Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

And do you have any idea how to handle that problem? Supporting two or more tags meaning the same thing is dirty and results in longer queries.I might have an idea: Getting in dialogue with developers and mappers (users of one key, users of another key). Naming the problem and working alltogether

Re: [Tagging] Parking spaces for car charging

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 15:05, yo paseopor wrote: > > amenity=parking_spaces > capacity=1 or 2 or 3 > access=customers > Nothing I've read states that only customers can use it, or that there is any time limit imposed. I think they're assuming that nobody is going to drive there just to charge

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 16:42, Colin Smale wrote: > > Your model (using only phone=*) only allows an object to have a single phone > number. How do you propose modelling multiple phone numbers on a single > object? For example, one for general enquiries, one for emergencies, one for > staff,...

Re: [Tagging] Add amenity=childcare to Map Features?

why not. Babykarte has also support for `amenity=childcare` Original Message Subject: [Tagging] Add amenity=childcare to Map Features?From: Joseph Eisenberg To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: The tag amenity=childcare is fairly popular (used 17,000 times), andit's

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

> What about deprecating the contact: prefix, at least for phone? It doesn’t seem it will ever make it and is basically a deliberate tag fragmentation.Yes, I recommend deprecating `contact:phone` Original Message Subject: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

Am 24.08.2019 um 21:03 schrieb Valor Naram: > > Editors won't (in general) implement tags in presets unless they're > widely used.  Unless editors and carto support tags, they won't get > widely used, so editors and carto won't support them.  Chicken and egg. > > Yes, you're right. But I was the

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 16:46, Colin Smale wrote: > Your model (using only phone=*) only allows an object to have a single > phone number. How do you propose modelling multiple phone numbers on a > single object? For example, one for general enquiries, one for emergencies, > one for staff,... >

[Tagging] Parking spaces for car charging

My local supermarket recently added two car charging stations. Each charging station took over three existing parking spaces. This is apparently a nation-wide roll-out by the supermarket chain, so this is going to apply to many places in the UK. It's also a likely arrangement of other charging

[Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

sent from a phone > On 25. Aug 2019, at 07:20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Type 'phone' into the OSMwiki search box and you get redirected to the key > 'phone=*'. > This gets preferential treatment to the key 'contact:phone=*'. seems fair that “key:phone” shows up first for a

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

Your model (using only phone=*) only allows an object to have a single phone number. How do you propose modelling multiple phone numbers on a single object? For example, one for general enquiries, one for emergencies, one for staff,... Note I am not talking about tagging here, but trying to

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

This not always works. See traffic_sign:direction=* and traffic_signal:direction=* or crossing=marked in iD or all the "missions" you will not see implemented in StreetComplete and the impossibility of make it more scalable and customizable. One person said here to a question about a reasonible

Re: [Tagging] Parking spaces for car charging

Here in Spain chargers like this are used by motor_vehicles but forget about it, because before they have to be clients. I think this would be best definition for access. But also I will use other key to specify they have to be charging. You can find other places where charging would be not

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone

Le 25.08.19 à 16:55, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > What about deprecating the contact: prefix, at least for phone? not "AT LEAST FOR" that's the main issue ! having some contact with contact: prefix and some other without is a very bad idea. we need to switch all contact to key with contact:

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

On 25/08/2019 23:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: What should we do with a page like Tag:landcover=dunes? I already tried adding a mention that natural=dune was more common and mentioned on the Talk page that "dune" is a landform, not a landcover, but this was reverted. I'd be tempted to set a

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

Agreed. I already mentioned this to the user who created the tag on the page Talk:Tag:landcover=dunes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (note plural "dunes"); t There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover" means, because recently there have also been

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

TOn 26/08/19 13:51, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Agreed. I already mentioned this to the user who created the tag on the page Talk:Tag:landcover=dunes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (note plural "dunes"); t There seems to be confusion about what the key "landcover"

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

Another question: the tag natural=dune has been included on the list of features at Template:Generic:Map_Features:natural (used on Key:natural) for a long time, but not on the list Template:Map_Features:natural (used on the main Map Features page). Should natural=dune be added to Map Features, or

Re: [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

All approved and de facto landforms in Map Features are under natural=*, eg natural=ridge, natural=valley, natural=cliff, natural=valley, natural=peak, natural=mountain_range... - it's one of the main uses for the key natural=*, along with types of vegetation.

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

I think yes, add natural=dune to map features. I think natural means that the feature has a natural way of growing or forming, even if it’s guided, maintained or engineered by man. I know some artificial dunes, many artificial woods, many artificial landscapes and beaches. After creation,

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

+1 Dunes can also have grasslands growing on the, which is a landcover, so dunes being landcover would not make much sense. Leif Rasmussen On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 7:12 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > > There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'. > > >

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact don't provide any tagging method to tag numbers for emergency, general enquiries etc. Both keys just allow the tagging of one phone number on one object.But feel free to write a proposal to extend the

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

While some have suggested that uses of the landuse=* key like landuse=grass, landuse=village_green and landuse=recreation_area lead to misuse of the landuse=* key, the landcover=* key appears to be even more problematic. A newer user, Henke54, has continued to create new pages like

Re: [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Le 26.08.19 à 00:18, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > What should we do with a page like Tag:landcover=dunes? I already > tried adding a mention that natural=dune was more common and mentioned > on the Talk page that "dune" is a landform, not a landcover the first sentence on the wiki is enought to

Re: [Tagging] Parking spaces for car charging

amenity=charging _space? Says what it is. On 26/08/19 08:52, Paul Allen wrote: On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:53, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote: So it looks like, for the charging

Re: [Tagging] Parking spaces for car charging

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:53, Paul Allen wrote: > >> >> So it looks like, for the charging spaces, amenity=parking_space + >> access:= is the way >> to go. >> > > A bit messy, but how about > amenity=parking_space +

[Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

Hi There is a wiki entry for 'landcover=dune'. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover#Landcover_tags_and_related_tags It has 0 uses in the data base. There is an existing tag 'natural=dune'. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune To me dune is

Re: [Tagging] Parking spaces for car charging

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 23:53, Paul Allen wrote: > > So it looks like, for the charging spaces, amenity=parking_space + > access:= is the way > to go. > A bit messy, but how about amenity=parking_space + access=vehicle_charging_only car_charging=yes/no truck_charging=yes/no hgv_charging=yes/no

Re: [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Misuse of a key/tag happens. Some guidance should resolve the issue. First lets outline the problems this user has with the present tagging advocated by some here using the example: natural=dune 1) It may not be natural. The key natural is,

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 05:58, marc marc wrote: > > phone=number1;number2 > ex https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26861282 But that wouldn't allow you to specify what the different numbers are for, would it? eg phone=general_enquiries:number1;service:number2 Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Joseph Eisenberg : > > While some have suggested that uses of the landuse=* key like > landuse=grass, landuse=village_green and landuse=recreation_area lead > to misuse of the landuse=* key, the landcover=* key appears to be even > more problematic. The problem is one particular user. The

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone

On 26/08/19 05:48, marc marc wrote: Le 25.08.19 à 16:55, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : What about deprecating the contact: prefix, at least for phone? not "AT LEAST FOR" that's the main issue ! having some contact with contact: prefix and some other without is a very bad idea. we need to

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

On 26/08/19 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 25. Aug 2019, at 07:20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Type 'phone' into the OSMwiki search box and you get redirected to the key 'phone=*'. This gets preferential treatment to the key 'contact:phone=*'. seems fair

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

Unless you can justify a difference based on the nature of the information recorded instead of tag counts, deprecating contact:phone makes tagging less orthogonal, which is a nuisance for both mappers and map consumers. -- Andrew From: Valor Naram Sent: 25

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

Le 25.08.19 à 17:42, Colin Smale a écrit : > Your model (using only phone=*) only allows an object to have a single > phone number. not true. phone=number1;number2 ex https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26861282 18219 discint value for a total of 19694 count > one for general enquiries, one for