Re: [Tagging] Amphitheatre or outdoor non-sports venue

2016-09-14 Thread johnw
after searching the wiki for the correct spelling of amphitheatre (oops),  I 

"For tagging amphitheatres <>, 
open-air or outdoor theatres, the Talk page 
 suggests using theatre:type 

*sigh*  what is an Amphi? theatre:type=amphitheatre makes more sense, and the 
other types I suggest would be :type=natural and :type=stage. 

looking for input on how to reconcile arts_centre and theatre. 


> On Sep 14, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <> wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 14:04 +0900, johnw wrote:
>> I’m trying to tag an outdoor venue I would call
>> an It is a “natural” one,
>> with a stage near a lake, with terraces seating for picnics or
>> standing for a crowded performance. 
> [...]
>> Large camps, outdoor parks, and other places will have a outdoor
>> stadium-like place, but has no ability to host a sporting event - it
>> is a “performance” venue - people on a “stage" doing something for an
>> audience: a music concert, standup, religious performance
>> Event Venue, music Venue, and proposals are abandoned. "Stadium" seems
>> to be focused on sports, as it should be. Sports Arenas and stadiums
>> can be adapted for music events, but like a movie theatre or
>> performance hall, these are primarily a performance-only venue. these
>> are outdoor versions of a performance hall. 
>> is there some amenity=* tag I am missing that I should be using?
>> Putting “stadium” or sports venue on these seems pretty wrong. 
> Is there anything about amenity=arts_centre that says it has to
> necessarily be indoor?
> I propose:
> amenity=arts_centre and either:
> arts_centre=ampitheatre or
> arts_centre=outdoor
> -- 
> Shawn K. Quinn <>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Amphitheatre or outdoor non-sports venue

2016-09-14 Thread johnw

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
>> is there some amenity=* tag I am missing that I should be using?
>> Putting “stadium” or sports venue on these seems pretty wrong. 
> Is there anything about amenity=arts_centre that says it has to
> necessarily be indoor?
> I propose:
> amenity=arts_centre and either:
> arts_centre=ampitheatre or
> arts_centre=outdoor

I like the arts_centre=outdoor sub-tag. Although the stage may be covered or 
structural (like the Hollywood Bowl), the fact that the seating is permanently 
outdoors and/or built into the terrain seems to be a key feature. 

Wikipedia has 3 categories - historic, modern, and natural. 

Perhaps arts_centre=amphitheatre” can be an arts centre with a large 
substantial structure for the performance area.

Wikipedia has a huge list of them: 

I think that sub-tag value is inevitable. 

However, the other ones I mentioned, particularly Mt Helix, is a famous venue, 
but it is much smaller and offers little to no protection for the performers, 
however. [ehh… It is on the list of amphitheatres (not by me), so I don’t know 
where the line should be drawn…]  But the smaller venues found in parks, school 
grounds, camps, and corporate facilities would benefit from having 
arts_centre=outdoors, esp since they are small and offer little-to-no 
protection (or facilities) for a venue. 

I just thought of this: I was looking for a way to tag a stage that is in our 
park. the entire park is converted into an event space during summer events - 
dance contests and concerts are held there for a few days each year. Other 
people have been looking for a way to tag random “stages” that are permanent 
structures *but* are used only when called upon. Tagging the park as an outdoor 
event space seems wrong, so having a arts_centre=stage tag could be useful: 
here is a place where events are held, here is the permanent structure that is 
built, but it is considered an amenity to a larger facility ( a stage in a 
park, a stage in a corporate campus or school grounds.) my high school, my old 
employer, and my town park all have a visible-via-imagery stage structure that 
uses the surrounding grass, normally used for other things, as an event space 
rarely when desired. 

Unlike the “outdoor” - an area purposefully built and used just for 
performances, a stage would be an amenity of a larger outdoor multi-use 



sounds good to me. 


Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Amphitheatre or outdoor non-sports venue

2016-09-13 Thread johnw
I’m trying to tag an outdoor venue I would call an 
. It is a “natural” one, with a 
stage near a lake, with terraces seating for picnics or standing for a crowded 

Here is the one I am mapping. it is inside a giant flower and amusement park.  2000 people?

One in a city park in San Diego. my father puts on a blues concert there.  200 people?

Mt Helix Amphitheater 
 600 people?

No sports played there! 

Large camps, outdoor parks, and other places will have a outdoor stadium-like 
place, but has no ability to host a sporting event - it is a “performance” 
venue - people on a “stage" doing something for an audience: a music concert, 
standup, religious performance

Event Venue, music Venue, and proposals are abandoned. "Stadium" seems to be 
focused on sports, as it should be. Sports Arenas and stadiums can be adapted 
for music events, but like a movie theatre or performance hall, these are 
primarily a performance-only venue. these are outdoor versions of a performance 

is there some amenity=* tag I am missing that I should be using? Putting 
“stadium” or sports venue on these seems pretty wrong. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

2016-06-13 Thread johnw

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> There is at least one proposal for path/trail difficulty in the wiki [1] and 
> at least one that appears accepted and in use [2]. Of course neither of those 
> is an exact match for the Yosemite Decimal System[3] based on a 1930s Sierra 
> Club rating system more familiar, at least to me, in the US. Though the YDS 
> is mentioned under climbing [4] and [5].

That looks really cool, but also very focused on the steepness of the trail, 
difficulty of the “climb", and the potential of fatal accidents. 

I think most trails around the world would be in the lowest grade of all of 
these scales, and is focused on necessary gear as well - no mention of surface. 

So I tried to make a very loose approximation for the “condition/ surface 
grade” of the trail, without regards to the actual surface material, footing 
required, or ropes needed. the rest can be piste/ climbing routes. 

I think that my very loose qualification for lesser (but much more common) 
trails that many people would use place it between sidewalk and a trail that 
requires a rope, similar to grade 1/2/3 tracks - an adventure track for a 4x4 
across a boulder field is quite different than the more common farming tracks 
coating the world, and the OSM track scale is meant to define those more 
common, yet uninteresting track surface quality - as is this scale I just made 

But as I said, I am unsure about this part, and is a tertiary concern of mine 
at the moment - I just want to divorce trails from sidewalks ! all the examples 
given in all those links are certainly not sidewalks !  ^_^ the rest is gravy. 
if people want to adopt any of those other proposals, that’s fine with me. 

Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Motorway_junction = javbw confusion

2016-05-29 Thread johnw
Ran into a tagging issue today while cleaning up a (complicated) area of Tokyo 
I visited. 
 Came across this 
highway=motorway_junction node. Seemed in the wrong place.

Out in the Japanese countryside, the tollway exits usually have these 

- a “junction" has an exit in both directions of the motorway (both the “down 下 
“ and “ up 上 ” directions), so adding highway=motorway_junction to the two exit 
nodes makes sense.
- these exits (usually) then meet at a common toll plaza between the motorway 
and the main road network
- which lead to a common “entrance/exit” intersection(s) on the roads linking 
to the tollway, which have labeled intersection signals (sometimes) 

- more complicated entrance and exit ramps still lead to a common toll plaza, 
so entering from one direction of travel or another on the normal road doesn’t 
limit your direction of travel on the motorway. 

So how to enter the tollway seems obvious, but now there are more and more 
complicated entrance/exit schemes popping up, especially with "automated toll 
collection" exits and entrances around service areas and tunnels, like my 
questionable node is for.

having an entrance-exit that only serves one direction of the tollway in rural 
areas has led to many “wrong way” drivers on the tollway. I have personally 
seen two in the same spot near a one-sided junction. They assume an entrance 
feeds both directions (as is common), and go backwards up the exit ramp after 
the automated toll gates. This has led to a TON of signage and arrows and other 
visual cues being installed on every motorway in the last year or so - because 
of the rapid increase of separated entrances and exits making more and more 
wrong-way drivers. The offending junction pair in my area: 
 note, like the US, 
direction of travel means different exits and entrances, unlike Rural Japan 
(and my above examples) where a single connection to the normal road network 
allows access to either motorway direction, which is very common on the 
hundreds of junctions outside of Tokyo.

This idea of tagging just the “exits” doesn’t help when:

- the entrances are separated or have different access roads from the exits. 
So, so much signage is dedicated to finding entrances in complicated road 
networks - not tagging entrances seems to go against that.
- the “entrance”  is so far away from the exit that the label for the exit node 
is not useful as an implied indicator that there is an entrance there too. It’s 
not useful to imply an entrance in general, since there might not be one (such 
as the offending node’s Southbound junction is exit-only). 

This particular node marks an entrance that is very very difficult to return 
to, so it caused me a big headache when I missed it a few months ago. 
. I thought I had a hundred more 
meters until the entrance.

- there is no exit node, just an entrance node, therefore the node label on the 
motorway itself can be hundreds of meters away from where the motorway_link 
begins, leading to missing the entrance (when used as a visual map), or, if I 
am understanding the wiki, shouldn’t be tagged at all. 
- The road network is so complicated, the junction labels overalap the entire 
rendered motorway, which visually implies there is an exit in a direction with 
no exit. (as in my node’s case, causing this email).


- is highway=motorway_junction just for exits? it’s wiki page seems to 
imply/state it. Where is the corresponding motorway_entrance then when it is 
just an entrance? do we not need them?
- if the junction is only an entrance in one direction of travel, wouldn’t the 
highway=motorway_junction be more useful on the node where the link meets the 
normal road network (where the driver has to make a no-way-back decision), or 
is that not needed? 

A user in the discussion page also had a good point - the motorway_link (both 
exit and entrance) roads often have multiple connections, names, refs, exit_to, 
etc values, but the wiki page implies that getting this information onto the 
link way or node is not necessary for entrances. What is best? 
 the Gotemba exit ( 
Motorway_junction Ref=7) near Mt Fuji has “gate 1” and “gate 2” with their own 
entrance and exit links to handle traffic going in different tourist spots, and 
labeling them correctly would be nice, as it is weird. 

Re: [Tagging] Should greenhouse et al have building=yes? (was building=digester)

2016-05-22 Thread johnw

> On May 21, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Martin Simon  wrote:
> Some are tent-like, some have a rigid steel structure that supports itself.

This is an interesting question. In my area, there are thousands of 
greenhouses, or as they are called in Japanese “Vinyl Houses” (Vinyl meaning 
any thin Plastic).

They are tent-like and have a steel supporting structure that fits together 
like tent poles. hundreds of tent poles. They are basically giant umbrellas.

The greenhouses are built out of a rigid tubular frame - many of them out of 
~20mm tubing with some .1 or .2 plastic stretched over it, and some plastic 
strapping placed over it all to hold the plastic sheets onto the frame - 
similar to the straps found wrapped around heavy packages in a store.  

Some are taller because they use 6CM square metal poles on  buried precast 
concrete anchors to lift up the center section. 

This one (on the right) is next to my house. it collapsed 3 hours later under 
heavy snow. 

many are left in place for decades, but the plastic and poles are periodically 
changed as they are damaged by wind and snow and typhoons. 

farmers can set them up in a day and pull off the plastic for the winter. They 
never seem “permanent” like a house or even a shed. but they often get left in 
the same spot for a really really long time.

People put blue or black tarps over them instead of clear plastic. are they 
then garages? are those buildings?  (all 
destroyed by snow in 2014) 

if the plastic gets taken off in the winter, does it become a trellis? is that 
a building? 

if they are over a vinyard - is the vinyard in a “building”? They put the 
plastic over the frames in summer to keep the birds and rain off the grapes.  

These are in an orchard. They are growing shiitake mushrooms with black plastic 
draped over it. 

But this is in contrast to the few actual “greenhouses” - permanent buildings 
with walls and glass /thick plastic panes for windows. is that a glasshouse or 
a greenhouse?  here is a 
permanent greenhouse with permanent sides. this is a building. 

I would map permanent “glasshosues” as buildings, but these plastic umbrella 
tents over some strawberries or tomatoes or a tractor? Are they really 
Buildings?  I wish they got their own render with a different color than 
“building”, perhaps a much lighter shade. even a shed is more permanent.  

the issue I run into is that there are “well built” tent ones as well. 

All were destroyed in 2014 by 30CM of snow. 

Where to daw the line seems fuzzy - but if your main building material is the 
same plastic they make disposable umbrellas out of, it doesn’t feel like a 


Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Tagging "commons" style buildings at large dorms

2016-03-30 Thread johnw
My son moved from a very small dorm facility to a very large dormitory for 
Tokyo University, and of course I was trying to update the facility and ran 
into a couple questions on tagging. 

there are 7 buildings: 6 dorm buildings and the central office/hall

The dorm buildings (the housing part) is straightforward: 

but it offers no guidance on the “commons” building that is also present. It’s 
name, literally translates to “shared building"

The commons building, like most large dorms (i assume) has the management 
office, a large meeting room (in this case, a 150 person auditorium), vending 
machines, communal toiletss, and some kind of pre-pay ticket vending machines- 
for what, I don’t know. maybe the coin laundry machines. it is part office for 
the complex and part “community centre” for the dorm residents - but tagging it 
as either seems wrong. 

I left it as building yes (it is a rough outline, I will realign all the 
buildings later) 

any suggestions on tagging the different amenities as points, or is there some 
appropriate building tag I don’t know of? 

I have no idea on if or what to tag this building as, beyond building=yes

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

2016-03-21 Thread johnw

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just 
> look at the number of articles about each peak, and render them according to 
> that. More articles=rendered at lower zooms. Problem solved, and you don't 
> have to put vague tags in OSM. 

this might be a good solution for ordering the mountains at a national or 
international level. 

but It doesn’t work very well (probably at all) for provincial level, unless 
all mountains except for the ones on the wikidata get rendered in at Z15. 

This means we have to have all regionally important mountains in wikidata. 

On the lower end, we also need something for filtering out lumps - the little 
named hills or tiny sub-peaks.

Where I Lived in San Diego, the flat places all had names (mesas, bluffs, etc), 
and the large mountains all had names - but it was easy to deal with, as they 
were all rather large. 

Here in rural Japan, the mountains are a never-ending collection of steep, 
jagged, odd shaped hills and little tiny lumps rising from the long sloping 
sides of dead volcanos (they are the tops of buried mountains).  and every 
lump, every bump, and every collection of bumps has a name. I have seen the 
local hand drawn map for my area, and the the level of naming detail is a 
magnitude greater than what I saw in the US. 

it’s like what if every road lane had a name, and then the road had a different 
name. it is just so many names for such tiny things - but OSM only supported 
naming roads. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

2016-03-19 Thread johnw

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:
> prominence and topographic isolation,

Neither are good measures of mountains, besides for record holders. 

- There are bigger volcanoes than Mt Fuji  in Russia, just north of Japan, that 
no one knows the names of (internationally). They are equally isolated. 
Klyuchevskaya Sopka is over 4200m (fuji is 3776), and equally as isolated as Mt 
Fuji - and no one outside of that region knows it’s name. 

Who can name one of the other 12 peaks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in 
California that are over 14,000 feet tall, within 500 feet as tall as Mt 
Whitney (14,505)? I can name Mt Langley, but that is about it. 

- Mt fuji is climbed by 100X (?) more people during climbing season than 
Everest. So should Mt Everest be rendered later? What About Denali? Few people 
climb it. 

But these are all record holding - international, national, or regional 
mountains - this idea of mapping mountains via prominence or topography 
completely and utterly fails at a provincial level. 

Regionally and provincially important mountains are often more important than 
their taller neighbors due to their proximity to towns, or odd shapes - not any 
height or isolation. Their proximity to the towns ingrains them into the 
culture, through naming, religious significance, or tourism reasons.

Right next to Mt Fuji is a collapsed volcano and caldera called Mt Hakone  . it is 
very short now, and not nearly as prominent as nearby Mt Ashitaka or (of 
course) Mt Fuji. But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and 
prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many international 
tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous vents and enjoy the hot 
spring resorts inside the caldera. 

In my region, Mt Akagi is famous. 
 . WWII buffs may recognize the 
name, as the Carrier Akagi (lost at the battle of midway) is named after it. It 
is the namesake of hundreds, perhaps thousands of places and things (I drink 
"Mt. Akaki” Sake).  However, Mt Kessamaru is higher than Mt Akagi nearby. Most 
people don’t know of it, nor care. This mountain, and two other visible, but 
low mountains are called the “three mountains” of my provience - though they 
are surrounded by taller ones. And the little points around the caldera (some 
of which Google renders alongside Mt Akagi’s label) are only locally known, and 
shouldn’t be rendered except at high zoom. 

OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of things. 
Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling 
at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous. 

So we render them all equally - which is equally as ridiculous. 

So we will never have a better map / map data than the random GIS data that 
everyone already has and already uses to make inferior, confusing maps - which 
is what I’m trying to fix in OSM.  


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

2016-02-28 Thread johnw

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 9:24 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>  One would not go there because it's a cafe; any food or drink is offered 
> purely as a convenience. 


Also, In Rural Japan, an internet cafe is usually not for gaming, it is for 
people to be alone with the internet, in separate rooms, and advertised as 
having big comfortable chairs in somewhat private booths. I don’t think there 
is a lot of gaming going on in there. 

The “gaming” net cafe and the “cafe” net cafe exist in larger cities, of course 
- but there seems to be a couple different variants of “net cafes” - maybe we 
should have a subkey or something to further define the values, as net cafe can 
mean different things in different situations. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

2016-02-13 Thread johnw

> On Feb 13, 2016, at 5:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> in OSM, distribution warehouses are industrial 

What do they make there? Isn’t distribution “commerce”? 

A factory that manufactures IKEA furniture is industrial. 

Their Main distribution warehouse seems “commercial” 

Their shops are retail. 

Their big distribution buildings are zoned “industrial” though… I guess I’m 

What about delivery substations? these are medium-sized package sort facilities.

Kuroneko Yamato (with the black cat carrying a kitten) is Japan’s DHL or FedEx. 
They are everywhere. 
This is a hub warehouse, for distribution to my region.

Seino is a regional distribution company. This is a big hub for them. 

Then there are the local centers. 
here is my kuroneko center. It has a small office for you to pick up packages 
and a warehouse for the local (tiny) trucks.

The local centers do not seem industrial at all. Perhaps the big regional ones 

the area I live in is close to Tokyo, but “out in the rural area”  with cheap 
land near the expressway, so it is used heavily for distribution centers for 
shippers big and small. There are possibly hundreds of distribution warehouses 
just in my sleepy corner of Japan. I don’t want to tag them incorrectly. 

And Japan has a very large amount of local sort centers. There are 4 within 
about 7 KM of me just for Kuroneko, which is very different from UPS or FedEx 
in the US. And they don’t seem industrial at all. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "you pick" farms and related fruit stands

2016-02-13 Thread johnw

> On Feb 13, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> Maybe shop=pick_your_own added to the farm?
> [1] 
> )

I think in some instance it would work, but often times the shop=farm stand 
already exists and manages this service. 

So I’m thinking that this needs to be a subkey of shop=farm, like farm=* or 

The flowers, christmas trees and other “you Pick” (blueberry picking too?) come 
to mind. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

2016-02-12 Thread johnw
inline as well:

> On Feb 13, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>> So:
>> Builder supply : focus on materials/piping/whatever their specialty (Tile, 
>> rock, lumber), excluding the finished goods stores (appliance, etc) 
>> Hardware stores : focus on tools/consumables. 
>> DIY store: focus on both materials & tools (fixtures, appliances as well)
> Sounds good... I think the scale of the operation might/should come into it 
> somewhere. A simple hardware store may have one tin of each colour of paint, 
> but would offer to get you a larger quantity "in a couple of days". A 
> Builders merchant might have hundreds of tins in stock.

focus on “supplies” at a builder supply shop would imply such a stock. Hardware 
stores are often ordering the paint for you from a B2B vendor and drop-shipping 
it to you.

>> Drawing a couple lines in the sand like these should be pretty easy, 
>> especially if we remove large B2B only places from retail (because that is 
>> clearly not retail) and push them over into commercial. This would cover 
>> supply warehouses and other large scale commercial B2B vendors who do not 
>> operate retail/public locations. 
>> Thoughts? 
> I agree that "shop" implies retail, so b2b only is not a shop in that sense. 
> But if the clientele is the only difference, shouldn't we tag them the same 
> except for that factor (access=public/business or some such)?

to me, a commercial B2B distribution warehouse is commercial (landuse & 
buildings) - and the 3 mentioned above is retail and uses the shop=* tag. 


Today, I went to my local DIY store. I needed some stuff. 

As a guy who went to Home Depot a lot in the US - these “Japanese DIY stores” 
(they put DIY on the outside of the building) Usually have a lot more… “home 
goods” like you would find in department store. They have a pet center, a watch 
counter, pots and pans, bicycles, curtains and bedding. And 4 isles of screws 
and bolts, farming supplies, and a large amount of power tools. It’s like Home 
Depot and a Target had a kid - Joyful Honda even moreso. (None of them include 
clothing, though). 

The more I think about it, we probably need to approach this in two ways:

#1 ) as discussed, develop borad categories to classify stores (hardware/ 
builder supply / DIY) 

#2 ) come up with descriptions for sections (usually what the isles would be 
named) for more detailed mapping. I assume for home stores and DIY with might 
be 100 different categories. 

The advantage of #1 is people can easily map regional assumptions onto the 
stores, but they broadly match each other. (both are a little different). 

the advantage of #2 is people who care or the shop owners can easily add what 
they do and do not carry via shop:sells:dimentional_framing_lumber=yes or 
shop:sells:bathroom_fixtures=no, and regional search terms can be mapped via 
the shop:ja:sells:自転車=yes (bicycles) can be added if needed. This will allow 
for more fine grained searches (and addition of regional, undefined things, 
like a kimono shop). a search for bicycle shop would return stand-alone bicycle 
shops AND the home store where most people actually buy a bike. 

We will eventually have to make a list like this for most categories of things 
sold (all 3000 of them?), so setting up #1 and preparing for #2 is a good idea. 


Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Tagging "you pick" farms and related fruit stands

2016-02-12 Thread johnw
this weekend, I visited a “you pick” strawberry farm. As with apples and other 
fruits, Visiting a rural farm and paying a fee to pick your own fruits, nuts, 
and other stuff must be popular around the world. I have visited several Apple 
orchards in the US that do that. In this case, it was “all you can eat in 30 
minutes” - not really a take home service like with tangerines or Apples. 

Usually, the farm consists of the orchards, greenhouses, and other areas that 
are used a farmland year-round, A gift shop that usually is a a roadside stand 
or small shop (shop=farm) which is open when in-season, but the entire place is 
usually a singularly named thing. The area where I live is covered with 
strawberries, tangerines, and apples - and almost all of the rural farms jammed 
up in the mountains offer this “pick it yourself” service at the farm, usually 
operated from the gift shop.

How do I tag this kind of farm that is also a seasonal “you-pick” place? The 
small building that is a shop is easy, but trying to convey that there is a 
public “you-pick” while in season is very difficult, without making the whole 
farm seem like it is a shopping mall (landuse=retail seems really wrong). 

The place I have tried tagging (that I visited) is here: 

the name of the gift shop (or the whole farm?) is 近藤農園, and the name of the 
you-pick service (as I understand it) is いちご狩り情報, which I stuck on a farmland 
(for now). 

 (in Japanese)

here is another place I went picking for apples. They also sell apples to 
stores (like a traditional farm).  (Apple Park 

Roadside fruit stand with self-picking strawberries in another region  (中村いちご園 )

How would you tag such a service? shop=* seems wrong for the whole farm, but it 
might be new value of shop=*, like shop=customer_picks_farm, or something that 
is put onto the building, or  farm:customer_picks=yes for the shop=farm, as 
often times the roadside stand doubles as a fruit stand as well, but sometimes 
they have different names for the farm that packs the goods and sells it to 
shops, and another for the “you-pick” service.



Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-10 Thread johnw

> On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Warin <> wrote:
> To me an office building could be used for any administrative work.
> Government department sections here change locations - the education 
> department human resources can move to another location ... even swap with 
> another section.
> So the building and its land use remains the same. If the office key is used 
> then that can indicate the change.. except that office=government sub key 
> government is severely limited...

Warin, some examples to illustrate my issue. The first examples are tagging 
regular stuff: All of this is “how I understand it”-


Building A-13 at the riverside housing complex:

pin: not needed

Building: building=apartments ref=a-13 / name=a-13  

Landuse: Landuse=residential name=Riverside Apartments


Lawyer’s office in a large downtown “professional” complex, East building:

pin: Law Office (however that pin is tagged) 

Building: building=office ref=East / name=East

complex Landuse: Commercial name=Big Professional Complex


Shop in a shopping Mall, South Building:

Pin: [normal shop pin tagging]

Building: building=retail name=South

complex Landuse:  landuse=retail shop=mall name=Big Giant Mall


Big Car Parts Factory Building #4

Pin: not needed

Building: building=industrial ref=4 / name=4

complex landuse: landuse=industrial name=Big Car Plant


Okay. easy stuff, right?

Now, an Immigration office in a "central government" branch building run by the 
Department Of Justice in Japan:


pin: [no good approved tagging method] Name=Tokyo Immigration Center, Takasaki 
City branch Office (paraphrased the really long official names)

Building: Building=civic

Complex Landuse: [no good approved tagging method] Name= D.O.J. Takasaki Branch 

See the problem? trying to tag Governmental complexes is broken because the 
related function tagging and landuse tags were never finished. 

There is no decent Immigration office, as office=government is a garbage tag. 
This is a office for Visa approval and renewal for residents - not an 
immigration checkpoint on a road or train station. All basic government offices 
should be in some sort of top level tag, as it is not a commercial office. And 
a governmental immigration office is WAY more important than any office tag 
ever created.

Also, landuse=commercial is 100% wrong.  There is no commerce! this is 
Civic/governemnt/whatever, not retail nor commercial. This building includes a 
prisoner transfer station, as it is a DOJ building. So there is a prison/jail 
pin in there somewhere too. This is not an commercial office park. 

The other twist is that many buildings have dedicated functions - the DMV 
building, a Pension Building, a tax building, like a fire station or a police 

Whatever method we can use to create a pin to put on a building=civic, we can 
also apply to the whole building when the need arises. 

This means that when we have a mix (parliamentary buildings, a big office 
complex, and a police HQ **on one named landuse** it can be on a single, 
properly labeled landuse=civic that matches. This becomes doubly helpful when 
other stuff (community halls, etc) also sit on the same *named* landuse. 

I wish people would realize that leaving governmental stuff out in the cold to 
have pieces added to other tagging schemes bit by bit until it is acattered all 
over makes for a plainly inferior map, does not follow OSM practices with other 
complexes / types,  and creates mapper confusion and the creation of 
undocumented tags, especially in places with a lot of government offices and 
building complexes. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] landuse=farmland and highway=track

2016-01-10 Thread johnw

> On Jan 10, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Gerd Petermann  
> wrote:
> Whenever I am mapping landuse=farmland areas I wonder whether I should 
> 1) draw one rather large polygon stretching across all highway=track ways 
> and small buildings which are likely used by the farmer and waterway=ditch 
> ways or
> 2) draw small polygons so that none of these objects is "covered".

Well, depending on how much time you want to devote to it, you can go down this 
rabbit hole pretty deep. 

When I first started mapping - I was trying to map my residential area, which 
was mostly small contoured rice fields. I ended up drawing a field only where 
the field itself was, ignoring the dirt berm in the center, which shows the 
fields, and looks good when rendering. But takes forever and needs good imagery 
(which is why my tracings are crap). 

After I started armchair mapping other places (and visiting them to check to 
tougher spots), I still drew individual polygons for the fields when I could, 
with the dirt berms as borders, so they shared nodes. Fields not used for rice, 
I usually use shared nodes for the fields when I can. There are so many 
abandoned fields (now totally scrub, possibly filled with dead kei trucks) or 
other areas, like slopes and terrace walls that I try not to map over either. 

If that isn’t an option, then try to stay “inside” the farmer’s land. The 
tracks and other things around a field are probably part of the farmland, but 
the large drainage canals (with the mechanical water gates), almost any paved 
narrow public “kei truck service road”  that cuts through/around the farming 
areas by branching off the unclassified/residential roads leading to farming 
tracks, and any High Voltage towers are not part of the farm. 

Q: is Power Tower Landuse commercial or industrial? or is there some kind of 
power landuse? I seemed to have flip-flopped on that as I have been tagging.

Greenhouse has the landuse=greenhouse_horticulture, 

so if you have a plot of land dedicated to those plastic tube greenhouses (like 
many together, accessed with tracks), considering mapping all of it as that. 
There is also a building tag for greenhouse, as those plastic houses stay in 
the same spot for a decade(or 2 or 3), but mapping them is super tedious, and 
they render as buildings, not as some sort of half/shaded plastic thing, so the 
rendering on them isn’t so great. Maybe those are for the more permanent 
looking square ones made out of glass/thick plastic. 


I was cleaning up/aligning the area around Narita, and there is a ton of very 
very quickly drawn/imported 1km wide farm polygons that are garbage. even if 
you map just between the main roads only, each should be 20-100 different 
polygons - they cross trunk roads and other craziness. breaking them up is more 
work than the tracing I did for the expressway there. 
  here is a 
big one I have to split up into 50 or so fields, after I ran the tollway 

Anything you can do to keep the farm polygon out of the residential and above 
roads, which is what it sounds like you are doing, should be great. Any further 
detail is gravy. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

2015-12-28 Thread johnw

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Warin <> wrote:
> sports_centre=ball_sports

Perhaps there needs to be more detail on the field - a field type can tell you 
what can be done - we do that with “tennis courts” or “baseball diamond” - but 
for grass pitches and indoor wooden courts - it is almost all endless 
permutations of what could actually be done on them. 

Perhaps more detail on the court..  because having sport:1=foo sport:2=bar  or 
sport=foo;bar devolves into endless permutations - both in the data and 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

2015-12-21 Thread johnw

> On Dec 21, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Matthijs Melissen  
> wrote:
> For example a indoor swimming hall with slides and wave
> generators, heated to a subtropical temperature, 

for generic water parks (place for water “play” rather than water “exercise / 
sports”, usually dominated with water based attractions), water park is best. 
no one is showing up to do laps in a wave pool, nor are they suited to surfing 

for places where it gets cold in the winter and/or landlocked (like my current 
hometown), they have a water park I have never seen in San Diego (which never 
has snow and has lots of beaches)

an indoor “beach” - this is the opposite of “indoor ski park” in really hot 

they use waste heat from trash incinerators (so it is adjacent to the garbage 
center) and heat water and have an indoor “beach” for people to visit. 

I am fine tagging it as a water park , but maybe a water park that is 
completely enclosed, heated, and open year round should have it’s own tag or 
sub-tag as “indoor beach” , but I have done no research on this. But it is just 
a wave pool, slides, and lazy river indoors, so maybe this is too specific of a 

it is currently tagged a bit wrong (by me) 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

2015-12-19 Thread johnw

> On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:42 AM, ael  wrote:
> A water park is typically a natural area with lakes mainly for wildlife,
> although perhaps boating and maybe, just maybe but very rarely, swimming.
> But not a swimming pool (well, perhaps there are exceptions).

Google Searched “Aquatic Centre”:

The frist 10 pages (250 results?) were all places for swimming. no animals. 
Places were located all over the English speaking world. including descriptions 
of foreign places. I stopped looking. 

The place where the London Olympics swimming took place was the "400 million 
dollar 'Aquatic Centre'”

  (a search result)

Usually for a “mixed use” term, Google will put a variety of different results 
on the first page, but none were anything other than swimming pools for 

It seems to be a commonly used term for what we are looking for. 

maybe you thinking of the common term “aquatic Life” - a common term for things 
that live in water, but a place for aquatic life is commonly known as an 
“aquarium" or a "marine zoo/park" or a “sea world”. 

"Life Aquatic” is a wonderful Wes Anderson movie. But that Didn’t come up 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

2015-12-18 Thread johnw

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Steve Doerr  wrote:
> , I think these establishments did actually provide washing facilities for 
> those, especially the urban poor, who didn't have bath-tubs in the home, and 
> were provided as a public-health measure.

in rural areas, you often see people pull up in their farm truck. A lot of 
people go regularly to their local small tiny onsen regularly for bathing, 
though they could shower at home. 

Going to an onsen gets you “cleaner” than you can at home, unless you really 
spend some time preparing different baths to go with your shower. You always 
feel different when you finish at an onsen over a normal shower and a quick 20m 
tub soak. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

2015-12-17 Thread johnw

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 8:38 PM, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> Isn't the term public_bath somewhat outdated? 

Google search 温泉 in Japan温泉/@36.3099717,138.9777321,11z 

several thousand red dots will show up. 

an onsen is subkey value of public bath, documented on the wiki. 

some onsen are amenities in a hotel, spa, or mountain inn, but most are stand 
alone facilities. 

this is one of the most common and universal things for friends and family to 
do after an activity (shopping, vacation, hiking, etc) in Japan.

Go to a amusement park with the family? go to the onsen after. 

Going hiking in the monuntains? go to an onsen when done. 

Office lunch party? go wine tasting then go go to an onsen in the afternoon. 

Yes, this means bathing with classmates, coworkers, and family members (almost 
always gender separated) in a public place.

In the US, “public baths” and very rare, and I don’t think I have ever been to 

in Japan, they are part of every day culture.

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Wi-Fi or internet access at Stores

2015-12-14 Thread johnw

> On Dec 13, 2015, at 11:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>> Am 13.12.2015 um 12:22 schrieb moltonel > >:
>> Customer-only and non-gratis wifi are arguably not "public" but they are 
>> mapworthy. And the subtags to express these are internet_access:access and 
>> internet_access:fee (with the usual values of the access and fee tags).
> +1, it's still some kind of service IMHO mapworthy and particularly helpful 
> for tourists 


In Japan, there is very very little "free wifi" for customers or tourists, 
especially compared to the US. only a few chains, like Starbucks, offer 'free' 
wifi to any guest. Most places offer carrier based offload wifi (get the data 
off the cell networks) that are not user selectable or configurable (it is all 
done automatically by the phone, and is not for guests). Most rural hotels 
still don't have any wifi. This is changing, (probably more so in Tokyo) but in 
non-tokyo places, "where is 'open' wifi?" is a big deal for visitors. 

Mapping which train stations have "visitor" wifi (for foreign tourists only), 
or which have truly selectable access=customer wifi is really really useful - 
more useful than it would be in the US, where access=customer wifi is so 
prevalent that it is almost expected at any cafe or hotel. 

I haven't been following this thread (so I might be mentioning something 
already discussed), but I would like to mention that operator or brand or 
network is very important. Some are cell service specific (Only Softbank 
network customers [access=private]), some are open if you are a wifi partner 
member (Fon [access=customers / fee=yes]), and some are open with a free 
account (starbucks [access=customers / fee=no]),  so letting people know what 
network operates them (if applicable) is useful. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-12-01 Thread johnw

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 2015-12-01 9:02 GMT+01:00 John Willis >:
> So landuse=ornamental_flowers is the current value I will propose, as it has 
> no size connotations
> yes, it has no size connotations, but it is about "ornament"? Or am I 
> misreading this? 
> You keep speaking of "flower fields", so I think this is the tag to go.

well, ornamental flowers are flowers that are for display purposes. Flower 
fields sounds like it is just for flowers in a large field, rather than an area 
of flowers for all sizes. I liked the suggested value of ornamental_flowers.

Do you think there is a need for a landuse=flowerbed and landuse=flower_field? 
I thought landuse=ornamental flowers would cover both quite well. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing

2015-11-24 Thread johnw

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> yes, it would eventually create problems in case e.g. a bridge spirals around 
> itself (guess improbable case) similar to spiral stairs (maybe these wouldn't 
> be called bridges but ramps). It worked for all bridges I have mapped so far

I have been on all these bridges, and walked the walkways mentioned. 

- a “loop bridge” it goes around 720 degrees. (two full turns). it is not a 
ramp - it is a feature of the trunk road. 

The rainbow bridge in Tokyo. there is tollway traffic, roadway traffic, a tram, 
and two separate walking paths with viewpoints and elevators in the bridge 
itself (not the  approaches). it’s two layers, unless you count the 2 
additional layers for the walkways and elevators in the support towers to 
ground level below the road bed level(s). 

Speaking of layers & bridges..

-  Double decker motorway bridges crossing the Arakawa river in Tokyo  (where 6 
meets C2 downtown)

- Naruto Bridge 

I know some bridges have road traffic going in different directions on 
different levels, but it's considered the same bridge. 

This bridge has a full observation deck and view point under the roadway (only 
from the west shore to he western tower, not the full distance) for people to 
pay to walk out and see the Natural whirlpools that form from the inland sea 
tide rush over a submerged ridge (visible in the aerial imagery). 

it is the bridge - but there is a whole facility down there *in the bridge* 
below the main road bed for pedestrian use, connected to a building onshore 
that sells admission to the walkway. 

having the man_made=bridge share layers with the roads and sidewalks does work 
for all but a handful of bridges (I like that tag) - but assuming the bridge is 
a single layer really makes things difficult for large/iconic/odd bridges. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing

2015-11-24 Thread johnw

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> the road, they are quite capable of deciding which side to walk, where
> to cross and whether it is simply easier to walk on the road.

Although I care more about the rendering than the routing, the routing in this 
situation needs to be very explicit in places because sidewalks are crazy in 
some countries. Simple routing may work in most of the globe, but there are 
some cities/countries where pedestrian access conventions require very explicit 
mapping and routing. 


I can imagine that this is a non-issue in a lot of places, as I grew up where 
getting to the other side of the street was not such a big deal, nor was what 
side of the street you were on a big deal when looking for routing information. 

But there are plenty of places - or at least city centers -  where it is a big 

There are plenty of situations out here in small Japanese towns (let alone 
Tokyo) where which side of the street you are on is very important for routing, 
and it is impossible to change sides in a convenient/safe spot after a decision 
has been made. Some have dead-end sidewalks (that end in walls and a narrow 
shoulder)  that put you into extremely hazardous situations (being right next 
to traffic against a wall/guardrail - which they do all the time), or put you 
onto walkways onto bridges where you cannot take walkways that lead away from 
the opposite side, or there are access stairs to the pedestrian walkways that 
run under the bridge that only connect on one side of the bridge (leading to 
300 meters or more of walking around the longer route).  as most Japanese towns 
are in valleys or near water, there are tons of bridges everywhere - some with 
really weird pedestrian routing restrictions. 

given the absolute psychotic nature of Japanese sidewalks throughout the whole 
country, explicit sidewalk mapping is a very good thing. I was just in Tokyo 
this evening - and I used 6 different kinds of footpaths - two were sidewalks 
with severe access restrictions to keep people out of the street (large steel 
pipe fencing along the road to keep people from Jaywalking) except at 
crosswalks, down to one way alleys with the green paths.  choosing the correct 
side of the street makes a difference for certain ped access bridges to other 
buildings, to subway and train entrances (which by no means are accessible from 
the other side - steel pipe barrier and all), or lead to completely different 
layers and tunnels depending on your side of the road. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

2015-11-14 Thread johnw

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 7:46 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> Severe problem: Different names

I did a quick look around, and this signal-grid naming issue seems to be pretty 
big, but only in Hokkaido. I never noticed this, as I have not been to Hokkaido 
yet.  several cities up there (Sapporo, Chitose, Obihiro, etc). all have this 
issue: they use different names on each signal of the intersection signals to 
show what grid section you are entering, which means people going through the 
junction in different directions see different signal names.   There are 
probably several hundred signal sets in Hokkaido that are named in this manner 
(a ton of individual signals). 

Checking out cities on the Main Island Honshu, as well as Shikoku, Kyushu, and 
Okinawa all don’t seem to have this grid issue. I couldn’t find one outside 

I spent 20 seconds in each city, (And I have visited 17 of them)  looking over 
a high zoom level for these odd signal names, but I didn’t see any.  Maybe 
there is a few oddly named signals in the following cities, but it seems like 
they use a standard “one name, one set of signals” idea for the named signals 
in their downtown areas. 

 This list covers all of the larger cities in Japan, besides Sapporo. 

So I’m guessing this grid issue is related to Hokkaido’s long time territory 
(-do) status (though that is just a guess), and not really an issue in the rest 
of Japan.

But since there are several thousand individually named signals in hundreds of 
sets, then we need to:

- come up with a solution that can handle this issue (1 icon, 4 labels) 


 - follow the route of google/Zenrin/Mapion/Yahoo and make a single name with 
the different high/low grid values for the set (1 icon, 1 label). 


- Aomori
- Morioka
- Akita
- Sendai
- Ishinomaki
- Yamagata
- Fukushima
- Mito
- Nagano
- Matsumoto
- Toyama
- Maebashi / Takasaki
- Saitama
- Tokyo
- Chiba
- Hamamatsu
- Nagoya
- Osaka
- Kyoto
- Okayama
- Tokushima
- Kochi
- Hiroshima
- Kitakyushu
- Kumamoto
- Kagoshima
- Nagasaki
- Naha

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Friendliness with attacked mapped places in Paris

2015-11-14 Thread johnw

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Yes, a tragedy has happened, or more precisely a horrific crime; and
> yes, you and I and many others wish to extend our hearfelt condolences
> to the victims and their families. But OpenStreetMap is not the right
> medium to do that.

>> But let us hope that vandalism will not be added to terrorism.
> That's exactly what you are inviting here. You may have the best
> intentions but you're doing the wrong thing.


The stories coming out of Paris are heartbreaking. 

Seeing the french flag pop up on websites - it appeared on 
 almost as soon as I read of the attacks - gets one into 
the mood of “me too” for our own web sites, and OSM is no exception to this 

I ordered a French flag to fly on our School’s flagpole on Monday. at school 
from Amazon Japan. I feel that is a display that people can see and understand. 

But we must refrain from doing this via the OSM dataset.

Adding comments into the data that will invite further note tagging that is 
unrelated to the actual mapping data is not a good idea. 

Perhaps having a “Open Memory Map” or something to help document people’s 
experiences (good ) as related to specific geographic places would be a 
good idea, but that is not the goal of the OSM dataset (AFAIK). 

I assume in the coming months (or years) there will be plaques and monuments 
erected to the victims, both Big and small - a tiny brass plaque, a planted 
tree in a park, a memorial made to a specific person who died. While 
individually we can fly a flag or wear a pin, donate money or directly work to 
help victims where possible,

OSM’s job is to faithfully map and document those plaques, memorials, and 
related objects. 

On the one or five year anniversaries of the attacks, when the memorials are 
built and the speeches and political rhetoric has died down, we can make a 
special link on the OSM page that links to a collection of large public and 
small personal memorials that people click to see on OSM, and using the website 
& wikipedia tags - read about the memorials (as most people can’t visit France 
directly) or point people to read about an ordinary person that died, 
memorialized by a tiny overlooked plaque on a bench or tree in a normally 
unnoticed section of a park - possibly outside of France if they were from 
somewhere else.

Us announcing that we added a note is not going to get much worthwhile press, 
while everyone is still reading about the bloodshed and hearing the politicians 
speak.  It will invite further notes. And what we offer on the map is not very 
useful as a map. Everyone knows the locations - we don’t need to “me too” this. 
We should offer a “native” memorial in our data by mapping the memorials and 
linking to them on the anniversary via the OSM front page and shared via social 

That is how OSM can honor the victims of these attacks:  To help people not 
forget the victims. To help people find out about an ordinary person 
memorialized by a lonely plaque somewhere - keeping their memory alive - as 
after we pass away, we exist only in memory. Keeping their memory alive is a 
noble thing to do. 

I hope we don’t have to map many more memorials - in France or elsewhere.



Also, mappers in Paris, please know there are people around the world 
(literally) who would love to give you a big hug, and wishing for your safety 
and that you were not personally affected by these attacks. Please map the 
memorials as meticulously as you can when they are made. 

PS: would we have to link all the memorials to a specific event via a relation? 
I have no idea about that. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Level:ref=*

2015-11-14 Thread johnw

> On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:48 AM, Tobias Knerr <> wrote:
> On 14.11.2015 07:17, johnw wrote:
> Thanks for the proposal! One question though: What's the rationale for
> calling it level:ref, rather than level:name?

That is a good point. 

I thought that a majority of floors mapped will look like refs: B3, W7, etc. 

Ref is short for Reference, and my brain went “this is how the floor is 
referenced in the floor maps and brochures”,

But you are right - most of the examples are are names of the floors.  

is ref still viable?

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

2015-11-13 Thread johnw

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 7:46 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:

> However officially (legally) the name is "place" name. It causes some 
> problems.

I understood it to be the signals were named after the places - not the places 
themselves.And only *sometimes* named for places. 

Places are named with place=*, and it is well documented how to name any 
location in Japan, including the 小字 / 字 / 丁 / 丁目 places with 

These are signal names, and often they are named for buildings or other 
locations, not the actual place=neighbourhood places. 

A Signal in my city is named, translated, “ Above Kiryu Train Station” 桐生駅前,139.3328665,18.59z 

The coffee shop on the corner is  Miyamae-cho 2丁 8-5   =>   桐生駅前 is not part of 
it’s address - it is just the name of that signal. 

They are all just named traffic signals. 

The examples you give are reasons why they are signal names, and not junction 
or place names.

> Small problem: No junction
The signals are named for the building complex (just like lights are often 
named for train stations). 

The light is just for the crosswalk.  Naming the signal controlling the 
crosswalk should not be an issue. 

The crosswalk itself (road x crosswalk could be considered a junction too. 

> Severe problem: Different names

> I don't have any idea to map them correctly.

wow! that is interesting! I’ve never seen that before. 

it looks like they are signs for the block you are entering. so depending on 
your direction of travel, you see a different block name. 

<=== west6 ooo   west5  west5ooo   west 4 west4   ooo   
 west 3 ==>

but it overlaps in in both directions. all the lights in that area are that 

wow!  All of Sapporo is that way! 

Google does it with a single named signal with the lowest and highest values,141.3410069,17.55z 

N26 W6
N27 W5 

Yahoo Too

N26 W6 • N27 W5 

Mapion as well,141.35332833963417,15

N27 W5  • N26 W6

For people driving, each signal should have it’s own name - but it looks like 
the map companies have standardized on this layout for naming the set of 

This would be a big problem if we were naming junctions, but we are naming 
signals, so we can give each of the signals a name - 

but it is very difficult to get a single icon to render (one set of signals) 
but have all 4 names shown. I suppose this is why everyone chose the solution 
they did. 

Perhaps we can have the signal members in a group get their own name for 
routing purposes, but that might be overkill. We since this is such an odd 
thing, baybe we should follow the data conventions of the other maps and use 
named pairs for each signal name.

I will now go and look at some other large cities to see if they have this 
weird grid issue as well. I have never seen this before now. 


Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] RFC - Level:ref=*

2015-11-13 Thread johnw
I created an RFC page for level:ref=*

I look forward to your comments. here or on the discussion page. 

PS: I will create it’s cousins, addr:unit:ref later. having the 
directory/information map label value (#7 on the guide map) is very useful, 
especially if the actual addr:unit info is very different (unit E512). 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

2015-11-10 Thread johnw

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:14 PM, Andrew Errington  wrote:
> Surely this is a rendering problem?
> In other words, if there are many named traffic lights within a
> certain distance of each other then only one symbol/name/whatever
> should be rendered?  If the traffic lights are all tagged the same
> then it ought to be even easier.

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:28 PM, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:
> Frankly I don't find their road system to be that different to
> necessitate areal representation,

I have been showing easy sections. There are large parts of the road network 
where the maxwidth changes every 10-20 meters, so they use area based visual 
for the roads. 

The signals can be very close to one another becuase of complex and convoluted 
roads.  A rule that would work well in Tokyo, with it’s massive intersections, 
could easily group 2 unrelated lights together. 

The goal (if I understand it correctly, but I am not good at relations) of 
traffic Signals area was to leave nodes in their normal places on the roads, 
and connect them together with an area to say “this is a single light” via a 
relation, which better renderers can then render the light icon (and an 
attached name) as a single light. 

I’m not sure some fuzzy logic rule could group them together unless we just put 
all the nodes (and crosswalk crossings?) into a relation for a renderer to 
easily parse in some manner. 

Having a system that allowed multiple icons to be rendered for complicated 
junctions was, IMO, a mistake in the first place. a simple intersection between 
two ways, fine, but when we get into messy intersections, have 5-6 signal icons 
represented seems odd. Perhaps the data customers don’t mind - but the default 
rendered map is my priority. I care about fixing it for this regional issue, 
but I if this helps everyone, and we can find a way to make it not such a 
bother for mappers (making a relation, etc), then I am all for it - whatever 
does the job properly. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

2015-11-09 Thread johnw
> On Nov 8, 2015, at 7:17 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> As for me, signals rendering seems not to be a big problem

I was looking around at the other maps, and the one I really like the look of 
is Mapion.,140.5346977118126,15 

Mapion completely changes it’s rendering colors as you zoom in, and the signal 
icons are clear, but a bit later than I remember. 

Google Maps is actually two different sets of data: Google’s and a Japanese GIS 
company, Zenrin. They have basically surveyed all of Japan building by 
building, and everything is drawn area based (because the roads in Japan can be 
such weird shapes and always change width suddenly). 

Google uses their detailed base map for all higher zooms in Japan (in places 
with people actually living there).  This switch to Zenrin’s data happened 5-7 
years ago (I think) - Google Maps was always much better in Japan than the US 
because of this use of a third party data company with an insanely complete 
hand drawn map (the survey people walk neighborhoods once a year with a 
clipboard and draw changes). 

You can see the switch between the Google data and the Zenrin data between 
these two links.,140.5836863,16.93z 
 End of google 
data (z16),140.5838747,17.02z 
 Start of Zenrin 
street survey (z17) 

This level of detail is something google has been working to catch up with in 
the rest of their maps. But since Zenrin keeps improving the basemap and 
location database, it is still the best at high zoom. 

Signal icons are displayed in Google’s Z16 in Japan. 

Google has yet to display signals in San Diego.  (z 17),-117.1657039,17.01z 

Of the stop light infront of the Googleplex.,-122.0850782,17.86z 

This “necessity” to show signals is common among Japanese maps and properly 
localized maps. I want OSM to be just as good. 

Properly showing one icon per signal is my goal, and these other mapping 
software illustrate what I eventually expect to see (signal wise) in OSM. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

2015-11-08 Thread johnw

> On Nov 8, 2015, at 7:17 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> I'm a Japanese mapper, and I thank you for your work on Japan/Asia specific 
> problems.
> It's very tough to read and understand a long discussion in English, so maybe 
> I'm lack of full understanding on this issue.

Just trying to solve mapping issues where I am ^_^

> I'm sorry I couldn't grasp this problem at this time.
> *Signals rendering is dependent on zoom level? -> Rendering priority can be 
> increased

rendering priority for signals should be increased, at least to make the map 
better in Japan. This is the reason a traffic signal is an original emoji icon 
- for map display (AFAIK). 

> *Multiple signals are shown? ->

> (1)Tagging rule can be changed to map only one signal at the junction,

Cant do that. The need the signal to know when a car encounters a signal

> (2)Rendering rule can be changed not to show signals having same name

that is a possibility, but I think that would require a relation.

> If existing tags are not enough, we need a new tag, like traffic_signals_area

Which is why it was brought up. 

> As for me, signals rendering seems not to be a big problem. Amenities 
> rendering also depends on zoom level. Multiple icon is better than nothing.

If there is one set of signals, I would like one consistent icon. 

If you use a map for driving outside of Tokyo, counting lights is a big part of 
navigation - both how you tell people where to go. Business' billboards & signs 
show you   direction via light counting.  Without street names to reference in 
many places, it is the only reference point to have. 

and in OSM, zooming out a bit to see the route, the lights disappear. 

> I think I'm not understanding this problem because I can *estimate* how 
> Japanese roads are. And I don't drive, so I don't know what informaiton are 
> useful for drivers.

I have driven ~ 400,000 km in the US before moving, and about 100,000 KM in 
Japan since 2010. I have visited places all over Honshu, from Morioka to 
Hiroshima. my hobby is photography in the mountains (Gunma/Nagano/Gifu/Niigata 
Prefectures), so I spend a lot of time on the tollways driving, and going to 
places where I have not been before by car, and places that usually do not have 
train access. This means I get a lot of practice navigating Japan via car, and 
using guides brochures printed for tourists who drive to locations. 

> If you need some opinion from Japanese community, I can post these issue to 
> Japanese ML.

Thanks for the offer! I’m sure the mailing list will use that. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] RFC level:ref (was: Adding floor location information)

2015-11-07 Thread johnw
I created an RFC page for level:ref. 

I look forward to your comments. 

PS: I will create it’s cousins, addr:unit:ref later. having the 
directory/information map label value (#7 on the guide map) is very useful, 
especially if the actual addr:unit info is very different (unit E512). 


> On Oct 1, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> I was referring to housenumbers, but would extend it to PO  boxes as well.
> FWIW, I agree with your proposed tagging, in particular level:ref

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-11-06 Thread johnw
Thanks for this information - I live about 1 hour away from Oze but I have not 
visited it yet. And most of the fields in Oze are certainly wetlands of some 

I will eventually visit both of the places you mentioned, as everyone likes 
pictures of pretty flowers in the forest. 

Links in Japanese are always fine, as I can always learn something from a link. 


> On Nov 4, 2015, at 10:47 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> For Mizubasho, most famous field is Oze swamp(but sorry I have never been 
> there) due to a famous japanese fork song, you know.
> I remember natural Katakuri flower field at the top of Mt. Tsukuba. They say 
> there are 30 thousand Katakuri flowers in 20,000 m2 area 
> ( ), they are on the 
> forest floor as you said.
> Actually I don't know they are *natural*, but they say so.
> Maybe you can check a list of Natural monuments designated by Japanese 
> government.
>  (sorry it is written in Japanese)

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-11-06 Thread johnw

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> I think it's not that different to a cutline for instance, which is one of 
> the most used values in man_made

You are right, since it is a place where the land is cleared, a cutline is a 
clearing in the woods. Similar to clearcut too. but both of those are based 
removal of existing natural items - the absence of the original - not the 
growth/presence of new plants.

Many of the “growth of new plants” tags are inside Landuse (forest, meadow, 
farmland, orchard - which are all the more similar to a flowerbed) 

I was thinking natural=flowers because so many of the values are heavily 
altered/managed by man (rivers, streams, scrub, etc), but are still considered 

Perhaps landuse=flowerbed or landcover=flowers is the best solution. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-11-04 Thread johnw

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:52 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> to a flower field grown naturally (not planted by man). Is it appropriate?

AFAIK that a natural open area of grasses is natural=grassland. 
If it is a bit taller stuff, possibly natural=scrub ( like the 1m tall green 
plants growing along roads in Japan, for example. 

If it is a field of crops or stuff, like grasses or hay or something, it is a 

Do those flowers grow in such quantity to make a mappable *natural* field? of 
all that one kind of flowers?

the Mizubasho looks like it grows when cultivated in a swamp or something (per 
google image search).  

I have seen a few growing naturally on Mt Akagi (I think), in streams/places 
with water.  

Where are you trying to map them? I’d love to visit a place with big fields of 
them growing naturally!

most of the flowers shown here on this page ( I randomly found ) are in fields 
that seems to be very man-managed, or possibly fallow farm fields. 

But some of these would be the flower field tag we are discussing. 

some of the flowers growing naturally seem to be forest floor coverings.

I have no idea how to tag stuff on the forest or wood floor, which some of 
these natural groups seem to be. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-11-03 Thread johnw

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Gerd Petermann  
> wrote:
> I would use leisure=garden, but I assume I must be missing something as you 
> didn't pick this (obvious) tag. Can you explain why you don't want to 
> use/think abotu/like  this tag ?
> The wiki page [1] starts with "A garden is a distinguishable planned space, 
> usually outdoors, set aside for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of 
> plants and other forms of nature. " This seems like a good match to me.

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Warin <> wrote:

> I too would tag leisure=garden .. if you want you could add sub tags ... 
> garden=decorative_flowers? 

From reading the description - yes the whole thing is a “garden” - because it 
is cultivated and prepared for enjoyment. I’ll agree to that. maybe a 
garden=flower_field is a good subtag for the whole thing. 

But just as hedge, grass, or tree is part of a larger park or garden, so are 
these individual fields part of the larger spectacle (the hill set is a named 
thing in the park). There are several sections of fields I would like to tag 
individually and name the whole hill set a garden. Just having the garden tag 
gives no indication that it is a flower field spectacle.  a field I want to tag: 

A farm may have several fields of farmland that make up the whole farm, and 
here there are several fields that make up this big spectacle that can be 
called a garden. 

There are several other types of plant based tourist attractions that are 
man-made, but are a part of a larger thing. They are tourist attractions, some 
stand alone, like the flower fields in Carlsbad (planted for decoration, 
usually visible from the freeway meant to invoke holland), or rice art here in 
Asia, and some are smaller parts of larger facilities (these fields, or 
individual fields in a large flower field garden). 

Ikaho Iris Garden 

The facility 

The carlsbad flower fields, described as a garden: 

They sell flowers in their garden center, they have a parking lot and shop, a 
snack stand and walking paths & access roads. That entire thing is the “garden” 
- how do I tag the individual fields? 

here is a news story on the fields planted every year to make an image as a 
tourist attraction in Japan. This one is a permanent attraction (the art is 
there every year.【video】/
** Link includes this whitespace & slash ** 

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 2:23 PM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> Thailand has sunflower fields - actually a Japanese variety if I recall 
> correctly.

You reminded me that every September, my city has a horseback archery 
competition at a special spot near a park. The backdrop is fields of sunflowers 
they grow for people to take pictures in. They put a little raised platform up 
for viewing, and have a little festival for the flower viewing. In this case, 
it is not a farm field, but something greater. 

The fields themselves are a thing.  I want to tag that thing. it is not a crop. 
And then I want to tag many of them inside a larger thing called a park/garden. 

we have a method to tag trees or groups of trees in a park that are grown for 
artistic purposes (not food):

(winter sakura in Sakurayama Park) 

but not for non-tree non-hege “man-made” things AFAIK

The Hitachinaka park has other fields of 50,000 daffodils that bloom in the 
spring - I want to say “this area is the actual field that is full of flowers / 
decorative plants grown for artistic/asthetic purposes” that is inside a larger 

If I was tagging the large fields in a garden, it would end up with gardens 
nested inside gardens. These aren’t crop fields (well the rice is, but the art 
isn’t), and not hedges, nor orchards, so is there some kind of tag for a field 
that is man-made that is full of flowers as an artistic/natural spectacle? If 
not, I would like suggestions on what to create/tag it as such.  

Just having landcover=flowers might do the trick. it would work well to fill in 
all kinds of places where flowers are usually kept (like at the Rose park I 
stopped tagging after running into this issue last year) 

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

2015-11-03 Thread johnw

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Gerd Petermann  
> wrote:
> Maybe we should move this discussion to the "More human readable values for 
> traffic sings" thread?

I’m not sure - that thread seems to be really full ^_^

I think that, in general, there needs to be a way to deal with:

- advisory signs (ones without legal implications, such as the max__ ones)
- Static ones such as “danger: ” 
- dedicated variable ones such as traffic, travel time, & road status 
(temperture, etc).
- digital display signs that display an open ended amount of road 
pertinent information, 
This which seems to vary a lot by country , but always centered 
around driving conditions. 

-quantitative variable values in the legal signs (such as maxspeed). 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-11-03 Thread johnw

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> there's a difference: flowerbed is the place inside which the flowers are 
> put, tree is the plant itself 

I think you are thinking of a flower box.

googling flowerbed leads to a small area of ground where flowers are planted - 
a patch of ground, but not an object.

A flower box is usually small and (IMO) unmappable. they are usually either 
part of a building’s decoration (suspended on the building itself)  or small 
plastic/wood things that are placed on the ground and are very portable. 

Planter boxes are (semi) permanent and (IMO) are maapable, especially when used 
as bollards or barriers. they might have hedges or trees in them as well. 

I think these are a common sight in many countries (either portalble or built 
into the sidewalk/landscaping). 

we might want to make a barrier=* value for this, and can render the same as 

Natural=flowerbed seems to be a solution for this problem. I wonder how many 
places have such a large area for flowers… I guess most a much smaller and 
easily fit into natural=flowerbed. we can attach all the species= or whatever 
to it. 

The natural=flowerbed is a good distinction between decorative flowers and 
crop=flowers or whatever that is for commercial flower production. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

2015-11-02 Thread johnw

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>  "travel time to XY 20 minutes"

On Japan’s tollways, this is often done with a single-purpose sign with a 
variable number, and different color of the numbers to indicate delay time. 

As Japan’s tollway system is really built up, there are a lot of variable and 
and matrix signs that I have not really seen in the US, (and I have no idea 
about Europe), so here’s some examples of signs I see every time on the tollway 
- these are from a small section of tollway coming out of Tokyo. 

so if we are going to have “variable” be a value, these are the kinds of signs 
that I would expect to find (and have =variable if quantitative data). 

 - static motorway signs displaying variable information

Upcoming traffic jams (between exit 4 and 1).,139.380073,3a,19y,181.36h,94.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-lAuTWLqqcp3icYdDNdWkQ!2e0

traffic on the Tokyo downtown expressways,139.53568,3a,55.7y,128.85h,99.19t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjCYjDLHWm2WjvgAtmY-qeQ!2e0


Upcoming service area & parking areas status ( empty / busy / full ),139.382156,3a,23.7y,327.77h,100.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sm6vOYbSACGMdcat0meaqQw!2e0

Travel time to the next exits:,139.383457,3a,55.4y,318.43h,104.41t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sImGDgsiePLYiDKhw0nlwiA!2e0

#11 Maebashi:  40 minutes - green - so no delay.

Speed limit sign,139.44802,3a,37y,307.75h,92.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9-I1yl--QbxjMsYgbYzrNA!2e0

- Matrix / digital display signs. 

Digital display sign (with yellow and red flashing lights),139.393634,3a,67.2y,125.52h,87.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSQkcM7iVZoz8xDu6dFZksw!2e0

2 in a set, one for each direction of upcoming junction,139.412672,3a,67.2y,339.09h,92.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxHnCHMPFZTqfOfvJn04-ag!2e0


- other electronic signs in places around east Japan: 

“left tunnel” and “right tunnel” status,139.160737,3a,67.2y,312.15h,81.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seTaA7hC3o6TzDeTMpl6GZA!2e0

(tunnel status signs are a big thing here, almost every tunnel over a 1KM has 
one, and thats a ton of tunnels... 

Also - traffic signals on a motorway (usually green or off) for tunnel access 
control - they can stop traffic if there is an earthquake / severe accident / 
tunnel fire.,138.197014,3a,23.7y,289.94h,92.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seJ-2pfwU2WN0q6snyDf0uw!2e0

Stand-alone Temperature on mountain trunk roads,138.589968,3a,23.7y,190.21h,95.3t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sqXlkT8epGouYgCGG72cd5A!2e0

being replaced by matrix signs on the same trunk road,138.612004,3a,79.3y,295.48h,86.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdW18Ryk5k4D7E8jO_vqi5g!2e0


And a radiation measurement sign (from Fukushima disaster) on the Joban 

And for fun, a (static) monkey warning sign,138.735866,3a,29.6y,270.73h,93.81t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfvQZvOYh2QgqSllBRICrkQ!2e0


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag traffic islands ?

2015-11-02 Thread johnw

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> a sign that let's you pass the red light if you turn right and there are no 
> pedestrians (and not crossing traffic).

In America, turning right on a red signal is usually allowed (unless you spot a 
rare “no turn on red sign”), and in California there is very little pedestrian 
traffic, so people turning right do rolling stops into most intersections 
hoping it is clear so they can make the turn without stopping at all - just 
like they do at all stop signs. 

In Japan, there is no moving on red signals ever, as the narrow roads and huge 
numbers of people walking and biking (the wrong way in the road) make it super 

As a California driver, waiting infuriated me at first, but once you feel the 
pressure of having to “move” (for the other people trying to also turn right) 
lifted off of you, it is quite relaxing - red is stop, and there is nothing I 
can do about it, so take a sip of water and relax. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag traffic islands ?

2015-11-02 Thread johnw

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>  I was living in Boston at the time and can attest to the fact that there 
> were only a very few places where you could go right on red.

From what I have heard of boston, the narrow streets with limited visibility 
seem very similar to Japan. 

Many intersections have limit lines well back from the intersection to allow 
trucks to turn. going past the limit line means possibly getting clipped from a 
turning delivery van. You cant even advance up to take a peek without risking 
an accident.,139.328735,3a,105.3y,228.67h,47.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-vjoThqF9l4mT0xb87OmmQ!2e0,139.312132,3a,66.8y,137.87h,85.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSO2LvIsMkq3igdHivlQVCg!2e0

Tagging mailing list

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

2015-11-02 Thread johnw

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Joan  wrote:
> The tag has already been used a few times (there was four tags in different 
> places of the world) see it here 
> , 
> Its counterpart, the water_utility has 35 ocurrences in the map 
> 2015-10-24 0:22 GMT+02:00 Joan >:
> This is a proposal for tagging power utility offices, 

I wanted a landuse=civic (or similar) to go with building=civic - and have a 
civic=* subkey to define all the various governmental and civic offices. 
(townhalls, community centeres, tax offices, water district offices, etc. 

I would like to actually have something more umbrellaish than doing these one 
office at a time and coming up and doing voting for each one. we need each one, 
so lets make a subkey and define them all. the different utilitiy offices 
(which are usually state run, or state sanctioned monopolies for basic 
services) can easily be added.

Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-11-02 Thread johnw
I assume there are many around the world, But I am trying to tag a group of 
flower fields that are used year round to create a decoration by growing vast 
fields of a single type of flower.  They are not harvested or sold, they are 
there merely for the visitors of a very large 3sq KM mixed-use park to see 
large fields of pretty flowers growing over a small set of hills near the 

it is bigger than it looks int he picturees. This isn’t farmland, nor is it a 
(normal) garden or a grazing meadow. is there some tag or sub-tag for 
decorative flower fields?

The blue flowers in the google street view above will be removed and other 
flowers planted to grow for the next season. 

The hill looked like this last week. 
, with cosmos too 

is there some gardenish tag for these fields?

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Often seen tagging problems regarding junctions

2015-11-01 Thread johnw
>> This makes it (relatively) easy to draw a Zebra crossing, correctly 
>> orientated along the way.
> I use the combination of highway =crossing and crossing=uncontrolled for 
> zebra crossings that are not controlled by traffic lights. On a node on the 
> road-highway way.

I have been using the Pedestrian crosswalk preset in iD (highway=footway 
footway=crossing crossing=zebra) on a way representing the crosswalk. it shares 
node(s) with the road(s) it is crossing, so I assume that a crossing on the 
node itself is not necessary - right? 

Part of my cleanup of Tokyo Dome City, so please correct me if I’m doing it 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

2015-11-01 Thread johnw

> I think the first group is not a traffic_sign=*, it is information=*

Considering the sign is purely for motorist, not tourists, I think it is still 
very much a traffic sign. But traffic_sign has no framework for non-law signs. 

no one is going to go find this sign to check something - it is only relevant 
information for passing motorists. 

A rest stop with a map of the area and tourist pamphlets is most certainly 

There are all kinds of non-speed road condition traffic signs - slippery when 
wet, beware falling rock, warning animal crossing (deer boar, monkey, and 
Tanuki in Japan), and other static traffic signs we would see on a motorway, 
but I don’t think anyone would put them in information=*  - these matrix signs 
are the same thing, but updated to show current conditions. They are still very 
much traffic signs. 

Perhaps traffic_sign:advisory=* needs to be made.  
Those signs I mentioned are not in the wiki, nor are the common temperature 
signs found on roadways in the mountains (which seem to be very different from 
the information=* ones. 
these matrix displays can go in there too. 

Traffic_sign:advisory=digital_signboard (no acronyms). 

Something like that.

and the rest of the advisory signs can have a home too, for the micromappers. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

2015-10-31 Thread johnw

> On Nov 1, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Gerd Petermann  
> wrote:
> traffic_sign=changing 
> or 
> traffic_sign=variable 

The matrix displays and variable signs are very different. 

Most speed limit signs in Japan are “variable” - they are small numeric screens 
that usually vary between 50 and 100 based on weather. Int his case, the number 
is variable. 

a matrix sign can become entirely different signs. They are also a  source for 
alerts and current info no matter the topic - whereas a variable sign for the 
speed limit is pretty limited to displaying a number value, or a traffic map 
sign limited to just displaying red where traffic is - they can not warn of 
closed lanes, high winds, snow, landslides, car fires, earthquake closures, and 
other things that can popup on the signs besides traffic info. 

The matrix signs are truly separate from a variable value sign - but I’m not 
sure of the proper tag for them. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

2015-10-31 Thread johnw

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Gerd Petermann  
> wrote:
> rather rare objects.

These signs are very very common in Japan. they are usually on the tollway for 
every 10 minutes of driving.  They're constantly updated with either accident, 
weather, or road conditions. 

This one is currently warning of traffic ahead.  

Here is a picture we can use for the wiki (if you want). I’ll upload it to the 
wiki if it is desired.
This is a common warning sign in front of many longer tunnels, and is changed 
to show tunnel specific or very local weather conditions, in this case, snow 
(ユキ yuki ). 

double tunnel view, similar sign - though not as clear 

There are other “static” signs that display variable information, though it is 
not a matrix sign. This is one built to show traffic backups on the very narrow 
and crowded downtown network in Tokyo.  


There are also several of the older matrix signs in San Diego showing Amber 
Alert information, road delays, and other text (they are black & white, not 
like the 3 color ones in Japan). 

So for a person who drives a lot, these signs are not rare, but fairly common 
to see every day. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag traffic islands ?

2015-10-31 Thread johnw

> On Nov 1, 2015, at 3:05 AM, Gerd Petermann  
> wrote:
> It seems that many mappers associate words like "island" or "traffic island"
> with an area on a road that is enclosed by a white line and
> maybe hatched lines ("schraffiert”) 
  a couple types of 
Islands here. 

anything raised where a normal car is blocked is an island there are islands 
with just raised kerbs, some with hedges, and some with fences. along the top. 

> I only consider an island if it elevated and tag it as traffic_calming=island.
> If it's painted on, I do not map it as traffic_calming=island. In fact, I 
> personally do not map it at all. 

+1  traffic calming is usually a physical object to force an action you can not 
“ignore” an island in a standard car. Paint is usually for safety separation, 
lane alignment, or a buffer for the real island in front. But you can drive 
over it (and many people do). 

> Not so often: "keep clear”

I have seen the “keep Clear” areas in many places.,139.090018,48m/data=!3m1!1e 

 here is one with white stripes in front of a large fire department building. 
note, this is in the lanes of travel, not at an intersection.,139.3155541,48m/data=!3m1!1e3 

at an intersection, a red box is used. Cars are not allowed to block the 
intersection (next to the level crossing).
 both of these are related to the “keep clear” idea. this is very common to see 
at easily blocked intersections. 

> Can you give an example of this? "Keep clear" for me has no relation to 
> "traffic island" 
> when use the crossing=island tag.
> This seems to me very obvious: if the pdeestrian crossing, eg. a zebra 
> crossing is "protected" by one two traffic islands. Example with two islands: 

in the first OSM link, There is a large island with a ped crosswalk through the 
end of it. on the right. this seems very common for large roads with islands. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert

2015-10-25 Thread johnw

> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Ineiev  wrote:
>> In my eyes it is the same case as with a
>> railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node).
>> Did I miss something?
> In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level.


the rail and road share an intersection. it is a level crossing. The whole 
point of a level crossing is to say “Hey!” the road and train meet here! that’s 
why they share the node. 

a train in a tunnel doesn’t - so it doesn’t share a node with the road(s) 
above. There is no notice to a driver of subway lines, storm drains, water 
pipes, etc in the road as you drive - why is the culvert a node property of the 

Water and a road sharing the same node on the same level is called a ford. 

A culvert is a type of tunnel.  Zoom in and make a tiny going across the road 
and tag it as a culvert. 

In general, Tunnels are a property of ways, not nodes. 

Occasionally it is not completely sealed (there is a grate, or just rail ties 
and track), but it none the less has no bearing on the traffic on the track, 
road, or path above it - so it does not share a node with the road/track above 
- just as power lines crossing above do not either. 

It is not a stream that you have to get your car through. 

it is a small tunnel under the road. 

So tag it as a way. tunnels on nodes - especially on shared nodes with roads 
that are not in tunnels seems really really bad. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

2015-10-21 Thread johnw

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> I would not define an heliport as a subclass of an airport, but rather as a 
> subtype of an aerodrome. 

Didn’t we just vote on and approve a tag defining an heliport as a seperate tag?

perhaps I am confused. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

2015-10-16 Thread johnw

> On Oct 16, 2015, at 5:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> And btw., you have not yet answered the question regarding the Neuschwanstein 
> case. I could name a similar example (besides the other Ludwig II castles in 
> Bavaria), much smaller, here: 
> Or also this one, residence of the emperor of Germany (prussian enclave), but 
> not actually a defensive structure (but "fake defensive"): 
> Do you agree these are castles? This is the wiki list about castles: 

Yes, those are castles. I think i would use one on the wiki page as “here is a 
castle”, as they look like what an american imagines a castle to be. 

The current values proposed under castle_type seem to cover them and probably 
most of the structures non-europeans think of as “castles" - and a lot of 
buildings I would call palaces or estates or something. When I see a manor 
home, I certainly don’t think "castle". The White House is a palace under these 
tags (i think), and I have never thought as the white house as a castle. This 
is definitely a regional/cultural semantics difference in “castle”. 

To me, as a layperson, “castle” seems to stereotypically much more narrowly 

But I am not an expert on castles nor those homes, nor do I intend to be - so 
if that’s the case, and how people interested in castles want to tag it, then 
go ahead.  Hearst Castle could be considered a manor. 

I am just wondering if we should have a “modern/reproduction/styled” value for 
the inevitable situation when someone tags a replica or a much more more modern 
“styled” structure as a castle - or if we just put on the wiki what those 
things should be tagged as.

and also - how do we handle the grounds? is there landuse=castle?

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

2015-10-16 Thread johnw

> On Oct 17, 2015, at 3:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <> 
> wrote:
>> Am 16.10.2015 um 14:18 schrieb johnw < <>>:
>> and also - how do we handle the grounds? is there landuse=castle?
> the historic=castle tag will go on the whole site, the individual buildings 
> get their own building tags

Assuming then that the area that the castle **and the outer walls** occupies is 

then is there some kind of building=* to cover the castle itself - especially 
in a multi-building setup where there are smaller secondary buildings, so 
tagging the actual castle would be nice. Having it be one of those “higher 
priority” buildings in OSM renderings would be nice too. 

If the buildings and the walls are separate, then we need a way to tag both 
then. We really need a barrier=castle_wall or man_made=castle_wall - as “city 
wall” is a barrier that used to surround a whole town,
so I think there is a need for barrier=castle_wall or something. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How one may tag object as castle?

2015-10-13 Thread johnw

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 6:57 AM, Warin <> wrote:
> Past practice might be to tag the outer wall as a barrier if one exists. And 
> then tag the building as a building.
> And that might be the 'best' solution - no separate tag for 'castle'.
> This can lead to tagging the outer wall with disused, raised etc while the 
> inner building may still be in use.

if we are going to separate the castle building (the keep/major buildings) from 
the wall - wouldn’t we want to use landuse=castle to define the entire grounds? 
It certainly all “belongs” to the castle. 

The Japanese castles do have defensive walls / moats - but most are gone. Many 
of the smaller castles I have seen her do not have such a separation between 
the wall and the building - the building sits on top of the “wall”.  So we 
might need to use landuse to define the castle perimeter.  And defining that 
perimeter can be really difficult where modern structures or roads have 
intruded on old castle grounds  Matsumoto 
castle - a very small castle in Rural Japan. 

the castle building itself is really easy. The additional defensive walls? 
Okay. The Moat? Okay too.  What about the gates into the area? the newer 
buildings built on the castle grounds? the ruins of the old manor house on the 
northwest side?  The grounds now are mostly a park, with a museum - but it is 
all on grounds clearly belonging to “the castle”.  Himeji 
castle - a really big castle. Surrounded by inner, secondary, and outer walls 
and a moat, with courtyards and a defensive ground inside the outer wall.

The "castle grounds" entrance is the moat bridge, while the “castle” entrance 
is at the inner wall, gaining access to the courtyard between the major 

Castle grounds and the castle building might be very differently sized. 
defining the wall and castle building separately may not accurately show the 
size of the "castle". 

We might want to have a barrier=castle_wall or a subkey of wall for that. maybe 
even a relation of larger castles (if I understand what a relation is). 

Tags suggested / questioned:

relation for castle (roles: keep, castle, building, inner wall, secondary wall, 
outer wall, moat, courtyard, grounds, etc). 

“Himeji Castle” starts at the moat/outer wall - and everything inside the wall 
“belongs” to the castle, though it is not a castle structure itself, similar to 
a university or a school with multiple buildings and facilities beyond the 
actual classroom buildings. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

2015-10-08 Thread johnw

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:54 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>> > printing - copyshop?
>> if they don't offer "copying"? Copyshop would seem wrong in these cases.
> There is a clear difference in a shop that provides copiers
> and maybe some laser printers, compared to the trade that
> does offset printing and large-scale digital printing, cutting
> and book-binding.

A printing shop would make large format poster prints, or other large scale 
“promotional” materials - usually more professional or B2B purposes than a 
copyshop. When you get brochures professionally printed on a press and 
perforated and trimmed - it is usually in a warehouse with a 1M wide guillotine 
trimmer - but you walk in with a CD and get your 20 boxes brochures printed.

It also might cover art reproduction printing shops. My friend runs a business 
that only prints large format paper and canvas prints for artists to sell. It 
is totally not a copy shop. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

2015-10-08 Thread johnw

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Warin <> wrote:
> Some 'shops' also do repair, servicing of the things they sell. Bicycles has 
> already been equipped with tags for that,
> and I'd think the sub tags should allow for it too...
> For example
> sells:hobby:train=yes
> or even
> sells:hobby:train:hornby=yes .. where the make is known.
> then
> services:hobby:train=yes
> repairs:hobby:train=yes


> On Oct 8, 2015, at 6:51 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> In an ideal world, tagging should also be based on what it IS (which is 
> objective), not what it is CALLED (which is locale/culture dependent). In the 
> case of shops, that would mean enumerating the sorts of products/services on 
> sale, so shop=hat is better than shop=haberdasher.

The generic type is absolutely necessary, because the there is a lot implied in 
a name and category - and people expect them to be presented and shown in 
generic categories.  (DIY, Hobby, clothing, etc). 

but they also expect if you search “model trains” they don't give you a pin for 
a scrapbooking craft store that has 4 model car kits on a back shelf. 

The only reasonable answer (I have seen) is to have the shop=type and 
type=subtype + type:detail:object=yes model to to let people add the major 
focus and outliers *=no) and use the service and repair tag the same way. 

People don’t need to try to map what every chain store sells, because people 
usually are familiar with what is in a chain (or could be added with a 
automated edit to all of the chain locations) - but the small regional and “mom 
& pop” stores definitely could use this level of detail - and would drastically 
help with searches (if they are doing keyword searches).  even separating dry 
cleaning and coin laundry is a hassle in both Google maps and Apple maps in 
(rural) Japan - I have submitted 10 different map repair requests just to get 
laundromats to show up correctly when I search for one in my town - which means 
their categories are crap and need to be properly segmented (and the rules 

This generics also lets regional variations work in-  generic:[lang]=detail → 

hobby=plastic model 

I talked to my ham radio friend tonight, and the shop he visits deals only with 
licensed hobbyist radios and their accessories / supplies / antennas (HAM, 
microwave, and similar) - so having a shop=electronics + 
electronics=radiotronics (what was that special word?)  and then put whenever 
you think belongs in the sells, services, etc. 

This seems like a no-brainer: but a pretty big skeleton of types and subtypes 
has to be made up or everything will a giant pile of dictionary vomit.

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] new access value

2015-10-06 Thread johnw

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> Maybe *=visitors?
> or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded)
> or *=contact (puzzling?)
> or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?)
> or *=contact_with_abutters (same)
> or *=in_touch... ?

Guests sounds way too much like customers. Customers of hotels are referred to 
as guests. 

Contact (to me) sounds confusing compared to contact=* key

I would use something a little odd sounding like transitors or something, 
though that sounds like homeless people or electronics.

visitors is also really close to guests and customers, so I wouldn’t use it 


Locals! people who live there. delivery people and visitors certainly are not 
locals, so.. 

what word implies locals + delivery + customers? But not people just um.. 
wandering about?

I can’t think of one. I don't’ think there is one. 

Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a 
destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park and 
wander off. 

=Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it 
doesn’t matter the purpose - as long as their destination is one of the 
residences. Which excludes sightseers and shortcut-takers. 

There’s no way to find a word that means all those different groups, for so 
many different purposes - so define it by their action - “Destination” . 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] intermittent vs seasonal

2015-10-03 Thread johnw

> On Oct 3, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> Where wiki recommends converting all waterway=wadi to waterway=river or
> stream with intermittent=yes?
> On 
>  there is
> "For intermittent waterways use waterway=river/waterway=stream +
> intermittent=yes. For valleys natural=valley"

It is not a valley. it’s the flat sandy are inside the valley. and it usually 
extends out from a valley into a plain.  and the wash is singularly named, 
inside the gorge or out on the plain.

A wash/wadi is a named feature in OSM for a reason. Because it isn’t a river, 
nor is used/treated like one is - mainly because they occur in a very different 
kind of climate. They are (informally?) called “washes” in the US. They are 
basically flood control channels for the desert, and only receive water in 
flash flood conditions, like avalanches. Most of the ones I know have roads up 
them. Not along them. Not across them. In them. And you can go out driving on 
them year round - except for the 1-2 days a year (usually for 6-12 hours) 
randomly when they would have water from rain in the mountains that created the 
desert. This varies with the El-nino- La nina cycle in California, but 
basically the wash is open and dry ~ 360 days a year. 

 The wash is the overflow channel/cover for the tiny tiny creek (usually 
underground) that suddenly receives a massive torrent of dangerous flash flood 
water from the mountains, which disappears in the course course of a single 
day, usually only a very few times a year. Only once in my life, thanks to a 
massive El Nino storm set lasting a month, have I seen water in a wash longer 
than a day.

They are called washes and not streams nor rivers for a reason - because their 
dominant state and useful state is dry and flat sand.

Please see this as a example of a wash. This is the biggest wash I know of - 
Carrizo Wash. I learned to drive in this area when I was 12.  This is what 
people do in washes. 

Carrizo Creek is is in the gorge. It is an intermittent stream (not seasonal). 
The gorge holds the wash. The wash is over the creek.  **The wash is the sandy 
area, 10-400m wide**  at the bottom. The gorge disappears, leaving the wash by 
itself.  Here is the wash where it leaves the mountains and heads to the open 
desert. the “valley” walls are 2m high for this 400m wide wash after it leaves 
the mountains here. Imagine 2m of water flowing through it for 6 hours. Then 

The wash, with the intermittent creek hidden in the sand below, heads to a sink 
in the middle of the desert - the Salton Sea. 

Please note the tire tracks. This is because it is the only practical place to 
drive in the desert (the rest is craggy and rocky). 

Why don’t we call all canals rivers? drains?rivers too? There’s no room for 
wadi/wash in the tagging scheme? 

The people who live with washes and wadis call them washes and wadis and 
representing them in OSM as a river is ignoring regional conventions and trying 
to shoehorn temperate ideas into desert tagging. And rendering them like a 
river makes a crappier map. 

Like tagging a motorway as a river. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] intermittent vs seasonal

2015-10-02 Thread johnw

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Warin <> wrote:
> suggests replacement of 
> waterway=wadi and waterway=drystream
> with 
> waterway=river or stream 
This is idiotic. 

I’m going to start tagging Interstate 5 in San Diego as an intermittent river 
that just happens to be a motorway 99.95 percent of it’s life. I have 
hydroplaned down it for a good mile or so, so I’m going to say that is good 
enough to constitute an intermittent river. 

A wash/wadi is a feature created /changed by water but used and navigated as a 
dry feature. it very very rarely has water.

I’m guessing the people who are interested in tagging “drystreams” (the fisrt 
time I have heard that), are not really familiar with what a wadi or a wash is, 
nor have spent time in them during their dominant dry state (nor seen them 
catastrophically flood). 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

2015-09-30 Thread johnw

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 4:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> if the postal address is different to the actual address (e.g. post goes to a 
> reception which is in another building and does the internal distribution) 
> I'd still tag the actual address where a feature is located 

if you are referring to a PO box vs actual routing, yea, best to put the 
physical address. 

I was trying to say that a perfectly routable “address" may not lead you to the 
exact location inside (maybe just the front door), nor the proper entrance for 
the location you are trying to reach (it might be addressed to a side road but 
the main entrance is the “back” door on a larger street), or an easement from a 
different street than the address street. The suite number or level may lead 
you to the building, but not the right part (node placement helps solve this)  
Very large and complicated places - and ambiguous places (like in Japan which 
are labeled by lot, not building), or the building is huge and very difficult 
(like a giant mall or station), the address may not be human navigable (the 
“suite number” may only be used by the shipping receivables, not by customers), 
so you may to have more information to get there than it’s official address and 
pin location (level=* or odd level:ref=*). 

this is the map of Tokyo Skytree. The actual buildings at the bottom - the 
aquarium and mall, loading platforms, etc use floors  as we know them, and are 
labeled “1F, 2F, etc. - but the observation decks are “floor 340” - which is 
referencing not the “floor” number, but the height in meters above ground level 
that floor is. (hence the next floor up is “floor 345” - and then 445 and 450. 
These are not levels, but level:ref=Floor 350 (it is a name not a value).

name:en=Sky Restaurant 634
Addr:full=Tokyo-to Sumida-ku Oshiage 1-1-2
ref:place=Tokyo Skytree
level:ref=Floor 345

The mall below it is a nightmare. Whoever laid it out is a jerk - there are 
refs on the tourist map duplicated all over the place. and location and name 
refs mean nothing. 

For example, if you want to visit Starbucks there, the shop name is  is “ 
Starbucks Tokyo Skytree Solamachi East 6 floor”, and the official address is 
just “Tokyo skytree town” 

 the name of this building split into 3 pieces surrounding the Skytree. It’s 
location on the tourist map is  East yard 6th floor, ref# 11. This ref is 
totally not the actual unit number, as the refs are duplicated all over the 
place. Maybe unit is E611. But tourists don’t care, becuae all they have is the 
(really shitty) guide map. But we can add some of the tourist facing 
information using existing tags and a couple *:ref=x  tags to get  better idea 
of where it is.

name:en=Starbucks Tokyo Skytree Solamachi East 6F
addr:full=Tokyo-to Sumida-ku Oshiage 1-1-2 Skytree Town
addr:place:ref=East Yard

This is my thinking of how to reconcile tourist information maps with popular 
places without the data polluting the addr field. The addr:full is the 
“official” address of that Starbucks. no mention is made of the floor or suite 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

2015-09-28 Thread johnw

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Warin <> wrote:
> And the tags need to be able to use the local name directly - making the 
> mappers and checkers job easy - as the floor you are on is called the local 
> name ..not some OSM name that has to be looked up each time.

perhaps the addr:floor is good, as that will conform to it’s referred to 
location The mail delivery doesn’t give a crap if the building has an odd 
number scheme - it follows the numbering scheme of the location. 

But as I think about it, a  shop may not have it's floor location referenced in 
it’s address - like  a shop in space # 12 on the 3rd floor may simply be #312 
on the address line,


as you say, the floor numbering scheme may not line up with the building levels 
(a building may have missing floor numbers due to superstition or oversized 
floors counted as 2-3 floors for residential unit height sales (higher floor 
numbers sell for more money). One of the trump buildings is “missing” 10 
floors, because the lower floors for retail are oversized and counted as 1.5 
floors each. 

this means we might want to use level:ref=*   most shops reference their level 
with an “f” attached:  Uniqlo 4F  (4th floor) - and using the locations label 
sceme is the best. And some places have 1/2 floors - like the “mezzanine" floor 
at many convention centers, or “lobby” “P3” etc. This would allow for these 
non-numbered values to be used (and rendered/used by data providers) in the 
future if the location is selected in the map and displayed along with the 
point and name=* rendering. 

so level:ref= seems to be a good idea. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag cricket nets?

2015-09-28 Thread johnw
I’m very hesitant to mix “exercise” and “Practice”  in any way.

When I hear exercise, I think of aerobics or pull-up bars or something - like 
the exercise stations. Those are usually stand-alone facilities or small little 
constructions for the sole purpose of muscle training. 

These practice fields are for practicing a specific action of your sport 
(putting, pitching, hitting, running), but not the complete sport - or in rare 
circumstances, the actual race/event facility itself - eg: a sumo ring, is a 
common outdoor venue at temples in my town, but the sumo ring at my school is 
not a competition venue, it is just for training, and should not be marked as a 
stadium or venue, as that is misleading.

we might want to come up with a sub-key of pitch (leisure=pitch + 
pitch=practice), as they are still pitches, but a special version of pitches. 
prctice=* could contain a few values, but this idea might overlap with other 
keys (like golf=putting_green in golf to practice your putting skill). 

I’m not sure, but whatever the solution, we should keep it far away from 
“exercise”. I think leisure=exersise_station is a good value for those 
stations. Then an exersise_station=* for all the different kinds of stations 
(pull-up bars, sit-up bench, push-up bars, etc). I imagine there are 5-10 basic 
values - but my knowledge (and usage!) is very limited. 


> On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Warin <> wrote:
> I have come up with
> leisure=exercise?
> exercise=cricket_nets  description: A fenced area where cricket batting and 
> bowling can be practiced.
> And then there can be other 'exercise'
> exercise=exercise_station  example: small areas set aside in parks with 
> features to provide specific exercises. Usually free.
> exercise=fitness_center  example:An establishment with machines to improve 
> physical fitness. Usually for a fee.
> And so on ..
> Or ?
> leisure=practice_pitch ?
> sport=cricket, basketball etc ... this would indicate it is a
> practice pitch .. and that the full sport is played elsewhere.
> This is more restrictive, not covering exercise stations etc.
> umm how about leisure:practice=* that would do track and pitch and could 
> still use sport=
> On 29/09/2015 11:29 AM, johnw wrote:
>> Batting cages, putting greens, driving ranges, Pitching cages (usually 
>> behind a baseball stadium), and interestingly - horse practice tracks - have 
>> all come up in my mapping and faces similar issues.
>> There must be some way of saying this object is for practice, and then 
>> Identify the sport.
>> In places with horse racing (San Diego, CA and Narita, Japan), the 
>> surrounding region is usually full of horse ranches. Their horse stables 
>> often have small ovals around the grazing fields and horsewalkers to 
>> practice running the horses - but it is nota private racetrack - so I really 
>> hesitated to tag track on it (I put a circular pitch + sport=[horse 
>> something] on it).  The oval is just for running them, not actually racing 
>> them (no other horses are there to race), nor is the facility meant for 
>> racing - it is a training facility for the horses to be ready for visiting 
>> the actual racetrack.
>> Similar to a pitchers mound behind the stadium, a basketball hoop on a tree 
>> in the park, or a batting cage, It replicates part of the sport for the 
>> means of practice. We should have a generic tag for that, or a bunch of 
>> explicit tags to put on each type of facility/object.
>>  Some are lucky - golf=* has a ton of documented values, so it is easy to 
>> put specific values under - but others may not.
>> Javbw
>>> On Sep 29, 2015, at 8:54 AM, Warin <> wrote:
>>> These are used to warm up and practice Bowelling and batting for cricket.
>>> Previously they were tagged leisure=pitch and sport=cricket_net ...
>>> But someone has pointed out that this in not a sport...
>>> so
>>> sport_practice=cricket_net
>>> A documented suggestion is to use sport=cricket, barrier=fence .. but the 
>>> argument is it is NOT A SPORT so you cannot use sport= anything! :-P
>>> The suggestion is on
>>> I'd think similar 'restrictions' will be imposed by the pedantic on other 
>>> pitches that are only used for practice ..for example - half sized 
>>> basketball 

Re: [Tagging] How to tag cricket nets?

2015-09-28 Thread johnw

> On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Brad Neuhauser  wrote:
> There is a different approach that some have taken to use the sport as the 
> key and indicate it is a practice area via the value, for example:


basketball=hoop (practice is assumed, and point location is okay(?))


This would make it very specific, but require a lot of different tags. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag cricket nets?

2015-09-28 Thread johnw
Batting cages, putting greens, driving ranges, Pitching cages (usually behind a 
baseball stadium), and interestingly - horse practice tracks - have all come up 
in my mapping and faces similar issues. 

There must be some way of saying this object is for practice, and then Identify 
the sport. 

In places with horse racing (San Diego, CA and Narita, Japan), the surrounding 
region is usually full of horse ranches. Their horse stables often have small 
ovals around the grazing fields and horsewalkers to practice running the horses 
- but it is nota private racetrack - so I really hesitated to tag track on it 
(I put a circular pitch + sport=[horse something] on it).  The oval is just for 
running them, not actually racing them (no other horses are there to race), nor 
is the facility meant for racing - it is a training facility for the horses to 
be ready for visiting the actual racetrack.  

Similar to a pitchers mound behind the stadium, a basketball hoop on a tree in 
the park, or a batting cage, It replicates part of the sport for the means of 
practice. We should have a generic tag for that, or a bunch of explicit tags to 
put on each type of facility/object.

 Some are lucky - golf=* has a ton of documented values, so it is easy to put 
specific values under - but others may not. 


> On Sep 29, 2015, at 8:54 AM, Warin <> wrote:
> These are used to warm up and practice Bowelling and batting for cricket.
> Previously they were tagged leisure=pitch and sport=cricket_net ...
> But someone has pointed out that this in not a sport...
> so
> sport_practice=cricket_net
> A documented suggestion is to use sport=cricket, barrier=fence .. but the 
> argument is it is NOT A SPORT so you cannot use sport= anything! :-P
> The suggestion is on
> I'd think similar 'restrictions' will be imposed by the pedantic on other 
> pitches that are only used for practice ..for example - half sized basketball 
> courts - only used for practice .. not full sized due to space restrictions. 
> So not a sport.. just practice.
> There are similar concerns for sport=exercise, sport=fitness .. these too are 
> not sports..
> So .. what tag to use? leisure=pitch still suits.
> nonsport= ? :-)
> ___
> Tagging mailing list

Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Adding floor location information

2015-09-28 Thread johnw
I am mapping Tokyo Dome City, which is a maze of overlapping amenities (an 
amusement park on top of a shopping mall with a giant pedestrian area with 
fountains and ramps, bridges, staircases everywhere).  The current issue I am 
investigating is how to map a large amount of shops onto a single building - 
the LaQua mall there has over 50 or 60 shops, a spa, rollercoaster, ferris 
wheel, and a few other odd things all stacked into 1/3 a city block. 

I took a train to another part of Tokyo looking for a shop that was right there 
in the mall I was in, because it wasn’t even in Google Maps.  I want to add all 
the shops of the malls I visit to OSM, but as I get closer to Tokyo, the malls 
get taller and taller ( 0101 at Kita-senju station is 9 floors of 100 shops or 
so in 100x100m), and the new Lumine mall is directly over Kitasenju’s 4 
combined stations), which would lead to an unfathomable amount of tag rendering 
pollution, so…

a)  is there a best practice to arrange all the point tags for the shops placed 
on/in the Mall polygon?

b) indicating floor level in the mall is useful, and looking at the wiki shows 
that the tag addr:floor=* is suggested - but it only has 158 uses - which is 
amazingly small. is this the right key to indicate what floor a shop is on? 

Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] accordion gate & rolling double-track gate

2015-09-24 Thread johnw
I’m wondering if there is a barrier=* tag for these two types of gates. They 
are the two most popular ones in Japan, but are not are not listed in 

I would normally tag these as just barrier=gate, but as there are *so many* 
kinds of gates in barrier=* , I’m wondering if there is a specific type I 
should use or should suggest as a new value. 

The first gate is a very common gate for commercial and residential use. it is 
an “accordion" gate, where a large metal expanding structure anchored on one 
side of a driveway stretches out to meet a post on the other side. It rolls on 
little wheels, and pegs on the bottom catch permanent tabs in the driveway, 
locking the gate into place across the driveway. When locked to the far post, 
it cannot moved at all. When the gate is open, the dense stack often can be 
hinged back out of the way, so no part of the accordion is sticking out into 
the driveway (or at least it is up against the wall, so it is mostly out of the 
way). Although is is a common gate type for residences and small business’ 
driveways - I’m not interested in mapping these (as neighborhoods would drown 
in a sea of unimportant gate icons), but they are also used for access control 
in retail and commercial spaces. I’m interested in tagging these occasional 
important ones, like the first link below. 

FYI, These are not temporary, and will be in service for a couple decades. 

here is an example of two at a mall (near and far). I wanted to map these two, 
as a busy driveway for the parking structure is blocked off from the delivery 
area. They led me to this post. 

A folded up accordion gate hinged off to the side at a residence. Shown just 
for understanding the gate. 

This is a cheap and temporary accordion gate used by construction companies 
with their temporary construction barriers. I’m talking about permanent and 
stronger versions, not these flimsy things.  


The second type is a large fixed barrier that rolls on double tracks, either 
manually or automatically. Most commercial and industrial buildings have these 
large rolling double-track gates that roll off to the side, and are usually 
anchored into the trackway in the driveway (so they cannot be knocked off the 
track easily, nor rolled over with a car). The gate can only roll a short 
distance (open-closed) because it is hooked into the track.  A closed 
one at a school. It has 4 different ones, all of the same design.   Two that 
meet in the center, both on tracks. 

Should they just be tagged as barrier=gate, or is there a need/desire for a new 
values of barrier=* for them?


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Immigration, asylum, refugee centers

2015-09-24 Thread johnw

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> Here in Thailand there are many nationalities beside English speakers that 
> make use of these offices, among them are large numbers of  Burmese, 
> Cambodians, Germans, and Japanese.

here in Japan it would be mostly non-english speakers as well (Brazillians, 
Chinese, Koreans, and then English speakers) - but English is the common 
language we all have studied, so all the signs (like most throughout Japan) are 
printed in Japanese and English. I’m pretty sure the common language between 
all those people you listed (besides Thai) would be English as well. 

Support for mulit-language rendering in general is severely lacking.  Most 
signage in Japan is shown in Japanese and English (every single tollway sign, 
road sign and train station - hundreds of thousands of signs), so the default 
-carto render should render both as well, but doesn't.  In this case, -carto 
renders the map with less detail than real life. A JA version of the map can be 
JA only, but for scripts that can’t be parsed by english speakers (like most 
asian scripts), -carto should render their EN tag below the name=* label - as 
that would properly reflect “the ground truth” 

This lack of being able to properly reflect the ground truth led to the JA(EN) 
tag issue in Japan, as Foreign resident mappers who use English attempted to 
show this duality in the real life signs in the name tag field [ name=Japanese 
(English) ], but ultimately is is not good data policy for the name=* tag, so 
it is banned.  But  nothing is done to render both languages (currently), 
creating a crappy situation for the default -carto there. 

Which is why, for a building almost exclusively used by foreigners, in a place 
where the native script is hard to read, I suggest the name field be something 
parsable to those foreigners, whatever common language that is. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Immigration, asylum, refugee centers

2015-09-23 Thread johnw
I’ve been wanting to make a amenity=immigration because usually foreign 
residents (and only foreign residents) go to such facilities - so local mappers 
are usually unaware of their existence or importance. 

These are places where people apply for new visas, extensions to existing 
visas, and change from one visa type to another. Usually regional ones cover 
mostly visa extensions for residents, whereas a main office would cover the 
gamut from people looking for asylum to people applying for new visas to be 
come residents in some manner for work or marriage.

Finding the regional offices in your host country can be very difficult if 
there is a language barrier - sometimes they are in a giant government complex, 
sometimes they are a standalone facility - but they should be very clearly 
marked. My old office was hidden on the 3rd floor of a non-descript building 
next to a clothing shop. Almost no signage helped you find it, until you were 
in the lobby of the building.

These facilities are *not* border control nor passport applications offices - 
as they deal only with the foreign people living in their area. They might be 
in the same complex, but often times they are not, and warrant their own tag. 

This the building I have to visit in Japan for my residence visa now. It is a 
small building run by the Justice Ministry, as the program was recently 
transferred from customs to Justice (AFAIK). 

They also have a small prisoner transfer center there, which gets a rendered 
icon. This is the only office within 2 hours of travel - so many thousands of 
foreigners have to come to this one office every year or so from all over the 

As an aside, I think we should suggest the name=* field to be the defacto 
“foreign" language for the country, which would be English for most of Asia 
(they standardize on english as a common “foreign" language), which would be 
very helpful for the foreigners having to visit there - as (in my case) no 
Japanese citizen ever needs to visit nor care about the office (unless married 
to a foreigner) - and the asian language scripts are often unreadable to new 
foreign residents who are looking for the office to visit.

The native language and others can of course be tagged as well, but I think the 
facility should have it’s "foreign" language name rendered first and foremost.


> On Sep 24, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Blake Girardot  wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am looking through taginfo and the wiki, but I don't see a good clear tag 
> for immigrant/asylum/refugee "reception" centers.
> These are usually government type facilities that process immigrants and 
> refugees.
> Some are also holding facilities, and some are just government offices.
> They are separate and distinct from standard passport control or border check 
> points.
> Any suggestions?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Orchards and their crops

2015-09-15 Thread johnw

> On Sep 15, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Jerry Clough - OSM  wrote:
> Hi John,
> No there is nothing I'm aware of which discriminates anywhere between 
> cultivated pears in general (Pyrus communis) & specific cultivars 
> ('Conference' ). Cultivar just 
> is shorthand for "cultivated variety" so of course there is no hierarchy 
> variety=>cultivar.

I guess I was looking for an idea of where people draw the lines between the 
trees, like we can with potatoes and sweet potatoes. I know there are many many 
kinds of both, but usually they can easily be divided into two groups, because 
we can say that a potato and a sweet potato are commonly referred to by those 
two separate names, and usually not confused with each other by the people that 
grow them and consume them. 

I am very comfortable throwing all grapes into “grapevines”  or all oranges 
into “orange_trees” - but I don’t know about some obviously different fruits 
that share the same words - Asian pears look different, taste different - and 
most importantly - not considered a “pear” by the people that grow them - 
“pears” are “western pears” to them.  So I feel comfortable saying that having 
“pear_trees” and “sand_pear_trees” is a good idea. 

But when it comes to all the other trees I have never heard of until I was 
cleaning up that list (is a "Governor’s plum" a plum? Is a  “Custard Apple” an 
Apple?), I was looking to see if there is some known way of putting the trees 
into usable categories or types for mapping without having people suggest them 
one by one - otherwise we’ll get odd regional or slang names - or things 
possibly grouped by distant mappers who don’t understand the nuances - like me 
with some of these trees. 

Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Orchards and their crops

2015-09-14 Thread johnw
I came across some mis-tagged orchards in Japan, and in the process of 
researching how to tag them correctly, I noticed some discrepancies in the EN 
and JA wiki pages for orchards, trees, and related things. the JA page for 
orchard includes the trees= definitions, for example. 

My question to the group is how to deal with trees=* when it seems to be very 
generic (apple tree, pear tree, etc) and more specific kinds of crops (fuji 
apples, asian pears). 

crop=* for orchard was changed to trees=* - but how do we get more specific on 
what kind of fruit is grown? do we make a ton of different tree=* tags, or do 
we make generics and then specify the exact fruit produced through produce=* or 
some other tag? 

Also, someone has added a ton of trees to the JA list (and a few to the EN 
list), including cranberries - which are grown in a swampy bog - hardly an 
orchard. Should be at least in farmland+crop, possibly some form of wetlands. I 
cleaned up the entries on the ja page by added “trees” to the items, and 
striking out sugarcane and cranberry, but I didn’t delete any other entries. I 
didn’t touch the EN page. 

I can clean up the JA page to match the EN page, but I need to know how do deal 
with the trees and what they produce:  are the trees=* a very specific type of 
tree, or are they general - and how do we specify the exact type of fruit 
produced?  apples, oranges, pears, peaches, have regional varieties - and 
custard apples and asian pears (sand pears) may be considered so different from 
their normal varieties as to warrant their own tree and rendering. 

If I’m reading the english wiki pages for orchard=, trees= and produce= 
correctly, keeping the trees generic and the specific fruit in produce= seems 
to be right way. I added one example to the JA wiki page for asian pears: 


so fuji apples would be 


Is this the right way to handle it, and should it be documented this way?

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

2015-09-08 Thread johnw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:38:53 +0900
> johnw < <>> wrote:
>> Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? 
> Yes, construction itself also may be mapped (in addition to maxwidth).
> Though it would be a good idea to document it on wiki (maybe put through
> proposal to ensure that it is not duplicating something already
> documented).

The next time I’m down in the area (in a couple weeks) I’ll take a picture and 
then create a RFC page. Without a picture, people will think it is merely a 
chicane or something. 

If they had these in America, there would be a Semi truck wrapped around it 
every week - so I think there are several countries where these wouldn’t be 
found at all - especially in an urban environment adjacent to a gigantic mall 
and a busy train station like this one is. All the roads around that place are 

Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

2015-09-07 Thread johnw
I was driving in Chiba and Saitama yesterday and encountered a couple new types 
of barriers. I realized later one is traffic_calming=chicane. 

The other one is all over rural Japan as traffic_calming=choker on rural roads 
that could bypass traffic near the rivers, - but this one is not for traffic 
calming, it is for enforcement of maxwidth of the bridge, similar to 
. They put very strong steel poles or guardrails along the sides and center of 
the road at the maxwidth + 20 cm of a standard car.  car can pass (barely, my 
mirrors were 5 cm away from each pole), but a large dump truck cannot pass. 
Both are in areas where commercial dump trucks or other large vehicles are 
nearby, but this one is used to enforce access to the narrow bridge near a very 
very busy area to keep a massive traffic jam from occurring from a stuck dump 
truck.   The maxwidth is signed 
and guardrails are doing the job. This is width limited for the very narrow 
bridge in the background.   The other direction. 
Poles are used. 

Is this a reason for creating barrier=width_restrictor ? 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Drafting proposal: use oneway=reversible or create tag?

2015-09-07 Thread johnw

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Warin <> wrote:
> Flow direction is the best of these (so far). It is descriptive of what is to 
> be tagged. 

What do they use for pipelines? I imagine there is some tag based on the way 
direction that can indicate flow. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Classification problems (was: Re: Road classification)

2015-09-03 Thread johnw

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:11 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> I think that's what should be expected, so I'm not surprised at all. It's 
> probably easier to make a hand-picked map in a fixed scale of one country by 
> one expert, than the rules for the automatically generated map of the whole 
> world in all available scales by a bunch of random people with no clear and 
> stable agenda and using constantly changing data and unlimited data 
> schemes... =P

The past few winners of this national map contest were Nat Geo (three times)  
and the US Census bureau per the slate article. Then this guy just popped up. 

The article appeared on slate, so I ordered one. 

I keep it at my school to show the kids America. Now I need to find a 
1:4,000,000 scale map of Japan (kinda small) to show the kids a proper 
comparison. I could probably print one out on B4. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

2015-09-03 Thread johnw

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> I was trying to use helicopter icon for rendering helipads on default style, 
> but it looks like it was not needed here and instead it could be good to be 
> used for heliports. However they are currently unrecognizable from plane 
> airports:

That would be great - the only “airports" in my province are heliports, and a 
plane icon is annoying. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

2015-09-01 Thread johnw

> On Sep 1, 2015, at 6:59 PM, wrote:
> On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it
>> appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
>> considered as mistake.
> Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in England/Wales. 
> Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and recent weather. 

I can see this happening in real life where a bridleway provides 
easier/quicker/safer access to bypass a route that is not safe or convenient 
for bikes, so they just make up rule that “bikes have to use this route”. The 
route being an existing bridleway. 

These issues also come up in countries with contradicting and odd bicycle laws. 
Until recently, bicycles were legally pedestrians in Japan, which made 
professional road cyclists kind of like odd car-people. I have been honked off 
the road by crazy lady (even after the law change). But with the increasing use 
of cars, there are more and more bicycle-person and car-bicycle accidents 
because of horrible sidewalks covered with poles on narrow roads - so they 
recently reclassified bicycles as cars, trying to put them on the roads 
(without any bicycle lanes whatsoever outside of Tokyo, of course) -  which is 
at odds with the many many old ladies and kids lazily riding bicycles on 
sidewalks. It’s like there are two grades of cyclists - but one grade of law. 
But most sidewalks continue to be bicycle=yes.

However, sometimes they force the road bicycles onto the sidewalk because the 
intersection is just too complicated and dangerous. 

I can only find an example of one that is no longer used, but I have seen many 
of these around.  I 
imagine many of them are still in use and “the law” in many places. 

This means that, in Japan, there are designated cycleways, a ton of sidewalks 
(footways) have bicycle=yes, and in some short sections, the sidewalk has 
bicycle=designated. It is not a cycleway, but it is a sidewalk 
(foot=designated, bicycle=yes) that for a short section also has 
bicycle=designated to properly reflect the real world.  
this flexibility in the tagging is what makes it possible to reflect the real 
world - it does not turn the sidewalk into a cycleway for 20 meters where it 
crosses an intersection, nor a section of bridleway that someone decided to 
legally route bicycles on to avoid some kind of traffic problem after the fact. 
Nor is it an ambiguous path. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Buildings mixing residential and commercial use

2015-08-31 Thread johnw

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Warin <> wrote:
> I think it better to bite the bullet and start sub tagging correctly ... thus 
> for a retail mixed with apartments

I would still like to separate mixed use buildings there there are multiple 
disparate tenants per building (living, selling, etc)  and a business inside a 
house - a standard residential dwelling with a business inside (multiple uses 
per tenant). 

mixed_use_urban (multiple tenants) maybe multi and single is better. => 

a tiny salon in a house. mixed_use_single,139.256832,3a,45.3y,343.31h,94.07t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svLMEDfXFOgTuMYkUzUKOQA!2e0

there are SO MANY of these houses - hundreds per city in Japan - as there is no 
provision for separating retail businesses and homes like in the US (zoning). 

This is a great use for entrance=home, as they usually have a separate entrance 
for the “home” and the business, which lead to different rooms in the same 
dwelling. note: this is one single building, there is a storage house tacked on 
one side. 

House entrance,139.270226,3a,66.8y,257.93h,97.69t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSprTdLqWKlUbKTi88Eglpw!2e0

restaurant entrance,139.269918,3a,66.8y,115.2h,92.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sm7hrs01O-VzXn6iZzSF6Tg!2e0

after defining the building, add the

> building:retail=yes
> building:apartment=yes

name:en=Residence OK


name:en=Katsu Yoshihiko

a little gelato shop ran by a family living upstairs. the house entrance is in 
the back. They built the house a few years ago just for these two purposes.,139.28942,3a,66.8y,334.85h,99.13t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sZadZZJtrhGW-Z57sQiSs4A!2e0

name:en=Italian Gelato Shop Milano 
shop=ice_cream (?) 

I really really really really want to separate mixed_use houses from a mixed 
use multi-tenant buildings. There are so many of each in Japan. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Construction

2015-08-31 Thread johnw

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 8:53 AM, Andrew MacKinnon  wrote:
> The Gardiner is reduced to 2 lanes (was 3), the speed limit is lowered and it 
> is causing huge traffic jams.

if it is still a motorway, it is a motorway. reduce the lanes and the maxspeed, 
adjust the alignment of the motorway to be centered on the open lanes and mark 
construction areas beside the road (usually a lot bigger than just a lane). 

Then draw a way down the blocked  lane(s) and/or new lanes under construction 
and tag them as highway=construction + construction=motorway. 

it will show that, yes, the freeway is open (existing motorway with the open 
lanes), and yes, part of the freeway is under construction visually, but not 
affect routing. 

Perhaps there is a tag to put on the open section to discourage use or outing 
or something. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Proposed mechanical edit: surface=soil to surface=dirt

2015-08-31 Thread johnw

> On Aug 31, 2015, at 7:11 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>> Totally agree, I support this edit.
> +1, also the definition of 'dirt' should be improved in the wiki (currently
> referring back to 'ground'), and 'soil' should be written into the wiki as 
> deprecated
> and not to be used.
> tom

+1 for me too. 

I always thought soil was some kind of prepared dirt for planting (potting soil 
or whatnot) - never heard of a “soil road” - but a “dirt road” is very common, 
as is gravel, etc etc. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

2015-08-30 Thread johnw

 On Aug 30, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 indeed the buildings are just buildings (eventually with own names, start 
 dates and other attributes) , it's not them to put the name for the whole 
 complex on. But IMHO it's neither a landuse object, it's an object with a 
 different tag that defines it. We still need a tag for gated communities? 
 Fine, lets introduce one.

Why is that any different than a condo complex? 

both are privately owned residences with a common management/ HOA company, with 
access control on a well defined landuse. 

Why is tagging a residential thing different in any way from a industrial 
thing? why is the governmental stuff completely missing?

again. Confusing. 

Lay down a general category landuse. add a tag denoting it’s particulars ( is 
it a works, a mall,  a city hall complex, or a apartment complex?)

Add the building=* areas (church, office, apartment, industrial building) and 
the ref/name and all the other building crap.

lay down the roads and amenities inside the landuse.

if you want a tag to say “this residential area is a gated community” to put on 
the landuse (like adding mall or works or whatever) that’s fine. but my 
interest is standardizing and completing the landuse tag usage. 

Why have landuse at all if you don’t finish the categories it could be used 

Why have a landuse=* at all to denote area if you will deny its use 
(arbitrarily) for some kinds of building complexes but use it on others?

It really is a big mystery for me - and the fundamental conflict I an trying to 
solve - as standardizing the landuse=* tag would greatly help the mapping of 
urban and suburban cities - as not only laying out the primary landuse let you 
understand the city, and then adding the exception building or amenity *more 
accurately labels and represents the real world*  - not to mention getting rid 
of so much ambiguity and cruft on tagging things by their area (schools, 
hospitals, etc) - because eventually, every single square meter of a city will 
have it’s areas denotes - so why keep a scattershot and inconsistent method 
that varies across so many things? 

Javbw. ___
Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

2015-08-26 Thread johnw

 On Aug 26, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Warin wrote:
 So ALL shops should all be together under shops= (even though all shops are 
 in fact amenities too). Same for offices.
 This reduces the amenity= values to those that are not offices nor shops.

I think the easiest way to define a shop is a retail building where customers 
go for goods and services. Retail includes service - you buy service at the 

A shoe shop or a shoe repair shop are both shops, and both deal with people who 
need new shoes or shoes repaired. 

shop is a shortening of retail shop. If we started over, I would rather use 
retail=* instead of shop=*. 

This might be a good solution to go about migrating people to the new system - 
use retail=* instead of shop=* 

shop=*  (retail=*)

There are plenty of businesses where people no not expect customers. My friend 
is an electrical engineer. He inspects factories for electrical problems. he 
has a small office. It is not a shop, but an office. Even big office buildings 
for lawyers are the same - An office will occasionally have visitors, but an 
office is not setup for serving customers, it caters to the tenants who use it 
for getting work done, even if that is client work. This is the big difference 
between a retail building and an office building - Apple HQ vs an Apple Store. 
there are visitors, clients, contractors, and fanboys visiting apple HQ all 
day. but the building’s purpose is for allowing the employees to do their job, 
not serve the people walking in with goods and services. that is the opposite 
in the retail stores. 

A craftsperson usually has a facility where they practice their craft, which is 
usually not a retail facility. I know we have a whole bunch of craft= for that.

Javbw. ___
Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] landuse=religious Monastic schools

2015-08-23 Thread johnw

 On Aug 23, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 This was my error - but it would sit on a single tourism=theme park outline.
 yes, it is a single theme park, but likely not a single landuse

I think this is the argument against landuse=grass. The rides certainly have 
track and yards, but it is not landuse=railway, as it is part of the attraction 
of the theme park. 

Supporting buildings - usually the ones adjoining the sections of the park they 
are serving - are as much part of the park as the rest of it. They are hidden 
away between the inner and outer customer accessible sections. 

Someone keeps trying to tag a (small, electric, and plastic) steam locomotive 
ride’s tracks as “railway=preserved” - it is a modern ride. breaking up the 
major polygon seems equally weird to me. 

There are of course other area polygons inside this giant single one - but all 
are encompassed by the fence around the outside. And this single place has a 
single name. 

so in some manner - there is going to be some area polygon that everything is 
inside, and for most things, that’s a single landuse.


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Shop= values and a sub key for detail?

2015-08-13 Thread johnw

 On Aug 14, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Warin wrote:
 vending:scale_model:parts=yes (as in selling parts/materials to make a scale 

accessories, tools, consumables, supplies… supplies might be a good word that 
can be used in other things. 

If we do this, we should have an open call on the tagging board to have people 
submit the values for shops that are not standard car parts, DIY shops, and 
fruit stands. 

I was mentioning a “wooden home goods shop” in Japan. Similar to a knife shop, 
they have “edge tool” shops - anything that needs sharpening, from knives, to 
chisels, axes, and gardent tools. Pocket knives to saws. 

That way we can have a good list of sub-values for taggers to build on. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

2015-08-08 Thread johnw
So back to capacity:*=n discussion. 

-The vehicle parking lots I usually tag have the following kinds of parking 
spaces, marked with signs and broken up into groups (visible on service area 

 (Some values taken from the access=* key wiki page.

car (of course)  

tourist_bus (there are parking lots for tour busses at many tourist 
attractions, airports, service areas, stations. This is not “bus,” as per 
access=* wiki, those are public transport busses) 

hgv (large delivery truck, no articulation or removable trailer, parking lots 
usually found in distribution centers). 

“Semi” truck - tractor-trailer - (unsure of what value to put, but they have 
separate larger and longer parking spaces than the standard HGV vehicle - 
probably 5% of HGV vehicles in Japan are giant articulated US style semi 
trucks. I have not seen a 5th wheel yet.). Japan calls them “trailer” trucks. 
Please [suggest a good tag value] for these articulated tractor-trailer semi 

oversize  (no difference between bus  HGV, as there are long spaces for both 
to use. Japan calls them “big” vehicles.)  [suggested value]


Disabled (car)

disabled-van (extra room to side-unload a wheelchair via a ramp).  [suggested 

Disabled-bus (separate parking adjacent to the location, as opposed to normal 
bus parking which is way out in the parking lot. Also, no adjacent spaces, 
since they need room to unload).  [suggested value]

These lots are usually broken up into groups -separate lots - so it would be 
easy to tag one as amenity=parking for cars, amenity=motorcycle_parking for 
motorcycles, but there is no “oversized” vehicle parking (bus parking, truck 
parking, “long parking,   semi parking), which I know from travelling are 
common lots to see at tourist spots and road stations around the world - but 
looking at taginfo, Amenity=* only has 10 uses for values contain bus or truck 

So I am proposing a new amenity key amenity=oversize_parking, and we can use a 
subkey (oversize=bus, truck, semi, caravan, construction, multi) to handle 
creation of the new lots. It should have a Bus or HGV vehicle icon.  This is 
not for vehicle storage (like boat parking), but rather just parking lots 
dedicated to oversized vehicles, as found in commercial, industrial, tourist, 
and motorway parking lots for daily use. 

I’m surprised there is no oversized or equivalent parking currently. 

and the creation of the capacity:*=n values above marked with [suggested value] 
to handle it in a mixed lot setting. 

I look forward to your feedback. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-07 Thread johnw

 On Aug 7, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 what is this legal name/ shield designation about, the relative importance of 
 the highway as a connection in the road network? Or something else like who 
 maintains the road (typically more politics and history than traffic logics)? 

basically national roads are trunks, regionals are primary, and local numbered 
roads are secondary. the un-numbered ones with a center line are tertiary.

This wouldn’t be too big a deal if they moved the designations to the bypasses, 
but they don’t, and “roads” make right turns at intersections - which is really 
odd to me, but that is Japan. 

People have a very different expectation when using a visual map - they are 
familiar with this odd road pattern (no other map - Google, Apple, Bing,  
Mapple, Mapion, Zenrin, and car GPS and others present the data in any other 
way), and count traffic lights from the train station or other central city 
landmark for completely relative directions - as there are no road names on 
tertiary and below nor sequential house address numbers on any building, so the 
odd shape of the road grid colors and traffic light mapping is the most 
important part of the rendered map (we still cant agree to have one signal icon 
per intersection so it breaks this too). - but it really screws with routing. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-07 Thread johnw

 On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
 For Belgium we follow this convention:
 It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we have 
 to revisit and retag them all. :-)

I know path is in heavy use, but a few proper mechanical edits (how are those 
done?) for certain tag combos and a couple years elapsed would eventually take 
care of it. I don’ think it is something that could be done easily or with a 
simple edit - but it could be depreciated and retired in a few years. 

Leave it to the noisy American living abroad to cause trouble in Belgium!

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-06 Thread johnw

 On Aug 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
 Much more elquently than me, Richard Fairhurst has explained the problem 
 previously in opinion pieces such as

I would like that post burned onto the surface of the moon with a laser, so we 
can see it hanging ver our heads every night as we map and think of tagging 

What a great post. It states much more eloquently the issue of path than I ever 
could state it. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-05 Thread johnw

 On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert wrote:
 Hi Richard,
 Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard:
 On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
 I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
 will therefore break almost all applications which use OSM data. It
 conflicts with existing, heavily used tagging. 
 quite the opposite. It won't break anything. It will be ignored for some
 time untill data consumers learn about th new tag.
 Every data user who does not support highway=footpath will loose all
 paths have highway=footpath because he expect them as highway=footway or
 highway=path. That's what I call backward-incompatible.
 Every data user has to add highway=footpath to his style sheets,
 scripts, config files etc. Please read paragraph 8 to 10 of Andy Allan's
 posting at Github 1 1/2 years ago.

maybe =footpath is not appropriate, but in paragraph 10:

So making tagging easy for them seems a priority, but is actually one step 
removed from the actual priority. The activity that we want to make easy is to 
map; that is, to represent features in our database.”

now, if this was an argument of footpath vs footway (the post is from 
sub_station vs substation) then I would be al for it. 

But =footway and =path mean different things in different regions, and as a 
noobie who showed up and started tagging, the extra baggage that =path appears 
to have was not visible. But it’s there. and its causing trouble. 

The point Andy’s making is that a change in the tagging scheme, espcially a new 
tag, makes everyone change all existing OSM renderers, etc - and that he 
doens’t want to see meaningless or minimally useful tag changes in (popular, 
rendered) tags. 

So is there a way to deal with the discrepancy of =footway, =path, and a lack 
of an explicit =trail option without a new =footway tag? yea. It means more 
strictly defining footway and path. which people don’t want to do either. 

so which change is least damaging? or do we let things drag on? the overlap and 
ambiguity of =path is very annoying. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

2015-08-05 Thread johnw

 On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 sent from a phone
 Am 01.08.2015 um 14:29 schrieb John Willis
 I want to say that only disabled vehicles can gain access through a barrier 
 or use a parking isle.

 looked up the disabled=yes key, and I see this combo is the documented way to 
tag the disabled access. 

But it feels wrong tagging a “customers” dominated facility with access=no, 
even though customers can go there. 

I know it seems kind of a meaningless difference, but making a positive tag 
(like access=customers) via access=disabled seems to use access=no in a more 
consistent way.  none of these parking lots are access=no+customers=yes.

having a bit of service road in the middle of a mall render with the red dashed 
lines when it can be used by “customers” who are disabled seems a little wrong. 

I’ll follow the documented way, because I don’t want to tag for the renderer, 
but it seems weird. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-05 Thread johnw

 On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert wrote:
 Every data user has to add highway=footpath to his style sheets,
 scripts, config files etc. Please read paragraph 8 to 10 of Andy Allan's
 posting at Github 1 1/2 years ago.


Paragraph 5:

Where existing tags are causing misinterpretation between mappers or 
mistranslations between communities, that's usually a cause for documentation, 
and occaisionally a cause for changing tags. landuse=farm was a great example, 
where using farmland and farmyard not only help english-speaking contributors, 
but also causes less confusion when translated.”

This is the issue with footway and path. path in OSM and “path in some 
regions of the world mean entire separate things. and OSM's definition of path 
is quite wide.  It’s like having “highway=primary” and “highway=main”.

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

2015-08-05 Thread johnw
Sorry it was a screw up. A pocket dial” kind of thing. 


 On Aug 4, 2015, at 3:57 AM, John Eldredge wrote:
 What is the point of quoting someone else without adding any additional 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

2015-08-05 Thread johnw

 On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 sent from a phone
 Am 01.08.2015 um 14:29 schrieb John Willis
 I want to say that only disabled vehicles can gain access through a barrier 
 or use a parking isle.

 looked up the disabled=yes key, and I see this combo is the documented way to 
tag the disabled access. 

But it feels wrong tagging a “customers” dominated facility with access=no, 
even though customers can go there. 

I know it seems kind of a meaningless difference, but making a positive tag 
(like access=customers) via access=disabled seems to use access=no in a more 
consistent way.  none of these parking lots are access=no+customers=yes.

having a bit of service road in the middle of a mall render with the red dashed 
lines when it can be used by “customers” who are disabled seems a little wrong. 

I’ll follow the documented way, because I don’t want to tag for the renderer, 
but it seems weird. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-05 Thread johnw

 On Aug 6, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 and you can also make combinations without having to decide for footway, 
 cycleway or bridleway. Also, without any further access tags, path is neutral 
 and open to all unmotorized means of transport (unlike footway, cycleway etc.)

In a national park, where I have a trail through the wilderness, where foot and 
horse traffic is allowed, but not bikes - this makes perfect sense.
 These are the rules for the the trails in my state parks. mountain bikes (for 
recreation) are only allowed on fire roads (tracks). 

So… It is a path. Where horses and people are allowed. 

If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns, 
lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with 
foot access =yes

I would never consider tagging that as =path with foot  cycle =yes. I would 
consider a cycleway tagged as such mis-tagged and correct it. 

It plainly is not a path. it is a concrete walkway built to accommodate bicycle 
(commuter  daily life) traffic. It is built to a much higher grade than a 
path, and expectations of usage is very different.

If I have a sidewalk along a road, where it may be implicitly signed that bikes 
are allowed (like most of Japan), but it is built to footway specs (tons of 
poles, driveways, road crossings) - it is a =footway with bicycle=yes. The 
amount of ambiguous walkways based on their grade and construction for usage is 
very rare. And none of them could be confused with a 60cm wide dirt path 
through the forest.  

walking/biking to the mall and walking/biking through the wilderness have very 
different expectations of grade of the way. There are variances - but: 

Sidewalk  ≠ Path 

Motorway ≠ track 

we reflect that in the roadway tags. it should be equally obvious in the 
non-roadway tags as well. We don’t have a highway=main tag that could cover 
tracks to motorwayish roads, because that is bad ambiguous tagging! this issue 
with path exactly the same, IMO. 


Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-05 Thread johnw

 On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and 

Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap? It 
reinforces my belief that that path’s definition is way, way too wide. 

Narrow Path to fill in the gaps rather than overlap, so at least new tagging 
doesn’t have this ambiguity.

We have to start cleaning up the mess somewhere. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-03 Thread johnw

 On Aug 4, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
 The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is

I have a ton of sidewalks to map and a ton of dirt trails in the mountains 
informal cut-throughs in the grass to map.  the distinction is very clear to 

Especially in a country where there are no bridleways (horse-riding for 
recreation is almost non-existant) and the land is covered with concrete and 
asphalt sidewalks.  

I know that this is pertinent only to my mapping area - but the argument over 
the footpath and path about highest usage is not necessary - Go by built 

a concrete sidewalk, a concrete walkway in a park, an asphalt path along a 
river, a walkway through a parking lot to get to a mall entrance, a pedestrian 
footbridge over a river - all are built to the same usage assumptions, and 
people seeing the red dots can assume they can walk leaisurely without watching 
their feet or worry about mud. 

a dirt path through a forest, a narrow trail along a fence to cut around a 
field, an informal path next to a road connecting to separate sidewalk segments 
- all of these too have the same expectations of conditions. 

I have no issues with their distinction here. The issues arise in more 
complicated places.  Take the basis of these two tags and figure out a solution 
based on the idea of built condition and expected usage, and most of these 
issues will disappear. Most people can’t ride a horse down a sidewalk. Most 
people cant take a wheelchair up a mountain trail. and most people shouldn’t 
drive a car down a cycleway or through a mall. 

it’s only the edge cases that is making this so difficult. the vast majority of 
trails and footpaths fit neatly into the two categories above.___
Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

2015-08-03 Thread johnw

 On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Richard Mann 
 highway=path should be a rough path
 highway=footway should be a made-up path with limited room for non-foot 
 traffic (eg bicycles), or an explicit ban
 highway=cycleway should be a made-up path with good room for bicycles (given 
 other usage)


I DO NOT WANT path  footway merged - we need to be able to show rough/informal 
paths. There are sidewlks that go up mountains, and trails that go up 
mountains. they are completely different, and merging the values together to be 
defined by subkeys is a terrible idea. we don’t define motorways and 
residential roads with the same value, and a rough path through the woods or an 
informal cut in the grass along some train tracks is not a sidewalk through a 
park or a footbridge over an intersection. 

As I understand it from reading bits of wiki and mailing lists (Please correct 
if wrong.):

From all the history, it looks like path was made to show some kind of mixed 
use way that footway was not good at - for mapping useful but unpaved and 
irregular pathways - trails, tracks, etc. A guy was pushing for this as useful 
for horses, I think. 

Then Track showed up, taking a lot of the path’s job for things like farming 
roads, fire roads, and other mixed use roads. 

Also, there’s bridleway, paths designated for horses. And cycleway too. I don’t 
know when they showed up, but it seems later than path. 

This leaves path to a more “rough, informal, unpaved, and/or sporadically 
maintained” role, narrowed down over time.  

This discussion is the result of the old definition of path clashing with it’s 
clearly smaller (but important) role. final step to officially narrowing path’s 
focus to a more limited role.  


I find 3-5 year old data imports where paths are marked that are clearly 
farming tracks or service roads (bridges!) and I retag them as appropriate. I 
use paths for hiking trails through forests, irregular narrow dirt paths 
through parks or along rivers (that brach off paved ways that are footways), 
and other official or in-use paths that are not paved or have a 
rough/impassible surface for a wheelchair, therefore not defacto designated 
for easy/effortless foot traffic and other uses (like a sidewalk). This is 
informal path / maintained trail / line cut through the grass is a great use 
for path.  

We really need an easily defined highway=path and a separate highway=footway. 
And the above does it very very well. 

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

2015-08-01 Thread johnw

 On Aug 2, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
 Either access=destination or access=permissive, depending on local
 laws an practices. (or motor_vehicle=*)

Access=customers is an established (and documented*) and well used tag (100K 
uses), and a preset in iD. 

There have to be some similar good values besides permissive or destination. 


* The first page I looked at don’t have it documented, and now on another page 
it’s there, I messed up there... 

Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

2015-07-31 Thread johnw
suggesting creation of
capacity:senior=n and capacity:priority=n
and maybe 
access=disabled for service roads / gates


Talking about stuff missing from

We all know about the capacity:disabled=n extension on the disability key, but 
there are other very common parking types that are not represented. 

Usually large parking lots for big public retail, commercial, and now some 
government business offer separate “elderly”  “pregnant woman” parking, which 
is separate and (sometimes legally) different from disabled parking. sometimes 
this is separate and sometimes this is grouped together, as “priority” - which 
would be a more flexible value - and similar to the Japanese “priority seat” 

Also, there are parking lots for motorcycles / scooters, but there is no 
separate standardized and documented motorized cycle parking key and/or no 
capacity:scooter/moped/motobike/=n . In Japan, Bicycle is “jitensha” and 
scooters are “baiku” (bike), and often separated parking for both.,140.2925493,73m/data=!3m1!1e3,140.2925493,73m/data=!3m1!1e3

“baiku” parking north of the driveway, “Jitensha” parking to the south. 

Japan has a “elderly” symbol, which is an optional badge to affix to a car 
(mandatory over 75) to show that it is an elderly driver, and now is used as a 
badge for “senior” parking in Japan.  This is separate from truly disabled 

Blue disabled parking and yellow “elderly” parking

We should be able to add capacity:*=n for  “motorcycle” “senior” “and 
“priority/pregnant” values should be considered. Thoughts? 

Also, disabled parking more and more recently have actual access restrictions - 
gates and driveways to access separate parking spaces that require some kind of 
transmitter or a call box for the staff to allow access to lot so only truly 
disabled people take the special spaces for specialized vehicles. i saw gates 
blocking individual parking spaces at malls.,139.5427032,72m/data=!3m1!1e3,139.5427032,72m/data=!3m1!1e3 

Access=disabled would be good for this situation, but even access=customers is 
not documented on the wiki - which seems very outdated.

Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] landuse=military

2015-07-23 Thread johnw
If there was a pilots club, it wouldn't be tagged as an airport. 

The facilities my be designated for military personnel, but a) this is for 
recreation - not a military funtcion, and b) it is merely leased lodging. 

It's like is there was a bar near the base (not on base) for marines - it 
wouldn't be landuse=military either. It's a bar.  The fact that DoD leases it 
makes it a tiny bit murky, but I think having a hotel for visiting disneyland 
is not a Military facility. Would a military recruitment center in a strip mall 
be tagged as a military installation? I don't think so. 

It's just a private hotel. 


 On Jul 24, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
 so this past week, i was at Disneyworld with my family. as it happens,
 my wife is a civilian employee of the department of defense, so we
 stayed at shades of green, a resort at Disney leased by the DoD for
 use by service members, retirees and civilian employees.
 for some reason, in OSM it has a boundary which is tagged landuse=military
 there are no military vehicles, facilities, or weapons at the site, just
 off duty service members visiting the land of the giant rodent.
 i'm not at all persuaded that this is an appropriate use of
 anyone have an opinion?
 Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search
 Tagging mailing list

Tagging mailing list

  1   2   3   4   >