Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Face and license blurring (GDPR territories)
I didn't see anything about them reverting that decision. They still remove original images. Unless you've got a source on the they changed it again On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 11:49 Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > Simon Poole: > > > > Am 07.10.2020 um 01:13 schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen: > >> ... > >> You will probably have to let users add and remove blurs. > >> That is what Mapillary do. > >> > > They do not, they stopped providing that facility literally years ago, > and they've > > gone as far as no longer storing unblurred images even for a limited > time now. > > They stopped it for a while. Then they put it back in. Now (checked > today) under > edit there is a "edit privacy blurs" > there is still a "Download unprocessed originals" option. > > Maybe they had too many positives. > > Then testing AI solutions, make sure to test it on images with a lot of > street signs. > > > > > > -- > Niels Elgaard Larsen > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uj6uR3fp-U Basically IPFS is a protocol, just like how http is protocol. IPFS is meant to create a torrent like network of data. Every piece of data is linked to a hash which identifies that piece of data. Anybody can help host data on the IPFS network. (so that means that people with spare resources like bandwidth or storage can contribute). Using IPFS directly is maybe not the best solution for this. But there MANY (been doing more research the last couple days) platforms that are built ON TOP of IPFS. Such an example is Textile which have a 'bucket' system similar to how Amazon has S3 bucket storage. https://docs.textile.io/buckets/ Because it is decentralised by nature, you don't pay directly for storage. You can however pay companies or individuals (or soon the network itself like a cryptocurrency) to help host those files. But I think with a community aspect like Openstreetmap has, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who would want to help create this storage pool or system My explanation was simplified but hopefully helps you understand what IPFS has in terms of potential Cheers, Thibault On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 12:38, Jake Edmonds via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Can you elaborate on how IPFS would work? From my understanding, if I add > a file (in this case an image) to my node then a unique address is > generated. But the file is only permanently stored on my node unless > someone else manually pins it on theirs? > > Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone > > On 27 Aug 2020, at 12:20, bkil wrote: > > > Then there's OpenTrailView as a viable alternative (neither Mapillary, nor > OpenStreetCam has a free server component), although in the long term, I > think we should follow an IPFS, P2P or federated-systems route to scale > costs. > > I don't feel it's fair to overload Commons by shifting the costs of all of > our street level imagery to them. If we for whatever reason wanted to stick > to a centralized solution, OSMF should be the one paying the costs, but > then we would pay dearly (someone on Reddit did some estimates). > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:59 AM Thibault Molleman < > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> - I'm doubtful of the future of openstreetcam >> - some people don't like Facebook to the point where they don't want to >> use mapillary so we need to have an alternative >> >> And that still doesn't solve the problem of not having a system to put >> multiple images into one tag >> >> Cheers >> Thibault >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 00:21 bkil wrote: >> >>> Have you considered uploading these to OpenStreetCam, Mapillary or >>> whatever comes after OSM migrates away from that one? >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer < >>> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> sent from a phone >>>> >>>> > On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging < >>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in >>>> ‘Drinking fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the >>>> node. >>>> > A unique fountain deserves its own category >>>> >>>> >>>> I named the fountains as an example where I see one image as >>>> sufficient. Of course you could also make tens of each, with details, from >>>> all sides and so on, but for me 1 is completely ok, serves to give an >>>> impression. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, city gates should have at least 2, one from the >>>> outside and one from the inside, in those cases I have recently seen, and >>>> you can’t do it with the image tag (a category for every individual city >>>> gate seems overkill too in many cases). >>>> >>>> Cheers Martin >>>> ___ >>>> Tagging mailing list >>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
- I'm doubtful of the future of openstreetcam - some people don't like Facebook to the point where they don't want to use mapillary so we need to have an alternative And that still doesn't solve the problem of not having a system to put multiple images into one tag Cheers Thibault On Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 00:21 bkil wrote: > Have you considered uploading these to OpenStreetCam, Mapillary or > whatever comes after OSM migrates away from that one? > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> > >> > Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in >> ‘Drinking fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the >> node. >> > A unique fountain deserves its own category >> >> >> I named the fountains as an example where I see one image as sufficient. >> Of course you could also make tens of each, with details, from all sides >> and so on, but for me 1 is completely ok, serves to give an impression. >> >> On the other hand, city gates should have at least 2, one from the >> outside and one from the inside, in those cases I have recently seen, and >> you can’t do it with the image tag (a category for every individual city >> gate seems overkill too in many cases). >> >> Cheers Martin >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
CJ, I didn't realize the accept header could work like that. I think the system your propose is a good idea tbh. Also, I wonder if it would be possible to host those on IPFS. (And make it so that people who have spare bandwidth/storage can help host this image repository) Cheers, Thibault On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 21:48, bkil wrote: > Didn't we have an OSM tool in the past that showed points with broken > links? (Also I think the citations I've given earlier a few hours ago > should clear up what should or should not be deleted - by policy they > _should_ delete the lower quality image if a better quality image is also > available) > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:49 PM Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 19:39, Mateusz Konieczny >> wrote: >> >>> >>> In practice you need horrific image quality, >>> to the point of unasibility for deletion to >>> succeed >>> >> >> So maybe the chance of deletion is low enough that we can drop the >> argument that "wikimedia might delete it" when discussing using >> wikimedia images. >> >>> >>> They have backlog of copyright violations, >>> and tricky cases where legality is not clear. >>> >> >> Ah, in that case we might need a bot that works in the other direction. >> Not one that tells wikimedia we've used one of its images but one >> that tells us that one of the wikimedia images we used has gone. >> >> People making backlog worse by making >>> such "low quality, delete" would not be >>> appreciated or encouraged there >>> >> >> We don't appreciate or encourage people who make ill-judged >> edits to the map, but it happens. >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
yeah, having a bot to automatically mark images that are being used in osm sounds like a good solution tbh. (next step would be to have a bot that automatically checks the Deletion Request pages to see if any of the one being added there are osm linked ones and make a copy to ipfs or something when that happens) Cheers, Thibault On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:20, Paul Allen wrote: > > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose >> >> "hosts content that is useful for educational purposes. >> This means content that could be used by Wikipedia, >> other Wikimedia projects, or other projects that provide >> knowledge, instruction or information. >> > > I'd say OSM usage fits that definition. > > >> Files don't haveto be in use on any other project to be hosted >> > here, but they must have a reasonable potential use." >> > > That is where, at the moment, the judgement call comes in. If an > image isn't used by any other wikiproject (which their bots would > pick up) then somebody has to decide if it has reasonable potential > use. Whereas if there were a bot that somehow tagged images > that were used on OSM it would be seen that they were being > used by another informational project. It still wouldn't be an > absolute guarantee the image wouldn't be removed, but it > makes it far less likely to be removed. "I can't see any > reason to keep that image" versus "I can't see any reason > to keep that image other than it being used by OSM." > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
Does it being on osm have enough justification for them to keep it though? "it's not a wikimedia project, so it doesn't matter to us if it's linked on osm or not" On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 15:39, Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:06, Thibault Molleman < > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from >> Commons just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles". >> > > The commons isn't quite that arbitrary. They allow images which are of > interest, but "of interest" is rather arbitrary. Generally, though, images > used by wikipedia itself are not candidates for deletion. > > So what is needed is a bot of some sort that trawls the OSM database (which > wikipedia has a copy of to create its own maps) to look for > wikimedia_commons > tags and somehow flags relevant images as being used on OSM. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
Btw, I want to make it clear that I have nothing against the wikimedia foundation. I think it's fair that they moderate like they do, because their capacity isn't unlimited On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 14:51 Thibault Molleman wrote: > Can you link photos/deletion requests? > > Again, don't bother with that. I was 13, didn't know what I was doing, > main reason why they were deleted according to the deletion requests were > because they didn't have a license attached to them, so they didn't know if > it was even allowed on there. (wouldn't happen with todays upload wizard) > > Assuming the drinking fountains are unique > > > I feel like it just shouldn't matter if they are unique. We shouldn't have > to justify why an image is important. > The fact that the image is linked to an osm node is enough reason for the > image to be online. But the problem is that Wikimedia wouldn't care for > such a reason. > So that is the reason why I would always archive.org images I'd put on > Commons probably > > Cheers, > Thibault > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 14:45 Jake Edmonds via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> I feel like those examples (city gates and fountains) would be >> appropriate places to use a wikimedia category. >> >> Assuming the drinking fountains are unique, if not then do they need >> multiple photos? >> >> >> Thanks >> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone >> >> > On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > sent from a phone >> > >> >> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil wrote: >> >> >> >> there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI >> > >> > >> > I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been >> interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are >> fountains and drinking fountains, where indeed a single foto is completely >> sufficient in almost all cases. It’s not generally answerable. >> > >> > Cheers Martin >> > ___ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
> > Can you link photos/deletion requests? Again, don't bother with that. I was 13, didn't know what I was doing, main reason why they were deleted according to the deletion requests were because they didn't have a license attached to them, so they didn't know if it was even allowed on there. (wouldn't happen with todays upload wizard) Assuming the drinking fountains are unique I feel like it just shouldn't matter if they are unique. We shouldn't have to justify why an image is important. The fact that the image is linked to an osm node is enough reason for the image to be online. But the problem is that Wikimedia wouldn't care for such a reason. So that is the reason why I would always archive.org images I'd put on Commons probably Cheers, Thibault On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 14:45 Jake Edmonds via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I feel like those examples (city gates and fountains) would be appropriate > places to use a wikimedia category. > > Assuming the drinking fountains are unique, if not then do they need > multiple photos? > > > Thanks > Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone > > > On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > > > > sent from a phone > > > >> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil wrote: > >> > >> there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI > > > > > > I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been > interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are > fountains and drinking fountains, where indeed a single foto is completely > sufficient in almost all cases. It’s not generally answerable. > > > > Cheers Martin > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
Yeah, makes sense. Having ipfs be a valid image/file tag in osm would be a nice addition actually! the main use case for having multiple images on one node was for example a store, and you've just taken random images of the store (like you have on Google maps and other map apps) I do wonder if the average user is going to bother making me Wikimedia account, figuring out how commons works, and then figuring out how to make a gallery. Wikimedia also seems to kind of force you to describe what each image is, which I guess is isn't bad thing. (but I do think that a lot of images don't need more context than just having them be on the node) Cheers On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 12:38 bkil wrote: > > [...] Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. [...] > > File in use in another Wikimedia project [...] [OR] > > File in use on Commons only: An otherwise non-educational file does not > acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page > or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page > (the "User:" namespace), but by custom the uploading of small numbers of > images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is > allowed. Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia community, > such as user meetings, are also allowed. > > [...] For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could > theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in > photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The > fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to > illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we > should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused > pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on > pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic > images (see also Censorship). > > [...] Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an > educational purpose: > > Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself > and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are > plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, > such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational > even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere. > > Via: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Contributing_your_own_work > > Some other technology (like IPFS) may also be sufficient for such party > photos and the mentioned Flickr also has a creative commons & public domain > sharing option that allows reuse for stock footage. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Flickr > > Also about uploading your party pictures as a child: you may not have > received the informed consent of all models portrayed on the picture (i.e., > your family and other customers) that you have uploaded. For example in > many countries, you must sign individual waivers if you want to publish the > photographs that include identifiable humans. This is especially true with > Commons, because the purpose of uploading is to contribute the content in a > manner which allows other contributors to edit, remix and reuse your > photographs in ways that you or your models did not anticipate. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_privacy#Right_of_publicity > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:54 AM Thibault Molleman < > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ah ok, I had a bunch of my images deleted that I uploaded when i was a >> kid (maybe not the smartest thing to do at the time.) >> They were birthday photos and put them up cause figured it could work as >> stock photos (remember one site actually using one of them) and they got >> deleted a couple years ago. >> (looking back on the deletion requests. Turns out they were just unsure >> what the license was. (fair enough, uploaded them when I was 12 or >> something, so probably didn't really know what I was doing). >> >> Guess wikimedia commons galleries are a good solution then. >> Maybe it should be made more clear on the wiki that this is the thing you >> should do if you want to upload multiple images >> >> Cheers, >> Thibault >> >> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 11:30, Andy Mabbett >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:04, Thibault Molleman >>
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
Ah ok, I had a bunch of my images deleted that I uploaded when i was a kid (maybe not the smartest thing to do at the time.) They were birthday photos and put them up cause figured it could work as stock photos (remember one site actually using one of them) and they got deleted a couple years ago. (looking back on the deletion requests. Turns out they were just unsure what the license was. (fair enough, uploaded them when I was 12 or something, so probably didn't really know what I was doing). Guess wikimedia commons galleries are a good solution then. Maybe it should be made more clear on the wiki that this is the thing you should do if you want to upload multiple images Cheers, Thibault On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 11:30, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:04, Thibault Molleman > wrote: > > > > Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from > Commons > > just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles". > > That is not a valid reason for deletion from Wikimedia Commons. > > Commons' scope is far wider than just hosting images for Wikipedia. > > > Maybe a special example but still: > > Recently mapped a construction zone for a residential area and took a > > couple photos. Those might not "belong on Commons" according to their > > moderation team. > > There is no "moderation team" on Commons; deletion decisions there are > made by the community of contributors at large (just like edits in > OSM). > > Your images sound as though they would be in scope. Did you try to upload > them? > > Do you have an example of an image which has been deleted from Commons? > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from Commons just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles". Maybe a special example but still: Recently mapped a construction zone for a residential area and took a couple photos. Those might not "belong on Commons" according to their moderation team. As mentioned on the linked wiki page, you can escape a semicolon by > doubling it: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#Escaping_with_.27.3B.3B.27 > > Ah interesting, somehow missed that. It's a solution, but still doesn't solve the problem of long urls clogging up one tag. Definitely if you have long urls because of unique hash/id's (extreme example: IPFS urls: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmR9wseHQiLbv4AnTXACo5rQ1CEcKj2fJq6vEnuZoi6Amd?filename=IMG_20200727_172553.jpg ) Cheers, On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:54, bkil wrote: > As mentioned on the linked wiki page, you can escape a semicolon by > doubling it: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#Escaping_with_.27.3B.3B.27 > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 9:11 AM Thibault Molleman < > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> While I use the semicolon for some other tags already, the problem with >> using it for something that has a URL. >> Is that TECHNICALLYaccording to the specification, a URL can contain a >> semicolon. >> So I feel like the use of a semicolon in a url based tag isn't a good >> solution >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 08:44 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >>> If someone really needs multiple images on one object then >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator >>> is standard. >>> >>> At the same time use for that seems dubious for this specific tag. >>> >>> >>> Aug 26, 2020, 07:41 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> It seems like there (still) isn't a proper tagging system to put >>> multiple images on one node/way/relation. >>> Having the ability to link other images as well would be useful I think. >>> Either via: >>> `image=url1;url2;url3` >>> or >>> ``` >>> image=url1 >>> image:2=url2 >>> image:3=url3 >>> ``` >>> That later would allow for any application that currently uses images to >>> still continue to work perfectly. >>> >>> Curious to hear your thoughts >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Thibault >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
I think what Mateusz was referring to was seeing if we could somehow copy the system that commons uses? (so that any app that can already accept wikimedia commons galleries also can use this new system) Cheers On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 26. Aug 2020, at 10:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > See wikimedia_commons that may linki wikimedia commons > > gallery. > > > there are quite some links in “image” for wikimedia commons categories > (but not all images in a category may be relevant for osm), a more > universally applicable way could be interesting I agree. Currently if you > want to add a recent photo the best way seems to remove the existing photo > link, which is often not ideal. Also many features require at the very > least 2 images for a decent representation (back and front) > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
That's a good idea actually! Although I guess there is a part of me that thinks that having just a simple image tag without any fancy stuff is still best for a primary image (so that apps that want to implement it don't need to start messing with this new format and can just load that simple url. I guess the question then would be if you'd do something like: "If there is a image_gallery tag on the item, use that instead of the image tag" and have the image tag be just image1 and the image_gallery refer to image1,image2,image3 etc. Also, I wonder if this could tie into an IPFS (decentralized internet protocol) system as well Cheers, Thibault On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 09:35, Cj Malone < me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote: > As mentioned semi colon has issues with URLs. It may also be worth > noting that a OSM value can only have 254 chars in it, a limit that > would get hit quickly with a few URLs. > > I've thought about this before, I think we need 1 URL to point to > multiple images. But it can't just be a non standard HTML gallery, it > also needs to be programmatically fetchable so downstream OSM consumers > can use the images directly. > > HTTP already has the capability for this with the Accept header. > > - If a given URL is loaded in a browser (Accept: text/html) it can show > a HTML page with multiple images in. > > - If it's requested by a client like OsmAnd (eg Accept: > application/gallery+json) it could return a JSON blob with details > about the images, there licences, alt text, etc to be embedded in the > app. > > But we'd need server support. > > Cj > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
While I use the semicolon for some other tags already, the problem with using it for something that has a URL. Is that TECHNICALLYaccording to the specification, a URL can contain a semicolon. So I feel like the use of a semicolon in a url based tag isn't a good solution On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 08:44 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > If someone really needs multiple images on one object then > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator > is standard. > > At the same time use for that seems dubious for this specific tag. > > > Aug 26, 2020, 07:41 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com: > > Hi, > > It seems like there (still) isn't a proper tagging system to put multiple > images on one node/way/relation. > Having the ability to link other images as well would be useful I think. > Either via: > `image=url1;url2;url3` > or > ``` > image=url1 > image:2=url2 > image:3=url3 > ``` > That later would allow for any application that currently uses images to > still continue to work perfectly. > > Curious to hear your thoughts > > Cheers, > Thibault > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object
Hi, It seems like there (still) isn't a proper tagging system to put multiple images on one node/way/relation. Having the ability to link other images as well would be useful I think. Either via: `image=url1;url2;url3` or ``` image=url1 image:2=url2 image:3=url3 ``` That later would allow for any application that currently uses images to still continue to work perfectly. Curious to hear your thoughts Cheers, Thibault ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
Update on my example I gave. We changed it to addr:housename=Residentie Den Oude Post addr:housenumber=14 addr:street=Kasteelstraat addr:unit=1A;2A;3A A more complex example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/699214532 So this is Kasteelstraat 5 The bank that's located on the bottom floor is on Kasteelstraat 5 (so the POI node has that address) At the side of the building there is an entrance for the flats/units. I mapped that as an entrance https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7025498816 Should that entrance node also have the addr:housenumber=15 tag or is it assumed based on it being placed on the building's way? On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 12:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > > > On 23. Aug 2020, at 10:17, Jo wrote: > > > > The house number is not 12 and it is not 14, it actually is 12-14, > because 2 buildings were torn down and a single building was built instead > of it. This also happens when people or companies acquire 2 adjacent > buildings, they often also start using both house numbers as their address. > > > In Italy this happens all the time, because every door and shop window > (potential entrance) gets a housenumber, so it is very common that shops > have addresses with several numbers. Sometimes they use just a single > number of those that they “have” as address (not even necessarily the one > of the door, but the one they are registered under) in other cases (very > common) they use multiple numbers. > > I usually map both, individual numbers on entrances and windows and > coalesced ones for addresses on POIs (as they use them themselves). > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
I think the old building at that location used to be split in 2 (thus the 2 housenumbers). So Kasteelstraat 12 does not exist anymore. I only just now realized I mapped this wrong (was one of my first things I mapped a couple years ago). By your photo, it looks like you could even put a building name in as well "*Den > Oude Post*"! yeah, also something I didn't realize back then Cheers, On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 00:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 05:55, Thibault Molleman < > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is a simple example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wEQiB4X6BA3doK7T7 >> one building, one unit/flat on each floor. >> mailbox at the front for all 3 units. >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675768351 >> >> currently mapped as: >> addr:housenumber=1A;2A;3A >> addr:street=Kasteelstraat >> > > But looking at the street, & the way it's numbered, it shows as 2, 4, 6, > 8, 10, this place, 16, 18, 20, 22 ... > > Assuming all those numbers actually appear?, personally, I would have > mapped it as > addr:unit / flats (whatever the default is in Belgium?)=1A;2A;3A > addr:housenumber=12-14 > addr:street=Kasteelstraat > > By your photo, it looks like you could even put a building name in as well > "*Den Oude Post*"! > > Thanks > > Graeme > > ___ > 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] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
This is a simple example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wEQiB4X6BA3doK7T7 one building, one unit/flat on each floor. mailbox at the front for all 3 units. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675768351 currently mapped as: addr:housenumber=1A;2A;3A addr:street=Kasteelstraat On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 19:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 22. Aug 2020, at 09:25, Thibault Molleman > wrote: > > > > So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has > mailboxes for each person who has an apartment there. > > I've just been tagging those as: > > addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11 > > > are these housenumbers or unit/flat numbers? > What does a specific address look like (addr:street? addr:housename? > addr:place?) > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
A lot of those types of apartment buildings in my area (and i assume other places in Belgium as well) don't have a "building housenumber", only the individual flat housenumbers. Making a node for every single flat just looks bad on the map. And I agree that it just makes more sense to put it on the one node/way. On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 11:53 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Aug 22, 2020, 11:43 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 17:25, Thibault Molleman < > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes > for each person who has an apartment there. > I've just been tagging those as: > addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11 > > > Could you use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats? Leaving > unit/apartment/flat numbers out of the addr:housenumber. > > It depends - are there actually separate house numbers assigned to each > apartment? > (yes, it happens - similarly to some places that assigned house numbers > to every single > house, shed and separate address for every single door of a garage) > > Or is there a house number (assigned to building or building complex) and > separate > unit/apartment/flat number? In such case addr:housenumber = > A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11 > would be misuse of the tag. > ___ > 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] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes for each person who has an apartment there. I've just been tagging those as: addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11 (Semicolon, because that's what the wiki recommends for multiple values iirc) On Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 21:36 Topographe Fou wrote: > then why not using addr:interpolation=no to state that the hyphen in > addr:housenumber does not define a range ? I think everyone would be happy > and it will not break current tagging schema. QA tools would raise a > warning if there is an hyphen and no addr:interpolation tag. Default rule > might be that an hyphen denotes (or not... Or both... I don't care) a range. > > LeTopographeFou > *De:* tagging@openstreetmap.org > *Envoyé:* 20 août 2020 6:35 PM > *À:* andrew.harv...@gmail.com > *Répondre à:* tagging@openstreetmap.org > *Cc:* matkoni...@tutanota.com; tagging@openstreetmap.org > *Objet:* Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address > ranges > > > > > Aug 20, 2020, 15:50 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single > housenumber despite > that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range" > > > I would assume that to be the default, when there are multiple addresses > best to mark them all out individually or use a linear way with the address > at the start and end nodes and addr:interpolation on the line (as a first > pass before mapping them out individually) > > But given that addr:housenumber=1-3 may represent either case it would be > nice to be able to state this. > ___ > 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] Adding mapillary tags to every building
Calm down. Normally if these images get their license upgraded to this newer license, normally it shouldn't be able to be reverted. But we'll see once they publish the license. (I don't really see a reason why Facebook would want to do that though tbh. Having Mapillary contain as much data as possible benefits them.) And yes, it's free. in exchange for nothing except a mention that it was from Mapillary. The whole 'problem' that facebook has, has nothing to do with this. it's not because a website uses Mapillary data that they need to implement cookies and other facebook crap Don't overreact.. On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 11:20, European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Thibault, > > >>>>all the mapillary data is from now free to use, even for commercial > use : "Moving forward, that will continue to be true, except that starting > today, it will also be free to use for commercial users as well" > > For how long ? and free in exchange for what --- the ability to place > cookies, track and target users/clients with advertisements & political > messages ? > > Best regards, > > Stuart > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:24, Thibault Molleman < > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> While I'm not a fan of Facebook either. >> If you play devils advocate. they have done some good stuff. and already >> notice some good changes to mapilary as well: >> - they have done some amazing work with 'map with AI' >> - all the mapillary data is from now free to use, even for commercial use >> : "Moving forward, that will continue to be true, except that starting >> today, it will also be free to use for commercial users as well" >> - and "This next chapter of Mapillary’s journey is an opportunity to >> build upon our OpenStreetMap efforts to a degree that was not possible >> earlier on. Previous OpenStreetMap development had to be balanced against >> development work for other mapping use cases. As part of Facebook, we can >> focus on OpenStreetMap while supporting Facebook’s open mapping efforts." >> Source: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jesolem/diary/393358 >> >> So this (in theorie) could be a good thing >> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 07:28, European Water Project < >> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hopefully a significant level of data openness will continue to be part >>> of Mapillary's business model. >>> >>> >>> >>> yes, we can just hope for it. Not more. >>> >>> Just in case someone missed this, Mapillary has been acquired by >>> Facebook yesterday... >>> >>> >>> https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/06/18/business/18reuters-facebook-deals-mapillary.html >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 22:08 Andy Mabbett >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:14, Janko Mihelić wrote: >>>> >>>> > Photos of buildings are even more notable then photos of bicycle >>>> parking, >>>> > so I'll try and take photos of a few buildings and see how that goes. >>>> > >>>> > I probably won't be creating a category for each building, so then I >>>> will be >>>> > linking to those pictures with the image=* tag, right? >>>> >>>> You might like this tool: >>>> >>>>https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikishootme/ >>>> >>>> which will tell you whether the buildings you photograph have an entry >>>> in Wikidata, and whether or not that entry has an image; if not, once >>>> you upload your image to Commons, you can also link to it from >>>> Wikidata. >>>> >>>> (Although it can be used as I describe above, its primary purpose is >>>> to find, for a given location, nearby Wikidata items that lack >>>> images.) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andy Mabbett >>>> @pigsonthewing >>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> Tagging mailing list >>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > 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] Adding mapillary tags to every building
While I'm not a fan of Facebook either. If you play devils advocate. they have done some good stuff. and already notice some good changes to mapilary as well: - they have done some amazing work with 'map with AI' - all the mapillary data is from now free to use, even for commercial use : "Moving forward, that will continue to be true, except that starting today, it will also be free to use for commercial users as well" - and "This next chapter of Mapillary’s journey is an opportunity to build upon our OpenStreetMap efforts to a degree that was not possible earlier on. Previous OpenStreetMap development had to be balanced against development work for other mapping use cases. As part of Facebook, we can focus on OpenStreetMap while supporting Facebook’s open mapping efforts." Source: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jesolem/diary/393358 So this (in theorie) could be a good thing On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 07:28, European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hopefully a significant level of data openness will continue to be part of > Mapillary's business model. > > > > yes, we can just hope for it. Not more. > > Just in case someone missed this, Mapillary has been acquired by Facebook > yesterday... > > > https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/06/18/business/18reuters-facebook-deals-mapillary.html > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 22:08 Andy Mabbett wrote: > >> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:14, Janko Mihelić wrote: >> >> > Photos of buildings are even more notable then photos of bicycle >> parking, >> > so I'll try and take photos of a few buildings and see how that goes. >> > >> > I probably won't be creating a category for each building, so then I >> will be >> > linking to those pictures with the image=* tag, right? >> >> You might like this tool: >> >>https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikishootme/ >> >> which will tell you whether the buildings you photograph have an entry >> in Wikidata, and whether or not that entry has an image; if not, once >> you upload your image to Commons, you can also link to it from >> Wikidata. >> >> (Although it can be used as I describe above, its primary purpose is >> to find, for a given location, nearby Wikidata items that lack >> images.) >> >> -- >> Andy Mabbett >> @pigsonthewing >> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards
I think that's a bad assumption to make. Could just be that nobody bothered to tag it On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 21:17 John Sturdy wrote: > I think that by default bollards are not removable, and that if a bollard > is not tagged as removable, it is reasonable to assume it's not removable. > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:54 PM Hauke Stieler > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable" >> [0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily. >> I would love to see the "unremovable" value in the documentation. Should >> I open a proposal page for this one value? That sounds a bit of an >> overkill to me. >> >> My suggestion is the value "unremovable": >> A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least >> cause severe damage to it. A bollard which can only be removed by >> authorized people with some sort of key is still "removable". >> >> I would not use the value "fixed" or "irremovable" for two reasons: The >> "unremovable" value is used more often [1] and would be a good >> counter-value for "removable". >> >> Hauke >> >> [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bollard >> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=bollard#values >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards
Yeah, Also noticed that when mapping bollards. I'd vote on such a proposal yeah Not sure if proposals are needed for changes this small. But I'd love to hear other people's feedback as well yeah On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 19:54, Hauke Stieler wrote: > Hi all, > > there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable" > [0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily. > I would love to see the "unremovable" value in the documentation. Should > I open a proposal page for this one value? That sounds a bit of an > overkill to me. > > My suggestion is the value "unremovable": > A bollard which cannot be removed without destroying it or at least > cause severe damage to it. A bollard which can only be removed by > authorized people with some sort of key is still "removable". > > I would not use the value "fixed" or "irremovable" for two reasons: The > "unremovable" value is used more often [1] and would be a good > counter-value for "removable". > > Hauke > > [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bollard > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=bollard#values > > ___ > 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] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface
Isn't layer= meant for what floor it's on. (or are you thinking of bicycle_parking=two-tier (see bottom of the page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking ) On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 15:07, Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I think it's not exactly the same feature, one thing interesting in the > bicycle_parking for cyclist it to know if you can secure your bike. > With floor value I know there is nothing to lock my bike with. > Whereas surface value for parking tag just say that is a parking facility > on the ground (not underground or in a multi-storey). > > For instance you can have a bicycle_parking=floor in a parking facility > parking=multi-storey. > > Though I don't know the best english word for this feature, as long as > it's documented it's fine for me. > > Le ven. 31 janv. 2020 à 07:46, John Willis via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit : > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking >> >> It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no >> stands or other affordances designated for parking bicycles. >> >> this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a supermarket >> is not a “floor”. >> >> we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other types >> of indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or shed (similar to >> parking=multilevel). >> >> I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed. >> >> there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of (documented) >> =floor. >> >> we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if it is >> just a flat outdoor surface. >> >> Javbw >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > Florimond Berthoux > ___ > 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] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface
I agree, was pretty confused when I saw that as well (after I had mapped a bunch of regular parkings and then did some bicycle ones) On Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 07:46 John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking > > It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no stands > or other affordances designated for parking bicycles. > > this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area next to a supermarket is > not a “floor”. > > we use “surface” in car parking lots, and there are many of other types of > indoor tags for tagging when a bike is in a building or shed (similar to > parking=multilevel). > > I think that the values be standardized and the wiki changed. > > there is 60 uses of (undocumented) =surface and ~260 uses of (documented) > =floor. > > we should standardize how we tag parking lots for any vehicle if it is > just a flat outdoor surface. > > Javbw > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme
" A restaurant where the server fills up your bottle based on his or her humor should not be tagged as part of the refill scheme. " Maybe add a line to clarify that the sign requirement is specifically regarding schemes. A place doesn't need a sign just to have the "drinking_water:refill=yes" tag. (just so it's more clear on the page) On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:50, European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thank you for your suggestion. > > I have added links in a separate section and made the criteria in the > proposal section stand out more clearly. > > best regards, > > Stuart > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 16:34, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 15:27, European Water Project < >> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Andy suggests : >>> >>> "drinking_water:refill=yes" and >>> "drinking_water:refill_scheme=[scheme-name]" >>> >>> As long as two of the options for "scheme-name" can be "multiple" or >>> "yes", this alternative two tagging method seems more KISS than the one >>> being currently voted on- >>> >> >> It's better because it allows mapping places offering free refills that >> aren't part of >> a scheme (as long as the place has a sign stating it offers free refills). >> >> If you're rejigging the proposal anyway, how about providing links to the >> schemes >> you mention and also criteria for mapping (the main one being that there >> is a sign)? >> >> -- >> Paul >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively
Hi, Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch their naming scheme for fuels at gas stations to the new E5/E10/B7 scheme (referring to the amount of bio-ethanol in the fuel. Sources: http://www.flanderstoday.eu/petrol-98-and-95-labels-change-next-week https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/new-eu-fuel-labelling-clearer-information-for-consumers-and-operators_en But I noticed on the wiki that nothing is mentioned about that. And looking at the taginfo for europe (I know it's not all of the EU, but only the Union countries. But it's a good approximation) it seems like the old tags are still used most often: 55 475 | fuel:diesel 47 010 | fuel:octane_95 29 636 | fuel:octane_98 12 232 | fuel:e10 40 | fuel:e5 https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/search?q=fuel#keys And B7 (diesel) isn't mentioned on the wiki and doesn't seem to be used either. So I guess the questions are: - Should the wiki be changed to make it clear that in European Union countries octane 95/98 shouldn't be used and E10/E5 should be used instead? - Because there is only one type of Diesel, should that tag just stay Diesel or be replaced with B7 for consistency? (I think it makes more sense to keep it diesel since it does not matter and makes things more confusing potentially) Would love to hear your feedback Cheers, Thibault ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
