Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019, Rory McCann wrote: > > For controlling access, it depends on what sort of control there is. > Most sacred sites ("churches") aren't tagged as `access=private` (even > though they are). One would hope data consumers would take that as implied. I would never have

[Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On 02/04/2019 23:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Is there an OSM policy on mapping sacred / ceremonial sites? Yes, OSM has had `amenity=place_of_worship` for a while now, as well as `landuse=religious`. Are there any other places where the local original inhabitants may not want their sites

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

There are religion=chinese_folk and religion=vietnamese_folk for indigenous religion for Chinese people and Vietnamese people, you might wish to check is there similar existing value in use for Australian aboriginal religious sites, if not you might wish to create a new value. 在 2019年4月3日週三

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 11:26 AM by r...@technomancy.org: > For controlling access, it depends on what sort of control there is. > Most sacred sites ("churches") aren't tagged as `access=private` (even > though they are). One would hope data consumers would take that as implied. > Typical christian place

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

"building=church" is a building that has the characteristics of a church, but to indicate its use as a (christian) church it has to be tagged with "amenity=place_of_worship" plus "religion=christian" I would assume that the default is "access=private" as the priest/pastor/... has the power to

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 12:20 PM by vosc...@gmail.com: > "building=church" is a building that has the characteristics of a church, but > to indicate its use as a (christian) church it has to be tagged with > "amenity=place_of_worship" plus "religion=christian" > I would assume that the default is

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 12:23 PM by matkoni...@tutanota.com: > > > > Apr 3, 2019, 11:26 AM by > r...@technomancy.org > > : > >> For controlling access, it depends on what sort of control there is. >> Most sacred sites ("churches") aren't tagged as `access=private` (even >>

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Apr 3, 2019, 12:20 PM by vosc...@gmail.com: > > > "building=church" is a building that has the characteristics of a church, > > but to indicate its use as a (christian) church it has to be tagged with > >

Re: [Tagging] Horse mounting steps compared to horse walker

On Mon, 2019-04-01 at 19:47 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 19:23, Tony Shield > wrote: > > > > > > > > > and have confidence that this historic grade II mounting block > > will fit into the schema? Its not presently in use as it is > > in a > > school

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

sent from a phone > On 3. Apr 2019, at 20:34, Paul Allen wrote: > > Do you really wish somebody to get stoned > to death for entering a place of worship because OSM stated that access was > open to all? not stating the access tag is different from stating ‘open for all’ though. You should

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > haven’t we written somewhere in our terms that the information isn’t > reliable? I’m quite sure we have. Some people have to be told that coffee > is hot, kittens must not be dried in the microwave and map data may contain > errors. >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

sent from a phone > On 3. Apr 2019, at 23:34, Paul Allen wrote: > > I can understand (just) people arguing about whether it should be > access=adherents or > access=adherent, whether it should be adherents or customers, or something > like that. But > arguing about whether or not we should

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 7:28 PM by letopographe...@gmail.com: > Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a > shop (you may become one, but only after you entered), same for most of the > places of worship when you are not an "adherent" (which by the way is hard to >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 20:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: That is quite poor argument, someone believing map data so blindly would be > dead soon > anyway. > You're right. People aren't that stupid. Except the drivers who blindly follow their GPS up dead-end goat tracks or over cliffs because

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 05:45, Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 20:25, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > That is quite poor argument, someone believing map data so blindly would >> be dead soon >> anyway. >> > > You're right. People aren't that stupid. Except the drivers who blindly >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Le 04.04.19 à 00:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 3. Apr 2019, at 23:34, Paul Allen wrote: >> >> What harm does it do if somebody does add access=adherent (assuming that to >> be the case)? > > There are such restrictions in some places and we should map them, if we know > it well, or

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

Apr 3, 2019, 8:34 PM by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 18:29, Topographe Fou <> letopographe...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a >> shop (you may become one, but only after

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal -- RFC -- service=irregular

Hi Markus, Am 01.04.19 um 11:52 schrieb Markus:> I'm proposing the tag service=irregular for tram, light rail, > underground and other railway tracks not used for regular scheduled > passenger services, but only for diversions or shortcuts. > >

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

Apr 3, 2019, 6:40 PM by o...@tobias-knerr.de: > On 28.02.19 11:16, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote: > >> – maxspeed:seasonal:winter for winter maxspeed, and :forward/:backward >> appended as necessary >> > > Despite the feedback that maxspeed:conditional would be better suited > for this use

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

sent from a phone > On 3. Apr 2019, at 21:44, Paul Allen wrote: > > But then I > remember some of the civil liability actions that have succeeded in US courts > and realize > that a mis-tag of that nature might result in having to pay a lot of money in > compensation > to the bereaved

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 07:36, Paul Allen wrote: > > I see no reason to disallow something like access=adherents and every > reason to adopt > it. Even if you think it completely unnecessary, it's not doing any harm > if it represents the > actual situation on the ground better than having

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 08:15, marc marc wrote: > or next step is adding access=private on all houses That is assumed to be the rule - or is your house open for anybody to just walk in 24/7? :-) > and access=permissive on all shop ? > Same, because any shop owner can refuse service to any

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 18:29, Topographe Fou wrote: > > Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a > shop (you may become one, but only after you entered), same for most of the > places of worship when you are not an "adherent" (which by the way is hard > to

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

The signage should make the tag, not the opposite. I think it is one of the main rule here. Otherwise there will always be interpretations and personnal feelings.Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a shop (you may become one, but only after you entered), same

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

On 28.02.19 11:16, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote: > – maxspeed:seasonal:winter for winter maxspeed, and :forward/:backward > appended as necessary Despite the feedback that maxspeed:conditional would be better suited for this use case, this key has now been documented on the wiki:

Re: [Tagging] What does recycling:waste=yes/no mean?

Le 02.04.19 à 20:16, bkil a écrit : > "General waste container (black bags) (don't use this if the waste is > not recycled, use a tag like amenity=waste_disposal or > amenity=waste_basket instead)" > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:recycling I see 2 explanations: - greenwhasing: the

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

sent from a phone > On 3. Apr 2019, at 21:35, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Documenting used keys on Wiki is always a good idea. I’m still advocating the proposal section for the documentation of new and basically unused tags (or very low usage). Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous, sacred / ceremonial sites

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 22:34:55 +0100 From: Paul Allen To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: haven’t we