Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

Am So., 30. Sep. 2018 um 05:01 Uhr schrieb Bryan Housel : > On Sep 29, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I honestly don't understand why, ten years since it's introduction as > OSM's third basic primitive, there's still this weirdly unnatural aversion > to relations, even though they're

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refilling a purchased drink

Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb bkil : > > I am strongly against tagging the business practice how often a _paid_ > glass of > > beverage is being refilled > > > > Could you please clarify what policy this would violate that makes you > disapprove? it is basically a way of giving a

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Sep 29, 2018 9:40 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Alas, I don't have much hope that the pull request will be accepted. I've asked the upstream developers several times if they could possibly review the proposed functionality (I've at least a draft at a formal proposal -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb bkil : > > > The best visibility for both venues and people should be via OSM > itself. However, if we do not highlight these via specific tags, this > visibility may be impaired. Renderers could be enhanced to highlight > various tag combinations, like

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Michael Booth says that this is not a tower, but it seems to have stairs inside, and even windows. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzien ne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq WP says it is over 100m tall, too. I don't have a telecomm background, but I think the "seems to be a building, is hollow

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

> On Oct 1, 2018, at 5:23 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > > > ^ This is the problem. The wiki says we are supposed to do something like > `traffic_sign:forward=US:R1`, and we can't really do that. A preset needs to > be based on a "toplevel" tag like `traffic_sign=*` not > `traffic_sign:forward=*`

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

Civic_admin is a little too specific, but government is not specific enough. 90% of the land in some western American States will be owned and managed by some level of government; eg National and State forests and grasslands, parks and monuments, military reservations, wildlife preserves, BLM land

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:41 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'm still against using forward/backward on nodes, it really feels like > a hacky way to avoid using a relation (up there with using ref=* on ways to > describe routes), which would

Re: [Tagging] Default Language Format; language:default or default:language?

It's not always necessary or possible to interpret the language of a brand name. It's more useful to know the language of names that are based on natural language, such as the names of most streets and natural features. The copyrighted names of restaurants and shops are often entirely invented.

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 08:58, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> I honestly don't understand why, ten years since it's introduction as >> OSM's third basic primitive, there's still this weirdly unnatural aversion >> to relations, even

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 07:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Then you get other "fuzzy" ones :-), such as this one that I found yesterday: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

Am Mo., 1. Okt. 2018 um 14:54 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > In GB licensed premises have to provide free drinking water. > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39881236 > this is definitely not the default situation worldwide, but would it prevent you from adding some of the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

In GB licensed premises have to provide free drinking water. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39881236 Phil (trigpoint) On 1 October 2018 10:11:08 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb bkil : > >> >> >> The best visibility for both venues and people should

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Hi, Le lun. 1 oct. 2018 à 17:19, José G Moya Y. a écrit : > Michael Booth says that this is not a tower, but it seems to have stairs > inside, and even windows. > > https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_hertzien > ne_de_Villeneuve-d%27Ascq > It's definitely a tower. In French it's called a "Tour"

Re: [Tagging] hydrants

Hi Alberto, Nice to see you back there :) Regarding check_date, I'd go in favor of operational_status:date. working:* is too specific to fully functional hydrants, what about disused or dry ones? Then operational_status is a more complete solution to give state and associated date. All the

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

@Paul I guess it's this one: https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/issues/230 Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

1. Oct 2018 10:18 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > site This relation type is a horrible mistake and should not be encouraged by editors - this data is basically not usable. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

Le 1 octobre 2018 19:11:28 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : >1. Oct 2018 10:18 by dieterdre...@gmail.com >: > >> site > >This relation type is a horrible mistake and should not be encouraged >by editors > > > - this data is basically not usable. It's not

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:24 PM yo paseopor wrote: > > ^ This is the problem. The wiki says we are supposed to do something >> like `traffic_sign:forward=US:R1`, and we can't really do that. A preset >> needs to be based on a "toplevel" tag like `traffic_sign=*` not >> `traffic_sign:forward=*`

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 1. Oct 2018 10:18 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > site > > > This relation type is a horrible mistake and should not be encouraged by > editors > Care to expand? > - this data is basically not usable. > Sure it is. Say I want to know

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

You are supposed to be able to get all that information by using a closed way for the boundary of the RV park. Then all the other features are contained within that boundary. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:16 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 4:32 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > The idea that turn restrictions are "super critical" but public > transport relations are not is valid, but subjective; I hope that, as > the ID editor matures, it will attract a healthy and diverse team of > main developers so that

Re: [Tagging] Default Language Format; language:default or default:language?

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 11:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > *TL:DR -* the language of a Brand names cannot always be determined (but > in this case it's English). > Usualy the most common language in the region will be used for invented > shop & restaurant brand names, > That's something that I've

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

Jochen Topf briefly mentions some problems with relations in his latest SOTM 2018 talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxabz22ni4 According to him, it's the diversity of the relations without decent support from the OSM-model makes it hard for data-consumers to process them. The rest of the

[Tagging] Log bollard fence tagging

I am just wondering what the best way to tag barriers like this: https://timberbollards.com.au/products/brisbane-fence-log-barrier-600mm-high It is closest in design to a split rail fence however it is not a linear barrier (you can walk between them), and it doesn't seem right to use to use

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Am Mo., 1. Okt. 2018 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com>: > The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same > width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more > supports. > I would not negate that a mast can be tapered. >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more supports. I do think we need something simple to distinguish simple mobile phone towers like (1) and larger television/radio broadcast towers like (2) and it

Re: [Tagging] Default Language Format; language:default or default:language?

Do you have an idea how to deal with names that have several languages in them, e.g. "Spazio Italian Bistrot" https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5726043060 (Italian English French in the same name)? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Default Language Format; language:default or default:language?

Yuri, The new proposal does not intend to define what language is used in the standard "name=*" tag. This was attempted in 2 proposals last summer (2017), but both failed to be approved. (See name:language and

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:31 AM Paul Norman wrote: > Could you provide a link to the osm2pgql issue tracker with the issue in > question? I don't recall it, but I've been away a lot and haven't kept up > with everything. I hadn't opened a fresh ticket, because there are existing tickets against

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > If this is the reason why we need a distinction, I'd rather use tags that > state it, then rely on some indirect fuzzy mast/tower distinction. > man_made=broadcast_tower vs. man_made=cellphone_tower (for example). > Certainly, choosing

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

Hello everyone! I haven't forgotten the landuse=civic_admin proposal, but I'm uncertain about two points and would like to know your opinion: * Isn't 'civic administration' limited to the administration of a town or city (compared to the administration of the state, county etc.)? Maybe it would

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I was in this area last week & went in yesterday to check & if necessary > update some map features. I found that this tower is currently mapped as a > water_tower >

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

> > > ^ This is the problem. The wiki says we are supposed to do something > like `traffic_sign:forward=US:R1`, and we can't really do that. A preset > needs to be based on a "toplevel" tag like `traffic_sign=*` not > `traffic_sign:forward=*` or `traffic_sign:backward=*` (remember seamark? >

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 05:28, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > * Isn't 'civic administration' limited to the administration of a town > or city (compared to the administration of the state, county etc.)? > I would have said that it applied to any & all levels of Govt - local, State & Federal > Maybe

Re: [Tagging] hydrants

>Hi Alberto, >Nice to see you back there :) >Regarding check_date, I'd go in favor of operational_status:date. >working:* is too specific to fully functional hydrants, what about disused or >dry ones? >Then operational_status is a more complete solution to give state and >associated date. >All

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 07:23, Paul Allen wrote: > Given that it has a lattice structure, it is (according to the wiki > definition) a water mast. :) > While by a different definition :-), it's a tower because it doesn't have any guy wires! Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

sent from a phone > On 1. Oct 2018, at 19:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > site - This relation type is a horrible mistake and should not be encouraged > by editors > > - this data is basically not usable. > I was merely listing the most common relations. associatedStreet is probably

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

sent from a phone > On 1. Oct 2018, at 23:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Well, yes, it is as it has a water tank on top, but it also supports various > mobile phone & TV antennae, so what should it be? it’s a nice edge case to test the current system, I would probably keep the water