and villages, the whole place would be one suburb, and we generally wouldn't use the term, it's usually only used when a place is big enough to have two or more. In large urban areas, a suburb is usually only a few km/miles across, sometimes less. If I talked about the suburbs it would be taken to mean the area outside the city centre, but even the city centre is one or more suburbs. The suburb at the centre of the city of Brisbane is called Brisbane City, for example. It gets confusing, so we generally talk about the CBD (Central Business District) or city centre instead in everyday talk, but it is still a suburb. It makes for hard searching. If I say a place is in Brisbane, I could mean the suburb of the city centre, or the Local Government area City of Brisbane (about 1 million people) or the larger contiguous urban area that Brisbane has grown out to and swallowed up (2 million or so). Stephen On 1 September 2011 08:23, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: In US usage, suburb is a word used to refer to a town or perhaps even city which is considered associated with a larger city. There's a notion that most of the people that live in the suburb do so in order to be close to the larger city - and that's really what makes a town a suburb. This is not crisp, and there's no official standing -- there is no right or agreed on truth status for town x is a suburb of city y for at least many x and y. So based on that, there shouldn't be any place=suburb on the map. If suburb has a different meaning elsewhere, and we use that meaning in osm, it will be import to define it clearly and warn US people that their normal interpretation of the word is completely at odds with the osm definition. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
How about lane dividers? This is an example below, though where I'm thinking of them they actually divide a couple of lanes for about a km or so - no lane changing allowed at that point. http://www.ingalcivil.com.au/reboundable_lane_divider.html Stephen On 1 July 2011 03:37, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Folk, I rediscovered an old proposal which is extending the set of barrier values. Please comment now on this, before we can eventually vote to get this to a more definite status: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Missing only_u_turn?
On 22 June 2011 15:13, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: The u-turn only situations I can think of: - a divided highway, where the u-turn lane is represented as a oneway, no relation required) - a dead end road, where the u-turn is self-explanatory - maybe some weirdo situation where one direction of a two-way road meets an intersection, and the only direction of travel is a u-turn. Again, separating directions of travel and using oneway=yes will probably cover most cases? Any other examples? I assumed he meant only U-turn and forward - ie no left or right turns. I have seen that restriction once at a t-junction, where the side street can enter the main road in either direction, but the main road can't exit onto it across the other lane of traffic. Why they allowed a U-turn I couldn't figure out, though. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] suitable tag for garden and forest machinery shop
On 22 June 2011 16:14, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: That's for the renderer to sort out... We just need to make sure that the data makes/enables the distinctions that we do as humans. The renderer can always map multiple tags onto the same icon if it wants to. I think I would call this Garden Tools. If it wasn't for the use of the word lightweight even Agricultural Equipment might be appropriate but that would likely include big boys toys like combine harvesters as well. Tag it lke it is. Where would one look in the yellow pages (business telephone directory organised by category)? In mine, it's under Chainsaws and Brushcutters and Lawnmower Sales and repairs, with many stores listed in both. A few also listed under Engine repairs. I can't think of any of them that would sell hand equipment (Shovels, axes etc) as well, though, we'd go to a totally different store for that. A garden centre or hardware store might sell plants, hand tools and maybe even a small selection of power equipment, but they wouldn't repair it. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative
On 24 May 2011 20:23, Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote: There's a need to address the meanings of overlapping landuses or possibly even areas generally that I don't really wish to address in something as simple as a rewording of the docs for gardens. There's not nearly as many overlapping cases as you might think, once you realise the fact that many of the landuse=* tags are not really landuse. They're landcover, instead. Landuse is what an area is used for, landcover is what is actually on it. Landuse tags are things like commercial, residential, park, school, etc - and usually cover larger areas. Landcover type tags are things that are actually on the land - gardens, roads, ponds, grass, parking, buildings, etc - not what the area as a whole is used for. It's unusual for two landuse or two landcover tags to overlap. The more usual case is one large landuse type area with many smaller landcover areas inside it. The fact that many landcover tags come in the form landuse= is confusing, and has been discussed before. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sports_centre, gym, dojo
On 9 April 2011 05:24, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=sports_centre might include racquet sport courts, a gymnasium, exercise equipment, a running track and an ice hockey rink. Around here, that might also include an indoor sports centre (indoor cricket, soccer, beach volleyball, etc) What is the ideal tagging for a shop with exercise equipment for use. Treadmills, stair climbers, stationary bikes, free weights and weight machines for use by members. Local slang here might call that a gym. amenity=gym is used in ~400 locations with sport=gym and leisure=gym each near 50. We'd call that a gym as well, even though the sign might say fitness centre. Also locally, a gymnasium is a large indoor sport floor which can be configured for multiple sports like gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, murderball, etc. taginfo says only 16 instances of leisure=gymnasium are in OSM at the moment. A lone gymnasium would seem unusual around here. They are typically included as part of a leisure=sports_centre. Does that match with experiences elsewhere? We rarely see them alone, but there would be more of them at schools and camps around here than sports centres, though they have them too. Is the distinction between gym and gymnasium too fine? Should synonyms be found? Probably not a bad idea. When I was at school, we used to call the school gymnasium the gym. Though now, when I hear the word gym, I expect it to be the fitness/weight training type place instead. I don't really care what the tag is, as long as if you search for gym in the wiki it directs you to the tag we decide on. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sports_centre, gym, dojo
On 9 April 2011 06:27, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: I agree that a fitness club/center doesn't fit well as a sports centre - which I would visualize as having multiple types of facilities for competitive and/or community social purposes. A sports centre doesn't have to have mixed sports (though most do). A place that has four or five basketball courts, some with spectator seating, others several to a hall for practice and league games is still a sports centre, even though there's only one sport played there. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?
We have some in Australia. Of course, the usual flow state in these
areas is none (or very little).
It's very flat ground, often hundreds (or thousands) of km from the
sea. River channels wander through, carrying water that comes from
wherever the floods are. If it rained to the south, the water flows
north, and vice versa. If there's no rain anywhere for a while, it
dries up into isolated pools.
Stephen
On 2 April 2011 00:38, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
I have never come across a waterway with changing flow
direction, but I don't exclude that this does exist, so the suggested
directional / flow tag could have a benefit for these. Another solution
would be to not consider these cases part of {river, stream, canal, drain,
ditch}, but rather invent another tag for them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 28 January 2011 07:43, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Scree, however, usually refers to a sloping pile of loose rock at the base of a cliff, rather than being a general term for loose rocks. It's a little bit more general than that - a sloping hillside covered with loose rock is also scree. But loose rock on flat ground never is. I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tidal inlets / creeks
I don't agree. This is a good general rule, but the general convention on most maps is that the coast goes on the SEA side of things like coastal swamps and mangroves. As a rule of thumb, if it has plants growing though the water, it's land, not sea, even if it happens to be wet. Doing this your way looks OK at higher zoom levels, but as the coastline way is used to make the country shapes for low zoom levels, these ways are out of place. In most temperate areas, the difference is so small you can't really tell, but this can be very important in tropical areas where the mangroves can be many km wide. In these cases, I've never seen a map that shows the coast on the inner edge, and trying to do so is just wrong. Stephen On 19 January 2011 01:53, Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com wrote: A way tagged natural=coastline should follow the local mean *high* water level so that all tidal areas will be on the wet side of the way. Any tidal areas (wetlands of all types, beaches, mud, etc) can be mapped as closed polygon ways that enclose areas above the local mean *low* water level. These areas will be rendered at the higher zoom levels. Navigable channels that exist between these areas will then have been left as non-tidal (i.e. always wet) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tidal inlets / creeks
On 19 January 2011 16:50, char...@cferrero.net wrote: Google, however, has put the coastline around the outside of the marshes and the result looks nothing like a good representation of what's actually there: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=abu+dhabisafe=onie=UTF8hq=hnear=Abu+Dhabi+-+United+Arab+Emiratesll=24.521513,54.507294spn=0.08215,0.241699z=13 In fact, you can see island labels floating in the middle of apparently dry land. That's more because Google has not mapped the area properly, than to do with their mapping method.. They've just run a border around a whole area of little islands and marshes, ignoring some pretty obvious clear water channels. The trouble with putting the coastline around the outside of the saltmarshes / mangroves is that it is very difficult to figure out where this boundary is from aerial photography. Dry land is usually easy to see. Obviously it would be better to survey it in person, but given the shallowness of the water that would be impossible unless you used a hovercraft or kayak. I usually find the opposite. The outside edge of mangroves is quite clear, mapping the dry line is harder, as it twists and turns a lot. Here's an example, Hunter and Glennie inlets in northern Queensland, Australia. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=-12.361131,143.134518spn=0.118886,0.150719z=13 If you compare the map and satellite views, You'll see that the coastal line follows the outer edge of the mangroves. But if you look at PGS hightide data (not visible here), the majority of that whole dark green area is tidal. It's got little pockets of dry land in the middle of the swamps, but not much. The google coastal line, while quite rough, is a much better representation of the real coast than the dry land border would be. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
I'm starting to be convinced that there is a cultural disconnect with the word craft. To me (and I suspect most English speakers) there has to almost be an arts aspect for something to be a craft. Whereas I'm starting to get the impression the German use is closer to what I think of as trade or profession, and this is the way the tag is being used. Stephen On 8 January 2011 08:58, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: A tow truck driver doesn't need much more than a special license, I don't think this is a craft at all. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways
On 9 January 2011 07:43, Robert Elsenaar rob...@elsenaar.info wrote: Nathan, I do not understand you at all. We agree about cycleway=lane: No seperation but defenitely a special place for bicycles. You stated in your last replay, and correct me if a I'm wrong. highway cycleway should be mapped if there is any kind of seperation, even when it is only a seperatly a strip of grass. Now my disunderstanding, and please help me out: When do you tag a cyclestrip as cycleway=track? When it's there, and it could be mapped as a separate track, but you haven't done so (yet), then you map the road with cycleway=track. If it has been mapped separately, then you wouldn't, as it's not needed. Stephen -Robert- -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Nathan Edgars II Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 8:11 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: [SPAM]: Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Robert Elsenaar rob...@elsenaar.info wrote: -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Nathan Edgars II Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 7:54 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Differences in cycleways Huh? If there's separation between the cycleway and roadway, it's a second way. If not, it's a cycle lane rather than a cycle track. - Please define seperation? A continuous physical barrier so that one cannot cross at will between the cycleway and roadway. This may be a Jersey barrier or even a line of raised pavement markers but is normally a strip of grass or hard surface. For example in http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm the separation is curbed areas with plants. (There is however no separation here between the cycleway and footway, so those should probably be combined as a single path with oneway:bicycle=yes.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- Panda GP 2011 heeft dit bericht geclassificeerd als SPAM. Als dit niet het geval is; klik dan op de volgende link om het te herclassificeren: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1692SPAM=falsepath=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda ecurity\Panda 3.03294E-281lobalProtection\AntiSpam ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
Have you seen the presentation of Tag Central that came out of the last State of the Map conference? I think something like this was covered in that, though I could be thinking of the wrong thing. Stephen On 6 January 2011 13:00, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 January 2011 08:47, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I'm working on the basis that it's not possible to move any established tag. Would be happy to hear suggestions for how to accomplish that, though. This seems to be an area that OSM *really* lacks, and some people give usage of tags as a reason not to improve things which doesn't seem like a valid argument especially when some tags like abutters and created_by have been depreciated. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
On 4 January 2011 02:26, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/17 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: Yes and it would fine if we could continue in that way. Since landuses shouldn't overlap where do you get this from? IMHO this is not defined in the wiki and looking at current landuse values like military or forest, sometimes they will have to overlap. To be clear: I wouldn't mind defining that landuses should not overlap, but IMHO this will result in changes to the current tagging scheme. There's two defintions of a landuse tag. One is any tag of the form landuse=*, the other is any tag describing what land is used for. Not all landuse=* tags fit the second definition (most of the remainder are landcover type tags instead), and not all of the second definition are in the landuse=* form. If you are using the second definition, then landuse tags should rarely overlap. But landcover and landuse tags overlap all the time. Then you get the ambiguous tags, which can be both. What is a forest? A place where forestry (timber cutting, etc) happens? That's land use. A place where there's a lot of trees? - that's landcover. If a military area allows timber cutting inside the military zone, then that is double land use. But if it's just a bunch of trees, then the forest isn't a landuse tag, it's a landcover one. An agricultural school may have fields, orchards, cattle yards barns etc in the school grounds. Should this landuse be a school or a farm, or both? I'd be tempted to say just education myself, but I could see it going both ways. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - winter ice roads
A winter road is on ground (swamp, marsh, mud, dirt) while an ice road is on a water feature (lake, bay). Both need freezing weather for good roads, but you can walk along a winter road in summer (if allowed), while you'd need a boat for an ice road. Stephen On 12 December 2010 08:55, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Gleb, Good idea, I'm just confused about what you're actually proposing - is it winter_road=yes, or ice_road=yes...or both? If both, what's the difference between the two tags? Steve On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Gleb Smirnoff gleb...@glebius.int.ru wrote: Hello! Although voting for the surface=winter_road was expected to succeded, I decided to break at and redo proposal, because a few mappers were strongly opposing surface= tag. I hope, that with new proposal the voting will succeed with a bigger yes/no ratio. I also ask to be more active with your critics not in the Voting stage but in the Draft/RFC. To preserve history, the wiki page is the same: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/surface:winter_road -- Totus tuus, Glebius. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Busways
Yeah, he's obviously copied a page about bike lanes - there's still a couple of bike references in places. To me, a busway is a separate road just for buses (or maybe emergency vehicles as well), anything that is in a normal street is just a bus lane. Around here we have bus-ways (dedicated bus only roads), permanent bus lanes, and some temporary bus lanes that are only set as such at certain times of the day. Stephen On 16 November 2010 05:30, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/howitworks/ I think Esperanza is more talking about bus lane than such dedicated way (look the attached picture at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Busways
On 16 November 2010 11:04, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: How do you define separate? Most of the bus lanes here are separated, but cars can cross the obstacles if they had to Separate as in a totally different road, with it's own verges, bridges, tunnels etc. The buses use these to bypass the worst of the traffic jams near the city centre, and then change to using normal streets when they get to the outer suburbs. If you look here http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.488516,153.03282z=20t=knmd=20100912 there is dual carriage way highway on the left, with 3-4 lanes each way, then on the right is a busway (with bus) - it's a single lane each way, just separated by a line. If you follow it north and south, you'll see that there are occasional connections to the other streets, but it's basically a private highway for buses. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Country names
On 15 October 2010 02:29, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: However, in countries that have more than one official language, or in areas that expect to have a lot of foreign visitors, you are likely to see more than one language on at least some of the signs. In this case, what would you recommend, particularly if the signs are labeled in more than one character set? As an example, in Vanuatu (which has a history of joined English French rule) the street signs often have a small Rue in the top left, then the street name, then a small St. So the sign Rue Bouganville St would be name:en=Bouganville Street, name:fr=Rue Bouganville, but what would you put in name=? Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 8 October 2010 03:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: What is the current feeling for a new key landcover? Could resolve many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual use and coverage. As long as it is made clear that not all landuse= tags are actually landuse (or would we move them?) And not every tag that is landcover would be landcover= eg. manmade=building is a landcover tag, but I don't think we'll get agreement to change it to landcover = building. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging average speed [Was: Re: Residential roads]
On 5 October 2010 07:55, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Let's start by splitting out static characteristics from dynamic influences such traffic and weather. Once the static stuff (lanes, inclines, curviness and whatever) is in there, something like TMC information can be used to add in the realtime dynamic stuff. A traffic jam following one event is no guarantee there will be one for a different event - or indeed that it will not be worse. OSM is really only made for static data. Routing/navigation programs can choose whatever dynamic data they like. True, and I agree that trying to map rush hours outside stadiums etc is not really in OSM's area. But, in many places, slow traffic on every weekday IS a static fact. I can take you to a certain road at a certain time every working day and the traffic will be going an average of 15kph - or slower. Something you can reproduce at will on an easily definable time range (Mon-Fri;16:00-1800) is just as static and important a fact as the width of the road. Mind you, I'm not going to be collecting this stuff much, I make sure I'm never there at those times. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office
On 29 September 2010 13:58, Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org wrote: AND I would search another name for ceremonial, as a New Year's eve party has nothing to do with any kind of ceremony but it's probably the time where average women use their most high-end dresses except for their own weddings. As a native English (well, New Zealand and Australian) speaker, ceremonial sounds really wrong. It brings up images of politicians in weird native costumes, and judges in robes and wigs. The term we'd use is formal - it covers nice suits, tuxedos, ball gowns, cocktail dresses etc. as well as wedding attire. As opposed to casual, which is day to day wear. See http://www.google.com.au/search?aq=1oq=formal+hireie=UTF-8q=formal+hire+brisbane for some local examples of the shops I'm thinking of. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office [Was: New tag value: shop=wedding]
What we generally have around here is a shop that both sells and rents formal wear - sometimes one sex, often both. They do weddings, school formals, black tie dinners etc. I'd call this a formal wear shop. One that sells nothing but wedding dresses is a subset of this (and very rare around here, I can't think of any). (shop=formal_wear ?) Then you get shops that do wedding stuff - decorations, bouquets, chair covers etc that might also sell brides dresses, but often don't. This is a wedding shop to me. Stephen On 28 September 2010 22:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: yes, probably a specific tag would be suitable: shop=wedding_dresses or shop=wedding_clothes. Because nobody who looks for casual clothing would want to find a specialized wedding shop, and usually who looks for a wedding shop would want to exclude normal clothing stores (or would be able to do 2 searches). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)
On 29 August 2010 16:28, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z%C3%BCrich_-_B%C3%BCrkliplatz_IMG_0525_ShiftN.jpg (or something less fancy) is what I think of a pavilion as. http://apps.ocfl.net/dept/cesrvcs/parks/parkdetails.asp?parkid=66 agrees that the park has rental pavilions (second icon in the amenity list). Definitely a cultural thing then. To me, that's a bandstand. I have seen the word pavilion used occasionally for this, but it's not what would come to mind first. Not that it matters, as long as it's documented well. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging for streets with sharrows?
On 16 August 2010 15:01, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: He wasn’t saying that bicycle=designated is always a sharrow, but that a sharrow is effectively the same thing as a sign saying “bike route”. They’re both ways of marking something as a designated route for bicycles. I don't agree with this. A single isolated road could have a sharrow, but wouldn't be part of a route. True, but I can see where the impression would come from. I've never seen them anywhere except on a route, and until these recent threads about them, I thought they were just route markers as well. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road closed in wet weather
On 3 August 2010 11:28, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I can't remember what happened, and there is nothing really useful on the discussion page at all. Looks like the usual tussle between mapping at some deep semantic level (can you use the road in the wet season? does it flood? does it become muddy? is it illegal to drive on it after rain?) vs mapping the concrete (is there a sign marking this road as a dry weather road?) If it's the discussion I'm remembering, I think the debate may have started with the tag 4wd_only, (something like that, may not be exact). Which had the same issues - people were debating the questions, while my point of view is that there's a big sign at the end of the road that has that on it. Then it spread. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What do others call this?
On 30 July 2010 17:42, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Given that there are wineries that don't sell direct to the public, and there are wine shops not attached to wineries, and that a cellar door is really no more than a wine shop within a winery, I would suggest: Some cellar doors these days are not even near the winery they are associated with. I was just reading about a whiskey distillery in in middle of Tasmania that has a cellar door in Hobart. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Counting lanes: include merging or turn lanes?
On 5 July 2010 12:21, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I see the lanes tag being useful primarily in determining likely speed possible in making routing decisions, other factors being equal. It could also be useful in rendering. Neither would seem to sway me to add the extra lane for such a short distance. One other possible use of lane tags is in routing. If, at an off-ramp, the number of lanes changes from 3 to 2, you could assume the outside lane was forced down the offramp. Some routing software warns of such exits (as opposed to those where you must turn off to leave the main road). Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
On 1 July 2010 22:08, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: In fact, the technique of having the user select from a list of words, but actually storing the value as an arbitrary ID (generally numeric), is the recommended technique in database design. It is called normalizing the database. Having the linking value be an ID value means that, should you want to change the verbal description of the value, for example from soccer to association_football, you only have to change the value once, in the lookup table, rather than changing it in thousands of places. Actually, normalising a database actually refers to something a little different than this, and as soon as you get out of theory into real world database design you find that full normalisation is not always the best way to do something - you can over-normalise a database. You need to make choices depending on your platform, and how it's used. So lets look at the effects if we made this change, and decide if we'd like the effects. - We can easily change the description of tags, without having to change the main database. Good, for the reasons above. However, this also means that we can easily corrupt tags - change their meaning from what it was when the tag was used. This would be much easier to do than now, where you have to go do bulk updates. Switch a couple of descriptions around, you could have people entering creeks as paths, brothels as churches (or vice versa), or whatever other mischief you had in mind. And it wouldn't have to be malicious, it could be totally accidental. - Free tag editing would become more dangerous (maybe extinct?) If somebody tags a way as highway=primery, we can figure what they (probably) meant. But if they tag it as 17364 instead of 17634, we have no idea what they actually meant. And if both numbers are in the list, it may be a very hard error to spot. Wether the removal of free tag entry is a good or bad thing would depend on who you ask. - There would be a two step process to using a new tag - create the tag first, then use it. The editors could streamline this, but making it obvious to the user they are creating a new tag may be a good idea. - Having a table of used tags would allow us to add extra metadata to the tags in one central place. We could have translations and localisations, multiple categorisations for a single tag (eg tag X could be under natural, leisure, and landcover), and other options. - There is currently no differentiation between keys that expect free text (name=, note= etc) and keys that expect one of a limited number of options (highway=) We'd still need the free text option for some tags, but would we need to cut it off entirely for others? Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
On 28 June 2010 20:02, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: The English rich decided they didnt like using the long 'association football', and were understandably unhappy about the working class stealing the term 'football' for the working class game. So the rich English came up with the term soccer. Um, I know the history. It was a soccer player who came up with soccer, not an opponent. It may have taken on different associations later, though. I don't live in the UK, so I don't know the popular feeling there. Outside of the UK, however, the biggest problem with soccer is some people don't know what it means, and I'm afraid assocation_football would be even worse (though I could be wrong) I agree with your other point, though. I don't think any sport should use just football - it's way to confusing. Or, alternatively, all of them should. Sport = football, football = rugby_union/rugby_league/gaelic/american(gridiron?)/canadian/aussie_rules/soccer (or association) Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?
On 28 June 2010 10:26, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: Yes, the wiki needs to be changed to tell people not to use the insulting word 'soccer', especially as we try to use British English to stop tags getting confusing. Just using sport=football would be confusing, so I prefer sport=association_football I would also guess that using the insulting term 'soccer' in the UK will lead to vandalism by British football supporters Jason No, Jason, what is insulting is when soccer players/fans try to claim exclusive use of a word which has been used for hundreds of years for many sports, of which soccer is one on the most recent, and also the least like the original. Original football banned kicking the ball, it was carried and thrown only. You can recommend association_football if you like, but I would bet many more people can tell you what soccer is than association football. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aeroway=Aerodrome Modifier Tags?
I'm a little bit worried about using admin_level, as it has connotations of control, not just level. It could be misinterpreted as who controls an airfield, rather than how important it is. What you're trying to do here is give a renderer explicit hints on how important something is, and what zoom level it should be on. This concept can be used for many things other than airfields. I'd prefer to see a generic importance tag of some sort (render_level, or render_importance) than can be used in many places, rather than an airfield specific one. You can still have specific rules for deciding how to apply the level, but if we can use the hinting for other things, and renderers can implement it only once, it's more likely to be accepted. Maybe something like Render_hint = 3, hint type=aerodrome if we do need to differentiate between the hint types. I think this concept is important. People can come up with all sorts of algorithms for ranking things according to all sorts of rules, and none of them will work on every occasion. We need some explicit method of hinting to a renderer that a certain object is more or less important than it might otherwise appear. Or that this one of the six or seven nearly identical objects in a certain area is the one that should be rendered if you don't have room to label them all. The renderer can always ignore the hint if it likes. This kind of prioritisation is exactly the sort of thing that people can do really well, and machines suck at. Stephen On 16 June 2010 14:52, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone see a problem with simply using the same admin_level tag currently in use with boundary=administrative, in combination with aeroway=aerodrome? A new aerodrome_importance tag could be created, but admin_level is already in use so why not make it multi-purpose. All we'd have to do is come up with the appropriate zoom levels for each admin_level, request that this combination be added to the Mapnik stylesheet, and then we'd need a chart on the wiki similar to the admin_level chart for boundaries to be filled in by mappers in each country. Seems reasonable to me…. Zeke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] difference between park and garden
It's a borderline case. There is always going to be some that are a bit of both. This one in particular isn't the main Botanical gardens for Brisbane any more, that's out near Mt Coot-tha. That one is more what I think of as Botanical Gardens, this one is more what I think of as a park. I'd be happy tagging it either way. Stephen On 4 June 2010 08:39, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Using that definition, what would you call the Brisbane City Botanic Gardens, then? http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_1368 There are big open spaces... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Orphanage
On 2 June 2010 11:48, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: amenity=assisted_living, because (if?) in all cases you are describing a place where people *live* with *assistance*. I like assisted_living as well. Be aware, though, that it is starting to be used as a marketing term for those places which are not nursing homes, but rather a collection of small houses or apartments, which supply gardening services, maybe a central hall, canteen/restaurant etc, and usually with a minimum age limit. We would have to make sure we cover them as well if we use this term, or we're just going to create confusion. amenity=assisted_living + assisted_living=orphanage, OR amenity=assisted_living + residents=children. Hmm - not all homes for children are for orphans. There is a home near me that is for children/youth with very heavy caring needs, that cannot be handled by their families. Some of the residents stay there all the time, some come for visits when their carers are unavailable (ill, away, or just need a break). If you want to differentiate between one of these and an orphanage, residents=children won't do it. I don't know if we do need to tell the difference, however. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
2010/5/19 Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com: landuse=recreation_ground OR landuse=residential - do you know any garden that is outside those two areas? Formal gardens/landscaping around commercial and public buildings? The gardens at a parliament house, library etc may be considered recreational by stretching a point, but I can think of many commercial buildings with formal gardens on their grounds that are not open to the public, but are not residential either. They are just there either for the staff or just to look pretty for those passing by. So industrial, commercial, educational - I've seen both public and private gardens in all of those. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
Hmm, to me there are three levels. Crazy Clarks is bargain/discount Target, KMart are downmarket DJ's etc are upmarket How should we tag a factory outlet type store that sell's upmarket stuff at lower prices? I can easily find stores that sell every product at a very reduced price, but still don't sell anything less than $100. It's just that normally it would be $300+. Stephen On 7 May 2010 15:00, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I wouldn't tag crazy clarkes as a department store, Kmart and Target are along with David Jones, Myer's, Grace Brothers... However Kmart/Target aren't in the same class as David Jones etc, hence the discount tag... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
It sounds to me like we're getting back to the old argument about the difference between land-use and land-cover. Unfortunately, tags for both have been lumped together into landuse=*, (as well as some natural, man-made etc) which is why the debate reoccurs so often. Sand is a cover, not a use. So are grass, rocks, pavement, trees, water, etc. It's common for a single landuse (eg a park) to have many different covers (eg some grass, some trees, a pond, a paved area, etc). It's also possible (though less common) for a single landcover area to have different uses - eg a single patch of grass near me is a park at one end and school grounds at the other, with no fence. We should be encouraging that any given area may have both a use type tag and a cover type tag. My personal opinion is that we should separate out the cover tags from landuse into some other tag (doesn't have to be landcover). Not because this is required, or it for easier searching, though they may be side benefits. Simply because having cover types in landuse confuses things. Stephen landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the ground eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?
It's great, but unfortunately the data is out of date (or from somewhere else). Try looking for source=nearmap , as an example. It doesn't have any, and I know of hundreds just in my area. I think it's undergoing redevelopment at the moment. Stephen On 25 February 2010 07:45, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of the difference, but OSMdoc is easy to use. http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/source%3Alocation/#values source:location 8 entries http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/source%3Aposition/#values source:position 12380 entries, but all but 80 or so are from two imports. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] adjacent buildings
On 8 February 2010 09:10, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to think 1) or 3) is the correct solution. I hesitate to use 3) due to [1], which says: For areas adjacent to ways, the consensus is to generally leave a small gap between the area and the way instead of sharing the boundary. What about *areas adjacent to areas*? [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Tagging_Areas The recommended gap between areas and ways is to represent a gap which is actually there in real life - eg the park along side a road does not finish at the centerline of the road, which is where the way (road) is put. If you are marking adjacent buildings that share a wall, then there is no actual gap to represent, so don't put one. In the same way, if you are marking a way and adjacent area that does not have a gap (eg a park and a fence) then I wouldn't put a gap in there either. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] parking
2009/12/9 Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com: On further thought, while I'm OK with either approach, I think amenity=parking, parking=customer is a better way to go than bending access=destination to fit the issue. It seems a little closer to what seems to be a best practice in other areas. And, it does establish a structure for other potential parking restrictions, if they come up, such as parking=student parking=staff and parking=visitor at a college, Or even parking=A where only those with an A lot sticker are allowed. That may be a little too cryptic for a tag, but I think it makes the point. This would also set the system up for something like parking:max_time=1hr. Also things like Short term and Long term parking areas near airports, ferrys, etc. Max stay is good for marking how long you can stay, but it doesn't show that there is a minimum time (which some long term parks have). Also, parking areas for long vehicles only (trucks, buses, caravans etc), which are quite common at some of the bigger service stops/rest areas near here. I know at least one driver personally who keeps a special map tagged up with those around the country. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shared driveways
Here in Brisbane, we have a 'private way' going from the motorway out to the airport. It is several km long, divided multilane road that looks like a motorway, but is all on airport owned land. It is open to the public, and you can get booked by the police for traffic offences. However, because it is private, the owners rules also apply - the main one in this case being no stopping anywhere along the edge of the road (they'd prefer you to use their pay car-parks). The police don't enforce this rule, but the airport has security people who do. We don't mark the road any differently on the map. Stephen 2009/11/21 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: I think the bottom line is that one has to understand the actual legal/use distinctions made by the experts, and then figure out how much of that to represent and how in the map. Neither of us knows that. I am tempted to go ask the police, but I bet they don't know, because it's never the edge case that matters to them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
