Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

Le 16.01.20 à 02:52, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > The simple "seasonal=yes/no" is at least clear, though with natural > features "intermittent=yes/no" is more common and has a similar > meaning. I see a big difference between the two: an intermittent water point provides water today but not

Re: [Tagging] was: on poi (was: building=disused)

On 14/01/2020 19:02, Markus wrote: > was:shop=supermarket Le 16.01.20 à 12:34, Marc M. a écrit : > I'm also using was: because I don't care and often don't known > if a poi is destroyed, dismantled, demolished, moved, the only > thing I can see is that it's gone. Le 16.01.20 à 12:53, Dave F via

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > If the 'standard map' starts rendering 'disused=yes' the same way as > 'disused:*=*' (presently not rendered) then what? > > Then standard map style will be fixed to > remove this bug. >

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 12:57, Paul Allen wrote: So the wiki says now. It's not what it said in the past. But let's say you're correct. We both know that standard carto doesn't render physical objects with a disused prefix. I, and others, believe that it is important to render physical objects

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Dave F wrote: > > On 16/01/2020 12:01, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better. > > But > > you already lost the battle with building=house, which is too firmly > > entrenched to change. > > Why would it need

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

sent from a phone > On 16. Jan 2020, at 01:49, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But disabled=yes should never have been described > as deprecated - it was always being used. I guess „disabled“ was discouraged for political reasons (diversity) as it isn’t an acceptable term (AFAIK, I am not

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

- yea, a lot of the erosion control searching online I have seen is open mesh or open squared checkerboard. - yea, a lot of weed paper is root-blocking /light blocking sheeting, usually .5mm thick or so - the farming plastic is a weed barrier, and also a wind erosion barrier. (The dust can

Re: [Tagging] was: on poi (was: building=disused)

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:12, marc marc wrote: in case of a was:SHOP=*, the previous shop (what's inside > the building) has gone. and if you are consistent with yourself (you say > that osm is not a database for memorizing history) when I survey it, > the only thing I see is that the previous

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

16 Jan 2020, 12:34 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Using "building=* values describe how the building looks" is recording > historical data. We don't do that in OSM > Using it to tag how it currently looks is perfectly fine. For example - church used nowadays as museum, clearly constructed as a

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 12:43, Dave F wrote: > > On 16/01/2020 01:08, Paul Allen wrote: > > That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree. > > Do they? > Until you chimed in, most did. > > > So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended. > > Does it? > The fact that we're

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Dave F wrote: > > > On 16/01/2020 12:57, Paul Allen wrote: > > > >> So the wiki says now. It's not what it said in the past. But let's > say you're > >> correct. We both know that standard carto doesn't render physical > objects > >> with a disused prefix. I,

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 12:01, marc marc wrote: you want me to believe that every time an object has gone, It's not gone. We're talking about buildings which are physically still existing. you make an enquiry to find out how it disappeared ? Err.. No.You don't have to know why a building isn't

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

16 Jan 2020, 14:43 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: >  I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme. > Is it actually popular? And to answer the question: (1) it duplicates (attempts to replace) an existing tagging scheme (2) for building tagging it is not an improvement in any way

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 12:01, Paul Allen wrote: A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better. But you already lost the battle with building=house, which is too firmly entrenched to change. Why would it need to change? If that's it's *current* usage tag it as house. If it

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 16/1/20 12:08 pm, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Joseph Eisenberg <>> >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >>> I'm one of themaintainers of the Openstreetmap-carto style, but >>> I >>>

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

16 Jan 2020, 13:55 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > There is a small amount near my home, I’ll snap a picture of it. > That would help! > It is not a “mappable” amount, but should give you an idea of what it is. > See micromapping, some map really tiny things :) > It is somewhere between weed

Re: [Tagging] Cooker or Stove in the kitchen?

For American English,   I think the common usage is still stove for a one piece unit.   Cooktop/oven for separate units, but I think stove/oven might be common also. On 1/15/20 9:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 10:26, Joseph Eisenberg

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:57 AM John Willis via Tagging wrote: > So what would be a good surface=* be for it? Tarpaper sounds too close to the > roofing material, which could cause confusion. I use one grade of the stuff for weed control in my vegetable garden, while another underlies the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

Hi, just a reminder, that the proposal "tax_free_shopping" [0] is still in the state "proposed". However, I'd like to start voting soon, so please take a look at the proposal and let me know if something needs to be changed. Hauke [0]

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

Hello Stuart Can you describe the difference between free_water and drinking_water better? Based on the wiki drinking_water means free potable water. Best regards, Markus Von: European Water Project Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2020 22:09 An:

Re: [Tagging] was: on poi (was: building=disused)

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:15, Kevin Kenny wrote: 'Church'/'chapel' seem to be the unique example that everyone resorts > to when identifying the former purpose of a building - because in so > many places or denominations, the architecture is distinctive. Yep. Although I'd argue that

Re: [Tagging] was: on poi (was: building=disused)

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 9:47 AM Paul Allen wrote: > Sometimes I use was: for that, more usually I put the info in a note. > I tend to use was and disused on former chapels and churches that are > of a style that are instantly recognizable as such. I similarly leave it off a lot of buildings! I

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

Le mer. 15 janv. 2020 à 23:47, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > > Thank you for pointing out the tag "drinking_water=yes/no" > > Looking at the wiki page for this tag and for the related tag > amenity=drinking_water, it is strongly implied that this is for a > drinking water supply which is

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water

> > > 4. Re: Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water > fountains. (Jarek Piórkowski) > > Jarek, for better or worse, after taking into account the numerous > exchanges, we are going to amend the project's instructions to suggest > tagging seasonal fountains by

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

> >1. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant > (Markus Peloso) > Markus, it seems to me that the definition is partially related to context, but I am definitely not an authority and defer to those with experience. Describing a café as having drinking_water=yes seem a

[Tagging] RFC free_water

Dear All, Over the past days we have debated the merits of adding a new feature free_water and a sub-feature free_water:container, applicable in the context of cafes, bars, night-clubs, and restaurants which are willing to give out free water for bottle refill to anybody. In the attached

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

I would consider explicit mention that typical shop should not be tagged with duty_free=no (only in cases where shop used to be or can be expected to be duty free, for example in an airport it potentially makes sense to use that tag) 16 Jan 2020, 21:28 by m...@hauke-stieler.de: > Hi, > > just

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 17/1/20 2:48 am, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote: 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : If the 'standard map' starts rendering 'disused=yes' the same way

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

Hi, > about : duty_free:refund=yes > is it an intermediate level between duty_free=yes and duty_free=no ? > if yes, wouldn't it be better to use duty_free=limited ? I wouldn't say "duty_free:refund=yes" is something in between "duty_free=yes" and "=no" but rather a different type of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

Thanks for the hint, I added it to the wiki entry :) On 16.01.20 23:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I would consider explicit mention that typical shop should not be tagged > with > duty_free=no (only in cases where shop used to be or can be expected to > be duty free, > for example in an airport

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

16 Jan 2020, 21:21 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:57 AM John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > >> So what would be a good surface=* be for it? Tarpaper sounds too close to >> the roofing material, which could cause confusion. >> > > I use one grade of the stuff for weed

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 22:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > And that is a problem. A reduction in information caused by a render > failing to render information. > Not quite. As things stand, that information is being mapped. The problem is that some people, such as you, are calling

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

about : duty_free:refund=yes is it an intermediate level between duty_free=yes and duty_free=no ? if yes, wouldn't it be better to use duty_free=limited ? about "global_blue" and the following : what is that ? maybe add a link. Le 16.01.20 à 21:28, Hauke Stieler a écrit : > Hi, > > just a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

Le 17.01.20 à 00:51, Hauke Stieler a écrit : >> about : duty_free:refund=yes >> is it an intermediate level between duty_free=yes and duty_free=no ? >> if yes, wouldn't it be better to use duty_free=limited ? > I wouldn't say "duty_free:refund=yes" is something in between > "duty_free=yes" and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

> I see 3 levels : > the customer doesn't pay the tax duty_free=yes > the customer pay the tax but the shop help for a refund > the customer pay the tax and the shop doesn't help a refund duty_free=no Exactly, this is the basic idea for the scheme (added these points to the wiki page). There

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:51, European Water Project wrote: >>5. Re: Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water >> fountains. (Jarek Piórkowski) >> Jarek, I think preferable to avoid seasons on open hours and put >> month range to avoid Northern/Southern hemisphere

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

On Thursday, 16 January 2020, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I would consider explicit mention that typical shop should not be tagged with > duty_free=no (only in cases where shop used to be or can be expected to be > duty free, > for example in an airport it potentially makes sense to use that

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

>> I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme. >> > Is it actually popular? The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues According to taginfo, there are a total of 11,158 occurence of disused:man_made and

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Le 16.01.20 à 12:53, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : > On 16/01/2020 11:34, marc marc wrote: >> I'm also using was: because I don't care > > Well. Done. You. you want me to believe that every time an object has gone, you make an enquiry to find out how it disappeared ? I did this at first, before

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Joseph says tagging usage should dictate OSM-carto: the community should make tagging decisions based on what works best for mappers and what makes logical sense, without worrying what a particular renderer will do. But then ignores the more popular disused: prefix But this is not always

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 01:08, Paul Allen wrote: That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree. Do they? So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended. Does it? "Use the disused: lifecycle prefix on tags that relate to features that are in a reasonable state of repair but

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

The reason it's discouraged is it removes the building type. ie building=church. Even though it may not be used as a church currently it still looks like one. Renderers may still want to distinguish it as such as it's a prominent feature, useful for navigation. On 14/01/2020 17:59, Andy

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

The correct term is 'don't tag *incorrectly* to suit the render'. All tags are for the renderer, otherwise all the maps would be black lines & dots DaveF. On 14/01/2020 18:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag for the renderer.'

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

You're using was: to represent the same meaning as disused:, so why not use the far more popular latter one? On 14/01/2020 19:02, Markus wrote: For example, building=commercial + disused=yes on the area and was:shop=supermarket + name=* on a node within.

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 11:34, marc marc wrote: I'm also using was: because I don't care Well. Done. You. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

I'm also using was: because I don't care and often don't known if a poi is destroyed, dismantled, demolished, moved, the only thing I can see is that it's gone. f.e. a room whose store type has changed doesn't fit my description of disused: Le 16.01.20 à 12:16, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : >

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 14/01/2020 19:32, marc marc wrote: Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit : If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now used as a pub still remains a building=church. I fully agree with that. note that

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 11:35, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > > This never really stands up. Storing the supposed type could only ever > work if there's a 'standard' style for each building type. > A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better. But you already lost the