Re: [Tagging] Battery swapping spot in a charging station or being an individual tag?

2020-10-05 Thread ael
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:58:19PM +, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I want to write a new proposal about the battery swapping system for the 
> automotive vehicle. I'm not sure if modifying amenity=charging_station is 
> better or creating a new tag amenity=battery_swapping. I prefer to use 
> amenity=charging_station but found that is not a easy thing to do that.
> 

It will almost always be the case that a station both swaps and
charges, but they are logically distinct. Using amenity=battery_swapping
means that some people will object to
amenity=battery_swapping;charging_station.

I don't know why there are objections to multiple values, but that
multiple tagging seems to be the most accurate if the community accepts
it.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread ael
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:40:06PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael :
> 
> > Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a
> > option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault.
> >
> 
> which editor are you using?

I should have said josm. But I just checked and zebra was available as a
subtag. I was mapping a crossing with traffic lights so zebra was not
appropriate there. So my memory was at fault. Apologies for the noise.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread ael
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:57:58AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the
> very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018
> below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with
> more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be
> encouraging people to use more specific tags like crossing=zebra or
> crossing=traffic_signals instead?

Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a
option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-02 Thread ael
On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 01:04:15AM -0400, Jmapb wrote:
> On 8/1/2020 8:40 PM, David Dean wrote:
> > I'm interested in proposing and/or documenting existing tagging
> > approaches of the wiki to ensure that all highway=service ways can
> > have a service=? associated tag.
> 
> Hi David -- My feeling is that often highway=service, without a
> service=* tag, is a useful and valid tagging practice.
 +1

 ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread ael
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:40:58PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> > On 30. Jul 2020, at 10:39, ael  wrote:
> > 
> > often without survey, and then do not update the source, so 
> > that tag becomes completely misleading.
> 
> that’s what happens all the time. When I edit things that already have a 
> source tag (generally source=Bing) I am removing it, as it is not valid any 
> more. I thought it was established practice that sources belong to edits and 
> not to objects 

Only because, as you say, the source tag is misused. I admit that
extending tags is not very widely done, and some people seem to have
trouble parsing ";" which I use as a separator. But my tags generally
look like source=first;second;... when appropriate. I only delete
sections of the source when the original corresponding data has been
completely revised. That is quite common in the UK where some origianl
rough & ready mapping was done from old maps (NPR, etc). When that has
been completely reworked, then the original source=NPR; component can
be deleted.

> There’s a reason why source tags on objects are discouraged. To make sense of 
> them you have to dig into the object history anyway. Too many people just 
> keep/ignore the source tags regardless of their own edits.

Surely it is better to educate people who perhaps don't realise how to
extend or modify tags? Mind you, I would always want people to check
history in any nontrivial cases. Easy in josm: I don't know about other
editors.

Perhaps we mean "source_history" instead of "source"?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread ael
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:55:45AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> > On 26. Jul 2020, at 23:58, ael  wrote:
> > 
> > Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense.
> > Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps,
> > photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery...
> > So the source data needs to be fine grained on the elements themselves.
> 
> maybe you should upload more often and less things at a time. I sometimes add 
> several sources like aerial imagery and survey to the same changeset. FWIW, I 
> believe the most relevant information is: di you know the area (local 
> knowledge or not) and have you been there to gather the information you are 
> adding or is it based on aerial imagery.
 
When I am mapping new areas, it is often simple, but when updating
(almost always from gps surveys) things get complex. I often notice
adjoing ways & features are missing, poorly mapped or whatever, so there
I may use imagery as an interim measure. Likewise for inaccessible
places. For existing elements I almost always check the history to see
what sort of status the existing information has. A changeset comment
listing all the various sources isn't going to help unless I have a new
changeset for almost every way. The source tag solves the problem.
> > Furthermore, when updating an element, I can see any source tags right
> > there.
>  
> and what are you doing with them when you modify the object? Do you keep 
> them, remove them, amend them, change them?

Amend and expand. It annoys me when other mappers come along and change
data, often without survey, and then do not update the source, so 
that tag becomes completely misleading. These are the same sort of mappers
who replace high quality surveyed data with armchair guesses,
downgrading the map:-(

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-26 Thread ael
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 10:03:17PM +0100, Cj Malone wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 16:42 +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> > 
> > So in a nutshell, the topic of how to find things based on old
> > sources is also very relevant for remote mappers.
> 
> Technically there is survey:date and source:date that may be on the
> object, or (preferred now?) the changeset. So a quality assurance tool

Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense.
Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps,
photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery...
So the source data needs to be fine grained on the elements themselves.

Furthermore, when updating an element, I can see any source tags right
there. I am not normally going to all the faff of looking up the
history, finding the changesets and consulting those except for unusual
cases.

Of course, changesets need to have some overall source infomation, but
that is necessarily coarse except for small cahnges perhaps.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

2020-07-18 Thread ael
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:53:09PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> 
> >> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications 
> >> of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag 
> >> them as errors to be fixed.
> >> 
> 
> The desert ones aren’t sink holes. Often the intermittent/ephemeral waterways 
> spread out over the pediment [1] or alluvial fan [2] at the base of the 
> mountains and simply dissipates.
> 

I think OS maps mark this sort of situation with "spreads". Well an adjective
describing the end of a waterway, I suppose. It is quite intuitive and
descriptive. Maybe a tag along those lines: "dissipates" or some such?

ael


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


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

2020-06-30 Thread ael
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 05:29:44PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 12:58, bkil  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> >
> 
> 
> > almost everytime find someone who does not agree, and while I have read a
> > lot of things from Paul that made sense in other contexts, in this
> > particular discussion it appeared to me that he was sometimes giving
> > interpretations of established tags that didn't find other supporting
> > voices.
> >
> 
> So it appears to me, too.  My mental taxonomy of what is and is not a cafe
> clearly differs from that of other mappers in the UK.  For me the seating
> is important.  It is usually the case that a place without seating will
> normally sell fast food because people don't like standing in a queue for
> 20 minutes.  But I appear to be alone in thinking of McDonalds as a
> cafe with a particular cuisine and limited menu (and bizarre lengths of
> crispy potato instead of proper chips).

While I have not followed this discusson very closely, I thought that
Paul's view in the UK context was reasonable. Cafe' is very definitely 
not restricted to places selling coffee. The distinction between
fast-food and cafe' and even low end restaurants is a bit hazy. 
Fast-food is a fairly recent phase in British English, I think. Not
precisely defined, but mainly for franchised chains. But I think duck-
tagging applies in the UK: when I see one, I usually know what it is.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-21 Thread ael
On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 01:41:53PM +0100, Steve Doerr wrote:
> For what it's worth, two points:
> 
> 1. The Oxford English Dictionary spells this word as kanat.
> 
> 2. It doesn't sound like anything we would refer to as a canal in English:
> canals are for transportation (goods or humans) and are designed to
> accommodate boats (even if no longer used in that way).
> 
+1.  I have noticed this misuse of "canal" before.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread ael
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 02:57:29PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Warin, Jack,
> 
> your comments are really off my main point.
> We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions
> on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the
> middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets completely
> rewritten by one of the participants in the thread explicitly stating that
> razed railways should be *removed* from OSM.
> This is basically against good practice in OSM.
> In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled railways,
> the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is clearly wrong.
> Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that
> retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with adding
> railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the road or the
> cycle route.

+1

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

2020-05-13 Thread ael
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:26:07PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> dog=yes|no|leashed already exists for a totally different semantic (letting 
> dog owners know if their pet is allowed).
> 
> If this goes forward I would prefer reversing thing and make it hazard=dog. 
> That would also allow other types of hazards to be mapped.
> 
> Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it?

You beat me to it. The existing hazard tag is the obvious choice which I
use quite often. Although it does not seem to be well supported by data
consumers. I have used it in Cornwall to flag open mine shafts, and in
one case to warn of dangerous (illegal) dogs on a right of way through a
farmyard.

ael


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


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

2020-04-30 Thread ael
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 06:58:55PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:46, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> >
> > I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be
> > based off of function.  Recently I have come across a number of cases
> > where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track"
> > (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0].  Before I change these,
> > I wanted to check with the rest of the community.
> >
> 
> It is not uncommon around this part of Wales for farms to have service
> roads leading to them that barely qualify as a track.  If it's functioning
> as a service road or driveway,   Those are tough calls.

I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything but a track:
if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to negotiate.
I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard vehicle is
possible. In general that implies at least some sort of paving. I would
not be happy if someone changed a UK track into something else unless
they have established that it had a proper surface.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

2020-04-29 Thread ael
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 07:59:40PM +, Pierre Béland via Tagging wrote:
> But I dont agree to deprecate the the leisure=common tag for Africa.  

+1 

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-28 Thread ael
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 10:10:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 28.03.2020 12:45, ael wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > Piccadilly Circus (note the different word).
> > > Is this a town square for British people? I notice the English WP seems 
> > > to avoid the word square (although it then calls it a plaza), while both, 
> > > Italian and German, have the word piazza / Platz in the subtitle.
> > 
> > As a native who once lived on the south margins of London, I have never
> > heard anyone refer to it as a square. I would certainly find such a
> > description bizarre.
> 
> https://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/place/77552-piccadilly-circus
> "You are here: Home > Things to Do > Sightseeing > London Attraction >
> Public Square > Piccadilly Circus"

Yes, but aimed at tourists who may indeed have that expectation.

> https://www.londoncitybreak.com/piccadilly-circus
> "This legendary square was founded in 1819 and became an extremely important
> junction since its construction. The square is famous for its neon signs,
> different displays..."

Ok. But not in common usage in my circles. I was just trying to answer
the original question from my experience which is necessarily limited.
I was expecting other native speakers to chip in if anyone disagreed, or
even agreed. I take it from your email that your are not native British?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-28 Thread ael
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> to give an example of an object which I would call a square (maybe not in 
> English): https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.50997/-0.13430
> 
> Piccadilly Circus (note the different word).
> Is this a town square for British people? I notice the English WP seems to 
> avoid the word square (although it then calls it a plaza), while both, 
> Italian and German, have the word piazza / Platz in the subtitle.

As a native who once lived on the south margins of London, I have never
heard anyone refer to it as a square. I would certainly find such a
description bizarre. But then I wouldn't naturally call it a plaza
either.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-15 Thread ael
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 08:15:32PM +, John Sturdy wrote:
> I think that by default bollards are not removable, and that if a bollard
> is not tagged as removable, it is reasonable to assume it's not removable.

+1

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Recycling diapers

2020-02-15 Thread ael
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 02:52:22PM +0100, Francesco Ansanelli wrote:
> Nobody else about this key? To be honest I have another example of
> "recycling:" (not recycling) that are the batteries... So it's another
> point to the idea that recycling is a namespace and diapers could be added
> to the list.

No, "diapers" is not British English: "nappies" .

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-13 Thread ael
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:38:14PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 
> Asphalt is certainly not an unnecessary tag in the UK. 
> 
> Whilst its safe to assume all roads are paved unless tagged otherwise. A 
> small number of lesser roads may not be paved.
> 
> The same assumptions cannot be made about asphalt, a significant part of the 
> motorway and trunk expressway network are concrete, which is  evil noisy 
> stuff and suffers from poor drainage. 

Well, yes, I thought that someone might say that. But such cases are
very much the minority (except perhaps for motorways), which is why
asphalt is still a reasonable default. I would expect an explicit
tag for anything which is not asphalt. Again we are talking about the 
UK here.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-12 Thread ael
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:15:42PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 
> >> > 
> >> In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags such 
> >> as asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.
> >>
> >
> > +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
> > unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
> > quite irritating.
> >
> Have you tried commenting on their changesets?

Well, in the examples I have seen, they are not actually wrong. Just
unnecessary in the UK when asphalt is the default. I know some here
always want explicit tags, and that is fine in local conditions where
defaults are problematic.

I did send a message to one of the mappers, but got no reply. I suspect
they are based in the USA and applying USA conventions.

One reason that I find it irritating is where I have mapped roads very
accurately and then armchair mappers come along with poorly aligned
imagery with parallax errors and think they know better. So when I see
any change in such places, I usually check to look for unwarranted
changes. Which takes too much time.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

2020-02-12 Thread ael
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:14:54AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > OK, you confirm that the "paved is implied" statement in the wiki page is
> > to be read as "assuming we are in Germany ... paved is implied" and is not
> > referring to some wiki page that I have not yet detected (that was my
> > question).
> > 
> In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags such as 
> asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.

+1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
quite irritating.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-06 Thread ael
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:24:53PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 16:48, António Madeira  wrote:
> certain reality.
> > A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies
> > drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European countries, it

But the point is that in current British usage, the vast majority of
fountains are "drinking_water=no". The natural meaning is a decorative 
feature in most contexts.

ael


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


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

2020-02-06 Thread ael
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:22:13AM +, marc marc wrote:
> i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the

Eh, except that OSM is supposed to use British English, and "diaper"
should be nappy.

ael


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


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

2020-02-06 Thread ael
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:49:23PM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 2/5/20 17:15, Lionel Giard wrote:
> > In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main
> > tag was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in
> > most examples when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to
> > map them separately (one way for the barrier and one way for the other
> > main tag, even if they are exactly sharing the same node). This is in
> > order to keep the one feature to one object and keep things manageable
> > and without ambiguity. Thus to me, all the examples of "barrier=*" (+
> > "area=yes" +) "leisure=playground" are a tagging error, that should be
> > two separate objects.
> 
> JOSM's validator will flag ways that share the same nodes as a warning,
> or at least it used to. I think it's just more rubbish in the database
> to have one way for the fence and another for an area when they share
> the same nodes.

-1

Sorry, but the trouble I have with editing places where nodes are shared
is ridiculous. Often I have updated information, usually accurate gps,
on one element, but not the others with shared nodes. It is painful,
time-consuming and tedious to have to separate the ways. Often I just
don't bother and risk degrading previous information. But if people will
share nodes, then it's too bad.


The overhead in the database of sometimes duplicate nodes is tiny.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

2020-01-07 Thread ael
On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 10:59:35PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 06.01.2020 21:32, Tomek wrote:
> > Exactly, does a buoy with the inscription "Baltic Sea" swim at 56° N18°
> > E? No, there is simply water that Poles call the "Morze Bałtyckie",
> > Germans "Ostsee", etc.
> 
> 
> > Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reason why not.
> 
> For the count, +1 against.
And another +1, against.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] pavement placed plaque

2019-12-20 Thread ael
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:02:50PM +, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I've a carved stone plaque(?) that's fixed flush into the pavement. it's to
> indicate the start/finish point of a long distance walk.
> https://whatsdavedoing.com/cotswold-way-guide/#start
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1 Is plaque the best name? Our Wiki quotes Wikipedia as it being vertical,
> but that seems a bit restrictive to me.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:memorial%3Dplaque
 
 It seems to be a sort of waymark to me. As far as I can see, we don't
 have a generic tag for waymarks, although there are lots of special
 cases like milestons. Perhaps we should have a waymark tag with subtags
 for material and orientation?

 ael


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


Re: [Tagging] disguised communication towers

2019-11-13 Thread ael
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 01:28:04PM -0800, Eric Theise wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:17 PM ael  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 01:00:29PM -0800, Eric Theise wrote:
> > >   tower:type=communication
> > >   tower:construction=concealed
> > >
> > Not really. I mapped such a tower a few years ago, but would not have
> > thought of adding  tower:construction=concealed  . I suspect that
> > scheme did not exist back then. Perhaps I might add it sometime and use
> > it in future now that I am aware of it.
> >
> 
> Do you recall how you tagged the camouflage of the tower you did map?

I didn't. Just tower:type=communication. It wasn't that well concealed -
the sort that looked like a slightly strange pine tree.

el


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


Re: [Tagging] disguised communication towers

2019-11-13 Thread ael
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 01:00:29PM -0800, Eric Theise wrote:
>   tower:type=communication
>   tower:construction=concealed
> 
> and either man_made=mast or man_made=tower should cough up cellphone towers
> masquerading as cacti, palms, pines, flagpoles, and such. But apart from a
> note="pine tree" that jumped out at me I'm not finding much. I have to
> assume I'm barking up the wrong tree (sorry).
> 
> Could any of you suggest a better search strategy?

Not really. I mapped such a tower a few years ago, but would not have
thought of adding  tower:construction=concealed  . I suspect that
scheme did not exist back then. Perhaps I might add it sometime and use
it in future now that I am aware of it.

Your lack of results might just be because I am not the only one who
had not come across this tag before: I suspect that it is rather recent.

ael


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


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

2019-11-07 Thread ael
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 12:53:16PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Ok, Steve. It's not a turnstile, but a kissing gate, and there is no
> Christchurch College Park, but the gate is behind Christchurch in Merton
> Field.
> But it is impossible to get through if you carry any large object (or if
> you are large yourself). Here it is on the map,
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/303556862>
> here is a foto
> <https://oxbridgeacademicprograms.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/just-a-week-away/p1080243/>.

I am almost certain that is a private gate for members of Corpus and
possibly also of Christ Church. I will try to remember to check
sometime. The "College Park" is, of course, "Christ Church Meadow".

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread ael
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:55:04AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> I would suggest it is not necessary to replace the simple node with a 
> circular way. I think it is perfectly acceptable if it is considered as a 
> simple turn instead of negotiating a roundabout, from a routing perspective. 
> An instruction to turn right at the junction would not be improved by an 
> instruction to take the third exit. If the navigator knows that a junction is 
> a mini roundabout, an instruction to turn right at the (mini) roundabout 
> would probably be optimal. 

+1

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


Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread ael
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 07:24:16PM +0200, Jan Michel wrote:
> On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote:
> > 
> > Really?
> > 
> > There are people who are VERY interested in these things.  People who
> > want to know where
> > Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.
> 
> Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.

While that is certainly desirable, it is not necessary, especially where
the terms are well known - at least in the relevant region.

> 
> These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland
> (British Isles?). In general we oppose such local terms as keys because they
> won't be of any use outside a small area.

Who are "we" who oppose such terms? 

OSM is trying to be the best map possible, and the map should be useful
in small areas (like the UK) as well as more globally.

Even if one local mapper with special local knowledge tags something
only understood in a very small area, it is still improving the map.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread ael
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 09:09:16PM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> donald=yes
> ele=821
> graham=no
> man_made=cairn
> munro=no
> name=White Coomb
> natural=peak
> note=cairn yes
> source=local_knowledge
> wikidata=Q7994603
> wikipedia=en:White Coomb

These are well known terms in the UK, so I would think they are valid
and useful tags.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Tag for a milk_shake shop?

2019-09-06 Thread ael
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 03:21:59PM +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I'd tag it as amenity=cafe, even without selling coffee I still think it
> fits into https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=cafe, just with a
> cuisine tag to specify milk_shakes are the main cuisine.

Well, after all the suggestions, I have ended up with a surfeit of tags!
amenity=cafe
cuisine=milk_shake
shop=beverages
drink=milk_shake

and perhaps the drink needs adjusting, or perhaps not.

If forced to choose, I would remove the shop part: it seems nearer to a
cafe'.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] cuisine=milk_shake ? | Re: Tag for a milk_shake shop?

2019-09-05 Thread ael
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On
> Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 15:52, ael  wrote:
> 
> > Sounds a good idea. I have just switched it to
> > shop=beverages  and beverage=milk_shake, but adding
> >
> 
> beverage=* is logical but not documented.  drink=* may be illogical but
> it's not
> only documented, that's what the shop=beverages says you should use to
> specify
> which drinks a beverages shop sells.

Yes, I noticed that later.

> 
> Actually, when I first mentioned drink=* I trusted the shop=beverages
> documentation
> too much and/or misread it.  What you should have is shop=beverages +
> drink:milk_shake=served.

I missed that. It's not very intuitive :-)

I had already added cuisine=milk_shake as suggested here which seems
much clearer.

I will probably change the beverage= tag as you suggest, but not with
much enthusiasm. I guess it all depends on what the data consumers do
with all of this.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] cuisine=milk_shake ? | Re: Tag for a milk_shake shop?

2019-09-05 Thread ael
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 04:38:44PM +0200, Rory McCann wrote:
> Why not `cuisine=milk_shakes` (or should it be singular?) ? If you can sit
> inside it and drink your milk shake, I'd almost say it's an `amenity=cafe`

Sounds a good idea. I have just switched it to
shop=beverages  and beverage=milk_shake, but adding
cuisine=milk_shake  (I suspect singular is better) can't do anything but
good.

I will settle on that until someone comes up with anything better.

Thanks,
ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Tag for a milk_shake shop?

2019-09-05 Thread ael
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:15:45PM +0100, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> The Shakeaway down in Brighton is "shop"="beverages" at the moment.

So maybe
shop=beverages
and
beverages=milk_shake  ?
Or is that
beverage=milk_shake  ?


Not at all sure that is any better than 

> > shop=dairy  and
> > dairy=milk_shake 

And we have established
amenity=ice_cream,
 
but shop=dairy and
dairy=ice_cream

would seem more logical, aside from the fact that some "ice_creams"
don't contain much of a diary component. I digress

ael, confused tagger.



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


[Tagging] Tag for a milk_shake shop?

2019-09-05 Thread ael
How do I tag a shop that sells milk shakes?

This one: https://shakeshop.co.uk/menu/

I have used
amenity=milk_shakes
and 
shop=dairy
for now.

But shop=dairy seems misleading. Just shop=milk_shake, perhaps?

Or perhaps
shop=dairy  and
dairy=milk_shake ?

That last seems the best choice?


This is a reason why I am concerned that shop=yes is not being rendered
in some cases. shop=yes seems a reasonable tag when there are no obvious 
tags.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-19 Thread ael
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 08:25:30PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 19/08/19 19:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 19 Aug 2019, 10:44 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> > 
> > On 19/08/19 18:21, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > 
> > Interesting!
> > 
> > I remembered a problem with "trade=*" - it's already been used
> > almost
> > 5000 times to specify the type of trade goods sold at a
> > shop=trade -
> > see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trade and
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade
> > 
> > 
> > Not a 'good tag' as it can only be used with shop=trade.
> > 
> > Why? It can be added to any shop,
> > not only ones tagged with shop=trade.
> 
> If I saw a shop=car with trade=car I would tend to think I could trade my
> car for another car.

I would think it mistagged. :-)

shop=trade
trade=motor_dealing

is my best, but horrible, invention of a value to indicate a place
probably auctioning cars for the motor trade. But I wouldn't use shop
as the primary tag for such a place.

The point is to indicate the sort of tagging already established for the
trade tag, rather than to suggest anyone do that.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-19 Thread ael
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:12:58AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 19 Aug 2019, 10:44 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> 
> > On 19/08/19 18:21, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting!
> >>
> >> I remembered a problem with "trade=*" - it's already been used almost
> >> 5000 times to specify the type of trade goods sold at a shop=trade -
> >> see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trade and
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade
> >>
> >
> > Not a 'good tag' as it can only be used with shop=trade.
> >
> Why? It can be added to any shop,
> not only ones tagged with shop=trade.
> 
> Though I agree "sells" would be a probably
> more clear name.

Again, sells is not equivalent to trade which has a distinct meaning
about to whom it sells (primarily). Not quite the same as wholesale,
but a certain similarity.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-19 Thread ael
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 06:44:31PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 19/08/19 18:21, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > Interesting!
> > 
> > I remembered a problem with "trade=*" - it's already been used almost
> > 5000 times to specify the type of trade goods sold at a shop=trade -
> > see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trade and
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade
> 
> Not a 'good tag' as it can only be used with shop=trade.
> 

Where it has a distinct meaning about *whom* a shop serves, as well
as indicating what is sold. I simplify for brevity here.

So you are overlooking the full semantics of the shop=trade tag.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-19 Thread ael
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:21:22PM +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Interesting!
> 
> I remembered a problem with "trade=*" - it's already been used almost
> 5000 times to specify the type of trade goods sold at a shop=trade -
> see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trade and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade

Yes. I invented that tag and have already noted the possible confusion
earlier in this thread.

I have dithered about whether this second usage of "trade" would be
confusing. Just as long as it can be used in a clearly distinct way, and
the documentation clearly notes the other use and indicates how they are
distinguished, I guess it would be OK.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-18 Thread ael
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:46:45PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> > On 17. Aug 2019, at 22:36, ael  wrote:
> > 
> > But do we have any generic terms already? Unless
> > you just mean office.
> 
> 
> businesses can already be found in amenity (e.g. food and drink, pharmacies, 
> post offices, prisons (US), etc.), tourism, leisure, shop, craft, office, 
> healthcare and probably more.

I think those are "species" of businesses, rather than generic. I guess
a slight mismatch with our understanding of semantics.

Of course, the more specific tagging is right where there is a good
match. 

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread ael
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 05:04:53PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > 
> > I would be all in favour of introducing "business" as long as it was 
> > not restricted in that way. Easy with various values.
> 
> 
> what would be the definition , for profit? Private ownership? IMHO it would 
> probably make stuff more complicated rather than easier to introduce yet 
> another generic term for businesses, but we’d have to see a concrete proposal 
> to know more .

I think I would go with "duck-tagging" here rather than needing a
precise definition. But do we have any generic terms already? Unless
you just mean office.

When I am mapping, I often find businesses that offer some service or
other which may be of interest to some map users. I have been tagging
them as "business" as I can't bring myself to call them offices. But I
have now come full circle!

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread ael
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:27:22PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> It's both.  Perhaps, with hindsight, most would agree that is sub-optimal
> but that's
> the way it is.  More importantly, it's been that way for long enough that
> fixing it is
> probably not possible.

Unfortunately, you are probably right. But this thread started with a 
suggestion for a new(?) tag of business although perhaps restricted
to handmade/handicraft.

I would be all in favour of introducing "business" as long as it was 
not restricted in that way. Easy with various values. It might
gradually evole and get used properly and gradually outnumber the old
misused office tag. Should not be too onerous for data consumers?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-17 Thread ael
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:54:52PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just places where
> > the general public may have an interest in navigating to it. If you were to
> > make an analysis about the functional structure of a city you would want to
> > know about the offices, even if they are not open to anyone besides their
> > clients and business partners.
> >
> 
> And parcel deliverers.  And others.  Just because most people don't need or
> want to know
> about them, that doesn't mean nobody wants to know.

But surely parcels are seldom delivered to an "office" but typically to
reception in a business. Of course, reception may be part of an office,
especially in small organisations.

But my point was that as I understood things, the office tag was typically used
to indicate a place of business, rather than a real office which may or
may not included.

Of course, I have no problem with tagging significant real offices with
the office tag.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

2019-08-16 Thread ael
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:02:14PM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> We discussed this a few month ago with the possibility of introducing a new
> tag of business= to show such things as (house) painters, plumbers "shed" &
> so on for work premises that aren't "craft", which suggests handmade /
> handicraft.


I have long been using the tag "business" even though it is not
documented or rendered AFAIK.

I have never been able to bring myself to use "office" for places that
plainly were not offices, even if the places might perhaps in many
cases include a small office.

I could never see the point in tagging offices which are of no intrinsic
interest except perhaps to office equipment suppliers.

But that is just my native UK viewpoint.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Definition of a Beach

2019-08-15 Thread ael
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:26:55AM +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 August 2019, Warin wrote:
> > What is a beach?
> 
> * there are waves breaking, at least at some times, at the water line.
> * ground has a significant slope so waves roll up the beach and water 

I was going to comment that a beach has to meet the water at the same
level. That is maybe sort of implied above? As opposed to a cliff or
even wall.

I am not sure that a beach is required to have a "significant" slope.
Obviously it must have some non-zero slope, otherwise it will be covered
by the water (to a first approximation). But on reflection, even that
may not be true for some sections of a beach. Portions that may be
exposed at low tide could even have a negative slope, and still be a
(hazardous) beach.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

2019-08-05 Thread ael
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 05:53:10PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 05/08/19 16:32, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it
> > means nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:
> > 
> > A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;
> No. The tag highway=road says that the class is unknown.
 +1
 ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

2019-08-04 Thread ael
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:23:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > 
> > A residential is also an unclassified road.
> 
> 
> IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection grid, 
> while a residential road is not 

My reply was going to be much the same. Unclassified roads are generally
for "through traffic". Residential raods are primarily for access to
those buildings, and would not (normally) be used for travel to other
destinations.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

2019-08-04 Thread ael
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 10:30:49AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:35:41AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Hello
> > 
> >   Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
> >   * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
> >   * performing road network validation
> >   * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)
> > 
> >   Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar, bicycle,
> > pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about motorcars.
> > 
> >   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> > hierarchy:
> >   * motorway
> >   * trunk
> >   * primary
> >   * secondary
> >   * tertiary
> >   * unclassified
> >   * residential
> >   * living_street
> >   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other
> > regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position.
> > This is fine for the time being.
> >   I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.
> 
+1

> For me unclassified is the same as residential. The difference is that
> unclassified is for interconnecting residential areas, and residential
> has residential traffic. So for me there cant be an unclassified within
> city boundaries, and as soon as there is predominent residential it
> cant be a unclassified.

How have you come to that conclusion? It flatly contradicts the normal
meaning. Perhaps your local area uses the term "unclassified" in a way
different from the OSM convention?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] shop=window(s) incorrectly deprecated in favor of craft=window_construction ?

2019-07-11 Thread ael via Tagging
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:33:15PM -0700, Michael Patrick wrote:
> > The obvious tag is
> >  shop=trade
> >  and
> >  trade= ???  ...
> 
> The most obvious tagging scheme for a world wide database like OSM would be
> to use the commercial classification system in effect in a particular
> jurisdiction.

I had not come across this sort of classification before. I see that
there are "SIC" codes in the UK.

They don't seem to cater for shops selling to both the trade and
ordinary customers, but maybe I have not looked carefully.

I would think that these sort of specialist tags might be useful in addition to
more user-friendly tags like those at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade .

Perhaps something along the lines of the fhrs:id tag used in the UK for
food hygience:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_Scheme?

Maybe naics:id = in USA, sic:id in UK, and so on?

So they could be useful in addition to the trade=whatever when
appropriate.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

2019-07-09 Thread ael via Tagging
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 07:11:15PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> 8 lip 2019, 03:22 od bradha...@fastmail.com:
> 
> > wiki page
> Can you link image of track
> on rock/rocky surface where tagging 
> it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
> be misleading?

The existing grades seem to be UK-centric, and useful in this context.

This discussion shows that they don't work well in some other places.

Isn't the obvious solution to keep the existing numerical grades
more or less unchanged, perhaps with a bit more clarification, but then
introduce gradeA, gradeB, ... or whatever to cover other sorts of
track? They might not even need to be ordered, although then the
alphabetic choice might be less straightforward?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] shop=window(s) incorrectly deprecated in favor of craft=window_construction ?

2019-07-09 Thread ael via Tagging
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 05:42:56PM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> I always thought that there is no norm for standard sizes of windows, so 
> every window is made to measure.

That's what several local companies do in my area of the UK. They cater
mainly for the trade, but also for DIY. Pretty well every replacement
window has to be made to measure. At least some of the companies cut and
weld the frames on site. They buy in the premade sections I think.

I believe it is common: there are similar companies in another area of the
UK that I know well.

The obvious tag is
 shop=trade
and
 trade= ???  -- well, in my area I would probably use trade=double_glazing
but something more general might be better since these places also
supply UPV doors and the like, at least.

ael

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


Re: [Tagging] shop=window(s) incorrectly deprecated in favor of craft=window_construction ?

2019-07-09 Thread ael via Tagging
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:03:35PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> like in only selling, not fitting/mounting them? Not offering to replace the 
> glass, etc.? Can you go there to buy a window, and take it away, or will you 
> order a window or maybe the whole facade which will then be produced and 
> delivered to you? 
> 
> While a shop like this may exist, I must admit I have never seen it. Can you 
> refer to a real example?

Several in my area in UK. 

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

2019-06-15 Thread ael via Tagging
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:00:19AM +0200, Allroads wrote:
> First, the consensus in OSM is 

Sorry, but this thread is clear evidence that statement is false.
And existing mapping also contradicts it.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

2019-06-13 Thread ael via Tagging
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:09:26PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 13/06/19 18:41, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> 
> I think a tag to say "lane:marking=no" could be better for that situation???
> 
> lanes=* says the number of lanes, it does not say if they are marked or 
> unmarked as demonstrated above.

+1

It had never occured to me that the lanes tag required markings: I had
understood it to be mainly an aid for routing, algorithmic or manual.
If it requires marking, then most of my own maping of lanes would need
revision. And since I have no good way of estimating widths, I wouldn't
know how to preserve the information with alternative tagging.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

2019-05-05 Thread ael via Tagging
On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 07:38:45AM +0200, s8evq wrote:
> Another attempt at summarizing the current situation:
> 
> How should we included the direction?
> 
> - Andy Townsend suggested "Explicit start and/or finish nodes?", but I'm 
> afraid that's not enough to deduce the direction of complex hiking routes 
> like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9535700
> 
> - Using the sorted order of the relation? A lot of criticism on this method. 
> It's fragile and could easily break when newbies edit. On the other hand, 
> it's the only solution we have. Sarah remarked: "An unsorted route is not 
> wrong, it's only less precise. Maps can show it without issues including 
> waymarkedtrails. It just can't give you some advanced features."

Just a thought, but with minimal background knowledge:-

Why not add a boolean tag, something like "sorted=yes" which editors
will always turn off unless the editor (or user) can verify that the
sorting has been maintained? Provided that there is a well defined order
relation, that should be something that editor could automate?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

2019-03-28 Thread ael via Tagging
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:19:16AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:32, ael via Tagging 
> wrote:
> > I invented the shop=trade after a suggestion on this list to consider
> > subtags.
> 
> 
> I was thinking about it & wondered about changing shop=trade to
> shop=trade_supply (which may be a more accurate description anyway?)

Not keen on that, and it would change existing usage.

> I'm wondering if it would be?
> 
> We'd have shop=trade_supply + trade=electrical for the wholesale outlet,

shop=trade 
  was not intended just for wholesale. There are many retailers who also
  have special services for various trades. The tag was explicitly meant
  to include those sorts of places.

> But perhaps business=plumbing could work and would be simpler?
> > I have always thought it odd that "business" was not used much as a tag.
> > Many of the uses of "office" seem to me to really mean "business".
> >
> 
> That's not a bad thought either!
> 
> 
> > That could even be
> >   business=trade   trade=plumbing
> > if people think that business alone is to all encompassing. But it is
> > probably best to keep it simple.
> >
> 
> Could be done either way.

My preference on reflection. I don't think the multiple use of the trade tag
should cause any problems, especially since the semantics is very
similar. But I haven't given it much thought, so I could be wrong.

ael

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


Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

2019-03-27 Thread ael via Tagging
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 09:18:52AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I fear confusion if it uses exactly the same tag. But maybe it could work.
> Open for any thoughts or suggestions of a better word!

The only term that crossed my mind was specialisation but that
doesn't really fit. I invented the shop=trade after a suggestion on this
list to consider subtags. Hence my concern that the re-use of trade
might be confusing. But something like
 business=trade, trade=plumbing
might work. As long as data consumers have no problems parsing that.

But perhaps business=plumbing could work and would be simpler?
I have always thought it odd that "business" was not used much as a tag.
Many of the uses of "office" seem to me to really mean "business".

That could even be 
  business=trade   trade=plumbing
if people think that business alone is to all encompassing. But it is
probably best to keep it simple.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

2019-03-26 Thread ael via Tagging
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 02:44:35PM +0100, Lionel Giard wrote:
> 
> To my understanding, at trade shop can't really be compared to a "craft"
> guy, as the trade shop only sell bulk material (there is no production
> there). :-)

That is indeed part of the meaning for trade=?? when used in conjunction
with (as a sub-tag of) shop=trade. But I think that the idea was to
re-use trade in other contexts. I am a little uncertain whether that
would be unambiguous.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

2019-03-26 Thread ael via Tagging
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:57:12PM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > there is also craft (combination or not) for places where you find
> > specialized workers.
> >
> 
> I've never been very happy with a lot of the craft= tags.
> 
> To me "craft" suggests small-scale, probably handmade, so things like
> =basket_maker; beekeeper; blacksmith; cooper; embroiderer & so on all fit
> as they're (usually) small, often one person operations.
> 
> But =boatbuilder; builder; electrician; glaziery; hvac; mint; roofer;
> sawmill etc are usually not small scale works.

+1

> 
> Should we possibly have a trade= key to cover the office / workshop / shed
> / factory unit where these specialists are located, or from where they work
> out of?

As long as it is clearly distinguished from the exiting use of trade.
I fear confusion if it uses exactly the same tag. But maybe it could
work.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] shop=plumber vs shop=plumbing vs shop=plumbing_supplies

2019-03-25 Thread ael via Tagging
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:57:35PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> What is the difference between these shops?
> 
> My expectation is that 
> 
> - shop=plumber is poorly tagged office of a plumber
> - shop=plumbing is unclear tagging of shop with primarily plumbing supplies
> - shop=plumbing_supplies is a good name for plumbing supplies shop but rarely 
> used

Or shop=trade and trade=plumbing_supplies if it is largely aimed at
trades people/professionals.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

2019-03-10 Thread ael via Tagging
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 06:33:46PM -0400, Jmapb wrote:
> On 3/10/2019 6:16 PM, Warin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > amenity=prep_school .. umm amenity ... not something I like to use.
> > And prep_school tends to indicate preparation before going to school
> > rather than extra work on top of school.
> > 
> I agree re shop. And I'd definitely avoid "prep school" since it has an
> entirely different meaning in American English (it's a posh high school.)

And also a special meaning in British English: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparatory_school_%28United_Kingdom%29

So prep_school likely to widely misunderstood: as the default is British
English, the above meaning would be definitive.


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


Re: [Tagging] Micronations

2019-02-09 Thread ael via Tagging
On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 06:20:11PM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 09/02/19 16:18, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 10:54:16 +1000
> > Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> > 
> > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/653287455#map=15/38.0034/-87.6183
> 
> In this case they have been mapped as a 'residential area' with that name ...
> The basic question is ... is that area residential?

But note the user name: it does suggest vandalism.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread ael via Tagging
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:22:30PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:09, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> 
> > If you think it is important to differentiate between lined vs. unlined
> > minor waterways (*and I'm not objecting to that*), I guess the best
> > option would be to use a specific tag (lined=* ?)
> >
> As I understand it, Ordnance Survey maps in the UK make a distinction
> between ditches
> and drains.  Of course, printed maps don't have the luxury of sub-tags, so
> we don't have
> to use ditch and drain just because OS does.  However, ditch and drain are
> already
> established.
 +1


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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread ael via Tagging
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 12:22:01AM -0800, Mark Wagner wrote:
> 
> My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary has about a page of
> definitions for "ditch" and "drain", and not a hint that either of them
> needs to be lined.
 +1


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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

2019-01-16 Thread ael
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:45:21PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 21:24, EthnicFood IsGreat <
> ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>   I have been tagging them as drains, because they
> > are too small to be called a stream, and they are not artificial, so
> > they are not ditches.  (At least in the OSM sense.)
> >
> 
> You appear to be talking about small streams.  Which are, as far as OSM is
> concerned, just
> streams.  Using either drain or ditch for a natural stream, even a small
> one, is tagging for the
> renderer.

+1  There is no lower limit on the size of a stream in British English,
although something smaller than say, I don't know, 1O cm, might be
called a "trickle" informally.


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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-12 Thread ael
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:20:49PM +0100, François Lacombe wrote:
> I doubt a lot about mandatory navigability of canals.
> What about waterways intended to feed mills or fountains ?

As other have implied, these are not called canals in UK English: but
maybe there are exceptions. Mill streams or Mill races are the usual
terms. I am not familiar with any special terms for fountains: I would
expect a phrase like "piped supply" in most (underground) cases.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-11 Thread ael
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:03:29AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Most of what I’d call a drain around here would be large underground pipes 
> designed to carry storm water. Empty most of the time except perhaps for a 
> trickle of water from various urban/suburban watering overflow. Used most of 
> the time by raccoons, possums and rats as away to navigate through or shelter 
> in an area without having to worry about being attacked by neighborhood dogs, 
> though the larger ones could be attractive for adventuresome teenage boys to 
> explore.

Same in UK: I forgot to mention them. The pipes serving domestic houses
and draining water from roads are all "drains", and by extension also
for the entrance grills in roads and the like. That includes sewers as
well. But I guess few of them would be mapped in OSM unless particularly
large or significant. Back to the point: it would be unnatural to tag
them as canals! Some might overlap with culverts?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-11 Thread ael
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:01:47PM +0100, François Lacombe wrote:
> 
> Currently, both canal and drain refer to structure and usage also.
> Canal is designed for useful water while drain is intended for waste water.
> usage=* comes to give more information of what canal is intended for.
> 
> Regarding ditch, it regards both useful and waste water.
> 
> If we choose to be consistent in waterway=* values, waterway=drain should
> be abandonned in favor of canal + appropriate usage=* values.
> Then we'll obtain waterway=canal for artificial waterways whatever their
> usage and waterway=river, stream and ditch for natural or not-lined
> watercourses.

In normal UK usage, a canal is (or was) navigable: that is the primary
purpose. A drain would normally be substantially smaller, and
non-navigable. No doubt there are exceptions probably in the Norfolk
Broads. But normally drains and canals are quite distinct, so it would
be unnatural in British English to remove drain.  Yes, I do realise that
the word canal is derived from channel.  That sort of usage still
applies in dentistry, as in a root-canal procedure.  But I digress from
waterways :-)

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-11 Thread ael
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 04:29:05PM +0100, Markus wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 00:40, Eugene Podshivalov  wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone please explain the difference between waterway=ditch and drain?
> > As far as I understand the description on the English wiki they differ in 
> > usage:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
> >
> > drain - usually lined with concrete or similar and used to carry 
> > superfluous water like storm water or industrial discharge
> > ditch - used for irrigation
> >
> > But the Russian wiki says that irrigation waterways should be tagged as 
> > drains.
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:waterway
> 
> I can't find any information – neither on the English wiki nor on the
> Russian translation – that either waterway=drain or waterway=ditch is
> used for irrigation. They are both used to tag stretches of waters
> carrying superfluous water, e.g. for drainage. As defined on the wiki,
> the difference between ditch and drain is that waterway=drain is lined
> with concrete or similar:

As a native speaker, I do not recognise "canal" as appropriate for
irrigation. That is not to say that some canals may also be used
partly for irrigation.

But the phrase "irrigation ditch" is common and understood.  Bear in
mind that the UK is mainly a fairly wet place, so the need for
substantial irrigation is not high except in some special cases.  The
unqualified word "ditch" would normally be understood as an artificial
unlined and usually small watercourse. But also, in certain contexts,
for a historic trench acting as a defense or fence, not necessarily
containing water.

That seems to accord with a the sub tag irrigation=yes on ditches -
and maybe on other waterways if that is one of the uses/functions.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

2018-10-07 Thread ael
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 08:32:56PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 8:10 PM ael  wrote:
> 
> There are tags for caves in general and could be applied to a sea cave.
> But the only way the
> cave tags can be applied to a collapsed sea cave is to pretend the collapse
> is a sink hole, which
> (according to the wiki and to my understanding of what a sink hole is), it
> isn't.

No. I am sure that I have seen a dedicated/specialist term for exactly
these features. Just can't recall the details ATM. Pretty sure I have
seen examples in Cornwall and else where. I think there was a news story
about a rescue from one such relatively recently. It may come to me
later...

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Double, double, toil and trouble (how to map Witch's Cauldron?)

2018-10-07 Thread ael
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> I've encountered a feature called, in English, "Witch's Cauldron" (also
> "Witches Cauldron" and "Witch's Pit") and
> called, in Welsh, "Pwll y Wrach."  It was mapped by somebody else around 4
> years ago and the mapping has
> one definite error and a couple of things that may be wrong.  The problem
> It currently shows a tributary of nearby river connecting the hole in the

Is that the stream tagged with source = npe?  Just because you can't
see it from your armchair, doesn't mean that it isn't there. Although
I admit npe is often a bit approximate, and it may have dried up.
Maybe the NLS 2 1/2" historic map might shed more light.

Just ATM, I can't recall the right terminology, but these partially
collapsed sea caves are quite common, and I am sure I have seen them
with a dedicated tag. No doubt someone else will chip in the proper
tags.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Dangerous waterways tagging: hazard?

2018-07-24 Thread ael
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:48:05PM +0200, François Lacombe wrote:
> 
> As the discussion about intermittent/seasonal/... on waterways goes on,
> there is another thing to map: how waterways banks can be dangerous due to
> sudden rise or lower water level.

The obvious tag is hazard, but for some incomprehensible reason it seems
to be used rather rarely. Perhaps it is not in editor presets?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

2018-07-19 Thread ael
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 08:57:28AM +0100, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I personally prefer a few main values in the waterway to define the general
> cases and subtags for specific cases like this, of the type of usage =
> fiss_pass. If I am in front of an infrastructure of this type, its physical
> characteristics will allow me to distinguish if it is a channel, ditch or
> brook. If it was built for the purpose of fish passing it is a separate
> issue. Are a fish_pass different in nature to any other waterway? Waterway
> different in it's construction nature could be used as a fish_pass?

A fish pass near me is quite different to any other sort of waterway:
the nearest 'usage' might be a spillway. But what is the main tag?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

2018-06-22 Thread ael
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 07:35:27AM +0200, Jo wrote:
> The thing is, when PTv2 was voted, I asked what to do with the bus stop
> nodes next to the way. The answer was put public_transport=platform on
> those NODES. In fact they rather represent a pole with a flag on it. But
> for some bus stops, there is nothing physical present. The bus stops there
> and both passengers and the drivers know it.

I expect it is too late to change this, but this is just plain wrong.
It should be something like
   public_transport=waiting_place
which can be a node or an area.

So far, I just haven't been able to tag a place without a platform
as a "platform".

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

2018-06-22 Thread ael
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:26:37AM +0200, Yves wrote:
> Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform?

+1


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


Re: [Tagging] A new Tag for "helicopter services"?

2018-06-18 Thread ael
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 03:06:37PM +0200, gorgonz wrote:
> I'm looking for a tag, that describes an office, that offers helicopter
> services. Jobs are emergencies, round trips and aerial views for
> example. What is to be noted: this describes the place of the office and
> not the according landing field.
> 
> I would setup a proposal for
> 
> office=helicopter_service
> 
> Of course, any other solutions are welcome as well :-)
> 
> How are You thinking about this?

I think it is not an office. An office is primary a place for clerical 
and related activities.

ael



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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

2018-06-11 Thread ael
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 03:12:49PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10 June 2018 14:26:06 BST, ael  wrote:
> >> I am firmly, solidly and unswervingly opposed to "lounge" for this
> >proposal.
> >
> >+1
> >
> >In British English, a lounge first and foremost is a room in a private
> >dwelling. Other uses have "leaked in" from other dialets and while now
> >fairly well understood in a limited number of contexts, they are still
> >unnatural.
> >
> Lounge is very much used in British English to describe the posh carpeted 
> room in a pub. 

I give you that, but note that pubs were originally in private homes :-)

Completely agree that living room is the much preferred term, but lounge
is well understood. 

But I don't want to get lost in philology of which I know little. 
Qualified use like Airport_lounge seems unexceptional.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

2018-06-10 Thread ael
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 01:16:53PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Yves  wrote:
> 
> > I don't necessarily want to get rid of the word lounge, but an
> > amenity=airport_lounge leaves very little doubt about what it is.
> >
> 
> Actually, it does leave doubt.
> Waiting room, however, is EXACTLY what you want to describe.  Hospitals and
> doctors' surgeries have waiting rooms.
> So do train stations and bus stations.
> 
> I am firmly, solidly and unswervingly opposed to "lounge" for this proposal.

+1

In British English, a lounge first and foremost is a room in a private
dwelling. Other uses have "leaked in" from other dialets and while now
fairly well understood in a limited number of contexts, they are still 
unnatural.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] When was the deprecation of location=kiosk for power=substation discussed?

2018-04-26 Thread ael
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:56:55AM +0100, John Sturdy wrote:
> To me, as a native British-English speaker, "kiosk" doesn't seem to be the
> right word for these.  A kiosk is normally something that *is* large enough
> for a person to enter (typically, someone selling something through a
> hatch).

+1

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Storm attenuation ponds

2018-04-21 Thread ael
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 08:02:39PM +1000, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> Have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:basin ?
> 
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 7:47 PM, ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> > I am uncertain how to tag the sorts of flood defense storage ponds
> > that seem to be required in most current construction sites.

Thanks for that. It looks like an answer. But I would never of thought
of calling it a basin. Checking, I see that it is on the josm preset
list, but I missed it.

ael


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


[Tagging] Storm attenuation ponds

2018-04-21 Thread ael
I am uncertain how to tag the sorts of flood defense storage ponds
that seem to be required in most current construction sites.

I have used 

landuse = reservoir
reservoir_type = flood_defense

for now, but I feel that some sort of water tag ought to be present as well.
Erm, natural = water ? I guess the water is natural, even if the pond is
artificial. That and water=storage_pond; covered=no ??

Ugly.

Is there a good solution to this common situation?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

2018-04-08 Thread ael
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 01:45:31PM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:49 PM, ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > In the context of buses, it tends to refer to the part of the vehicle
> > where people may stand to alight or board.
> >
> > In my part of the UK, we never referred to that part of a bus as a
> platform.
> 
> The old AEC Routemaster buses operated in London did refer to that as a
> platform.

Quite so. It was exactly the old Routemasters that I had in mind.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

2018-04-08 Thread ael
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 12:09:58AM +0200, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> > Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100 
> > From: ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com>
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> >
> > > If I'm not mistaken, the dictionary is referring the platform *on* the
> > > bus [^1], not to the bus stop.
> > 
> > As a native English speaker, I am sure that is the case. I have been
> > bemused by the use of "platform" to describe a typical bus stop.
> > Very definitely not BE in normal usage. 
> 
> Do you know if that applies to rail transport in Britain as well?
> 
> Reading the english wikipedia article
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_platform

I had not looked at the wikipedia entry about before my previous reply.
That entry seems to mainly concern the USA, but there is little
difference. In all cases, platform is as I originally described: a
raised structure. Over time, especially in the railway context, the
strict usage has slipped a little to include associated waiting areas.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

2018-04-08 Thread ael
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 12:09:58AM +0200, "Christian Müller" wrote:
> > Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 22:51:40 +0100 
> > From: ael <law_ence@ntlworld.com>
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
> >
> > > If I'm not mistaken, the dictionary is referring the platform *on* the
> > > bus [^1], not to the bus stop.
> > 
> > As a native English speaker, I am sure that is the case. I have been
> > bemused by the use of "platform" to describe a typical bus stop.
> > Very definitely not BE in normal usage. 
> 
> Do you know if that applies to rail transport in Britain as well?

No. Railway platform for the raised area to match the floor level of
trains is entirely standard. Platform normally means a raised structure
so it applies to the entry floor of a bus, but not to the ground level
waiting area which is seldom, if ever, raised. Merely being paved and
perhaps thus slightly elevated would not normally be called a platform.

Hope that is clear?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

2018-04-07 Thread ael
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:11:27PM +0200, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
> On 30 March 2018 at 17:29, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > according to a dictionary, in BE platform also means “the floor area at the 
> > entrance to a bus.” (not necessarily the same as the waiting area) while 
> > the same dictionary requires for rail based transportation that the 
> > platform be “raised”
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, the dictionary is referring the platform *on* the
> bus [^1], not to the bus stop.

As a native English speaker, I am sure that is the case. I have been
bemused by the use of "platform" to describe a typical bus stop.
Very definitely not BE in normal usage. I have wondered why other
British English speakers have not commented. Maybe like me, they didn't
feel strongly enough to intervene.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Road barrier

2017-11-24 Thread ael
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 12:05:10AM +0100, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
> Hi
> 
> How is this kind of road barrier that prevents access for motor
> vehicles but allows pedestrians and cyclists to pass on both sides
> best tagged?
> 
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Road_barrier.jpg>
> 

I have tagged this sort of thing as a (fancy sort of) bollard. That was
at the suggestion of another mapper in my local area.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag "agricultural centers"

2017-09-28 Thread ael
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:03:57AM -0400, Mark Bradley wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies.  It seems there are two already-established 
> tagging schemes for what I want to map.  They are
> 
> 
> 
> shop=agrarian
> 
> or
> 
> shop=trade
> trade=agricultural_supplies

After my last post, I realise that the trade tag has extra information:
professionals are offered additional services such as accounts,
credit, special tax arranagements (at least in some countries), bulk
discounts and the like.

But checking the wiki I see all those agrarian subtags. I guess 
agricultural_supplies=* could be used to add the same information to the
shop=trade version.

Again, just an observation.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag "agricultural centers"

2017-09-28 Thread ael
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 08:04:35AM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> shop=agrarian is terrible, I agree. Is this a shop that caters to
> "agrarians" or does it sell "agrarians"?
> 
> Nor do I like shop=trade, trade=agricultural_supplies. I don't think of
> farming or agriculture as a trade similar to that practiced by a plumber or
> electrician, but maybe that's only me.

It was originally invented for the "building trade", and then got
generalised. In the UK, at least, such shops usually use the term
"trade" which is where it came from. I agree that it is not the most natural
word to use for farming. But the specialist farm "shops", again in the UK,
at least, treat their professional farmer clients, in a similar way
offering accounts, credit, bulk discounts and the like.

So trade has just the same semantics, so it would be redundant to invent
another tag. Not sure what a more general tag would look like. As
pointed out earlier, the same objection could be raised to "shop",
which isn't the first word that comes to mind for the large
establishments, but again shop has come to mean "somewhere that sells
things/services".

Just observations and history.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag "agricultural centers"

2017-09-25 Thread ael
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 02:21:29PM -0500, Micah Cochran wrote:
> Would this be some form of a farmers' co-ops  or agricultural cooperative?
>  (The Wikipedia article notes a few different meanings to this term.)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_cooperative
> 
> I briefly looked and found someone tagged a local farmer's co-op as a
> building (in Alabama), which it is only one building facility.
> 
> building=yes
> shop=trade
> trade=agricultural_supplies
> 
> 
> That may not work quite as well for a multi-building scenario.

No, it was always intended to cover such places as well. I should
declare an interest. I originated that tag.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] How to tag "agricultural centers"

2017-09-25 Thread ael
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 02:53:36PM -0400, Mark Bradley wrote:
> In the Midwestern US we have places scattered throughout the countryside
> whose purpose is to sell farming supplies, such as seed, feed, herbicide,
> anhydrous ammonia, etc.  I'm talking about a parcel of land, typically with
> several buildings situated on it, and plenty of room for parking and
> maneuvering farm vehicles and trucks.  None of the existing tags in the Wiki
> seem to fit to describe these facilities.

I think that you have missed:
   shop=trade
   trade=agricultural_supplies
which seems to fit very well with what you describe.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade , although I
don't know why the wiki page restricts it to equipment: it shouldn't.

ael



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


Re: [Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names

2017-09-08 Thread ael
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset
> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet)
> to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point
> 11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki doesn't specifically address the issue of
> elevation as part of a peak name, it does say "Name is the name only"[3].
> 
> Could we get feedback from the wider community on this?

+10 for elevation only in the ele tag.

As surveying improves or plate tectonics changes, it would be ridiculous
to change the name rather than just the elevation.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

2017-07-23 Thread ael
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 09:09:10AM +0200, Marc Gemis wrote:
> As if a lazy mapper ever looks at the other tags before imposing their
> "I know it better practice" (or in case they do not know any better).
> For anyone doing a decent survey, the source tags are useless as they
> have found the truth on the ground.

Yes there are such vandals, and they will ignore everything.
But since i have used source tags, my work gets vandalised much less.

Furthermore, the changeset comments are pretty useless in this area.
When I am mapping in an unfamiliar area, I try to assess whether my
information is better than the current mapping. I use a rather accurate
gps unit, photography and gps tagged video as my primary data, usually
also checking on imagery, and the public gps traces. Obviously I check
on the source tags, and sometimes check the changeset comments if in
doubt. However, mapping already takes far too much time, and there is no
way that I am going to consult every changeset for each object I modify.
But I can't help seeing any source tag. They are needed!

> IMHO source tags are only useful for armchair mappers that  want to
> check other peoples work without going out and checking the reality.

As above, I need then to avoid trampling on other people's
work. 

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Beautified JSON presets for natural=tree

2017-07-22 Thread ael
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 08:51:16PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22.07.2017 20:28, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Can you expand and clarify your comment for me?
> >
> >
> Just as I wrote, and nothing that I invented, it is considered
> 
> a) good practice to tag source on the changeset. Which in turn implies
> that if you are using more than one third party data source and it is
> not clear what you have been deriving from which source, you should be
> creating separate changesets.
> b) there are some limited exceptions which are typically name spaced
> source keys.

The trouble is that is that it doesn't work. I always include a fairly
comprehensive list of sources on changesets, but *need* individual
source tags on objects. Otherwise, subsequent mappers come along with far
inferior information and wipe out my many hours/days/years of careful
work on the ground.

I used not to use source tags on objects, but bitter experience as above
shows that source tags are *necessary* to indicate: "please don't modify
unless you have better information". It is usually armchair mappers
who tend to run roughshod over existing carefully mapped data, often
using outdated imagery.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

2017-03-14 Thread ael
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:27:40AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 14-Mar-17 09:13 AM, ael wrote:
> > > English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory 
> > > here.
> > > 
> > > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
> > > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.
> > 
> > I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused.
> > I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer
> > being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major
> > features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and
> > massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is
> > informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use
> > for any other purpose: they are quarries.
> > 
> '
> 
> I think disused is correct ...
> but it needs to be applied correctly so that not only OSM 'rules' are done, 
> but it gives some comprehension as to what is going on.
> 
> disused:landuse=residential
> 
> This gives the under standing that it is disused now, but was a past land use 
> of residential.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:
> 
> Does that help?

Not sure. I think that I discovered something like that but then the
quarries were not rendered. Of course, I don't want to tag for the
renderer, but in this area these features are highly significant, and it
would be misleading - and dangerous if the map is used for navigation -
if they are not shown.

I have just refreshed my memory on what I did, and I see that in one
case I used disused=quarry with landuse=quarry which is being rendered.
That seems to be in the spirit of wiki/Key:disused:, at least.

But you could still object to the apparent contradiction.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] water=pool

2017-03-14 Thread ael
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:40:24PM +0100, Richard wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 08:24:35PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> when using natural=water + water=pool they would become distinct (though 
> adjacent)
> water body from the river/creek which they are part of which is not quite 
> right.
> They are part of the river with special properties.
> 
> So perhaps
>  natural=water + water=river
>  + stream_pool=yes

Good point, but why introduce a new term "stream_pool"? Why not just
pool=yes?

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] water=pool

2017-03-14 Thread ael
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:39:51PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> At least in American English, there is an intermediate term, pond, for a
> body of water smaller than a lake but larger than a mere wide spot in a
> stream.  Ponds can be man-made or natural.

But in British English, ponds are generally static. That is the term is
usually used when there is little or no flow.  

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Landuse and disused

2017-03-13 Thread ael
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 06:53:50PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 13.03.2017 15:55, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> > "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
> > Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.

Then how should I tag a quarry in which stone extraction has ceased, as
mentioned in my other post?

Presumably not with a landuse tag? But that seems to be the only
existing tag for a quarry? Maybe man_made=quarry? 

I have the same problem in mapping old tin workings, currently tagged
with landuse=surface_mining and disused as the only possible documented
tags. So how do I avoid being one of your trolls, preferably while still
getting the major features in an area rendered?

Yes, I do also use the historic tag as well, where appropriate, but that
has even less chance of a proper render on standard maps.

ael


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


Re: [Tagging] Landuse for vacant lots

2017-03-13 Thread ael
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote:
> > I favor "landuse=disused".
> 
> English is not my primary language, but it seems a little contradictory here.
> 
> "landuse" says that a specific piece of land is being used for something.
> Then "disused" says that it's being used for nothing.


I have had problems with this rather literal interpretation of disused.
I have tagged certain quarries as 'disused' because stone is no longer
being harvested. But those quarries are still quarries, are still major
features on the landscape with 100s of metres of quarry faces, and
massive spill heaps. People do walk there, and sometimes there is
informal rock climbing in some of them, but they are not in proper use
for any other purpose: they are quarries.

Yet some people object to them being rendered on the basis of the
superficial contradiction that you highlight.

Maybe we need a tag=out_of_use or some such?  But that is open to the
same literal objection.

ael

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


  1   2   >