Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Hello all, thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only coming out with

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:12 PM Zeke Farwell wrote: > The proposal currently states: > >> Meaning of the unisex >> =yes is currently unclear: >> >>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or >>- facility that accessible

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Le 06.10.22 à 10:12, martianfreeloader a écrit : gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation gender=not-segregated ? but unisex==egregate <> unisex=not-segregate has the same meaning, minus the key change behind this

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On 4/10/22 23:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I am not entirely how to solve various issues surrounding drinking water terminology (help highly welcomed!) but it is now really clear to me that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain Wiki page established

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Hello all, thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather than voting against, you should

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On 7/10/22 23:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Fr., 7. Okt. 2022 um 13:46 Uhr schrieb ael : Maybe. I guess that if I was starting from scratch, I might have a general tag of water_feature and find choose suitable values to describe these things. then I am happy we do not

[Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Voting has started on the crannog proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog There was only one comment during the fortnight of discussion, so it should be fairly forward. I know there are a lot of discussions about more important tags going on at the moment, but

Re: [Tagging] addr:town

Sep 24, 2022, 17:07 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Sa., 24. Sept. 2022 um 13:38 Uhr schrieb Andrew Hain <> > andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk> >: > >> The key addr:town is currently documented as de facto [>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q1070>> ][>> >>

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

everybody can write everything in the wiki, but man_made=drinking_fountain is a low usage tag and drinking_fountain=yes is virtually unused (10 times globally), whoever wrote this didn’t research actual usage. Where is it written? It is written here:

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

sent from a phone > On 7 Oct 2022, at 01:09, Davidoskky via Tagging > wrote: > > For example, man_made=water_tap cannot coexist with > man_made=drinking_fountain thus, in the wiki it currently advises to tag a > water fountain that has a tap as man_made=water_tap drinking_fountain=yes.

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even if technically possible. Yes, I agree with Mateusz: I would find deprecation of amenity=drinking_water to be highly problematic. It is a very long-established tag. I also agree with this, I don't think it

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On Oct 7, 2022, at 12:22 AM, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote: >> But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even >> if technically possible. >> >> Yes, I agree with Mateusz: I would find deprecation of >> amenity=drinking_water to be highly problematic. It is a very >>

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

I disagree with this: "people who have only the vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on" - Yes, most people probably don't know a lot about archeology. I assume this is the reason why participation was so low. - However, anybody can judge whether they find it sensible to approve a tag

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

Thank you, I will close this long thread. It makes no sense to keep talking about all these things here when the purpose was just the deprecation of man_made=drinking_fountain. I'll open a new thread in which I'll try to write my ideas about all this in more detail in order to have a more in

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 01:07:56PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > so basically you call a "fountain" what we call in German a "Fontaine", or > "Springbrunnen", and what could be more specifically called a "waterspout > fountain" in English, i.e. a structure where water is blasted into the

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about. I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures still existing today. I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not say what

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag. I'm totally fine this. Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog. I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out. On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote: I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

who cares for "in use" or "approved", the question is only whether there are alternative tags available, in which case you either have to decide or put both. The voting isn't binding, at most it could be relevant if there is an alternative value for the same key. So while this could be seen as a

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Hello, Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : who cares for "in use" or "approved" me :) approved that means that the subject has been discussed, that people have spent time on it, that there has been an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements it's quite different

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 11:56:43AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I would be interested to learn how you would call them, if "fountain" is > not the correct term. Also I would like to add another example and ask > whether that's a fountain for you: >

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Same opinion as Marc. On 07/10/2022 12:27, Marc_marc wrote: Hello, Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : who cares for "in use" or "approved" me :) approved that means that the subject has been discussed, that people have spent time on it, that there has been an opportunity to

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

It seems the discussion about this proposal is only starting now. This is unfortunate. It should have happened earlier and might cause frustration with the proposal author. Really sorry for that -- this is not ideal. But still better to fix some major issues to improve the proposal than

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote: Hello, Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : who cares for "in use" or "approved" me :) approved that means that the subject has been discussed, that people have spent time on it, that there has been an opportunity to detect problems, to

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

so basically you call a "fountain" what we call in German a "Fontaine", or "Springbrunnen", and what could be more specifically called a "waterspout fountain" in English, i.e. a structure where water is blasted into the air, and have no word for all the sculptural fountains that don't jet water in

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Zeke Farwell writes: > The proposal currently states: > >> Meaning of the unisex =yes >> is currently unclear: >> >>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or >>- facility that accessible for men and women, either

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Hi Anne, I don't have any objections about the tag specifically. But proposals like this do raise an interesting question. Your proposal is for a specific value. However, the key itself "settlement_type" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:site_type) is only "in use". Further, the

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

I agree, I wouldn't do this. -- But I've just voted before reading Nathan's mail. Can I revert my vote? On 07/10/2022 10:47, Nathan Case wrote: Hi Anne, I don't have any objections about the tag specifically. But proposals like this do raise an interesting question. Your proposal is for a

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

On Oct 7, 2022, at 1:47 AM, Nathan Case wrote: > If it's not appropriate then we end up in the situation where parent keys > aren't approved but child keys/values are - which seems a little odd. This is a remarkably astute observation (thanks, Nathan!) and raises darn good questions. I agree

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

I would be interested to learn how you would call them, if "fountain" is not the correct term. Also I would like to add another example and ask whether that's a fountain for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevi_Fountain (don't let the name irritate you, just by looking at the thing). Cheers,

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

I've briefly screened the wiki for voting and couldn't find anything on that matter. I'll revert my vote, sorry. Anne, as commented in my original vote, I really appreciate your work on this. But let's try to get this done in the proper order to avoid future conflicts. By the way: I've

[Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

I wish to broadly discuss the definition of fountains and similar objects that have the objective of delivering water (drinkable or not). Everything I wish to discuss in this thread is about man made constructions that transport water through pipes, I will thus not talk about wells and such

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

Am Fr., 7. Okt. 2022 um 13:46 Uhr schrieb ael : > Maybe. I guess that if I was starting from scratch, I might have a > general tag of water_feature and find choose suitable values to describe > these things. then I am happy we do not start from scratch :) There are so many different kind of