Re: [Tagging] Why is this building not rendered?

On 16 April 2017 11:54:19 IST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >However on the information available to me ... I could not reliably map >the extent of the school .. so I would map it as a node only. >I think this is not regression but removes an assumption (from the >present tagging) that

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

On 14 September 2016 09:42:59 GMT+01:00, johnw wrote: >after searching the wiki for the correct spelling of amphitheatre >(oops), I found: > >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtheatre > > >"For tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=track on areas?

On 4 August 2016 11:55:05 GMT+01:00, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >Warin wrote on 2016/08/04 08:14: >> On 8/4/2016 3:42 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: >>> but it appears we don't know how should we treat leisure=track: is >it a linear object or maybe kind of area? >> >> I have seen it both

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

On 21 July 2016 12:31:42 GMT+01:00, m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: > >In my view access=permit seems like they way to go. Having >access=private with permit=something adds to the complexity without >adding value. Keep it simple. Joining this discussion late, but just as another datapoint, this

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

On 6 March 2016 08:47:36 GMT+00:00, Ralph Aytoun wrote: >My personal opinion is that this is getting totally out of hand. >Shops pay a lot of money to advertise their wares and you are stepping >in >and trying to do commercial marketing for free. >Not only that but

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to Change Road Classification, Road Surface, Road Condition, and Add Number of Lanes

On 5 March 2016 21:13:48 GMT+00:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Am 05.03.2016 um 15:25 schrieb Alberto : >> >> OSM does not establish the difference between inter-urban (rural) >roads and urban roads (comprising mostly avenues and streets). >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 03/03/2016, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 03.03.2016 um 03:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com>: >> >> The fact that we don't know wether the extra name is an old_name or a >> loc_name or something else is independan

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

or key='alt_name')) group by 1; name_1|250686|810490 name_2|29521|65868 name|15211|29136 alt_name|7975|10897 You can argue about the flaws of this simplistic query, but this won't change the general result. On 25/02/2016, Hakuch <hak...@posteo.de> wrote: > On 25.02.2016 01:37, molto

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 25/02/2016, Hakuch <hak...@posteo.de> wrote: > On 24.02.2016 23:40, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Just like you 1) marked the proposal as approved 2) enacted the >> proposal 3) emailed the list all in one session a few days ago, I >> edited the wiki and emailed th

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24/02/2016, Hakuch <hak...@posteo.de> wrote: > On 24.02.2016 22:57, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> The opinions were varied, but there was clear support in keeping the >> name_N documentation, both for the basic principle of documenting >> current practices, and becaus

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24/02/2016, Matthijs Melissen <i...@matthijsmelissen.nl> wrote: > Moltonel, could you please refrain from making changes that go against > the community wishes? I know you have good intentions (and you might > even be right), but the community has discussed this topic in dept

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 24/02/2016, Hakuch wrote: > hey, I didnt want to start an edit war, but I just didnt see that you > wrote on the tagging list. > > i will write more later, I even informed you just by message, but the > proposal was very clear, you were not allowed to just change the pages. >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

. On 24/02/2016, moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name=next=1275952 > > Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a > knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've &

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:name=next=1275952 Hakuch, please do not start an edit war. I took the time to avoid a knee-jerk "revert this edit" reaction, and so should you. I've explained how the approval of the proposal was IMHO a poor reading of the discussion on

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

On 12/02/2016, Hakuch wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Remove_suffixed_name-tags_from_wiki > > It was approved with 38 votes for, 10 votes against and 1 abstention. > > Approved due to >74% approval (79.167%). Wikipages has been changed >

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 27/01/2016, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 2016-01-27 22:54, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Concerning foo_1 vs foo[1] vs foo:1, I this the last one can be safely >> thrown to the idea bin (despite being used by seamarks) because ':' >> clashes with n

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

Thanks Colin, this proposal makes some good points. Some comments : For completeness, you should mention the possibility of an API-level implementation[1]. Even if this'll be met with a "patches welcome" and if we need a pragmatic solution in the meantime, supporting MV at the API level has some

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 27/01/2016, Marc Gemis wrote: > The main problem is that the lane tagging is established tagging with > several 10.000's of mapped ways. Do you really want to change that ? > It will take years before they are all converted to whatever new > syntax we come up with. Not to

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 27/01/2016, Colin Smale wrote: > One way, using a "subscript syntax" with a "data structure" construct > using a "." as a separator": > lane[1].destination=Paris > lane[2].destination[1]=Rome > lane[2].destination[2]=Milan > lane[3].destination[1]=Berlin >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

On 27 January 2016 10:09:51 GMT+00:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >2016-01-27 10:39 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > >> France ? The example boundary is in Ireland >> > > >;-) >anyway, s/France/Ireland/ and the statement remains. I bet also the >Irish

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

tOn 26/01/2016, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > In my experience name, name:en, old_name, alt_name, alt_name:ru etc etc > etc were always sufficient. An example where multivalue names are > truly necessary would be interesting. Andy has already given some good answers and I've

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

Taped "send" to early, here's the rest of my email: On 23 January 2016 15:14:22 GMT+00:00, "Lauri Kytömaa" wrote: >I believe this is a good point to make, the origin for many of those >tags. >While the number of uses is reason to keep them as-is, if a major slice >of them

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

On 23 January 2016 15:14:22 GMT+00:00, "Lauri Kytömaa" wrote: >I believe this is a good point to make, the origin for many of those >tags. >While the number of uses is reason to keep them as-is, if a major slice >of them comes from an import, the ratio isn't a good reason

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

On 19/01/2016, Andy Townsend wrote: > It's not used by anyone as far as I can see: > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%3B%3B > > (unless taginfo is doing some special filtering) http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%3B (a single ";") doesn't find any value

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

On 20/01/2016, Mike N wrote: > On 1/20/2016 3:39 PM, Dominic Coletti wrote: >> I see 808,000 uses of name_1 and 65,000 of name_2. And 609,505 alt_name and 6,013 alt_name_1. These approximate figues have already been mentioned in this thread. Does Anybody have stats on how many

Re: [Tagging] Please don't think name_1 tags are errors.

On 17/01/2016, Hakuch wrote: > for me the use of alt_name_1 is more logical than the name_1, because > alt_name is the meaning of name_1! So, if you have a second name and you > dont know where to put it (loc_name, old_name...) you can use alt_name. > And if you have a third

[Tagging] Please don't think name_1 tags are errors.

Hi, I've just reverted http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36573638 where the mapper thought that name_1 tags were typos. That user is on a key typo fixing spree, which is a good thing in itself, even if mistakes happen. But I wonder if some people know about the iD editor behavior below, and

Re: [Tagging] Please don't think name_1 tags are errors.

etimes do the trick, but outright banning *_N for the sake of (what ?) would cause a lot of headaches. On 15/01/2016, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-01-15 15:26 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com>: > also shop_1 tags are created that way.

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

On 9 January 2016 at 18:50, Hakuch wrote: > I propose, to remove the tagging of name_1 and alt_name_1 from the wiki. I disagree. > **better use diverse name-tags** Diverse name tags are a good thing when there is some semantic difference between names, but often enough

Re: [Tagging] Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are signed

On 30 December 2015 18:58:38 GMT+00:00, Marcos Oliveira wrote: >Do you know if this is a legal limit or if being smaller makes the >weight >less spread out which can structurally damage the bridge? > >If the first then I'd map the highest value, if the latter

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

On 13 December 2015 00:08:16 GMT+00:00, Hans De Kryger wrote: >> What would be the point of tagging non-public Wi-Fi? >> >> Do you mean Wi-Fi for customer use only? >> ​ ​ >My bad i meant ​(wifi_public=yes​) >​ and i'm not sure that tag would be necessary at all.

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

On 13 December 2015 12:02:22 GMT+00:00, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:22:53AM +, moltonel wrote: >> Customer-only and non-gratis wifi are arguably not "public" but they >are mapworthy. And the subtags to express these

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

On 10/11/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> What ambiguity of repair_station would be cleared by tool_stand or >> tool_station ? > > it is the word "station" that could be interpreted as a shop / service > station. "stand" does not bear this risk (for me). "tool_station"

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

On 10/11/2015, Andrew Guertin wrote: > On 11/09/2015 09:41 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: >> amenity=bicycle_repair_station has a problem: it's attracting lots of >> active tagging >> of shops offering bicycle repair. For example: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3772809894

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

On 10/11/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-10 9:38 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > >> I like amenity=bicycle_tool_stand, > > +1, "repair_station" is ambigous / can easily be misunderstood. Even though > "amenity=self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand"

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On 08/11/2015, Dave Swarthout wrote: > In that section the author, sk53, says, "Creating a whole set of boundaries > encompassing one country and part of another is not a light undertaking on > OSM. It is fiddly work, and involves manipulating objects with many >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Motorway link no default oneway

On 29/10/2015, Joachim wrote: > I invite you to vote on the proposal "Motorway link no default > oneway". The following is proposed: > > Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link. No need for a proposal and a vote to do that. Just go ahead and

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care

On 27/09/2015, André Pirard wrote: > But I'm afraid that the correct namespace order is name:edit_warning=*. > edit_warning is a qualifier of name and not the opposite. > It is the edit warning of (for) name and not the name of the edit warning. > It's just like the

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care

On 27/09/2015, Marc Gemis wrote: > My fear is that some overzealous mappers will start adding those tags to > all objects in their neighborhood, just to "protect' their area and scare > away newbies. > > Since we suppose that all data is mean to be correct and everybody

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care

On 26 September 2015 19:05:09 GMT+01:00, "André Pirard" wrote: >It is >:warning= >which acts only when that key is changed. >geometry:warning= to protect the coordinates of the element >name:warning= to protect its name. >Those tags do not warn against changing

Re: [Tagging] Delete not marked walking routes?

On 20 September 2015 11:54:00 GMT+01:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> Case b) Frequent use and 'the best' route. This would be contentious. > >So every mapper may add his favourite route? That bothers me as well. Even if we restricted ourselves to only published routes,

Re: [Tagging] Delete not marked walking routes?

On 20/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > what about a map that shows the route and is placed on the ground, eg at the > start of the route (let's say the map is in the public domain)? To me that's a (partially) waymarked trail and is absolutely fine. > Or signposted

Re: [Tagging] Semi-detached houses: undocumented iD preset

On 18/09/2015, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I'd say the same applies to houses. Whether something is one half of a > double house, or semi-detached, or terraced, or free-standing - isn't > that something that I can automatically determine by looking at the > nearby mapped

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

On 10 September 2015 13:20:43 GMT+01:00, Joachim wrote: >Proposal: >Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must >also be tagged for every motorway_link. Sounds fair. > If not tagged, the oneway=* >status of this way is undefined. You wont gain

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

On 11/09/2015, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 + > moltonel <molto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki >> page. They might look at stats and d

Re: [Tagging] Handle with care (was: Accuracy of survey)

On 9 September 2015 21:46:54 GMT+01:00, "André Pirard" wrote: >There are various reasons for warning other mappers to be careful about >their updates. >I once temporarily overlaid two walking routes to show the effect of >displaying two sorts of icons. >Or I left in

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

On 07/09/2015, David Marchal wrote: > I'm drafting a proposal concerning some waterways whose flow regularly > changes direction, which happens near some sinkholes named estavelles, which > drain or feed water according to the aquifer level. I would consequently > propose a way

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

On 7 September 2015 17:38:45 GMT+01:00, Volker Schmidt wrote: >tidal >up to London, depending on tides (and wind). But I would be reluctant >to >tag the river's water flow from London downwards as flow_direction=both Yes, rivers can be tidal without their flow reversing.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed mechanical edit: surface=soil to surface=dirt (history (authors of changesets))

On 02/09/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:55:14 +0200 > "André Pirard" wrote: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/node/3157502486/history >> >> will return the complete list (history) of authors, changesets and >> dates

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

On 02/09/2015, Friedrich Volkmann <b...@volki.at> wrote: > On 01.09.2015 10:13, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> But as a user of surface=soil, could you tell me what difference you >> see between soil and earth (from an osm POV) ? To me, those two are >> actual osm synonyms

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

On 01/09/2015, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > Soil is not dirt. That's why I have used surface=soil myself, and I > will revert any automated edit of such kind. I agree that soil and dirt are different, and that the mechanical edit should not proceed as originaly planned. But as a

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

On 31/08/2015, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I would be careful here - 'dirt' is essentially a very vague term which > probably originates from the concept of 'dirt roads' here. 'Soil' in > the other hand is fairly precise, see > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil > > Only

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

On 31/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Is there some method to automate finding who introduced tags? Doing it > manually would not be worth the effort. On the other hand - running > script to detect users (and/or relevant changesets) may be a good idea. curl -s

Re: [Tagging] Trolltags

On 31/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Good > luck with filtering out proposed=yes, abandoned=yes, vacant=yes, > demolished=yes, construction=yes, empty=yes, ruins=yes, parsing > start_date and end_date etc etc. Case in point: have a look at

Re: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary

On 29/07/2015, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:29 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: A router won't care about classification differences between far away places like Germany to Ethiopia. They just care about taking the best road in the area

Re: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary

On 28/07/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 28.07.2015 um 11:02 schrieb Pavel Zbytovský zbytov...@gmail.com: 1) technically the small secondary roads part works as primary road network. So we would suggest a tag similar to works_as_highway=primary. Do you think its ok?

Re: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary

On 28/07/2015, Pavel Zbytovský zbytov...@gmail.com wrote: Since nobody objected much, i would probably go with works_as_highway=primary - i think it reflects the state of reality, so its useful to be added in OSM dataset. FWIW, I'm not a big fan of this, because it is just a variation of

Re: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary

On 28/07/2015, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:14 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: That ideal doesn't match the practical reality. highway=primary has a very different definition between Ethiopia and Germany, by necessity. While they can

Re: [Tagging] Disputed area

On 20/07/2015, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com writes: On 20/07/2015 1:08 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: So perhaps a relation that carries the border tag with two ways as members. The relation would have the boundary tags, and also a disputed tag of some sort

Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction

On 16/07/2015, jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: I would say it depends if the untouched land is still in its original use or not. If it is then mark it as planned, if it’s cordoned off waiting for the construction to get there then I would mark it as under construction.

Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction

On 14 July 2015 19:57:30 GMT+01:00, jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: Linguistically I would say proposed comes before planned. Planning your wedding is not the same as proposing marriage! +1 Personally I don't think we should routinely display proposed routes, because they may never come to

Re: [Tagging] Rural Alley?

On 08/07/2015, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.431238,139.246753,3a,78y,233.04h,65.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqk2OIIDRfkCjb8uqWNbkhw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 To me this (along with the description) is highway=track tracktype=grade1. You can add surface, lanes, maxspeed,

Re: [Tagging] Changes + additions: shop= photo, hobby, model

On 05/06/2015, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: shop=hobby No documentation present so added * text to suggest a more detailed tag be used. * link to the wiki shop= hobby area. shop=hobby is a terrible tag. Every activity is a hobby to somebody, so shop=hobby gives no clue as to what

Re: [Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

On 04/06/2015, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: Nothing wrong there - in Europe, people have been improving on CORINE Land Cover polygons since the dawn of time. CORINE landuse in Europe is a bit like TIGER highways in USA : great as an initial map-filler, but requires a *lot* of

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 26/05/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: My main concern with wikidata for the moment: it's mostly as fuzzy as Wikipedia is - because the objects are not created by humans but conversions of articles. Using only wikidata would mean we are sure that wikidata will be a

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 26/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: You don't link to a Wikidata label, you link to a Wikidata item. QED, you can only use wikidata IDs such as Q936 in OSM tags, which is much less userfriendly than the wikipedia equivalent. You brought wikidata labels to the discussion;

Re: [Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

On 25/05/2015, Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net wrote: I oppose. Numeric level values can be used to display a building plan layer by layer where higher floors lay over lower floors. Most software which uses level=* at the moment expects that it is a numeric value. Example:

Re: [Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

On 25/05/2015, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: There are two distinct needs : enabling software to sort levels for rendering and navigation purposes, and the need to show the textual name that humans expect. The level=* key is currently used for the fist case (otherwise you'd see

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 25/05/2015, p...@trigpoint.me.uk p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I think a lot of us mappers are going to need a lot of convincing, wikipedia tags, in common with other osm tags, are human readable. When reviewing changes I do not see a number that is meaningless without following the link,

Re: [Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

On 25/05/2015, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: Also knowing the street elevation would give the clue as to which floor was 'ground level' - as would a highway linking internal routes to external. You shouldn't focus on trying to determine the ground level, as there are many many

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 25/05/2015, Guillaume Allegre allegre.guilla...@free.fr wrote: I already replied that I wonder what's the idea behind that enforcement. Why wouldn't Wikidata be used also rather than instead? Is it really a goal of OSM insisting to destroy Wikipedia? Wikidata has one more advantage :

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 25/05/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-25 16:24 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: Also, a lot of wikipedia articles do not (yet) have a wikidata counterpart. I thought all wikipedia articles had been transformed into wikidata entities (that's

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 25/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 17:13, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: * wikipedia names are friendlyer to mappers, and generally more well-known Wikidata labels should be more useful, contain less redundancy, and be no less well

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 25/05/2015, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: ikidata will always be playing catch-up to wikipedia, to some extent. Can you just show me a single Wikipedia entry without a Wikidata object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections Ok, maybe that one doesn't count because

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On 25/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 22:18, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: How do you link to a wikidata label in an OSM tag ? One that never suffers from renaming ? As far as I know, we can/should only use wikidata ids, which are stable

Re: [Tagging] Long Tail ( was Removal of amenity from OSM tagging)

On 19/05/2015, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: On 19. Mai 2015 03:18:14 MESZ, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: there’s no preset “I want to add a business” or “I want to add a park” tutorials that walk through the basics and hold your hand, bring up options and ask you natural language

Re: [Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

TL;DR: off-topic, rant, noise On 12/05/2015, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: On 12 May 2015 at 03:26, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Minor nitpick: desserts are sweet foods, usually eaten at the end of a meal. Deserts are areas with little rainfall, and sparse or no

Re: [Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

On 11/05/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I believe there is some overlap between the shop values confectionery pastry candy sweets shop=confectionery is used much more often than the other 3 (10K vs. 300 vs. 100 vs. 50) and is likely covering all of these, but is

Re: [Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

On 11/05/2015, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 11.05.2015 18:18, Andreas Goss napisał(a): Pastry-only shops are quite rare. See also shop=patisserie (62 uses). But is pastry = patisserie ? Yet another item just for sugar?... =} Blaspheme ! :p You shouldn't compare Haribo-type sweets

Re: [Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

On 11/05/2015, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Pastry-only shops are quite rare. See also shop=patisserie (62 uses). But is pastry = patisserie ? To me it is, but deserts are very tied to the local culture, so I'm sure opinions will differ.

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

On 06/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an abstention. Indeed, it may

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an abstention. Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the proposal. It'd

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

On 24/04/2015, Thorsten Alge li...@thorsten-alge.de wrote: I fear at this stage we can only agree to disagree : to me using e-cigarettes *is* smoking. I don't care much for the physicist's definition of smoke. It's the social/medical definition that matters here, the one that gets turned into

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

On 23/04/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: you're suggesting smoking as a single namespace, which doesn't apply to vaporizers. Maybe inhaling? On the other hand, smoking is also forbidden when not inhaling... ;-) I think different namespaces make sense here, because they

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

On 22/04/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-22 9:19 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: Well, electronic cigarettes aren't really smoking in the first place, unless you want to claim that a teapot boiling is smoking, which is something most people realize

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

On 22/04/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:34 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: smoking=yes/no/outside/etc for the general value smoking:type=yes/no/etc for exceptions With type being any of cigarette, e-cigarette, hooka, marijuana, opium

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

On 21/04/2015, Thorsten Alge li...@thorsten-alge.de wrote: is there a tag to express that the use of electronic cigarettes is permitted at a location? If not I'd like to suggest the use ecigarette=* or vaporizing=* with the same values as smoking=*. I've never seen a place that permitted one

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

On 14/04/2015, Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote: It is the other way round - the riverbank polygon is optional and 'nice to have'. The waterway line is what actually defines a river in OSM, it also gets the name tag and other attributes. Yes, this is the same principle that gives

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published

On 05/04/2015, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I really see two paths - either continue what I did, let the Wiki use terms like approved but make it clear enough to everyone that the Wiki isn't the OSM bible but just what a very small number of people think about OSM; or try to

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published

On 04/04/2015, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/04/2015 8:58 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It is a 'No' vote. Not an abstain. . For an English definition see http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/154075?redirectedFrom=published#eid That's behind a paywall. Would you

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: Why should the page be converted to a feature page ? Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a stable 10 year-old feature

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: Why should the page be converted to a feature page ? Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a stable 10 year-old feature

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On 18/03/2015, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to objectively determine what the discussion concluded. [...] No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some politically correct members but it is necessary.

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On 18/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) it is impossible to see from taginfo what a tag is used for, and for what it can't be used. You only get statistics how much it is used * key/tag

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

On 18/03/2015, Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com wrote: That's an interesting idea, but I think it may be a little too heavy on coexistence; I think we'd gradually accumulate a cloud of contradictory proposals with no incentive to resolve them. Are you afraid of wiki bloat ? I don't think

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: I think some opposition to a proper voting mechanism is concentrating too much on the numbers. Indeed, we can have just 1 person proposing a tag, 20 people voting about it, and thousands actually using (or miusing) it. However: 1)

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

On 11/03/2015, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: Actual physical bridges - which may offer the only way across a ravine, or a landmark to where you are on a river sounds like a similar justification - so rendering abandoned, yet physically existing bridges seems like exactly the kind of thing that

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

On 11/03/2015, Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com wrote: I took a quick look at these objects the few that I examined were actually created as areas, rather than had been converted from a node. The most egregious example is this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199650922. It

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

On 11/03/2015, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: moltonel 3x Combo wrote: I'm playing the devil's advocate a bit here I believe the modern day term for that is trolling, and it wastes everyone's time. Sorry if looked like trolling. I was genuinely trying to show both sides

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

On 11/03/2015, Malcolm Herring malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com wrote: OK, the mapper in question did not reply, but silently removed the tags. This leaves me none the wiser as to the more widespread usage of this tag. At least that's reassurance that a buoy, which can drift quite a bit on the

  1   2   >