Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Le jeu. 27 févr. 2020 à 08:34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit : > > +1 There are some ultra-deep drillings for water, but are functionally > different both from water well and petroleum wells. > > Single tag for petroleum wells and water wells seems to me > an

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

On 26/02/2020 23:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: According to these sources, the term "petroleum" can include both natural gas and crude oil: Someone had better tell the Oxford English Dictionary they've got it wrong then: 'petroleum, n. [..] A viscous liquid, consisting chiefly of a mixture of

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Am Do., 27. Feb. 2020 um 01:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > Christmas trees are intended to regulate the well pressure or manage > filling product injection to raise field pressure. > > You'll find them independently on oil or water wells depending on the >

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Am Do., 27. Feb. 2020 um 00:23 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Different tags are used for petroleum wells vs water wells because > they look totally different do they? Have a look at this short clip that shows a water well:

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Feb 27, 2020, 00:22 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Different tags are used for petroleum wells vs water wells because > they look totally different and their function for the general map > user is quite distinct. A water well might just be a covered hole, but > if it is a bored (drilled)

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

> Christmas trees are intended to regulate the well pressure or manage filling > product injection to raise field pressure. > You'll find them independently on oil or water wells depending on the > pressure. Very few water wells have high enough pressure to require such a device. 99.9% of water

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Hi Le jeu. 27 févr. 2020 à 00:23, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > Different tags are used for petroleum wells vs water wells because > they look totally different and their function for the general map > user is quite distinct. A water well might just be a covered hole, but > if it is a bored

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Different tags are used for petroleum wells vs water wells because they look totally different and their function for the general map user is quite distinct. A water well might just be a covered hole, but if it is a bored (drilled) well it will be connected to a manual or powered pump. An oil or

Re: [Tagging] man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

On 2/26/2020 4:59 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: It's also possible to have a functioning petroleum well without any notable surface-level equipment So in that case, there would be no "pumping rig", right? There would just be some pipes and valves the the wellhead, aka a "Christmas tree":

Re: [Tagging] man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

> It's also possible to have a functioning petroleum well without any notable surface-level equipment So in that case, there would be no "pumping rig", right? There would just be some pipes and valves the the wellhead, aka a "Christmas tree": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellhead and

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Le mer. 26 févr. 2020 à 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > these aren’t independent concepts, a water well works differently than a > gas well. The substance (and its intended use, and the intended quantity) > define/s the requirements for the well. > We both agree on the sense. I meant

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

sent from a phone > On 26. Feb 2020, at 21:32, François Lacombe wrote: > > Nevertheess, should we take advantage of this discussion to use man_made=well > + substance=* only as to prevent usage of values mixing two independant > concepts (the well and the substance)? these aren’t

Re: [Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

Hi all, Le mer. 26 févr. 2020 à 20:55, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > thank you for bringing this up. I just noticed you have added a > deprecation note on > > man_made=gas_well > > and suggest to use man_made=petroleum_well for gas wells. >

[Tagging] man_made=gas_well Was man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

sent from a phone > On 26. Feb 2020, at 09:56, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > man_made=petroleum_well thank you for bringing this up. I just noticed you have added a deprecation note on man_made=gas_well and suggest to use man_made=petroleum_well for gas wells.

Re: [Tagging] man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

On 2/26/2020 3:54 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: There are some users on the wiki who seem to treat these two tags as near-synonyms man_made=petroleum_well man_made=pumping_rig The later was approved, but the first is much more common. The proposal in 2008 for pumping_rig said "A tag for

[Tagging] man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

There are some users on the wiki who seem to treat these two tags as near-synonyms man_made=petroleum_well man_made=pumping_rig The later was approved, but the first is much more common. The proposal in 2008 for pumping_rig said "A tag for pumping platforms - gas, oil, etc. The rig may be on

Re: [Tagging] man_made=snow_net vs man_made=snow_fence vs barrier=fence?

sent from a phone > On 26. Jul 2019, at 15:38, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Would you suggest removing both man_made=snow_net and man_made=snow_fence > from the curated list in Map Features? there are almost 3000 man_made=snow_fence in the db, but only 150 snow nets. I would keep the

Re: [Tagging] man_made=snow_net vs man_made=snow_fence vs barrier=fence?

Would you suggest removing both man_made=snow_net and man_made=snow_fence from the curated list in Map Features? Joseph On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:39 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I agree that these are likely always barriers and would be more consistently > tagged under the "barrier" key.

Re: [Tagging] man_made=snow_net vs man_made=snow_fence vs barrier=fence?

I agree that these are likely always barriers and would be more consistently tagged under the "barrier" key. Also I concur these are types of fences. While a specific tagging or subtagging seems desirable, I would not use the established fence_type for it, as this describes structural and or

[Tagging] man_made=snow_net vs man_made=snow_fence vs barrier=fence?

Two tags were added to the Map Features page a while back, but don't appear to have been discussed in a proposal. man_made=snow_fence is used for fences that help prevent avalanches in steep slopes with heavy snowfall. This tag has been used almost 3000

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 23:48, marc marc wrote: > > instead of creating a main tag value for each variety, > I am as often in favor of dividing things into categories. > if you are in front of a tank, man_made=tank > after, you can add (sub)tags describing : > - if a cover/roof exist or not > - if

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 23:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/02/19 07:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > I would have imagined a man_made=storage_tank to be a closed container, and > > would rather invent tags for open containers like man_made=slurry_pit, > > Too specific. [...]

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

Le 11.02.19 à 00:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:48, marc marc wrote: >> if you are in front of a tank, man_made=tank > man_made=storage what value will you use when the tank is made for an industrial process (e. g. oxygenation in a wastewater treatment plant, the

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 08:48, marc marc wrote: > if you are in front of a tank, man_made=tank > I'd suggest possibly man_made=storage "type"=tank / silo / bin then > after, you can add (sub)tags describing : > - if a cover/roof exist or not > - if its use is storage or an industrial process

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

Le 10.02.19 à 23:27, Warin a écrit : > On 11/02/19 07:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:45, Markus wrote: >>> >>> According to the wiki, covered=no would signify that the storage tank >>> isn't covered by something else, not that it isn't closed. Therefore >>> my

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On 11/02/19 07:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:45, Markus wrote: According to the wiki, covered=no would signify that the storage tank isn't covered by something else, not that it isn't closed. Therefore my suggestion with open_top=yes (or maybe just

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

sent from a phone > On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:45, Markus wrote: > > According to the wiki, covered=no would signify that the storage tank > isn't covered by something else, not that it isn't closed. Therefore > my suggestion with open_top=yes (or maybe just open=yes). I would have imagined a

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 23:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps use the tag covered=no to signify an uncovered storage tank? According to the wiki, covered=no would signify that the storage tank isn't covered by something else, not that it isn't closed. Therefore my suggestion with

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On 09/02/19 10:19, Clifford Snow wrote: I did create new thread about including other features in wastewater treatment facilities. Unfortunately I have been side track on other issues, not necessarily OSM issue, but life in general. I do plan to continue exploring how to tag the various

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

Thanks for your messages and the hint to The Mail Archive! On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 02:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Are you storing solids or liquids? > > For solids, bunker_silo (which I have never before heard them referred to > as!) may work? >

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 05:07, Markus wrote: > If man_made=storage_tank has been used for closed containers, it might be > better to find another > tag to not loose that tag's meaning. > Are you storing solids or liquids? For solids, bunker_silo (which I have never before heard them referred to

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

In my dialect of American English, a tank would normally be fully enclosed, while an open container for liquids would be a pool or basin or pond? I’d like to keep “tank” for covered features. On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 8:21 AM Clifford Snow wrote: > I did create new thread about including other

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

I did create new thread about including other features in wastewater treatment facilities. Unfortunately I have been side track on other issues, not necessarily OSM issue, but life in general. I do plan to continue exploring how to tag the various features in wastewater treatment facilities in

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On 9/2/19 6:05 am, Markus wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:19, Volker Schmidt wrote: However, the question has remained unanswered. [Talk-de] Klärbecken... (in German :-( ) Sorry, but i'm unable to find that thread. Strangely enough, Google doesn't seem to index everything on

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > Not sure. Depends what you mean by "tank." However, there's a problem with > the rendering > of man_made=storage_tank whether or not you consider it must be closed: it > renders with the > symbol for a silo. Which is very wrong. Yeah, I

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:19, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > have the feeling that we have discussed this before. On the fly I find these > two hreads: > > [Tagging] Wastewater Plants (After a long search in the archive ...) Apparently it was even me asking the same question – shame on me!

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 16:43, Markus wrote: Does a man_made=storage_tank need to be closed? Or do we have (or > require) a tag for open containers, for example open slurry storage > containers [^1]? > Not sure. Depends what you mean by "tank." However, there's a problem with the rendering of

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

have the feeling that we have discussed this before. On the fly I find these two hreads: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants [Talk-de] Klärbecken... (in German :-( ) Volker On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:43, Markus wrote: > Hi list, > > Does a man_made=storage_tank need to be closed? Or do we have (or >

[Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

Hi list, Does a man_made=storage_tank need to be closed? Or do we have (or require) a tag for open containers, for example open slurry storage containers [^1]? [^1]: Thanks

Re: [Tagging] man_made water _tap with amenity drinking_water

I agree it's confusing. On one reading of the wiki man_made=water _tap with amenity=drinking_water would mean the exact same as man_made=water_tap + drinking_water=yes. On the other hand I think amenity=drinking_water should be reserved for things primarily intended for direct water consumption,

Re: [Tagging] man_made water _tap with amenity drinking_water

2017-11-03 1:00 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Some think that the use of these 2 tags together is a good thing. > > man_made=water _tap with amenity=drinking_water > I don't see a problem, as long as the water is indeed potable. Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

sri, 14. lip 2017. u 17:02 Martin Koppenhoefer napisao je: > > what do you mean with "both"? Is this "all with the same name"? I agree > with this, tunnels often come as sets of tubes. How would we deal with > cases with several tubes, where the individual tubes have

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

2017-06-14 15:17 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > I think we should keep it simple for this tag (man_made=tunnel) and map > both bores with one element. We can add attributes like bores=2. Then if we > want to go deeper, invent new tags (tunnel:part=main_bore, >

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

uto, 13. lip 2017. u 17:10 Eugene Alvin Villar napisao je: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Philip Barnes > wrote: > >> I would map those as separate tunnels and only map them as a single >> tunnel is multiple ways share the same bore. >> > > I think

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > I would map those as separate tunnels and only map them as a single tunnel > is multiple ways share the same bore. > I think this goes to the question of whether we want man_made=tunnel to map a physical tunnel (that

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 09:34 +, Janko Mihelić wrote: > pon, 12. lip 2017. u 10:58 Martin Koppenhoefer m> napisao je: > > A question might be in some cases whether they are one tunnel with > > distant tubes, or 2 tunnels "which happen to have the same name", > > because

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

pon, 12. lip 2017. u 10:58 Martin Koppenhoefer napisao je: > A question might be in some cases whether they are one tunnel with distant > tubes, or 2 tunnels "which happen to have the same name", because unlike > the carriageways on a bridge, every tunnel tube is a

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

2017-06-11 2:23 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam : > I propose a man_made=tunnel, analogous to man_made=bridge < > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge>. > > This is meant to show a tunnel outline for tunnels that have multiple > separate ways in them. > IMHO

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

On 11.06.2017 02:23, Tijmen Stam wrote: I propose a man_made=tunnel, analogous to man_made=bridge . This is meant to show a tunnel outline for tunnels that have multiple separate ways in them. There is a draft proposal already from

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 02:23 +0200, Tijmen Stam wrote: > I propose a man_made=tunnel, analogous to man_made=bridge  > . > > This is meant to show a tunnel outline for tunnels that have > multiple  > separate ways in them. > > Opinions?

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

Sounds awesome. Most of the tollway tunnels here in Japan (and we have lots and lots of big tunnels) are 2 major and occasionally 1 minor service/emergency tunnel - but usually it is a single named "tunnel", just like a bridge. The only pushback I can see is, many times one physical tunnel is

[Tagging] man_made=tunnel

I propose a man_made=tunnel, analogous to man_made=bridge . This is meant to show a tunnel outline for tunnels that have multiple separate ways in them. Opinions? ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] man_made=tunnel

Thank you, I have already tagged it for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422941610 . It has been used 73 times already: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=man_made=tunnel On 21-08-16 18:06, PanierAvide wrote: Hello, I used it for a subway tunnel, see :

[Tagging] man_made=tunnel

Idea: to make a man_made=tunnel, analogous to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge; to group together multiple ways that go trough one tunnel; such as the about-to-open aquaduct at http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=52.33003=5.06909#map=18/52.32418/5.06413 The

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

ay=street_lamp would not describe (fully) their function. You can see a picture of that situation here. [1] The location on the map is here. [2] On the map you can see that because of this tagging: man_made=mast mast=lighting they show up on the map as communication towers. Which of course

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

2016-02-18 11:40 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > I would like to see something > > "When the structure is fastened with guy wires, you can map it as > mast. It is not a tower in this case". > this is not completely clear, it seems that there are some towers that are fastened with

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

On 18/02/2016 9:40 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: "High masts may be fastened to ground with guy wires." actually any mast may be fastened to the ground by guy wires, also low ones. I propose to remove the word

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > "High masts may be fastened to ground with guy wires." > > actually any mast may be fastened to the ground by guy wires, also low ones. > I propose to remove the word "high". Does "Masts may be fastened to

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

2016-02-18 10:46 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast >> >> > > > really, this is what I was writing about. You have asked, so here we go: > it does define some

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

2016-02-17 22:05 GMT+01:00 Marc Zoutendijk : > Generally, when the definitions in OSM are different from what a person > speaking the language might expect, it doesn't work. The issue here: > "small" "a few meters high" seems not pertinent for radio masts which are > among

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

> Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:42:55 +0100 > From: Marc Zoutendijk <marczoutend...@mac.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

Is the problem here basically one of rendering? A man_made mast can have many functions, whether guyed or not, and those functions can be further specified in subservient tags. If the next tag is mast=lighting or mast:type=lighting this can be shown with a proper icon. Similarly for

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

> On 17 feb. 2016, at 21:22 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Generally, when the definitions in OSM are different from what a person > speaking the language might expect, it doesn't work. The issue here: > "small" "a few meters high" seems not pertinent for radio masts which are > among the

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

2016-02-17 15:42 GMT+01:00 Marc Zoutendijk : > "A man_made=mast is usually a small tower of only a few meters height. It > is often built from concrete or steel and only for a single application > like a mobile phone base station." Generally, when the definitions in OSM

[Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

t situation here. [1] The location on the map is here. [2] On the map you can see that because of this tagging: man_made=mast mast=lighting they show up on the map as communication towers. Which of course looks rather weird. (*)(**) The design of the lighting on this square is part of the

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 31 May 2015 at 12:09, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 31.05.2015 10:25, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): recently there is a lot of discussion from newbies(?) here, that seem to propose new tags and tagging schemes for stuff that is already discussed and agreed upon and in

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

I've recently found EV charging stations marked as 'gas stations'. Actually seems reasonable to me ! -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 1 June 2015 at 13:18, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you need to specify amenity = yes or tourism = yes ? What do I learn from that ? Is this for the case that there are 2 reception desks on a property (thinking about a campsite here), where one is used by the tourist and

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 1 June 2015 at 06:15, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: I'll agree that introducing the reception_desk key was/is problematic because of the choice of the top level tag. On the other hand I do not see why we couldn't tag some of them as amenity and others as tourism and have both

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

Once you're out of a comfort zone, you're lost - there are no easy hints or rules how to tag some similar or more general things. You just have to create completely fresh tags and hope other will agree. That is true for seasoned mappers, but even more true for casual ones. that's true, the

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

2015-06-01 11:51 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: You _have_ to decide whether it's a shop=travel_agency or office=travel_agent. no, you don't have to, you can also use both tags if you think they should apply both. Also look at the reception_desk classification problem. Some want

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

W dniu 01.06.2015 7:15, Marc Gemis napisał(a): On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: The mixed ones in particular are hard to mentally recall, organise. Do you think a tagging schema with several different sub tags is easier ? Just use the presets in case you

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

W dniu 01.06.2015 14:18, Marc Gemis napisał(a): The need to choose top-level tag for it is the problem itself. What's a top level key ? Suppose you drop shop. Then you get bakery=yes. Is bakery now a top level key ? Is everything acceptable as top level in this new schema ? Won't we have

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

W dniu 01.06.2015 13:51, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): 2015-06-01 11:51 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: You _have_ to decide whether it's a shop=travel_agency or office=travel_agent. no, you don't have to, you can also use both tags if you think they should apply both. But it's not

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

Am 01.06.2015 um 17:46 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: In theory we have nothing like top level keys - highway=service + area=yes may mean service road, that has a known area border, no, that would be tagged area:highway=service but we may also read it like area=yes +

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

W dniu 01.06.2015 20:51, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): no, that would be tagged area:highway=service not even, it is an area without directional traffic I would say that the example is really the least important part here and you are nitpicking. =} The same could be true with

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

I am hardly a newbie =} and I can't speak for others, but I keep forgetting even the widely used tagging schemes, exactly because there's too much ambiguity and they don't make a clear system for me. For things I can't remember, I use the JOSM presets. Nothing easier than pressing F3, typing

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

W dniu 31.05.2015 20:07, Marc Gemis napisał(a): I think good presets in the editors are much more important than any proposal to move something from one top level tag to another. Only in case there is a problem to extend the schema (e.g. drinking water and water), it is worthwhile to discuss a

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 1/06/2015 6:28 AM, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 31.05.2015 20:07, Marc Gemis napisał(a): I think good presets in the editors are much more important than any proposal to move something from one top level tag to another. Only in case there is a problem to extend the schema (e.g. drinking water

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: In part the problem comes from the lack of organisation of keys. Some are by form (e.g. building=) some by function (e.g. shop=) .. others are mixed (e.g. amenity=). The mixed ones in particular are hard to mentally recall,

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

A preset is never going to help for cases where the store is a mix of things. The bakery in my hometown also sells cheese and some deli products. Does it become a deli then ? It sells chocolate eggs during the easter period, and chocolate and marzipan figures around Sinterklaas. Is it now a

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

Am 31.05.2015 um 00:18 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: building=museum attraction=museum (can be used for indoor or outdoor museums.) recently there is a lot of discussion from newbies(?) here, that seem to propose new tags and tagging schemes for stuff that is already

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

Am 30.05.2015 um 01:48 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: If we tag buildings for their architectural style, we'd end up with things like building=gherkin, building=tower, building=statue_of_liberty, building=igloo, building=tent. it's not style, it's typology gherkin

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

W dniu 31.05.2015 10:25, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): recently there is a lot of discussion from newbies(?) here, that seem to propose new tags and tagging schemes for stuff that is already discussed and agreed upon and in widespread use. Please, if you are not familiar with the tagging,

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

Am 31.05.2015 um 13:09 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: . It is so frustrating, that I rather try to propose more coherent (even if not standard) solutions that's fine but they should be compatible with the existing scheme (i e use different keys so that it can be applied in

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

Am 30.05.2015 um 00:11 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: Maybe you are just supposed to use building=church and shop=poodles for a church that was converted into a poodle shop - but i imagine that would be only if it was really really obvious that it was a church, not just by its

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

Am 29.05.2015 um 17:41 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: Sure, I know it. But it would mean that building=church is rather just a building form, not the amenity in any way, as suggested. Then if we also make building=industrial + man_made=works, it's kind of logical, because

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 30 May 2015 at 02:01, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/05/2015 9:40 AM, pmailkeey . wrote: On 29 May 2015 at 13:06, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 13:47, pmailkeey . napisał(a): On 29 May 2015 at 12:42, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 30 May 2015 at 18:20, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 30.05.2015 um 00:11 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: Maybe you are just supposed to use building=church and shop=poodles for a church that was converted into a poodle shop - but i imagine that would be

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On May 31, 2015, at 2:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: hat's the kind of tags we can use to describe this situation, if it doesn't help, maybe you have to be even more specific with the value? Im saying that unless the building is of particular significance,

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 30 May 2015 at 06:33, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: If museums are not an amenity but building? Are all mappable 'museums' buildings? I don't know. No, you're right, there are museums in parks. see e.g.[1]

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

W dniu 29.05.2015 13:47, pmailkeey . napisał(a): On 29 May 2015 at 12:42, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 13:34, John Willis napisał(a): I know there is a way to tag what the building as to what it was initially used for - but i don't think that is the proper way (afaik).

[Tagging] man_made=works (was: Re: Removal of amenity from OSM tagging)

W dniu 29.05.2015 13:34, John Willis napisał(a): I know there is a way to tag what the building as to what it was initially used for - but i don't think that is the proper way (afaik). So what do you think about building=church + amenity=museum then? I think we need some clear, general

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works (was: Re: Removal of amenity from OSM tagging)

On 29 May 2015 at 12:42, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 13:34, John Willis napisał(a): I know there is a way to tag what the building as to what it was initially used for - but i don't think that is the proper way (afaik). So what do you think about building=church +

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works (was: Re: Removal of amenity from OSM tagging)

On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 12:47 +0100, pmailkeey . wrote: On 29 May 2015 at 12:42, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 13:34, John Willis napisał(a): I know there is a way to tag what the building as to what it was

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 29 May 2015 at 13:06, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 13:47, pmailkeey . napisał(a): On 29 May 2015 at 12:42, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 13:34, John Willis napisał(a): I know there is a way to tag what the building as to what it was initially

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 29 May 2015 at 15:34, Arch Arch 7h3.a...@gmail.com wrote: There do exist church buildings which are no longer in use as place of worships. Those can be tagged with building=church without amenity=place_of_worship See:

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On 30/05/2015 9:40 AM, pmailkeey . wrote: On 29 May 2015 at 13:06, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl mailto:daniel@ko%C4%87.pl wrote: W dniu 29.05.2015 13:47, pmailkeey . napisał(a): On 29 May 2015 at 12:42, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl mailto:daniel@ko%C4%87.pl wrote:

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works (was: Re: Removal of amenity from OSM tagging)

Sent from my iPhone On May 29, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Although not the type of amenity estate agents usually describe. [pure speculation on my part] that is because the amenity tag originally was for the amenities of a town. Over time, as tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=works

On May 30, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote: But if not, we have no system, just historical cases and a lot of exceptions. I think it's time to try to make some rules instead. I though there was some tag prefix like disused: or abandoned: that could be used with the

  1   2   >