Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

2022-12-06 Thread Warin



On 6/12/22 21:51, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Still does not resolve my problem with a water rescue station where there is no 
boat.



I don't see a requirement for a boat? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlifeboat_station


Specifically mentions other things like helicopters.




Before people ask again how that is possible - they might have their boats 
mooring at changing
locations without a station, but the station is not directly at one of the 
rivers/lakes.

tom

On 06.12.2022 00:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Bringing this forward to the new month.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-November/066540.html


Are there any further comments that anybody would like to raise?

To sum-up, proposal is to:
Approve emergency=lifeboat_station
Deprecate emergency=marine_rescue & merge it's usages into =lifeboat_station
Deprecate amenity= lifeboat_station & merge it's usages into 
emergency=lifeboat_station
Remove incorrect tagging of amenity=lifeboat, currently being used to show the 
location that
lifeboats are moored at.

If there's nothing further, then I'll move it to voting over the next few days.

Thanks

Graeme

___


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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

2022-12-06 Thread Warin


On 7/12/22 01:54, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 06.12.22 à 00:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-November/066540.html 



Are there any further comments that anybody would like to raise?


I have not issue with merging 3-4 tags with the same meaning but :

- what are we mapping ? reading the description, this seems to be more 
of a landuse=ermergency than mapping an emergency service i.e. where

you can go to get a service


Similar comments can be made for fire stations and ambulances - you call 
them up for them to come to you. As these are already accepted by the 
community I see no reason to exclude this case.




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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

2022-11-24 Thread Warin


On 24/11/22 20:37, Nathan Case wrote:

On 24/11/2022 09:07, Warin wrote:

Some ships and boats don't move much... as they are part of museums ...


Something that is part of a museum, and is genuinely permanently 
secured, seems very different to an emergency response vehicle (which 
a lifeboat is for all intents and purposes). I'd map planes at an air 
and space museum but not ones at an airport terminal.


I guess the trouble with lifeboats is that they can be stored on land 
or they can be kept moored in the water. So it isn't quite as easy as 
saying "map the building" as sometimes there won't be a building (for 
the lifeboat, there normally is a building for the crew to change in 
etc).




Past discussion on burger vans etc lead to the understanding that if 
something was, for the majority of the time, found at a certain location 
then OSM should map it.


HMS Belfast in London is mapped as building=ship, for all intents is it 
permanent (I'd expect it to be seldom away in a dry dock to get hull 
repairs). I have changed the Darling Harbor ships to reflect the London 
tagging.


I expect the lifeboats do get more regular use, for things like training 
at least.





On 24/11/2022 09:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:
When the lifeboat is permanently moored at a particular location it 
is less transitory than a busso people can and do tag them. Not 
me necessarily, but other mappers.


Being a little pedantic, a lifeboat that is "permanently moored" won't 
serve much use as a lifeboat. Being less pedantic, mapping the 
reserved mooring location could work, however, in that case, we should 
be tagging it as a mooring spot rather than as a lifeboat itself. The 
mooring location will remain even if the lifeboat is at sea.



Nathan


On 24/11/2022 09:07, Warin wrote:



On 24/11/22 11:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 09:29, Andy Townsend  wrote:


Why not both?

Because a boat is a mobile feature, that we don't / can't map?

e.g 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=349559642#map=19/-27.42815/153.08582 
- we don't try to map the last bus in the middle row as #632



Some ships and boats don't move much... as they are part of museums ...

Way: HMAS Onslow (166230547) - mapped as a 'ship' but it is a 
submarine and they are boats.


Way: HMAS Vampire (166230548)

 Tags:
    "historic"="ship"
    "name"="HMAS Vampire"
    "ref"="D11"
    "seamark:name"="HMAS Vampire"
    "ship:type"="destroyer"
    "start_date"="1956"
    "tourism"="attraction"
    "wikidata"="Q721087"
    "wikipedia"="en:HMAS Vampire (D11)"

___
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] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

2022-11-24 Thread Warin


On 24/11/22 11:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 09:29, Andy Townsend  wrote:


Why not both?

Because a boat is a mobile feature, that we don't / can't map?

e.g 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=349559642#map=19/-27.42815/153.08582 
- we don't try to map the last bus in the middle row as #632



Some ships and boats don't move much... as they are part of museums ...

Way: HMAS Onslow (166230547) - mapped as a 'ship' but it is a submarine 
and they are boats.


Way: HMAS Vampire (166230548)

 Tags:
    "historic"="ship"
    "name"="HMAS Vampire"
    "ref"="D11"
    "seamark:name"="HMAS Vampire"
    "ship:type"="destroyer"
    "start_date"="1956"
    "tourism"="attraction"
    "wikidata"="Q721087"
    "wikipedia"="en:HMAS Vampire (D11)"___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] wheel baths for disinfection

2022-11-20 Thread Warin



On 21/11/22 12:54, Matija Nalis wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 08:58:29 +0800, Timeo Gut  wrote:

Wheel baths for disinfection are used to prevent the spread of diseases
in agricultural areas. They're most often found at roads and tracks that
go through plantations or farms but sometimes also at administrative
boundaries along major highways.

I'm thinking that highway=wheel_bath might be better suited. Any
thoughts on this?

Perhaps.

There were related discussion recently about similar decontaminations used for 
pedestrains
(i.e. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=footwear_decontamination) and 
other
cleaning facilities that might be accompanied by bigger tag:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-key-should-be-tagged-for-these-amenities/5598/5

so you may want to look there.



Some building sites (large) have wheel cleaning done on exit to stop the 
access roads getting dirty - nothing to do with disinfection.



Possibly these 2 should be combined into one main tag with a secondary 
tag for disinfection/cleaning/*???



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

2022-11-20 Thread Warin


On 21/11/22 10:47, François Lacombe wrote:

Good evening,

Le dim. 20 nov. 2022 à 17:36, stevea  a écrit :

In fact, I can imagine a variety of tags that describe much
(approaching or even achieving?) all of this:
office=utility
utility=water;sewer;garbage
utility=accepts_payment

utility=cable_tv
utility=allows_equipment_exchange
utility=furnishes_service_equipment
utility:payment=in_person_only
utility:payment=kiosk
utility:payment=cash_only
utility:payment=accepts_checks

Those aren’t necessarily the exact tags OSM might eventually
settle upon, but they do indicate what’s possible.  Again, it’s a
pretty big universe, as “utilities” encompass more than power /
energy, and there are a vast number of ways to “deal with
customers at an office.”  (There’s the office itself, what sort of
services are available, when/whether it is staffed (it may be
simply a drop-box for payment), what sort of services and payments
are exchanged…).


utility=* key is already widely used and expect one single value, in 
every situation.

Please don't introduce utility=power;gas;waste.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility

I've also answered here about its usage in this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_utility_office#Use_sub-key_instead

I'm not sure tagging offices with utility=* is really suitable for the 
current definition: offices aren't involved in production, 
transmission, distribution or delivery of power, telecommunications, 
gas, whatever.



Some offices are involved in the sale and administration of the utility.

Buried utilities here were legally required  to be in separate trenches, 
that has changed so that one trench can be used for multiple utilities, 
so it may be required for the key 'utility' to accept multiple values.


Many of the present values for the key 'utility' look to be what is 
being discuses for these offices.


The key 'utility' has evolved over time from only  the key 'marker' to 
also accepting the tags 'man_made=utility_pole' and 'building=service'. 
Further evolution might take place.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

2022-11-20 Thread Warin



On 20/11/22 10:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:35, Mike Thompson  wrote:

In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides electricity, 
water, sewer, and internet.


yes, it is also common in areas I know to have a single provider for water, 
sewer, waste disposal and even local public transport. Maybe we should have a 
generic term for these kinds of offices and specify with additional tags the 
kind of services?



office=government???




Technically energy = power x time, so related things but not the same.


In Australia homes are charged for the energy they use. They are limited 
to a maximum power by a hidden fuse behind the meter.


Industries are also charged for the energy they use .. and the maximum 
power drawn. Most industries have a set start up procedure to limit the 
maximum power drawn.



Utilities would not only be energy/power (electric, gas, oil, coal and 
wood) providers but also garbage collection, sewage, water, phone, cable 
TV and internet.



So a second tag of 
utility=electric/gas/oil/coal/wood/garbage_collection/sewage/water/phone/cable_tv/internet/* 
semi colin delimited for multiple values... ???



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-11-14 Thread Warin


On 15/11/22 12:16, Matija Nalis wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:00:42 +0100, Davidoskky via 
Tagging  wrote:

Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet
proposal?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet

You mean the one that was cancelled because it was a duplicate of already 
existing
and hugely 
popularhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=drinking_water  ?


Fundamental differences:

water supply outlet may not be drinkable.

A decorative fountain is not a water supply outlet.

Problem? - a well is not a water supply outlet.

There is a lot of thinking and work to be done if there is to be a good outcome.

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


Re: [Tagging] amentiy=donation_centre?

2022-11-14 Thread Warin



On 14/11/22 22:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

maybe these can be seen as
amenity=social_facility?

_



Which "these"???


"These" I would not tag as amenity=social_facility;

The charity shops here do not buy things, people come into the shop and 
donate things. The shops then sort those things out and sell some of them.


There are also donation 'bins' where you can deposit things to 
charities. These too are sorted for resale, sometimes as cleaning rags 
or some times free to the homeless.



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-11-12 Thread Warin


On 13/11/22 03:00, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:
Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet 
proposal? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet



There is a lot more to be done for something like this. It needs to 
incorporate all "man made sources of water'  eg wells.



I am coming around to liking the value 'water_supply_outlet'. I have 
thought of 'water_source' but that could be misconstrued as the start of 
a river.



Decorative fountains do not fall under 'water_supply_outlet'. Another 
problem with 'water_supply_outlet' is the chosen symbol of a tap, I'd 
leave the symbol to later -see how it evolves.




I'm alright with using a name different from fountain since a lot of 
people disagree on that name.


By doing all this you're effectively deprecating amenity=fountain; 
that's strange to me.



It would remove decorative fountains from amenity=fountain as this looks 
to be evolving into a mess of things that I would not call 'fountains'. 
It would leave amenity=fountain existing.




I would not tag decorative fountains as tourism as those are not 
necessarily there for tourism; you have fountains in hidden places 
that have never seen a tourist...



? If hidden how do we know they are there ..  :) There are a few 
'hidden' tourist spots, sometimes I map them, sometimes I leave them off 
the map in particular where the venue is small and I don't want to see a 
crowd of people.




Moreover, this would require retagging a lot of objects, and it cannot 
even be done mechanically because you'd end up mistagging the 
fountains which are not decorative.



Agreed it is a lot of work. But there is no other way of isolating 
decorative fountains from the other 'fountains' no mater what tag is 
agreed too.



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


Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions

2022-11-12 Thread Warin



On 1/10/22 21:08, Timeo Gut wrote:



On 30 Sep 2022, at 23:48, grin via Tagging  wrote:

Take a pretty common road type in Europe, which goes on the embankment of a river, which generally 
paved, narrow, legally open for walking and bicycling people, often part of the 
national/international bicycle-road network, and closed for motorcar traffic (usually only 
waterworks' cars are allowed). What's that? Cannot be "unclassified" since motorcars 
aren't allowed, cannot be service since it doesn't "leading to something". Some people 
tag it this way, some that way.

It seems to me that highway=path (possibly with bicycle/foot=designated) would 
be the most suitable classification here.

If waterworks' cars are they only ones legally allowed to use it then this road 
is not part of the general road network for cars so unclassified would not be 
appropriate.



I know of a road built for coal trucks by the coal firm tagged as 
'unclassified' yet it is a 'private road'  not used by cyclist nor 
pedestrians. The road standard is probably above that of 'unclassified'. 
It runs from a coal mine to a power plant, both are winding down in 
operations.



IIRC the roads in the UK are legally assigned there ratings, hove ever 
that rating is based on the road standard.


A 'path' in OSM (and I would think in Britain) would not be suitable for 
a car by width constraints, if a car travels down it then it is not a 
path, possibly a track or a service road.




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


Re: [Tagging] sport without pitch but club : ok or tagging mistake ?

2022-11-12 Thread Warin



On 30/6/21 05:59, bkil wrote:

Could a native speaker perhaps rephrase my question so it is easier to
understand?






The club - map as an area (might be the whole building). Tag it for the 
club .. club=sport, sport=soccer, name=* etc



The billiards as a node within the area of the way for the club. Tag as 
billiards, leisure=pitch (I think), sport=billiards.




There would be no tags that indicate the billiards are part of the club 
.. that is done by it being within the way for the club.


Clear?



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


Re: [Tagging] sport without pitch but club : ok or tagging mistake ?

2022-11-12 Thread Warin



On 29/6/21 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 29 Jun 2021, at 01:52, bkil  wrote:

Could you please share an example of how you would tag a soccer club
with a billiards table (access=customers) on a given floor inside a
building way. Other parts of the building are used by other POI.


the tag is level, same level same floor



Please also consider that there can be 2 POI on the same floor
equidistant to the billiard table, only one of which is the club in
question, how would a data user (or just me looking at the data) know
which POI I need to visit to play pool?


you must represent the POIs as areas, inside the area and on the same level 
means it is there



The POI can be nodes as an alternative to areas. Makes mapping them 
easier and suggests the lack of precision in x y location.




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


Re: [Tagging] sport without pitch but club : ok or tagging mistake ?

2022-11-12 Thread Warin


On 28/6/21 07:54, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

I agree with Yves, the sport=* belongs where the sport is performed,
not where the trophies are displayed and not where the thirst is 
quenched after the match.



And I disagreed.

The club=sport with sport=* details what sport the club is interested 
in. Many football club members don't play the sport but attend the club 
house and possible a game or two as spectators.


And then there is shop=sport with sport=* ...

The alternative is to have 'shop= the many sports' and 'club= the many 
sports' if that is preferred then why use the sport key at all, 
leisure=pitch, 'pitch= the many sports'.


Far easier to use the key sport=* for pitch/track/club and shop.



On 27.06.2021 22:22, Yves via Tagging wrote:
If you can't practice said sport at the clubhouse, then yes, although 
tempting, maybe it's not a good idea to tag the clubhouse with 
sport=whatever, because that make the data a bit useless.



Le 27 juin 2021 21:16:00 GMT+02:00, Marc_marc  a 
écrit :


    Hello,

    I have added a sport tag to a club=sports to describe the sport
    of this club.
    this combination exists more than 1x in the database.
    the location of the club in osm was that of the clubhouse, with 
another
    object for the sport pitch itself (which also have the sport tag 
involved)


    However, another contributor considers that this is a mistake
    and that the sport tag can only be used on the pitch itself,
    without any sport tag on the club itself.

    imho, I don't see the point of inventing a sport2 tag that would
    describe the sport concerned by places where the sport itself is not
    practiced but which directly concerns a specific sport (sports club,
    sports shop, possibly a national or international association for a
    specific sport)

    your opinion ?

    Regards,
    Marc

    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] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions

2022-11-12 Thread Warin



On 1/10/22 20:25, stevea wrote:

Makes sense to me, too, Greg.  I don't know if it helps or hinders wider understanding, but I 
understand what Greg is saying here, and while his perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine 
is "Western USA"), these don't seem far apart or even different at all, and there may 
likely be a further possible refinement here:

"unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and subject to 
traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and

"service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other roads not in the public 
grid of road network" are "on private property" and not (as) subject to traffic 
rules/laws/ordinances.



That would mean a crash on them would not have road laws applied to it 
.. so the insurance companies could not attribute blame based on road 
laws.. that could get very difficult in court.



I know the old definition of our 'motor traffic act' said something 
along the lines of a road is 'any place open to, or used, by the public' 
.. that includes private driveways, car parks etc etc as they are 'used 
by the public'.




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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-11-12 Thread Warin



On 10/10/22 21:36, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:
In Australia it would be unusual to find a drinking fountain without 
a tap to stop the flow when a person is not drinking. I think it 
could be illegal such is the scarcity of water. 
Thus, I believe that a world wide default should be avoided in favour 
of local ones or enforcing explicit tagging.


tap=yes as default would not work in Italy and tap=no as default would 
not work in Australia.



_



Technically it is a 'valve' that controls the water flow. The same kind 
of 'valve' is found in a water tap and in a shower.



I know that the tag of 'fountain' does not sit well with taps, at least 
not with me.


A new main tag of 'water_source=*' would remove the 'fountain' 
requirement and could use values such as water_well, shower, tap etc.



Decorative fountains could be moved to the tourism key as 
tourism=decorative_fountain.


This could conflict with tourism=art_work as some decorative fountains 
contain statures and other art works..


Possibly the sub key of artwork_type=* could be used under the tag 
tourism=decorative_fountain.


Ideally the two would be separate OSM entities as they are usually 
separate real world feature, one inside the other.




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


Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

2022-11-09 Thread Warin



On 10/11/22 14:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Another question!

In a number of places e.g. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1nBt the Rescue 
unit has two buildings - an admin base / radio room / lookout tower, 
usually overlooking the river mouth, together with a boatshed a bit 
further upriver e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244664674 & 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/939551533.


I would use the same emergency tag on both of them - would we all 
agree that that would be correct?



The same problem exists with fire services .. a 'fire station', a 'fire 
control centre' .. and just recently came across a 'fire training 
centre'. I think they are all tagged 'fire_station'.


Possibly some sub tags could be had of 
fire_station=control_centre/training_centre/emergency_service ???



I think =lifeboat_station is the better value and 'emergency' the better 
key.


If they have no boat nor anyway other than swimming then they are not a 
lifeboat station .. at best a life guard station for which tags already 
exist.


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


Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

2022-11-08 Thread Warin



On 8/11/22 09:00, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 07.11.2022 10:57, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:


 Favoring emergency=marine_rescue seems sensible to me


What about such stations on freshwater lakes and on rivers? Is "marine" fitting 
there?

Not really.  emergency=lifeboat_station  implies the presence of a boat. Not 
all water rescue
related infrastructure has a boat, and not all is located directly at the coast 
line or river bank.
"marine" implies salt water.



If no boat .. then how do they rescue on water?

Helicopter? Would they not also rescue on land?



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

2022-11-04 Thread Warin


On 4/11/22 00:20, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the 
strings of characters we use for tagging.
Let's document that we have have certain values for the key "historic" 
that describe objects that are not historic, and not even old.
After all the purpose of the wiki is to describe the tagging as is, 
not as it should be an ideal tagging system.



Disagree.

Pedantic hat on: This way we end up with colour=black for the colour 
white. And colour=clam for some aesthetic judgement of the colour.



We voting on the key/tag, as proposed not the past use (misuse) of the key.

If people want to tag 'old' things with  the key 'old' .. I would rather 
they use the tag start_date=* as that would have more information.


A 30 year old may think something 50 years 'old' is 'old', an 80 year 
'old' probably would not think that is 'old'. Some will conclude that 
"old' is too subjective to tag within OSM ...



Future example: cloths lines.

There are 4 possible key values - two of them exist in OSM ... one of 
them I 'like' because I have been using it since childhood. That does 
not mean that any of the 4 values is 'wrong' .. the question should be 
what makes the most sense for most people, failing that what is easiest 
to meaningfully translate into other languages (note the trailing s!). 
Still thinking about that.


Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or 
word group) is simply confusing and should be avoided.





On Thu, 3 Nov 2022, 14:05 Brian M. Sperlongano,  
wrote:


The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a
longstanding controversy regarding the historic key.  Namely, the
question of whether it is used for things that are historic or
merely old.  I don't see how a proposal centered around this key
can move forward with that fundamental debate unaddressed.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 8:56 AM Anne-Karoline Distel
 wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and
will open
again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you
correct
an oversight on the proposal page.

Anne

On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote:
> Please,
>
> Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the
voting
> time. Some issues are not cleared resolved.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Daniel Capilla
>
>
> ___
> 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] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-29 Thread Warin



On 29/10/22 07:57, Matija Nalis wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 16:43:07 +1100, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/10/22 06:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

there was a discussion about this, tap was seen as a distinguishing property 
that is yet missing. Handle is similar but not the same (handle is the thing 
you touch, if it is there, e.g. it could also be sensor based)

Sensors are not handles .. I'm thinking about it having raised the issue
on the handle discussion wiki page. I take my time with 'new' ideas
trying to get them somewhat right. I think the actuator is more
important than the 'tap'/'valve' and would give more information than
'tap=yes/no'.

there is also already existing/documented
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:actuator as well as
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:valve

and others (use taginfo link from wiki, and click on "combinations" to find 
them)



Sorry .. wrong word!

Actuator in OSM is it the thing that operates it - an electric motor for 
instance.



Not that interested in that .. more of what initiates it's operation.. a 
light beam being broken can open a door using an electric motor as the 
actuator.


A handle that operates a toggle switch can do the same, as can a 
pressure mat, an RFID card, finger print reader, retina scan ...


The electric motor says nothing about what makes it turn on/off.



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


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-29 Thread Warin


On 29/10/22 10:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 29 Oct 2022, at 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

Is the water in your "drinking fountains" chilled, or is it just the natural 
temperature of the water coming out?


there are a few “machines” that distribute chilled and carbon dioxide enriched 
water for a few pennies and where you fill bottles you bring, but these are 
relatively rare and are not considered drinking fountains, they’re an 
alternative. Speaking of drinking fountains, these are either fed by a spring 
or from the public water network.
Particularly in the summer, and if the fountain hasn’t been used for some time, 
you’ll have to let it flow until it gets to the network temperature, because 
the first water would be quite warm and unsafe to drink.



Best practice is to first operate the bubbler to let some water out 
unimpeded so;


the flow rate and trajectory can be judged

any dirt/bugs are cleaned out

the temperature can start to stabilize



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


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-27 Thread Warin



On 28/10/22 06:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 27 Oct 2022, at 18:50, Matija Nalis  
wrote:

instead of ad-hoc inventing
new undocumented key without discussion...


there was a discussion about this, tap was seen as a distinguishing property 
that is yet missing. Handle is similar but not the same (handle is the thing 
you touch, if it is there, e.g. it could also be sensor based)



Sensors are not handles .. I'm thinking about it having raised the issue 
on the handle discussion wiki page. I take my time with 'new' ideas 
trying to get them somewhat right. I think the actuator is more 
important than the 'tap'/'valve' and would give more information than 
'tap=yes/no'.



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


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-27 Thread Warin


On 27/10/22 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone


On 26 Oct 2022, at 21:29, Paul Johnson  wrote:

Drinking fountains are switch or knob operated and shoot at an angle.


these are assumptions based on your experiences that don’t hold true around 
here, most drinking fountains have continuous flow.

By the way, I started to add “tap”=yes/no to record whether there is a tap to 
control the flow


Water is usually scarce in Australia, all blubbers/drinking_fountains 
are controlled.




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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

2022-10-24 Thread Warin


On 24/10/22 07:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 22, 2022, 15:09 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:



sent from a phone

On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel
 wrote:

Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the
concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change
the key
from site_type to archaeological_type



such a retagging would be a waste of time, I would not pursue this
idea, and given the high majority that is required nowadays it is
also unlikely to succeed.

You could just continue mapping the settlement sites and crannogs
as you please and have a wonderful time, document the tags, speak
about it so that other people interested in mapping this kind of
feature can join you. :-)

personally it seems to me that it has chance of being a good idea



+1


It can coexist with past tags ...

Migration can then proceed;

A mechanical edit can be done to add the new tags.  (normal approval 
process)


After some time of use, the older tags can be removed .. (normal 
approval process)



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-16 Thread Warin


On 14/10/22 22:33, Peter Elderson wrote:
Just a remark: I think a mainly decorative object is not an amenity. 
An amenity may be near it, or attached to it, but that still does not 
make the object an amenity.



Some view works of art as amenities.

A road is an amenity .. yet they are not tagged amenity in OSM.

A building is an amenity.

I view most values of man_made as amenities...


I think of OSM key 'amenity' as the miscellaneous folder .. a catch all. 
If there is a less general key then I think that other key should be 
used in preference to the key 'amenity'.



An object that provides water for actual use, such as a tap or a pipe 
from which water permanently flows, is an amenity. It may be 
decorated, or fitted to a decorative object, but still is an amenity. 
The BE word fountain, I understand, primarily means the decorative 
structure including the decorative waterflow.


That is one meaning of it. It can also mean the starting point of a 
river/stream... and other things.


Possibly some view the word 'fountain' as meaning "a source of water'. 
Decorative fountains around me are not sources of water .. using the 
water from a fountain could have the Police/council Rangers called.




So, to me, any tagging using amenity=fountain sounds like a contradiction.



I reach the same conclusion, but for different reasons.



Peter Elderson


Op vr 14 okt. 2022 om 12:22 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer 
:


Am Fr., 14. Okt. 2022 um 12:10 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky via Tagging
:

This other fountain doesn't have such wall, thus it is not
decorative
and it cannot be tagged as amenity=fountain (assuming we
disregard the
recreational utility mentioned in the wiki).


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Water_fountain_with_water_basin_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg



this other fountain happens to be decorated as well. Let's ignore
this for a moment, and assume it wasn't. It could still be a
decorative fountain, if it can be seen as street decor. Setting up
a fountain requires some effort, so there will usually be a
purpose, even if it isn't necessary now as it was when it was
constructed. I would generally see amenity=fountain applicable for
any fountain that is not only a drinking fountain and that is not
set up as a watering place for animals only.



The shape and use of these two fountains looks the same to me.
Why would you tag them as different features?



I wouldn't


I'm not necessarily saying they need to be tagged as
amenity=fountain,
but I would expect their main tagging to be the same and maybe
differ in
some secondary parameter.



maybe, if you come up with an idea about these secondary
parameters, we can discuss them.

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] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-16 Thread Warin



On 16/10/22 02:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone


On 15 Oct 2022, at 10:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink from without an 
aid e.g. a cup.


while it may be true, you have to acknowledge that there are many places in the 
world that are providing drinking fountains for a long time, sometimes for a 
very long time, and many of them have downward flow, so this should not be a 
criterion.

For some examples have a look at the drinking water article in wp.



I acknowledge the supply of 'drinking water' ... but not a 'drinking 
fountain' /'bubbler'.



I would not ascribe the word 'fountain' to it in OSM. I do note that the 
word 'fountain' has many meanings .. some ~7 in my dictionary.




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


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-15 Thread Warin


On 15/10/22 19:57, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 15, 2022, 10:05 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:


On 14/10/22 22:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we'
need a solution first before even thinking of depreciation.

I described what I found/considered at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain/alternatives
but nothing seems viable and superior.

Have I missed something?


To me, fundamentally, the objects presently shown on that proposal
page are taps .. not drinking fountains.

The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink from
without an aid e.g. a cup.

Does it mean you want to deprecate tagging them as "generic drinking 
water fountain"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Ddrinking ?



I would never map those as a drinking fountain. I would map them as 
water taps.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-15 Thread Warin


On 14/10/22 22:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need
a solution first before even thinking of depreciation.

I described what I found/considered at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain/alternatives
but nothing seems viable and superior.

Have I missed something?

To me, fundamentally, the objects presently shown on that proposal page 
are taps .. not drinking fountains.


The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink from 
without an aid e.g. a cup.



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


Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

2022-10-15 Thread Warin



On 14/10/22 23:40, Greg Troxel wrote:

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:


On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:

There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities,

residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial
mixes because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.
Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning.

In some places the local authorities have lots to do with landuse and
everything to do with zoning. To the extent of taking people to court
and forcing them to stop their present landuse.

Of course they do.  But you are blurring two things:

   OSM maps actual land use.  OSM does not map zoning.

   Governments use zoning to control landuse.  So after they have
   controlled there is an actual landuse to map.

So the government using force to control landuse is not something we
map.  Given that, I don't see what point you are trying to make.



OSM does not map illegal activity.



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


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-14 Thread Warin



On 14/10/22 00:03, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:

On 13/10/22 10:15, Warin wrote:
I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a 
solution first before even thinking of depreciation. 


I do agree and appreciate this approach. A solution for tagging 
man_made=drinking_fountain already exists, that is fountain=bubbler.


I see no problem in deprecating that since a good and valid solution 
that does not present the same amount of problems does already exist, 
I believe this is well explained in the deprecation proposal.



I am trying to propose some solutions, but I'm rather inexperienced at 
doing that and thus I'm trying to follow advice of people who know 
more than me.


I have made a proposal which clearly has some problems and I will try 
to fix those problems as soon as I get time to do so.



OT: to all the threads I left unreplied up to now, sorry guys I'll get 
back to you as soon as I can.



Yek. There are too many of them for me to cope with. I need to take a 
photo of a tap and then upload 2 photos and add them to 
man_made=water_tap.. that may help answer some of the posts.



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-14 Thread Warin


On 14/10/22 06:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:





It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot 
recognize that the fountain is clearly decorated. It is not just an 
utility, the wall is a part, isn’t it?




Yep.. there is the problem ... 'we' see different things even from the 
same photo.



To me a 'fountain' is a decorative object... at that spout of water from 
a wall into a trough is utilitarian not decorative. And you disagree.


So where too from here?

I don't think we can map the same or similar things with different tags 
depending on where you are in the world .. we do have different tags for 
different languages but there is no conflict there as they coexist.



Need some sort of solution...


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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-14 Thread Warin


On 11/10/22 20:03, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 11.10.22 à 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :


Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky :
    I would propose the deprecation of the value 
fountain=stone_block     since it could be tagged as 
fountain=driking, material=stone.


There are many fountains made of stone, but not all them are 
instances of "stone block".


a better improvement is material=stone_block



No.

material=stone  -- the shape is not relevant to the material, so don't 
add it to the key 'material'.



A block can be a cube, a sphere ... it does not say much.   I'd suggest 
shape=* ... ???




or stone:block (like we did with concrete:plate)


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Fairmont_Sonoma_Mission_Inn_August_2019_-_Sarah_Stierch_09.jpg

I agree with this. These machines are no "fountains" for me, neither 
the indoor versions


to add a mess to the mess, in french, it's a called "fountaine à eau" 
(yes it's a bit funny)

I don't really see the functional difference with other objects
of the same kind made of metal or pirate

Regards,
Marc



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


Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

2022-10-14 Thread Warin



On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote:

There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities, 
residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes 
because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.

Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning.



In some places the local authorities have lots to do with landuse and 
everything to do with zoning. To the extent of taking people to court 
and forcing them to stop their present landuse.


If they don't the authorities can take the land and charge them for any 
necessary work.




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


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-13 Thread Warin



On 11/10/22 05:39, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:



I feel that writing on this mailing list is not such a good way to 
find good solutions to problems, while it appears a wonderful place to 
find problems.





Yes, a wonderful way to find problems. Few suggest ways to fix them... I 
do try to suggest things, most ignore them.



I do support man_made=water_tap and man_made=drinking_fountain as 
standalone features, not necessarily attached to a building, a water 
tank etc...


If they are attached .. then a node on the other thing .. but the node 
only has the man_made=* tag.



-


I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a 
solution first before even thinking of depreciation.



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


Re: [Tagging] camp sites in Haiti

2022-10-12 Thread Warin


On 12/10/22 02:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Would it be possible to re-tag those refugee camps in an automated 
edit? … I'm not even sure if they all still exist 12 years later.


It would not be possible, because we do not know if they still exist.



So you leave them with an incorrect tag?

I'd re-tag them.. but only after looking at imagery to see if they are 
refugee sites.


And I'd try to find the most upto date imagery to confirm there 
existence ..





However a local mapper or someone who has visited the area could 
re-tag them, after confirming that they still exist and are in fact 
refugee sites



A local mapper or visitor can also confirm or delete them after they 
have been retagged by a remote mapper.


And after 212 years of inactivity the change may prompt a local to think 
about these sites.




-Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 4:20 AM Anne-Karoline Distel 
 wrote:


Hello,

I noticed that many of the refugee camps in Haiti are tagged as
tourism=camp_site which made me uneasy. Turns out there is the tag
amenity=refugee_site. Would it be possible to re-tag those refugee
camps
in an automated edit? There are about 60 or 70 mapped. I'm not
even sure
if they all still exist 12 years later.

Anne


___
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] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-12 Thread Warin


On 11/10/22 22:38, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :

On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" 
that would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant 
values to describe the known cases 
We would need to approve that certain keys are moved from fountain=* 
to model=* 


on this point: yes
and I think this should be a fairly simple proposal and likely to be 
accepted since it avoids multiple meanings of fountain=* (function <> 
style <> ...)






fountain=* is not specific enough without further explanation.

Why not fountain:style=* and fountain:function=*? Could save some 
misunderstandings and ease migration?




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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

2022-10-12 Thread Warin


On 11/10/22 23:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging  
wrote:

How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?

The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and 
definitely is not a decorative fountain.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_fountain_without_tap_near_Santiago_de_Compostela.jpg


it is a historic fountain


Historic? I think 'old' is the only thing that can be determined from 
the photo?




that IMHO clearly is decorative, that stuff in the background doesn’t seem to 
be there by incident. Maybe it is also a historic watering place (seems small 
for this)? Not knowing the context I cannot tell you for sure what it is. 
amenity=fountain doesn’t seem off. Many “decorative” fountains also had utility.



I don't think the stream of water is the most useful feature .. it is 
the water in the trough for animals to drink from .. horses, donkeys .. 
etc.. I am assuming the lower structure contains some level of water 
simply by its shape.



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


Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

2022-10-10 Thread Warin



On 10/10/22 08:20, stevea wrote:


I continue to call "bubblers" (although I personally call them "drinking fountains") emitting a jot of water 
on button press "water taps," as it is that button press that makes them a "tap."  Yes, they are both 
drinking fountains / bubblers, too, as well as amenity=drinking_water, I hope it is all clear (how I see things).  And, I 
continue to listen, this is sort of fascinating, in an "oh, my gosh, look how we have had to drag this out" kind of way.
___


To me a drinking fountain provides water for easy immediate human 
consumption of water without any aids. Here they usually have a control 
device, a tap' and a waste receptacle.


Do we tag

the waste receptacle

or

the tap

or

the drinking fountain

?? Which is the feature primarily there for? To me that is the drinking 
fountain. I'd leave out the tap and the waste receptacle.





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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

2022-10-10 Thread Warin


On 10/10/22 11:42, stevea wrote:

Such "rules" would be somewhere in the realm of the "policy" of the merchant 
(or perhaps government agency).



On Oct 9, 2022, at 5:25 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 10:12, stevea  wrote:
Yes, I'm glad to hear this:  somebody refusing a 500€ bill / invoice with a 
500€ note would simply make me leave the note on the table (counter, hand of 
the proprietor, if s/he let me...) and walk away, my obligation to remunerate 
fully and legally completed.

The history of "money" is fascinating.  And it continues to unfold with crypto, 
totally electronic payments, this seeming desire to eliminate cash (by merchants and 
governments who don't seem to like the anonymity it can provide...) and more.


I heard it was forbidden in this case not to accept the 500 bill as it is legal 
tender

Does anybody else have rules on the maximum amount that can be paid in coins?

https://banknotes.rba.gov.au/legal/legal-tender/



In this case it is a legal law. However most merchants 'may refuse' .. 
they may also accept if they are inclined to do so.. usually this means 
'not busy'. And most are happy to get some coins in rather than the 
never ending flow of coins out.


And any bank will normally accept an unrestricted number of coins.. they 
have machines for sorting, counting and packaging them so the job is 
easy for them.



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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-10-10 Thread Warin


On 10/10/22 20:55, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:


If it was fitted with a shower .. then it becomes a shower. 
If around the pipe on which the tap is present is fitted a fountain .. 
then it becomes a fountain.


Nit picking: Oxygen is a gas .. under 'normal' conditions. 

Better to use the term fluid rather than liquid.


I would expect the following to have taps are part of their 
construction - as a OSM default - shower, bottle filler, drinking 
fountain. If there is no tap .. then tap=no .. or better 
flow=continuous. Why is flow=continuous better .. it says what it is. 

Why would tap=yes be a good default?

I have run an overpass query to find all tagged types of drinking 
fountains 
("fountain"~"^(bubbler|drinking|nasone|drinking_fountain|toret|roman_wolf|wallace)$").


The total number of tagged items is 1572, 964 of which are in Italy 
(732 of which in Rome!!). In Italy this kind of fountains generally 
does  not have a tap.


Thus, the majority of fountains currently tagged in osm do not have a 
tap; at this point it would be more sensible to have tap=no as a default.




In Australia it would be unusual to find a drinking fountain without a 
tap to stop the flow when a person is not drinking. I think it could be 
illegal such is the scarcity of water.



Certainly when water restriction are declared such uncontrolled drinking 
fountains would be rendered useless, thus I don't think there are any 
here without taps.


With the most restrictive water restrictions decorative fountains are 
turned off, public water taps disabled but drinking fountains still usable.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-10-10 Thread Warin


On 9/10/22 21:08, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
No, it would not "turn them into taps", but it WOULD mean that a tap 
is present as part of the structure of the device.  
"amenity=drinking_water; tap=yes".



If something is fitted with a tap on its outlet .. it is then a tap.

If it was fitted with a shower .. then it becomes a shower.

If a roof is later fitted with walls, a door or 2 and some windows is it 
then


building=roof, layer=1, walls=yes, entry_doors=yes, windows=yes ..

or simply building =yes?


The water is potable and you have to operate a tap to make it flow (so 
you may be OK to get a drink, but your dog might struggle and need 
assistance)


A tap is a device to control the flow of whatever liquid (or gas, I 
suppose) is coming out.  Potable water, non-potable water; lemonade; 
petrol (gasoline), Oxygen, whatever...

Nit picking: Oxygen is a gas .. under 'normal' conditions.

I would expect the following to have taps are part of their construction 
- as a OSM default - shower, bottle filler, drinking fountain. If there 
is no tap .. then tap=no .. or better flow=continuous. Why is 
flow=continuous better .. it says what it is.




Regards,
Peter
(PeterPan99)

On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 18:43:39 BST, Peter Elderson 
 wrote:



I have the impression that slow running water points in Europe rapidly 
are fitted with a push button fot a limited amount of water or a 
limited tap time. Would that turn them into water taps?


Continuous flow of water features in Australia has long been 
problematic. Anything that is used in a not continuous manner has a tap 
fitted of some description for user operation. Public taps have even had 
their handles removed when things get rather dry.





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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-10-10 Thread Warin


On 9/10/22 21:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am So., 9. Okt. 2022 um 12:22 Uhr schrieb Minh Nguyen 
:


drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and
there
are non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to
split
hairs. 




+1

I'd expect that a tag for fountains and a tag for drinking
fountains would both imply a default value for drinking_water=* by
default, but the default should be overridden when more is known
about
the water source.



a tag for drinking fountains should definitely imply drinking_water=yes,


Agreed. However there is a t least one case where a drinking fountain 
carries a sign that it is not suitable for drinking. Local drink form it 
anyway and don't seem to suffer from it. I'd tag it as 
drinking_water:legal=no and not tag drinking_water=* at all



but amenity=fountain should not imply any default value for 
"drinking_water", it should be checked and tagged explicitly. 
Expectations change around the globe and while it could be approached 
with national or regional defaults, I think it is better to be 
explicit (because a missing value is not clear, can be default or 
unknown, and potability of water is super important in this context).



I would take the safe view, drinking_water=no unless specifically tagged.






With a tag for water taps in general, it isn't as clear. But as a
data
consumer or user, I wouldn't be eager to assume that an outdoor
tap is
potable without more context. I've been to cemeteries in swampy New
Orleans that have taps signposted "Water for Flowers" and never once
considered that they might be hooked up to the municipal water system
and maintained to the standard of a public drinking fountain.



yes, water taps on cemeteries, as far as I recall, have been the 
initial reason for introducing man_made=water_tap (some people had 
started mapping amenity=drinking_water drinking_water=no ;-) )




I'd still take the same safe view, drinking_water=no unless specifically 
tagged.


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

2022-10-10 Thread Warin

I oppose depreciation of the tag.


I would support depreciation of all non-decorative 'fountains'.


On 10/10/22 07:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

For now I

1) notified people who used added this tag more than once
(currently mapped man_made=drinking_fountain are counted)

See notification list at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain#Deprecation

2) added section "Problems" at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain#Problems

If noone will protest I will also mark it as deprecated and add request to
consider using other less problematic tags.

If someone will protest I will likely make a deprecation proposal
(or leave it in limbo state if I will have no time for that).


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

2022-10-09 Thread Warin


On 9/10/22 18:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:50, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


I'll be voting no.



me too, it is trying to deprecate a handful of tags I am using for 
fountain classification. Why do people have to “deprecate” other 
people’s tags when they introduce new ones with different semantics?


How can a “water outlet” tag replace a tag that represents the whole 
fountain?


I also don’t like unnecessarily convoluted tags of this kind:

  * water_supply:for

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:water_supply:for=edit=1>=bottles

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:water_supply:for%3Dbottles=edit=1>


and usually a water outlet is not “for bottles” but compatible with 
filling bottles.



Some water outlets are designed for filling water bottles, just as some 
are designed for drinking from, showering...


I wonder why showers are not yet a fountain= thing.. someone has not 
thought of it yet?


Other possible fountain values? trough? If it has water .. must be a 
fountain looks to be the mantra.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-10-09 Thread Warin


On 9/10/22 17:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea  wrote:


> Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking
water .. or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend
you boil' (more CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really
would not drink this stuff, just look and smell it!)

Yes, taps CAN be drinking water, but not necessarily are. 



Don't know if it's an Oz-only thing, but we have some taps (both in 
parks & some private properties) that are coloured purple to show that 
they are connected to a separate recycled water grid, so the water 
should NOT be drunk.\



My local council is putting in storm water tanks for use as irrigation..

I think that tap was purple. The tap 'handle' was a 'secure fitting' .. 
you can buy the 'secure handle' at the local hardware store 
(bunnings)... a 4 way device to cope with 4 different 'secure fittings'.




https://www.westernportwater.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Recycled-Water2.jpg



I'll take a photo next time I'm out that way of the secure fitting and 
probably faded purple colouring.




Thanks

Graeme

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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

2022-10-09 Thread Warin

The symbol is of a tap, not applicable to a 'drinking fountain'.

A suitable symbol could be a simple drop of water as that does not 
signify the physical feature?



The tag does not distinguish between taps, drinking fountains, a 
continuous flow from a pipe, a river, a pool, a gutter or a spoon drain. 
It would apply to all water sources.


On 8/10/22 20:49, Illia Marchenko wrote:

Water outlets for public or customer use (generic tagging).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Water_outlet
Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.



Discussions can take place here, part of the tagging list.


I'll be voting no.


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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-10-09 Thread Warin


On 8/10/22 22:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann  wrote:

It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of 
feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate subtags.


it’s not the same kind of feature if the water is drinkable in one case and 
isn’t in the other.


Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. 
or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more 
CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you really would not drink this 
stuff, just look and smell it!)



I don’t say we must use different main tags, but it could be justified if we did



We don't use different main tags for roads that are private.. If it is 
the same feature but has different properties secondary tags have been 
used.


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


[Tagging] Cloths Lines

2022-10-08 Thread Warin
While we thinking of water features and how to make some sense of what 
we have now...


I'll raise the subject of a less numerous subject and hopefully less 
confusing subject for contemplation; cloths lines.



Some Russian mappers have crested and mapped amenity=clothes_dryer 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dclothes_dryer


Some 350 uses exist. A fair proportion have no further details, rack and 
T post look to be the more popular details.



Within New South Wales, Australia I have been using 
man_made=clothes_line, 48 of them. All of these have been 
clothes_line=rotary with appropriate access tag - most private some 
customers.



However there looks to be another value that has some use in Britain - 
'washing line'.



I'll ask on the UK group list for their preference, but any thoughts 
here on either the key or value?



Keys;

amenity

or

man_made


I prefer man_made .. I view washing as a chore not as enjoyment.. :)


Values;

clothes dryer

clothes line

washing line


I don't like dryer - to me that is an electrical machine that drys 
clothes...


---


I note Paul Allen has been a good participant in the last conversation 
on this .. thanks Paul.


Raising this again due to the new value of 'washing line' .. which I 
have not come access before.


That and I'd like to have a good tag that passes the test of time unlike 
the water mess, apologies to those that started it ... 20/20 hindsight 
is the advantage of looking back.






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


Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

2022-10-08 Thread Warin


On 7/10/22 23:37, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote:


I wish to broadly discuss the definition of fountains and similar 
objects that have the objective of delivering water (drinkable or not).


Everything I wish to discuss in this thread is about man made 
constructions that transport water through pipes, I will thus not talk 
about wells and such things.


This is not a proposal, since I first wish to identify the main 
problems with what I’m going to suggest.


The final objective is the deprecation of man_made=water_tap in order 
to unify all these features under the same tag.




  Background

The tags pertaining to this category are quite a disorganized mess 
with a lot of overlaps.


The main tag used to indicate a place where drinking water is 
available is amenity=drinking_water. This is a very affirmed tag and 
works very well, because it provides indications as to where it is 
possible to find water for drinking. It is thus immediately useful to 
the users of the map and it doesn’t require mappers to go through 5 
different tags to indicate that.


The second most used tag in this category amenity=fountain, this 
describes a man made object that provides a flow of water. The flow of 
water can be continuous or it can be stopped by a person. The fountain 
can be decorative or it may provide some service (such as providing 
drinking water). It is unclear whether the majority of the tagged 
features are decorative fountains or not, the wiki appears to suggest 
so but in many countries there is no distinction among the word for a 
decorative fountain and a service one.



The original intention was to tag decorative fountains.


The third relevant tag is man_made=water_tap; this indicates any man 
made construction that provides water (drinkable or not) through a 
tap, thus the flow of the water can be started and stopped by a person.




I would never describe a tap as a fountain. Just me?

The last relevant tag is man_made=drinking_fountain, this tag has very 
few usages and a thread about its deprecation has already been 
started, thus I will not discuss about it in detail.




I would never describe a 'drinking fountain' as a decorative fountain. 
Just me?





Popularity of these tags:

1.

amenity=drinking_water: 266,535

2.

amenity=fountain: 151,218

3.

man_made=water_tap: 23,678

4.

man_made=drinking_fountain: 656



  Problems with the current tagging scheme

The current tagging scheme works very well to tag places where people 
can find water to drink. This is great since this information is very 
useful to map users.


However, it often fails at describing how the water is delivered or 
what is delivering it. amenity=drinking_water is a great generic tag 
that works perfectly for this, however more specialized tags should 
allow to distinguish different features that are delivering the water.




The tag amenity=drinking_water fails to tag non drinking water...

This is the objective of man_made=water_tap and amenity=fountain. 
These provide a description of the object that delivers the water. 
Moreover, these tags can be used to describe both systems that deliver 
drinking water or systems that deliver non potable water. This is done 
mainly by adding the secondary tag drinking_water=*, even though in 
many cases man_made=water_tap coexists with amenity=drinking_water.




The combination of man_made=water_tap coexists with 
amenity=drinking_water was done for the render! It serves no other 
function and amenity=drinking_water could be removed and yet retain the 
essential information.





amenity=fountain has a subtag fountain=* used to describe the type of 
fountain. This subtag is not widely used, but it contains several 
different values:


 *

splash_pad: 1458

 *

decorative: 950

 *

nozzle: 885

 *

bubbler: 319

 *

drinking: 266

Among other values describing the specific name of the type of 
fountains (nasone fountains for example are a style of fountains used 
to provide drinking water in Rome).


Thus, currently the tag amenity=fountain is used both to describe 
decorative fountains and to describe fountains that provide drinking 
water or simple generic nozzles.


The tag fountain=* is not well defined since it can describe both the 
use of the fountain (fountain=drinking) and the particular style of 
the fountain (fountain=nasone).




The biggest issue with this is the overlap of the two tags 
amenity=fountain and man_made=water_tap. If amenity=fountain was used 
to only describe large decorative fountains, which cannot supposedly 
be switched off by a common person this wouldn’t be a problem. 
However, since this feature can represent nozzles and drinking 
fountains, some of the fountains here represented can have a water tap.


Thus the same feature might be tagged either as man_made=water_tap or 
amenity=fountain. The tag amenity=fountain has no way to specify that 
the water flow can be started or stopped through a tap.


Out of 

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

2022-10-08 Thread Warin


On 7/10/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 22:00, Davidoskky via Tagging 
 wrote:



With all these tags, there is still no way to properly describe a
place
with a pipe that provides water which is not drinkable and not
decorative.


Throwing another one into the mix - taps in camp grounds & similar 
where they can't fully guarantee the quality, so they're signed "We 
recommend you boil this water before drinking"?


drinking = yes after boiling?



There have been attempts at applying 'further process to the water'.

I'd tag drinking_water:legal=no as a start.


Next ? drinking_water=conditional, conditional=boiling? Note I just made 
up to conditional=* thing ...



---

As for the pipe ... does it have a tap, or does it flow constantly? Bore 
water? Spring water?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

2022-10-07 Thread Warin


On 7/10/22 23:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am Fr., 7. Okt. 2022 um 13:46 Uhr schrieb ael :

Maybe. I guess that if I was starting from scratch, I might have a
general tag of water_feature and find choose suitable values to
describe
these things.




then I am happy we do not start from scratch :)
There are so many different kind of water features, that would be 
useless without additional tags, just like amenity=social_facility, 
there are already so many diffferent types of fountains, imagine if 
this was taken away and we'd have to start to disambiguate "water 
feature". And some fountains aren't about water at all (champagne, 
chocolate, ...) although these are really few in comparison, and 
typically not in the public space.



A decorative fountain does not have to 'spurt water up into the air'..

Example Tom Bass Wall Fountain, Sydney, Australia 1963. Nicknamed "The 
Urinal" for obvious reasons!


photo https://tbsss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/39-PO.jpg

youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDmNkZm2KMw


The photos are decorative fountains .. to me. It may be possible to 
obtain drinking water from them, but to me visually they are for the 
most part decorative.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

2022-10-07 Thread Warin


On 4/10/22 23:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
I am not entirely how to solve various issues surrounding drinking 
water terminology

(help highly welcomed!) but it is now really clear to me that
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain


Wiki page established November 2017. 656 uses.


is not helpful at all and it should be marked as deprecated

- many drinking fountains are eligible for man_made=water_tap

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap

Wiki page established November 2017. 23,678 uses.


Taps are not 'drinking fountains' -see below.



- it duplicates https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Dbubbler


Wiki page established September 2019‎ . 319 uses.


- as stated this tag is equivalent to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Dbubbler
  but there are also water fountain which are not emitting
  upward jet of water in the air

So we have tag which for many (all?) features collides with better
established tag AND it is duplicated AND it is poorly named AND it is 
rarely used

AND it introduces confusion.



?? "rarely used" but has twice the uses of the proposed replacement that 
came latter?



A 'tap' is not a 'drinking fountain'.

The 'drinking fountain' is designed to be used by humans for directly 
and conveniently drinking from. Always a upward arc of water at a low 
flow rate.


Taps on the other hand are more convenient for filling a glass or 
bottle, some times for connecting a hose - usually with a downward outlet.



Look at the symbols for each...

drinking fountain 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg/278px-Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg.png


tap 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Ua_6.12_service-potable_water.svg/238px-Ua_6.12_service-potable_water.svg.png



They are different .. physically and functionally.





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


Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

2022-10-07 Thread Warin


On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:


Hello all,

thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little 
frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion 
period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather 
than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only 
coming out with your opinion now, because it was announced here and on 
the weeklyOSM.




You are not the only one to have this occur. Many of us, me included 
have the same thing.


Typical reasons for me are ... 'too busy' .. 'I'll get to that later' 
etc Apologizes.  At least most of yours look to be on the tagging list?


As so many things, yes, the settlement and site_type group of tags is 
a mess. I tried to tidy up the settlement and related tags before I 
started my proposal, though.  And yes, we do have two different uses 
for settlement_type, as I have laid out on the page 
. I would 
propose that where it is not used in an archaeological sense, that the 
few cases (related to the earthquake in Haiti maybe?) be changed to 
settlement:origin=planned/ spontaneous/ unspecified or something like 
that.


I chose settlement_type as a parallel use to fortification_type which 
was established long before I started mapping heritage in Ireland 
afaik, so I was only trying my best to follow an established pattern.




'type' has been used all over the place. That does not make it a 'good' 
word to use. As you have seen it leads to the tag being used for things 
other than intended.


The mess with defensive_settlement=crannog is my fault - I had created 
a preset for JOSM and forgotten to adapt it after retracting that 
proposal. I've cleaned up that mess now. I meant to wait until this 
proposal was approved, in case it got rejected.


If anyone wants to start a proposal for site_type, please be my guest.



Not I. However I would think instead of site_type=* the key should be 
archaeological_site=* ?



I note that settlements are already on the values for the key historic, 
e.g farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where people lived. So 
historic=crannog would 'work'?


If people say they are archaeological sites then why not the above farm, 
manor, monastery, castle etc???



Cheers,

Anne



Good luck. May need a strong drink.


On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures 
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same 
time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not 
say what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the 
settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with 
values yes and no.


As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are 
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone 
would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is 
postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think 
it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not 
principal. It's just not big enough.


Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend >:



    On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
    Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
    vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. 
There

    is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

    The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
    discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
    these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
    should
    probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog

    (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog

    matters
    little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word 
"crannog"
    is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be 
remapped into

    some 

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

2022-10-06 Thread Warin


On 5/10/22 22:44, Illia Marchenko wrote:
Alternative to the sport=soccer is sport=british_football because 
"football" is context specific, and "American football", "Australian 
football", "Canadian football", "Gaelic football" exists.



In parts of Britain 'football' is rugby ...

For some people in Australia 'football' is soccer, others rugby, others 
AFL (OSM 'australian_football').





ср, 5 окт. 2022 г., 13:52 martianfreeloader 
:


There is a broad consensus that the language for OSM tags is British
English. Using a non-BE word for a tag because it is used in
Australia
while a synonymous BE word exists, would be the same using a Xhosa,
Portuguese or Korean word, just because it exists.

I know there are a few exceptions like sport=soccer, footway=sidewalk
and sidewalk=*, but I think this kind of exceptions shouldn't be made
without a very good reason.



On 05/10/2022 12:04, Warin wrote:
>
> On 5/10/22 08:25, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>> Vào lúc 11:54 2022-10-04, Jass Kurn đã viết:
>>> I've just noticed there is a bubbler tag being promoted? Which
>>> appears to be an American English term for a British English
drinking
>>> fountain. Why promote another term, and use an American
English term.
>>> What was wrong with calling a drinking fountain a drinking
fountain?
>>
>> To clarify, "bubbler" is a distinctively regional term in Boston,
>> Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Elsewhere, it's either "drinking
>> fountain" or "water fountain". [1]
>
>
> No. 'Bubbler' is also used in Australia. And possibly elsewhere
is the
> world.
>
> -
>
> In England it looks like a "Drinker Water Fountain" spurts water
> upwards. There are some with elevated outlets described as water
bottle
> filler, but are at a height that is convenient to drink from
with flow
> rates to suit direct human consumption.
>
>
> Things that direct water downwards? And have flow rates greater
than
> convenient for human consumption? To me, these are 'taps'.
>
>
> The problem?
>
>
> 1) identify feature that provided drinkable water - fairly
basic. At the
> moment the common amenity=drinking_water does this .. or the
secondary
> tag of drinking_water=yes.



This fails to consider the supply of water that is not drinkable ... 
thus complicating the tagging.


So I have revised this in another message.


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

2022-10-06 Thread Warin


On 6/10/22 10:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone


On 5 Oct 2022, at 15:26, Jass Kurn  wrote:

When it should be, as a suggestion,  drinking_water:type=bubbler, or 
drinking_water:type=bottle_refill.


these tags are misleading, you are not describing drinking water, hence it is 
not a suitable approach IMHO.
amenity=drinking_water is not only used for fountains, some may be springs or 
water taps, it is a very generic tag which has the essential information for 
thirsty people, the fountain key can be added to some of them to further 
specify the feature. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.



Another issue.. tagging non drinking water ... may have the same 
physical properties as a drinking water feature other than the quality 
of the water...



So .. ???

amenity=water - as the main tag - exists but marked as depreciated... 
says 'here is water'. This is more generic than amenity=drinking_water.


secondary tags

drinking_water=yes/no/* .. already exists

drinking_water:legal=yes/no already exists


I think the above should depreciate amenity=drinking_water as it is more 
generic.




Then the question of delivery ???

water_direction=up/down/horizontal/upwards ?

something for the application - for 
dogs/cats/horses/humans/hose/bottle_refill/*


water:for=dog/cats/animals/humans/hose/trough/* Each would need a 
precise description...



The question of the physical structure used to deliver the water


couplings:type=plain/threaded/storz/camlock/* exists for fire hydrants 
.. but needs some added values.


couplings:diameters=* exists ... though I think the inner diameters 
should be used as what is seen.



Tap if it exists?

tap=yes/no

Some may want to tag the tap actuator?

tap:actuator=leaver/handle/light_beam/*

Some may want to tag the structural style of the thing

structure:style=nasone/*


---

Rendering?


If direction upwards and water:for=humans then render as for bubbler - 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg/278px-Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg.png 
else;


If tap=yes. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/France_road_sign_ID29.svg/337px-France_road_sign_ID29.svg.png 
else;


as a water drop, singular.


colour blue if drinkable

colour brown if not drinkable.


Add tap if tap=yes. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/France_road_sign_ID29.svg/337px-France_road_sign_ID29.svg.png











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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

2022-10-05 Thread Warin


On 5/10/22 08:25, Minh Nguyen wrote:

Vào lúc 11:54 2022-10-04, Jass Kurn đã viết:
I've just noticed there is a bubbler tag being promoted? Which 
appears to be an American English term for a British English drinking 
fountain. Why promote another term, and use an American English term. 
What was wrong with calling a drinking fountain a drinking fountain?


To clarify, "bubbler" is a distinctively regional term in Boston, 
Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Elsewhere, it's either "drinking 
fountain" or "water fountain". [1]



No. 'Bubbler' is also used in Australia. And possibly elsewhere is the 
world.


-

In England it looks like a "Drinker Water Fountain" spurts water 
upwards. There are some with elevated outlets described as water bottle 
filler, but are at a height that is convenient to drink from with flow 
rates to suit direct human consumption.



Things that direct water downwards? And have flow rates greater than 
convenient for human consumption? To me, these are 'taps'.



The problem?


1) identify feature that provided drinkable water - fairly basic. At the 
moment the common amenity=drinking_water does this .. or the secondary 
tag of drinking_water=yes.



2) identify the physical properties and easy usability of the feature for;

2a) humans to directly drink from. Consider a small child, the elderly. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg/278px-Drinking_Fountain_-_The_Noun_Project.svg.png


2b) refilling glasses/cup/mugs/bottle from. In most instances there 
would be some form of tap? 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/France_road_sign_ID29.svg/337px-France_road_sign_ID29.svg.png


2c) refiling large vessels from e.g. caravans, boats? A little google 
searching for caravans leads me to believe that they use 'normal' taps, 
probably because they are 'everywhere' and more likely to be 'free'.



This leaves out wells, streams.. and other things?


Possibly there is a need to avoid the words presently in use - tap, 
bubbler, fountain, drinking_fountain?


So? A sub tag for amenity=drinking_water?

water_direction=upwards/downwards ? Humm should consider stationary 
sources, and streams and pools  - a bowel etc? Humm any ideas



It would be nice to indicate the flow rate too .. but that will cause 
too many arguments .. so lets just work on the above?





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


Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

2022-10-04 Thread Warin


On 3/10/22 23:26, Volker Schmidt wrote:
A practical comment from an end user: it is helpful to know if a 
drinking-water point can be used to fill water bottles. Bubblers are 
tricky in that regard.

True, but it can be done.


BTW: a shower in many parts of the world may not "waste" drinking 
water, for example by using rain water.


In some parts of the world rain water is prized. The showers at William 
Creek Hotel, South Australia use bore water, rich in salt. Your towel 
will need a wash after drying yourself, the experienced skip the showers 
there unless your very dirty.




On Mon, 3 Oct 2022, 13:47 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

An interesting collective of comments on 'bubbler' from Australia


https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/resources/aus/word/map/search/word/bubbler/The%20Riverina/


On 1/10/22 11:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 1 Oct 2022, at 02:38, stevea  wrote:
>>
>> There's water_tap, there's fountain (water fountains, same as
drinking fountains / bubblers, not the same as big fountains in
the park or Las Vegas), there's bubblers, are we (largely?) on the
same page about these?!  Good discussion so far!
>
> there is also a whole tagging scheme for all of this.
>
> amenity=drinking_water
> fountain=drinking/bubbler/…
> drinking_water=yes/no/…
> man_made=water_tap
> amenity=watering_place
> amenity=fountain
> …
>
> the tags can be combined to get to a useful description.
>
> FWIW, the water tap tag is often used for water that is not
potable (because otherwise the standard is amenity=drinking_water


amenity=drinking_water does not signify a tap, nor a bubbler nor a
stream, nor a spring nor a pond .. it could be any of those and
more ..
a 'well' for instance.

All amenity=drinking_water implies is 'drinking_water=yes', and
hopefully the legal status too.


Only ~16% of man_made=water_tap carry the tag 'drinking_water=no'. I
don't think that supports the comment 'often used for water that
is not
potable'.

See
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made%3Dwater_tap#combinations

for more.


A bubbler would normally be drinking water and have a tap. A
shower too
would normally be drinking water and have one or more taps. I don't
think that the tag 'man_made=water_tap' should be applied to these
things.


A web comparison of 'bubbler' vs 'drinking  fountain'

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/bubbler-vs-water%20fountain?root=bubbler



I do like the distinction that a bubbler 'spouts water' where as a
drinking fountain 'supplies water'. It is the "upward" 'spout' that
makes human drinking easier.




Tagging combinations can get overly verbose?


man_made=water_tap
drinking_water=yes
material=brass

should not need added tags to further describe the water  .. such as

amenity=drinking_water ... I think this is just tagging for the
render, possibly necessary for some.

And then adding

fountain=drinking ... adds no new information?






___
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] Is this a drinking fountain?

2022-10-04 Thread Warin


On 4/10/22 08:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am Mo., 3. Okt. 2022 um 10:07 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

I don't think this is a drinking fountain, another mapper does..
what is your opinion?


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg/375px-Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg




IMHO it is. There is even a picture showing a glass of water, one of 
the typical symbols for potable water.




To me the word 'drinking fountain' means a water source I can drink from 
directly. without the use of a cup, glass, hands etc .. This may be 
cultural?



Note not a question of potable water/drinking water, a question of what 
is a 'drinking fountain'.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

2022-10-03 Thread Warin

An interesting collective of comments on 'bubbler' from Australia

https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/resources/aus/word/map/search/word/bubbler/The%20Riverina/


On 1/10/22 11:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 1 Oct 2022, at 02:38, stevea  wrote:

There's water_tap, there's fountain (water fountains, same as drinking 
fountains / bubblers, not the same as big fountains in the park or Las Vegas), 
there's bubblers, are we (largely?) on the same page about these?!  Good 
discussion so far!


there is also a whole tagging scheme for all of this.

amenity=drinking_water
fountain=drinking/bubbler/…
drinking_water=yes/no/…
man_made=water_tap
amenity=watering_place
amenity=fountain
…

the tags can be combined to get to a useful description.

FWIW, the water tap tag is often used for water that is not potable (because 
otherwise the standard is amenity=drinking_water



amenity=drinking_water does not signify a tap, nor a bubbler nor a 
stream, nor a spring nor a pond .. it could be any of those and more .. 
a 'well' for instance.


All amenity=drinking_water implies is 'drinking_water=yes', and 
hopefully the legal status too.



Only ~16% of man_made=water_tap carry the tag 'drinking_water=no'. I 
don't think that supports the comment 'often used for water that is not 
potable'.


See 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made%3Dwater_tap#combinations 
for more.



A bubbler would normally be drinking water and have a tap. A shower too 
would normally be drinking water and have one or more taps. I don't 
think that the tag 'man_made=water_tap' should be applied to these things.



A web comparison of 'bubbler' vs 'drinking  fountain' 
https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/bubbler-vs-water%20fountain?root=bubbler 



I do like the distinction that a bubbler 'spouts water' where as a 
drinking fountain 'supplies water'. It is the "upward" 'spout' that 
makes human drinking easier.





Tagging combinations can get overly verbose?


man_made=water_tap
drinking_water=yes
material=brass

should not need added tags to further describe the water  .. such as

amenity=drinking_water ... I think this is just tagging for the render, 
possibly necessary for some.

And then adding

fountain=drinking ... adds no new information?






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


Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

2022-10-03 Thread Warin


On 3/10/22 21:14, Marc_marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 03.10.22 à 07:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :

power pole + street lamp + stork's nest?


having more than one main tag on an object is in my opinion
a practice not to be encougered, it's again one feature = one object: 
you add the information that it is made of aluminum or yellow color... 
what does it refer to? the pole? the lamp?


highway=street_lamp support=pole + power=pole seems better to me. 
moreover their geometry is not necessarily the same (if we reduce

the lamp to a point, the most logical is to put this point in
the center of the lamp, not on the outside of its pole)



:)

Apart from when cars run into them the center of the pole is outside the 
centre of the lamp around here, possibly a metre.



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


Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

2022-10-03 Thread Warin


On 3/10/22 22:01, Peter Elderson wrote:
I would avoid "primary key", because that is a term from database 
management systems. It means the identifying attribute (Id) of an 
entity, usually a unique identifier with an index (primary index), 
used to retrieve records and to link the entity (table) to other 
tables. Something else entirely.


Main key is better.

Further: the main key gives the type of object, the main tag gives a 
category within that type of object. That is an important difference, 
in documentation.



semantics (nit picking) An OSM 'tag' is both a key and a value, example 
{{tag|colour|yellow}}. So it gives both 'object' and 'category'. Ok?




Feature tag, I think it means the tag that gives the object type (the 
main key)  and the category within the object type (the value). So, 
equivalent to main tag.
I think the term secondary tag(s) and secondary key(s) are often used 
for the extra attributes of a feature, implying there should be a main 
tag first, to give the secondary tags meaning.



If we use 'main key'/'main tag'  then secondary key/tag is logical.



Peter Elderson


Op ma 3 okt. 2022 om 12:40 schreef martianfreeloader 
:


Thank you all for the many insightful replies to my question!

What I've learnt so far:

1) A feature is something in the physical world. This is well
documented
in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Features

2) There is no such thing as a "primary feature".

3) The terms "main key", "primary key" and "feature tag" are
synonymous,
except for the tag/key distinction.

4) None of the above terms is official OSM terminology.

5) None of these terms is well documented in the wiki.

---

It looks like a couple of things would be good to get done:

A) We should get rid of the term "primary feature" in the wiki page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features

B) It would be useful if we agree on *one* official term for "main
key",
"primary key" or "feature tag". (I think "primary key/tag" is the
most
popular one)

C) We should document what we mean by this.

--

Open questions:
Q1) Which term should we choose as official term? ("main
key"/"primary
key"/"feature tag")

Q2) Should one OSM object hold multiple "primary tags"? (ongoing
discussion between Mateusz, Martin, Warin, Marc et al.)



On 03/10/2022 12:16, Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 03.10.22 à 10:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
>> there are cases where road is going in stream bed
>
> imho only one main feature/objet : the stream bed
> and car use it, a bit like a bicycle uses a road.
>
> but we don't really have a secondary tag to say that
> the stream bed is usable by a car... so we end up
> describing this secondary use with a 2nd main tag...
> this is not perfect
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

2022-10-03 Thread Warin


On 3/10/22 21:37, martianfreeloader wrote:

Thank you all for the many insightful replies to my question!

What I've learnt so far:

1) A feature is something in the physical world. This is well 
documented in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Features


2) There is no such thing as a "primary feature".

3) The terms "main key", "primary key" and "feature tag" are 
synonymous, except for the tag/key distinction.


4) None of the above terms is official OSM terminology.

5) None of these terms is well documented in the wiki.

---

It looks like a couple of things would be good to get done:

A) We should get rid of the term "primary feature" in the wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features


B) It would be useful if we agree on *one* official term for "main 
key", "primary key" or "feature tag". (I think "primary key/tag" is 
the most popular one)


C) We should document what we mean by this.

--

Open questions:
Q1) Which term should we choose as official term? ("main key"/"primary 
key"/"feature tag")



Not "feature tag"! ... I have no preference for either of the others, 
which ever is most understandable/easy to translate should be chosen. .




Q2) Should one OSM object hold multiple "primary tags"? (ongoing 
discussion between Mateusz, Martin, Warin, Marc et al.)



Ha! Too complex!

Desirable to have "one real world feature=one OSM entry"  ... but when a 
single real world shop occupies all of a real work building ... then we 
have can have problems!


The building could have a name that is different from the shop, and have 
a different start date .. If things are simple then things are easy.


May possibly get out of this by using undocumented tags .. the 
undocumented one being the one the mapper does not want/need 
rendered..such as


building:name=*

building:start_date=*

The shop name is more important as the shop is probably what most people 
want.


No, I don't want to explain that to a novice mapper.





On 03/10/2022 12:16, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 03.10.22 à 10:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :

there are cases where road is going in stream bed


imho only one main feature/objet : the stream bed
and car use it, a bit like a bicycle uses a road.

but we don't really have a secondary tag to say that
the stream bed is usable by a car... so we end up
describing this secondary use with a 2nd main tag...
this is not perfect



___
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] OSM Wiki

2022-10-03 Thread Warin


On 1/10/22 09:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 09:32, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:



I would not  expect
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg
to be a water tap, but I am not a native speaker.


Yes, quite definitely a water tap!

How you would then distinguish
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg
and

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg


I wouldn't! I'd call them both a tap.

(upward tiny flow vs downward flow that basically always is more
significant)


For the purpose of a water tap, the amount of flow is basically 
irrelevant, just so long as you can get water from it as required.




A shower too would have a water tap. We don't add that tag to the shower 
.. so why would we to a bubbler? Should we not try to keep it simple?


Decorative fountains (what I would simply call a fountain) would also 
have a tap .. but not normally used by the public .. and plumbers would 
call it a 'stop cock' in Australia.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

2022-10-03 Thread Warin


On 3/10/22 19:01, Peter Elderson wrote:

A feature is not a tag or a key, it's an object in the OSM database. I don't 
know which features are primary, secondary, ... and why. Anyway, the term 
primary feature is not equivalent to main key or main tag.



Feature = real world object.

Real world features are 'translated' into OSM using tags.

In OSM the real world feature would have a single tag to say 'what it 
is', a highway, a building etc. This would be the main tag (main key + 
main value)


Other tags such as colour, height, elevation as descriptive details of 
the real world feature.


That make some sense?


Talking about e.g. roads, the main key is highway= because that key defines the 
feature as a road or road component. Talking about a particular road, the 
highway=* tag is the main tag because it defines the type of the road or road 
component.

So main key and main tag are more or less alike, but not equivalent.
Tag to me is the combination of the key and the value .. eg  {tag | 
highway | service }


Feature tag is a vague term. I suppose it means: an attribute of an object, as 
opposed e.g. to an attribute of a changeset.



I'd try not to use 'feature' and 'tag' together like that, keeping 
'feature' for the real world and 'tag' for OSM.




Mvg Peter Elderson


Op 3 okt. 2022 om 04:06 heeft Minh Nguyen  het 
volgende geschreven:

Vào lúc 10:36 2022-10-02, martianfreeloader đã viết:

Hi,
I'm unsure if I'm using correct terminology. I have come across these terms in 
the OSM ecosystem:
- primary feature [1]
- main key [2]
- primary key [3]
- feature tag [4]
1) Are these synonyms (except for the key/tag distinction)?
2) Is *one* of these terms "official" OSM speek with a clear definition?
(as is the case for things like "node", "way", "relation", "key", "value", "tag", 
"changeset")

"Primary feature" appears in the Collective Database Guideline Guideline [sic] and 
Geocoding community guideline, which clarify the terms of use under the ODbL. [1][2] "Feature 
type" appears in the Horizontal Map Layers community guideline. [3]

[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/3980#The_Guideline
[2] 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/4907#How_does_the_guideline_relate_to_other_existing_guidelines?
[3] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/3982#The_Guideline

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us




___
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] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

2022-10-03 Thread Warin


On 3/10/22 18:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 3 Oct 2022, at 07:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:



- primary feature [1]
- main key [2]
- primary key [3]
- feature tag [4]

1) Are these synonyms (except for the key/tag distinction)?



yes

what about cases where multiple features are tagged on one object?
For example stream + road tagged on one line?



2 primary features, identified by feature tags, represented by one 
OpenStreetMap element. Main key for stream is waterway, for road it is 
highway. In the osm2pgsql standard style, both are primary keys.





The guide says 'one feature = one OSM entry'. I would try to map each 
feature as one entry (node/way/what ever).



A stream would not normal start and finish on a road .. so that would be 
a separate way compared to the road.. and I'd put ford on that section 
of road..
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

2022-10-03 Thread Warin

HI,


I don't think this is a drinking fountain, another mapper does.. what is 
your opinion?



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg/375px-Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg


Not .. not after water quality nor if it is a tap etc.. just if it is a 
'drinking fountain'.



Humm looking at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Ddrinking and oxford 
dictionary "a device that supplies water for drinking in public places"



It looks like any tag (with potable water) is a 'drinking fountain' .. 
indeed most amenity=drinking_water, man_made=water_well, etc will also 
be drinking fountains.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

2022-10-01 Thread Warin


On 1/10/22 08:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 18:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would not tag a bubbler as a tap.

These were the bubblers that we grew up with at school

https://victoriancollections.net.au/media/collectors/57a00a4fd0cdd1210422a51e/items/59b460bc21ea6705f4784c26/item-media/59b460db21ea6705f4785418/item-fit-380x285.jpg



Yep.



& we had a few of these in the main street!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkvFD46TMCRZIHH70vkP8Q0Qzdjv0HWGoPoGAbFKYP9lx9off-7OuONYzPkQ7MkTGZ--4=CAU 
<https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkvFD46TMCRZIHH70vkP8Q0Qzdjv0HWGoPoGAbFKYP9lx9off-7OuONYzPkQ7MkTGZ--4=CAU>



There is a similar one in front of Matthew Flinders Statue, Macquarie 
St, Sydney. Its cleanliness varies .. there is a more modern one across 
the road and further south if it is too bad.




Aren't they also taps, despite being bubblers?

"if water comes out, it is a tap" is not always the case.

I should have said that if you need to manipulate something to make 
the water come out, then it's a tap!



'taps' also come with other things for example showers. It you map a 
shower .. does that not imply a tap? Similar for bubbler?


Renders may map the 'tap' instead of the shower/bubbler if both are 
tagged. I'd rather not confuse them.


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


Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

2022-09-30 Thread Warin


On 30/9/22 13:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

I expanded https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap
based on discussion here and what I researched while implementing
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/pull/4423
("How is drinking water provided here?")

Feel free to improve that wiki page (and others) if I put something
incorrect there and to expand it if needed.

Sep 28, 2022, 00:29 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

I would say that regardless of how it's operated - turn handle,
push button, lever, foot pedal, auto sensor etc - that if water
comes out, it's a tap!



I would not tag a bubbler as a tap.

"if water comes out, it is a tap" is not always the case.





Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 23:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:




Sep 27, 2022, 14:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:



sent from a phone

On 27 Sep 2022, at 14:52, Georg
 wrote:

IMHO yes.



I agree, although I wouldn’t see it necessary to
characterize the feature

I see value in mapping whether given amenity=drinking_water
is a proper tap or just providing miserable jet of water making
impossible to fill water bottle.

Also, I noticed that many bare amenity=drinking_water are in
various ways quite likely to be problematic
(misplaced, used for water taps without drinkable water or
inaccessible to public and soon)
___
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] Is it man_made=water_tap?

2022-09-29 Thread Warin


On 29/9/22 18:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 29 Sep 2022, at 09:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


particularly to distinguish different drinking fountain types

<#>
Am Mi., 28. Sept. 2022 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com>:


I would not use the tag man_made=water_tap for these.


Why not use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fountain


You will note the different tags - some relate to the 'style' of
the structure others relate to the water delivery eg mist,
bottle_refill .. thus the tag is used for anything.

The word 'type' in the description is the probable source of
this confusion.



We introduced the fountain tag particularly to distinguish different 
drinking fountain types



I think you mean "different drinking fountain apperance"?



no, I mean types



And what do you mean by 'drinking fountain types'? Read the bottom first...





possibly "different drinking fountain water flow"?



that could be a different tag





, on the other hand it could still be seen as kind of the same property.



Err no. They are different properties - visual appearance vs water flow.



it is about fountain typologies according to the system that fountain 
proposes (arguably it is not complete or finished). “bottle refill” 
which you mentioned as outlier, as far as I understand it, is used for 
specific machines built to refill water bottles (or glasses), not for 
any kind of fountain where you can refill a bottle (sometimes it is 
not geometrically possible/convenient to do it, eg bubblers). Also 
“mist” can be seen as a type of fountain, as is splash pad. It is true 
that sometimes the kind of water flow is implied, but this is not the 
criterion in general



Present on the fountain page;

Styles?

nasone 'style' Literally meaning "large nose"

toret 'style'  The water is running out of an iron cast bull's head.

roman_wolf 'style'  water is running out of an iron cast wolf's head and 
for easier drinking there is a hole on the top where the water ejects 
when you cap the lower hole.


wallace 'style' green cast iron Possibly these could have 
designer=wallace?, material=cast_iron and colour=green



Material?

stone_block - 'material' .. so use the key material?


Water delivery?

nozzle

mist

bubbler

splash_pad





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


Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

2022-09-29 Thread Warin


On 28/9/22 21:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am Mi., 28. Sept. 2022 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

I would not use the tag man_made=water_tap for these.


Why not use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fountain


You will note the different tags - some relate to the 'style' of
the structure others relate to the water delivery eg mist,
bottle_refill .. thus the tag is used for anything.

The word 'type' in the description is the probable source of this
confusion.



We introduced the fountain tag particularly to distinguish different 
drinking fountain types



I think you mean "different drinking fountain apperance"?

around here. You are right that somebody has "hijacked" the key and 
uses it with values like "mist", and "bottle_refill", which seem to be 
describing something slightly different



possibly "different drinking fountain water flow"?



, on the other hand it could still be seen as kind of the same property.



Err no. They are different properties - visual appearance vs water flow.

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


Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

2022-09-28 Thread Warin


On 28/9/22 18:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 28. Sept. 2022 um 09:55 Uhr schrieb Peter Neale via Tagging 
:


If the user cannot control the flow, there is NOT a "tap" present.



around here, the typical drinking fountain is an iron cast column with 
permanent flow. There is a water tap inside the column but the "user" 
cannot open or close it (unless the cover is open, happens from time 
to time, but is not the regular situation).

outside:
http://www.wakeupnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Acqua-gassata-71-199x300.jpg
inside:
https://www.fregeneonline.com/images/stories/fontanella_interno.jpg

So the "user" cannot control the flow, but technically, a tap is 
present. Shall we ignore this tap because it is usually neither 
visible not accessible?



I would not use the tag man_made=water_tap for these.


Why not use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fountain


You will note the different tags - some relate to the 'style' of the 
structure others relate to the water delivery eg mist, bottle_refill .. 
thus the tag is used for anything.


The word 'type' in the description is the probable source of this 
confusion.


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


Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

2022-09-28 Thread Warin


On 28/9/22 08:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I would say that regardless of how it's operated - turn handle, push 
button, lever, foot pedal, auto sensor etc - that if water comes out, 
it's a tap!



Must have the ability to control the flow of the water to be called a tap.



Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 23:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
 wrote:





Sep 27, 2022, 14:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:



sent from a phone

On 27 Sep 2022, at 14:52, Georg 
wrote:

IMHO yes.



I agree, although I wouldn’t see it necessary to characterize
the feature

I see value in mapping whether given amenity=drinking_water
is a proper tap or just providing miserable jet of water making
impossible to fill water bottle.

Also, I noticed that many bare amenity=drinking_water are in
various ways quite likely to be problematic
(misplaced, used for water taps without drinkable water or
inaccessible to public and soon)
___
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] Is this continouos flow a water tap?

2022-09-28 Thread Warin



On 28/9/22 02:59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

What exactly defines man_made=water_tap?

Open/close ability?



Must be able to control the flow - so 'on' and 'off' are the two extrems.



Top-down water flow (rather than small upward jet of many
drinking water fountains?)

Is
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beim_Kiosk_(Anlagage_Sihlh%C3%B6lzli).jpg
man_made=water_tap
or
man_made=drinking_fountain
?




Neither.


Not something I'd care to drink from - messy directly from the spout, 
possibly contaminated from the container.


amenity=fountain???


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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-20 Thread Warin

On 20/12/20 6:32 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Dec 20, 2020, 00:01 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

On 20/12/20 6:45 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range?

Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch?

This is a request to review this edit

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Asport%3Dshooting_range=revision=2074293=125712
that ended creating
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dshooting_range


The sport key should be used to indicate the activity .. not the
physical existence. Despite what the OSMwiki says though various
edits.

Where OSM Wiki claims that sport key alone indicates physical 
existence of something?
As far as I know it only describes that it specifies type/purpose of 
something like

leisure=pitch.



Look at the descriptions on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sport


Some examples;

sport    bowls        A place where you can play lawn bowls/lawn bowling.

sport    kitesurfing        To mark a spot for kitesurfing

sport    multi        A sports facility that is suitable for more than 
one sport


sport    racquet        Racquetball facilities, such as racquetball courts

sport    scuba_diving        To mark a spot for scuba diving

sport    surfing        A spot for surfing.



These do not describe the 'sport'/activity but state it is a 
'place'/'spot' i.e. a physical thing.


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


Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-19 Thread Warin

On 20/12/20 6:45 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range?

Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch?

This is a request to review this edit
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Asport%3Dshooting_range=revision=2074293=125712
that ended creating 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dshooting_range





The sport key should be used to indicate the activity .. not the 
physical existence. Despite what the OSMwiki says though various edits.


The physical presence is give by some other key, such as 
landuse=recreation_ground, pitch, etc...



-

Tangents.

Sports?

Just as skiing can be either snow or water .. shooting by some can be 
taken as bow and arrow or guns ...



Pitches?

While 'pitch' is good for many playing fields it doe not suit so well 
for some e.g. darts, table tennis, chess.



Leisure?

As some have pointed out some sports are played for money .. and some 
for both leisure and money. It would be good to move away from the 
leisure key to the landuse key .. non specific as to leisure or 
'professional'. Yes it could create overlap of various landuses .. 
nothing new there though.





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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Warin

On 20/12/20 9:24 am, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
I've seen these in the US also, but I never knew what they were 
called.  I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise 
when a car drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any 
appreciable way like a speed bump/hump.


We already have a tag for "a traffic calming device that makes noise 
when a car drives over it", which is a rumble strip 
(see: traffic_calming=rumble_strip).  Note, I am talking about the 
kind that go all the way across the road, and not the kind in the 
shoulder of the road that make noise when you veer out of your lane.


I usually think of rumble strips as grooves in the road, but it 
strikes me that these micro-speed-bump things are essentially the same 
thing -- they make noise when a car goes over it to alert the driver 
of something.


I'm uncomfortable with hillock/hillocky as a value. Cursory searches 
seem to indicate that this isn't a term in use, in any flavor of English.



Rumble strips I am familiar with. They not only cause a noise but a 
vibration too, felt by the people inside the vehicle but not a large 
vehicle deflection.


Are the simply a new kind of rumble strip? So 
traffic_calming=rumble_strip, rumble_strip:structure=circle, 
rumble_strip:orientation=transverse


Alternatively perhaps a better name would be rumble circles?




On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:08 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2020, at 22:53, Jeremy Harris mailto:j...@wizmail.org>> wrote:
>
> traffic_calming=multi_bump  ?


or
traffic_calming=mini_bumps ?

when they come up with something smaller that could still be
micro_bumps ;-)


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] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-12-02 Thread Warin

On 2/12/20 8:57 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Am Mi., 2. Dez. 2020 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>:


In the UK it looks like the heath service (NHS) will contact
eligible individuals and probably arrange a time and place for
their vaccinations.

As such all that is needed is the location be in OSM and be mapped with the 
appropriate name, no further identification as a vaccine center would be 
required



again, this is an argument that could be applied to everything with a 
postal address. No need to include it in OSM any more.



Many places are well known by their names while their postal addresses 
are unknown by most.



The Tower of London? Way: Tower of London 370870741

The Sydney Opera House? Relation: Sydney Opera House 9596872

Same for the likely vaccination centres - known locally by their names - 
not their addresses.



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


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

2020-12-02 Thread Warin

On 30/11/20 10:21 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 30. Nov 2020, at 10:46, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

Yes please - I can see planning coming up for vaccinations centers here
in Germany and these are not planned in hospitals but in vacant commercial
buildings which have loads of parking spaces. So using some
healthcare specific tag is probably misleading


healthcare is not related only to hospitals, vaccinations are clearly 
healthcare related. I agree that these facilities are candidates to be shown on 
general purpose maps, as a lot of people will be looking for them.



In the UK it looks like the heath service (NHS) will contact eligible 
individuals and probably arrange a time and place for their vaccinations.
As such all that is needed is the location be in OSM and be mapped with the 
appropriate name, no further identification as a vaccine center would be 
required

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 2/12/20 6:41 am, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not 
be solvable.


How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?


Humans are animals, mammals to be a bit more exact.

The non-human paths I have had most experience of following are made 
by sheep in the mountains.


On reasonably level ground they appear very similar to human made 
paths, and is tempting to follow them.


The problems come as the ground gets steep, and as you no doubt aware 
sheep have small feet which are relatively close together.


The result is that the paths can be deep ruts, that a little more than 
10cm wide, not wide enough for a pair of human walking boots to pass.


Wombat pads are wide enough to follow but the animal is lo to the ground 
and can go through what to a human is inpenatrable scrub - some is 
simply to thiic and interwwoven and some has sharp needle leves that 
penitrate colthing and prick the skin.



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


Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 11:29 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 11:57, St Niklaas > wrote:


A horse track is not a good choice to tend to walk on foot, it
already has its own tag bridle way.


There is a difference between tracks worn by wild animals and 
bridleways. Wild

animal tracks may not be walkable on foot.  Bridleways are intended for
riders on horses AND for walkers.  There may be no physical difference
between a footpath and a bridleway, the distinction being a legal one of
who is allowed access.



Bridal ways are normally constructed. They normally remove obstructions 
to have a convenient route.


Animal pads are formed by numerous treading of animals over the same 
length of country. They go around original obstructions, plants that try 
to grow on the route get trodden into submission.




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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 9:36 pm, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2020-12-01 11:14, Warin wrote:

The differences are less than 10m. (The points of the green track are 
where data exists, the straight lines between those points simply 
connect the measured points. )


The 'simplify way' in JOSM is normal set for a maximum difference of 
3m as a way of reducing data bloat while sacrificing some accuracy.


What accuracy is optimal for OSM? Why should we sacrifice any accuracy 
at all? Who chose 3m as a tolerance figure? That sounds rather high to 
me - it's the width of a small road, or half a house. If we are going 
to draw a line at all, I would go for something <= 1m.




In some instances the 3m distorted the feature I was dealing with. When 
I set it to 1.5m the result was a good represeentation of the feature. 
So I deal with the resulting representation of the feature.





I note that some roads in OSM are straight lines between towns .. while 
in the real world they are far from straight. This has to deal with the 
road exists but mappers have limited time to enter data. Only in places 
where local mappers have mapped most things that the details are mapped 
better are 'accuracies' of some discussion.


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 9:43 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 1. Dec 2020, at 11:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

The 'Auto' setting may not be 'optimal' for what you want, but as a compromise 
between data bloat and resolution/accuracy it maybe better than a fixed time as 
judged by the developer/manufacture.


I‘ve always recorded tracks with the maximum resolution (which was 1s on my 
unit), because “data bloat” with gpx traces was never an issue, we’re talking 
about text files, and a whole year only has 31.557.600 seconds (and you will be 
eating and sleeping and doing other stuff then recording gps as well).


On my first GPS there was a limit of 2G for the card ... and some of that was 
taken up by the map, routes, speed cameras. Then add in a 3 week holiday with 
tracks and way points each day... all adds up. I chose 'auto - most detailed'.


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 5:07 pm, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:


Think your confusing two terms; resolution, accuracy

I understand that you mean, but check this detail: https://ibb.co/7ycFW5J

At least my impression is that the 1Sec is also more accurate. It's 
obviously only a single test, and the recording happened at a 
different time, so indeed it could be something different.


Instead, in other parts of the track it's clear the error caused by 
the low resolution: https://ibb.co/mC3sKcz


Anyway, it seems that such "Auto" setting is not optimal.



The differences are less than 10m. (The points of the green track are 
where data exists, the straight lines between those points simply 
connect the measured points. )


The 'simplify way' in JOSM is normal set for a maximum difference of 3m 
as a way of reducing data bloat while sacrificing some accuracy.



The 'Auto' setting may not be 'optimal' for what you want, but as a 
compromise between data bloat and resolution/accuracy it maybe better 
than a fixed time as judged by the developer/manufacture.




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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote:
I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the 
sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on 
the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private 
property these trails are on. Since the organization mentioned they 
didn't want to put up "no access" signs, it would be appropriate to 
map the paths as such.


However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general 
solution for tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this 
specific situation.


The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human 
path? Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal 
paths. It would be hard to define it.



Animals come in different sizes.

A pad made by wild horses have sufficient height and width that most 
hikers could use them, this they can get muddy or steep in certain places.


A pad made by wombats can go under plants that would have humans 
crawling on their stomachs not just on their hands and knees.


We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways according to their 
usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently highway=path  is 
defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" and animal 
paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths as 
"generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a 
specific kind of path (something along the lines of 
highway=path+animal=yes) rather than a new type of highway. But again, 
is this enough of a distinction to merit its own tagging scheme?




I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess! 
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example 
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging 
that... terrible.




Cheers, Casper
On 1 Dec 2020, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote:




Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
mailto:lrich...@posteo.net>>:

I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many
trails in my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom
used by people - but it is allowed for people to walk on these
and they are sometimes significant shortcuts so allowing
routing over them in some cases would be good.


+1

After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
believe that they mostly do not apply to the situation here.
People were mainly concerned about wildlife protection, and
Belgian cows are not falling under my idea of "wildlife".




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] COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 12:24 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 30. Nov 2020, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be widely 
publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further identification 
within OSM?


the same holds true for post offices and townhalls.



Err no. I would expect mass vaccination centers to be heavily publicized in the 
local press (TV, radio, newspapers, etc) with location, opening hours, and 
other operating details
where as the townhall could be mentioned occasionally in the press as part of a 
news articular but without any location and opening hours information.
Post offices here only appear here in advertising brochures and these are 
general in applying to all, they don't give any location information at all.

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


Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote:


I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in 
my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but 
it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes 
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases 
would be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.


- Lukas

On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
mailto:zelonew...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. 
Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
we're describing?


 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

--



I think these are called 'animal pads'? They are usefull for hiking 
where no other path exists as they avoid further damage to vegetation 
and damage to pants/gaiters/shoes. They do also lead hikers astray by 
leading away from the path that they should use. Possibly highway=pad or 
highway=animal_pad?


The tags 'note' and 'comment' are for mappers and not usually used by 
renders, using the tag 'description' may be more helpful?


The tag 'access' should be used where access is restricted within OSM. I 
don't think it is necessary to have signage on the ground to apply 
access tags that are 'community standard' e.g. most home driveways in 
Australia would be regarded as access=private and should be tagged as 
such within OSM despite there being no sign on every home driveway.


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 1/12/20 7:46 am, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:


I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience
with the accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a
comparison of three devices I had personal experience with
including a new Garmin GPSMAP 66sr which I posted here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711

Very interesting!

Here you can find the mapping of my tests with GPSMAP 65s and eTrex 30x:

https://ibb.co/bKvpxYG

It's a circular trail repeated 5 times with one point every second.

I repeated it again with the recording frequency set to Auto, and the 
GPSMAP lost a bit in accuracy, so better to stick to one point every 
second.



Think your confusing two terms;

resolution


accuracy


With increased points along a way there is increased resolution.

The accuracy does not follow with increased number of points unless they 
are all for the same location so averaging those points reduces noise 
thus increasing accuracy.




On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 3:45 PM Lindsay Barnes <mailto:newsspea...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience
with the accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a
comparison of three devices I had personal experience with
including a new Garmin GPSMAP 66sr which I posted here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711

In short, multi-band and multi-GNSS devices do offer in an
increase in precision and accuracy and we're seeing this become
more common in a standard smartphone. However, that level of
precision is not necessary in most cases. It is most helpful in
areas without good satellite imagery coverage or where imagery
lacks reference points (like in wooded trail areas, as mentioned).
This is compounded by the fact that one GPS device has a floor to
how accurate it can be due to the nature of the system and
interference from the natural landscape, as was mentioned.
Furthermore, mult-band and mult-GNSS chips are becoming more
common in smartphones and I would expect this level of precision
available to most mappers without the need for specialty equipment
over the next 5-ish years.

To answer your question about tags, a comment can be added in the
source field of a changeset, but in my opinion most mappers will
not dig too deep into a change to determine how precise the mapper
may have been . Satellite imagery is generally used as the source
of truth and if a mapped feature varies substantially from the
imagery, mappers are inclined to move the feature to match imagery
without researching how the feature was initially created. The
good news is that if satellite imagery in unclear or lacks
reference marks, mappers will usually leave features alone unless
they have personal knowledge of an area or are working off a
tasking manager.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrea Mazzoleni
mailto:amadva...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:

If the intention is to indicate the
error/accuracy/uncertainty then tag/state that. The better
GPS devices give indications of this
error/accuracy/uncertainty.

The big advantage of the dualband is not (only) the increase
in accuracy but the ability to work in not optimal conditions,
like under a clif or other obstacles where you have reflected
GPS signals.

To give you an example, my eTrex device reports 3m of
precision, the new GPSMAP 65s reports 1.8m.
But reality is that I saw errors up to 50m with the eTrex.
It's also difficult to know the precision because it changes
while moving, and it's not recorded in the track.

If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare
them to see how much they vary day to day ... they should
give an idea of problem.

I bought that new device exactly due the frustration of always
seeing a different recording...

My initial tests are really encouraging. Yesterday I repeated
10 times a trail under the woods of a hill, comparing the
results of the eTrex and GPSMAP 65s, and the dualband one has
the recorded tracks a lot more consistent. Something like 10m
vs 2m thickness.

imagery may well be better than survey by consumer GPS

I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as
reference. But most of the trails of my local area are under
the woods (low mountain) and the GPS is the only source of
information.



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


Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 19/11/20 6:59 am, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
With the first Covid-19 vaccines getting approved, many municipalities 
are planning facilities for administering mass vaccination. In Berlin, 
the two former airports Tegel and Tempelhof are planned,

along with some sports facilities.

This raises the question for appropriate tagging.



In Australia, and I would think a portion of the world, there are yearly 
vaccinations for the flu. We don't tag them as they are available from 
the local GP/doctor and even some pharmacies in Australia, so they are 
'expected'.


The  existing facilities cope with the yearly flue vaccine though I hope 
the participation rates are better for the COVID vaccine.


COVID testing centers have also been setup ... but these are usually in 
place for short periods of time and then move or are disbanded waiting 
for the next problem area to occur. Being short term they don't go into 
OSM.


How  long are these mass vaccination centers going to operate for?

I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be 
widely publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further 
identification within OSM?



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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-11-30 Thread Warin

On 30/11/20 8:45 am, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:

Hi,

I bought a tracking device that supports GPS dualband (also called 
dual frequency) for high precision mapping, and I'm wondering if I can 
put this information in the "source" tag.


The intention is to make future mappers consider the device precision 
when doing corrections.


Sigh.

If the intention is to indicate the error/accuracy/uncertainty then 
tag/state that. The better GPS devices give indications of this 
error/accuracy/uncertainty.


As the error/accuracy/uncertainty varies with the topography, satellites 
presently in view and the capabilities of the GPS device a statement of 
the GPS device capabilities revel little about the actual on the ground 
situation at the time of survey. Some of these 
error/accuracy/uncertainty can be reduced by taking many GPS tracks over 
several days/week/months and obtaining an average that excludes 
outliers. If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare them 
to see how much they vary day to day ... they should give an idea of 
problem.


In some locations the topography gives reflected signals that produce 
false GPS tracks, in these areas imagery may well be better than survey 
by consumer GPS even with dual band and many constellations are used.




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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-29 Thread Warin

On 27/9/20 5:51 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter

It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should
not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire,
OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter
than alternative sources

> fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here,
both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres 
this fire alone)

will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map



The Australian fires have less long term significance as most of the 
flora has mechanisms to cope with fire, some even needs fire to propagate.




Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation changed.



We don't mapped parked vehicles unless they are 'permanent', same should 
be adopted for fires, floods, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions.


If there is no permanent effect then mapping it is at best a temporary 
thing.





Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as 
destroyed:building=*

until aerial imagery will update)
[deleting buildings and remapping them as they get reconstructed may
be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence]

Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on.

> Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest
or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred?

AFAIK nothing established, see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html
for related discussion about wind damage.



Note:

While you state "landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not 
for how land is used" others disagree with this statement and use the 
tag to indicate how the land is used as would be indicated by the key 
'landuse'.


There is already a tag for a tree covered area "natural=wood" and that 
is a better tag to use for tree covered areas.


Continued use of the key 'landuse' for things other than true land use 
will simply result in the continued denigration of the key with things 
like landuse=sand, landuse=scrub, landuse=mud and so on.




Sep 24, 2020, 23:30 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find
surprising, especially as there are currently even larger fires
that are more widespread all across the Western United States.

I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags
I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to
the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a
'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees that MAKE these
forests have sadly burned down, or substantially so).

Considering that there are literally millions and millions of
acres of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland,
residential, commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm
surprised that OSM doesn't have some well-pondered and actual tags
that reflect this situation. My initial tagging of this (simply
tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was coined on my
part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries for
similar data in the map, I come up empty.

First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say
yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and
might map here, both present and future. The aftermath of this
fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and
for OSM to not reflect this in the map (somehow, better bolstered
than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with fire=perimeter,
start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses
something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and
aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated
myself. So, considering the thousands of structures that burned
(most of them homes), tens of thousands of acres which are
burn-scarred and distinctly different than their landcover,
millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently
tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of
fire=perimeter on a large polygon.

Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and
results (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how
might we choose to do that? Do we have landcover tags which could
replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like
natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, but it or something
like it could work). How and when might we replace these with
something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate
that we map any of this, please say so.

Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors
who have worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters,

SteveA
California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively
safe now that this fire is 100% contained)


On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea  wrote:

 

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2020-08-31 Thread Warin

On 31/8/20 8:25 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you.



Agreed. I see no reason why a way as a member of a simple route relation 
could not have the role 'transport'.




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


Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

2020-08-27 Thread Warin

On 28/8/20 8:05 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 05:31, Richard Welty > wrote:



again in the US, state and county fairgrounds are permanent facilities
which function as event space when the fair is not actually going on.
the midway is usually temporary, but the buildings for, say,
agricultural exhibits are permanent, as is the race track (at many
fairs), which might be for horses or cars.


As Phil said for the UK, in Australia they are Showgrounds, with just 
about every country town having their own.


As per your description, the show is usually only on for one weekend a 
year, but there are permanent buildings & facilities on site, & the 
area is  frequently used as a caravan / tourist park for the rest of 
the year.



In Australia:

"The Show" (where ever it is) as Graeme says, is once a year for a week 
or two. However other events are also held at the same venue.


For example via a quick web search, the Mt Isa Show 1 week per year in 
June, Mt Isa Roedo 1 week per year in August, Mt Isa Motor Show and Swap 
Meet 1 day per year in August and there are others.


Presently in OSM as a recreation ground as Way: Buchannan Park 
Racecourse 455194137. I would assume racing takes place here as well as 
the above 'shows'.



The few I've just checked are currently tagged with a mixture of 
either leisure=park or landuse=recreation_ground. Personally, of the 
two options, I'd prefer rec. ground, which I notice a few of your 
samples were also tagged as.


Thanks

Graeme



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


Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

2020-08-25 Thread Warin

On 25/8/20 11:37 pm, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 25/08/2020 06.04, Paul Allen wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:38, Warin wrote:

Off list.


It looks like you accidentally Bcc'd the list.


It looks like Warin tried to send it to "80hnhtv4agou---" without 
noticing that address is a spoofed¹ tagging@OSM.



Apologies to the list members.

I'll have to be more careful in future of these less than helpful headers!

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


Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

2020-08-24 Thread Warin

Off list.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TAGGING LIST.

Desist.

On 25/8/20 12:50 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home 
location, map
the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we 
(I) live, but come on

don’t edit the building i (we) live in !

___
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 - kerb=regular

2020-08-22 Thread Warin

On 22/8/20 12:56 am, Supaplex wrote:


I see that I have probably chosen an unfavorable solution to solve the 
problem described. Many seem to accept the basic problem: There is 
only one qualitative category for all kerbs with a height of over ~3 
cm, although in reality there is a significant difference.


I see two alternatives to the proposed solution:

a) (as suggested in the vote section) Deprecate the category "raised" 
and introduce two /new/ values ​​to differentiate it (eg "heightened" 
vs. "regular" or "medium" if there is sematic criticism of "regular")
b) Keep the existing categories, accept that the term "raised" has so 
far included both normal and raised kerbs and merely introduce an 
explicit tag to distinguish /actually/ raised kerbs (e.g. "heightened").


What do you think? Any other or further suggestions?



Rather than use words that are relative to personal perceptions .. why 
not use numbers to say what you mean?



 curb:height=under_3_cm

curb:height=over_3_cm

 curb:height=3_cm_to_10_cm

curb:height=8_cm_to_15_cm


Would that be acceptable? It avoids the words and is readily understood. 
It could lead to people inserting new values... but that is always the 
case, at least with the numbers the new values would be understood.



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


Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

2020-08-17 Thread Warin

On 15/8/20 10:54 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
But what do you do for a place, called a Camping Ground, that is a big 
area of grass, mostly without defined "pitches" & where you can camp 
anyway you like: sleep in your car; on the ground; in a tent / camper 
trailer / caravan / motorhome?



Local context. If you camp in some, most?, German camp grounds you are 
give a designated pitch and 'must' only use that pitch. Adels Grove in 
Queensland, Australia also use the same system. But most Australian camp 
ground allow you to pitch anywhere.



For the anywhere and anything camp grounds, tents=yes and caravans=yes 
fit... IIRC there was something for camper trailers? There is nothing 
for car_camp=yes/no as yet.



While tents=yes/no works and is acceptable tent:capacity=* is more 
detailed. For most Australian camp grounds the capacity would be hard to 
determine, so I just use tents=yes/no.




Any period is acceptable, from one night only up to "by discussion 
with management", although permanent residents aren't allowed.


Thanks

Graeme



On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:24, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Both tags allow tents, and both allow camper vans and caravans.



interesting, I would have expected a caravan site to not permit
tents by default.



actually the caravan site puts it a little differently than the
above summary:

“ They may also have some space for tents. If a site is primarily
for tents, it should be tagged as tourism
=camp_site
”




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


Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

2020-08-16 Thread Warin

On 15/8/20 4:49 am, Hidde Wieringa wrote:


Good day,

I am having trouble with the tourism tags caravan_site and camp_site, 
specifically for the use case of finding a place to camp with a tent 
(so not a caravan or a camper van).


My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and 
both allow camper vans and caravans. Both tags may or may not provide 
facilities such as toilets, water, electricity, et cetera. In 
practice, the only thing that differentiates a pitch for a tent versus 
a pitch for a caravan or camper van, is the ground underneath (tents 
require some sort of soft material like grass). This differentiating 
property is not mentioned at all in the Wiki.


- The tag tents=yes/no (only listed in the camp_site Wiki) would be a 
good way to find a place to camp with a tent, but almost none of the 
caravan_site have this tag. All camp_sites in OSM I have camped on, 
allowed tents.
- Some of the caravan_site have been tagged with amenity=parking or 
even surface=asphalt and this would mean that camping with a tent is 
definitely not possible.
- I noticed that both of the tags have status 'de facto', and no 
proposals have been made for the definition of said tags. I found an 
abandoned proposal [1] that has a good discussion about camping [2].
- Some camp_sites have a 'nested' polygon with a caravan_site. This 
seems logical, and the caravan_site can be ignored, and the camp_site 
can be used for camping with a tent.


Statistics from TagInfo: camp_site has ~100,000 uses, and caravan_site 
has ~30,000 uses.


I ran a quick Overpass query for a small number of caravan sites (~15) 
[3]. Some of them note on their website that camping with a tent is 
possible, and the surface of the pitches seems to be grass. I am 
wondering if these should be re-tagged as camp_site, or if I am 
missing something.


My opinion would be that a camp_site should allow staying overnight 
with many types of vehicles/tents, indicated by the tags listed 
clearly on the wiki of camp_site. A caravan_site would allow staying 
overnight with vehicles only, and not allow camping with a tent. 
Concretely the sentence "They may also have some space for tents." on 
[4] is the problem. Replacing the sentence on the wiki with "Camping 
with a tent is not possible." would remove any ambiguity 
differentiating these tags.


Any comments are welcome. I am willing to update the wiki or draft a 
proposal for differentiating these two tags, if necessary.


Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#caravan_site_separated.3F 

[3] https://tyrasd.github.io/overpass-turbo 


[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site



The web site https://opencampingmap.org/#10/48.6100/8.2400/0/1/bef is an 
attempt to encourage mapping of camp and caravan site attributes...



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


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 11/8/20 1:11 pm, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:

the train or trains do not stop where he says they do,

Do they stop at the platform? Yes.
So stop positions maybe mapped.


and i am talking about 400 +,
unverified platforms. which is 200 + stations,
Unverified? Verified by the existing signs? This maybe 'out of date' but 
still verifiable.


How 'inaccurate' are the present stop positions?
How precise is the mapped position required?

Were there stop positions there before?

Is it not better to have some indication rather than nothing?



"They will stay there for ever" unless someone improves them.




Monday, August 10, 2020 9:33 PM -05:00 from Warin
<61sundow...@gmail.com>:
On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:

one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered
yet is what about someone not local
who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all
wrong.


If you find something wrong - correct it.

If the things mapped are deceitful, malicious etc then report it
to the DWG to prevent more of the same.

If the things mapped are better than what was there before then I
would call them improvements and thus beneficial, no point in
being upset by it.

Being local is not a requirement to map, get over it. Local
knowledge is beneficial as it aids mapping things that have local
characteristics - like where trains stop.




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


Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is 
what about someone not local

who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong.


If you find something wrong - correct it.


If the things mapped are deceitful, malicious etc then report it to the 
DWG to prevent more of the same.


If the things mapped are better than what was there before then I would 
call them improvements and thus beneficial, no point in being upset by it.


Being local is not a requirement to map, get over it. Local knowledge is 
beneficial as it aids mapping things that have local characteristics - 
like where trains stop.


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


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

2020-08-10 Thread Warin

On 10/8/20 7:06 pm, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote:
Here in Stockholm, trains seem to line up one end of the train with 
one end of the platform. Usually, that's the end where the entrance 
is, but sometimes there are entrances at both ends, so if you arrive 
just in time at an unfamiliar station and find that it's a short 
train, you may be in for a run...



A good reason to map that end in OSM.

So 'local variations' maybe needed.


(BTDT, with a day hike rucksack...)



A day hike is not much of a load.

An overnight hike is a little more, 7 days more still. 10 days is my 
limit... too heavy after that.




2020-08-10 09:20 skrev Warin:

[...]
Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly
others) mapped?

Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people?
That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles
like train then the average of these positions could be used.

Trains here of varying lengths tend to place the middle of the train
at the middle of the platform - thus it is consistent for any train
length. The only exceptions are where the platform is shorter than the
train so the train stops such that the designated car/carriage is
centered on the platform - thus it is still a consistent location for
OSM.


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




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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >