Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote: Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY type of place. Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate

Re: [Tagging] Camps

2015-05-05 23:35 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > The core question is: should this be a top level tag: > >leisure=camp_site >leisure=communal_activity_camp >leisure=caravan_site > > Or subtags: >leisure=camp_site >caravans=dedicated >tents=yes >communal_activity_camp=no >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

On Wed May 6 08:23:34 2015 GMT+0100, SomeoneElse wrote: > On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote: > > Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site > > and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take > > caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 : > One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between > tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of > commercial sites cater for both. this is a non-issue, simply tag everything as tourism=camp_site and eventually add c

Re: [Tagging] Camps

On Wed May 6 00:08:17 2015 GMT+0100, David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: > > > > It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover > > camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be > > leisure=vacation_camp. > > I don't thi

Re: [Tagging] Camps

On Wed May 6 11:49:39 2015 GMT+0100, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > > > > ... very specific British connotations associated with > > > holiday_camp. > > > > Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called > > resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. > -1

Re: [Tagging] Camps

Lets be quite clear. I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a different issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks, travellers sites etc.) are a form of residential landuse. Jerry   From: David Bannon To: Jerry Clough - OSM ; "Tag discussion, strategy a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

There are several "RV" based camps in the mountains of San Diego that are large camps with amenities, stores, fishing pond, and other things. Yes, there is tent camping, but the major focus is the people staying (longer than a day) in their RV and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever around th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

I am using K-9, an open-source Android app. On May 5, 2015 6:35:40 PM CDT, David Bannon wrote: >On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: >> It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my >> experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered >>

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett 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 only be reasonable i

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on > [tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact > mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. OSM doesn't have a > policy that interested contributors

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

On 6 May 2015 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 : > >> One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between >> tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of >> commercial sites cater for both. > > > > this is a non-issu

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett 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 a

Re: [Tagging] Camps

On 6 May 2015 at 10:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-05-05 23:35 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > >> The core question is: should this be a top level tag: >> >>leisure=camp_site >>leisure=communal_activity_camp >>leisure=caravan_site >> >> Or subtags: >>leisure=camp_site >>c

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

> Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . : > > > I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and > rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for vacation. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

On 6 May 2015 at 20:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . : > > > > > > I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only > themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? > > > if they're static I'd probably tag them

Re: [Tagging] Camps

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 12:45 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: > I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a > different issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks, > travellers sites etc.) are a form of residential landuse. Jerry, I suspect the distinction might b

Re: [Tagging] Camps

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort > is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. > Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings > between BE and

Re: [Tagging] Camps

Sent from my iPhone > On May 7, 2015, at 7:21 AM, David Bannon wrote: > > >> On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: >> >> A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort >> is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. >> R

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

On 06/05/2015, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett 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 >

[Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

Dear all, Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org) will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon. There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as historic=monument. The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki: 'A mem

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

The problem may relate in part to Germany, where a natural monument is a thing. Also in the USA the tag is ambiguous. historic=memorial perhaps better fits the definition. But even then there are many small memorials and roadside plaques that could reasonably be tagged historic=memorial or histori

[Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

I call people to review the wiki page Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?. link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_OSM_and_not_another_collaborative_mapping_service%3F It was written by a single user as a generic page to compare other collaborative mapping services to OSM.

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

Some of the parts about OSM seems to be in the spirit of the project, although I would word some of it a bit differently. To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid negative statements about other projects, or over generalizations about those projects. For example "Y

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:29:48PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote: > To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid > negative statements about other projects, Why not, if they are true? > or over generalizations about > those projects. For example "Your mapping service is

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:41 AM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > 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 only be reasonable if those people wer

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

sorry I overlooked the same link in Matthijs email. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > They is a "project"+map that shows all those "monuments" with the request > to retag them: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/ > > > regards > > m. > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

They is a "project"+map that shows all those "monuments" with the request to retag them: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/ regards m. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > Dear all, > > Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org) > wil

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

There is confusion between monument and memorial ... suggest follow the definitions under the OSM tag historic .. where monument is large ... as in you can walk inside it, over it. memorial is small .. say a plaque I have re-tagged some of the 'monuments' to 'memorials' where I am familiar with

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > That proposal has no listings for Australia (possibly www. > *nationaltrust*.org.au/ ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust*. > org.uk/ ? > I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples, > it doe

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

> On May 6, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > The full expression of that might be the concept of a community of people who > "edit things like I edit". If I start editing campgrounds for example, > perhaps the editor shows a chat window open to other people editing > campgrounds. >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

On 7/05/2015 3:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: That proposal has no listings for Australia (possibly www.*nationaltrust*.org.au/ ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

It's under "Tagging", it's mentioned twice, once under "Main tag", once under "Secondary tags" On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/05/2015 3:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That pro

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

I would remove such a page from the wiki. It is more suitable as a publicity pamphlet. But even in that case it needs some more structuring. The individual pros and cons have to be juxtaposed. The summary statements are not correct in all aspects and therefore open to criticism. On 7 May 2015 at