[Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

2014-01-01 Thread David Bannon
Hello Fernando, I was just advised about this mailing list so have joined yet another ! (sigh...) Thanks for pushing this issue, my concern is that people's lives are potentially at risk here. While I am not really committed to using tracktype= as the trigger, on the Austrialian mailing list we

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

2014-01-01 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 22:00 -0200, Fernando Trebien wrote: A smarter router could even change this preference based on weather conditions (under rain, sett gets considerably slippery, and dirt would be far less preferable than compacted). I guess that is why I like the use of

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

2014-01-01 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 22:57 -0200, Fernando Trebien wrote: Welcome, David. If you've just been advised about this discussion, you may wish to read it from the start: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tags-useful-for-rendering-of-roads-in-poor-conditions-td5791303.html Actually, the particular

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

2014-01-03 Thread David Bannon
This could be a very useful tag - I'm particularly interested in unsealed and 4x4 roads/tracks, sure you have seen the recent discussion. We have been trying to massage existing tags for the purpose. The problem as I see it is that with a wealth of tags everyone chooses to use different ones. And

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions

2014-01-04 Thread David Bannon
OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner. But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ? If people think its a good idea I

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions

2014-01-10 Thread David Bannon
issues... david On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 17:07 +1100, David Bannon wrote: OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner. But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what we already agree

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions

2014-01-11 Thread David Bannon
. Thanks On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:12 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki credentials is welcome to edit

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

2014-01-13 Thread David Bannon
BGNO, you have been following the Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions thread started by Fernando on this same list haven't you ? I have created a summary page on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Davo We hope to reach a consensus on what seems pretty close to what

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions

2014-01-15 Thread David Bannon
. David On Fri, 2014-01-10 at 21:12 +1100, David Bannon wrote: OK folks, I have moved a draft summary of the discussion on this topic to my OSM wiki discussion page. Anyone with OSM Wiki credentials is welcome to edit it to try and make the choices clearer. if you don't have OSM credentials

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread David Bannon
In Australia, we refer to a dirt road meaning just about any unsealed road. Very rarely use earth or ground. Ground sounds to me more like the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level ! We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes through its normal

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread David Bannon
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:11 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: Do you all agree with these wiki edits? 1. Yes, almost. Not too happy with the term 'stiffness'. Maybe just remove the term 'stiffness' ? 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Yes, I guess so ... However, while a good job Fernando, I still think we

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread David Bannon
Good on you Dave, I do like a good rant ! On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 10:47 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: Begin rantIMO tracktype should describe the physical characteristics of a track, not a highway, and it should have nothing to do with how well maintained it is. Great in an ideal world

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-18 Thread David Bannon
between a highway's surface, hardness, composition and smoothness and ran into similar problems (David Bannon?) FWIW, borrowing again from Fernando above I would reword the definitions as so: grade1: heavily compacted hardcore grade1: [Usually paved. If unpaved then a heavily compacted

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 09:02 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst), No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many roads far, far worse

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 11:50 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is. Trouble is Fernando, that in many cases the problem is not in fact 'softness', it could be rocks, ruts, slippery, steepness, angle (left/right) and lots more. The biggest

Re: [Tagging] Opinion on meaning of tracktype, smoothness and surface for routing

2014-03-20 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:02 +0100, André Pirard wrote: Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on IGN maps) is very subjective but that the

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread David Bannon
. 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: David Bannon wrote: Should I use this road or not ? tracktype= does claim to use that approach It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at documenting. The part

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

2014-05-19 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 19:05 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. I Australia, 'track' generally means a road that is badly maintained or not maintained at all. Almost certainly unsealed. Some short and

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

2014-05-20 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:58 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: In my opinion you shouldn't use the osm tags highway=track for important connecting roads or tourist roads, even if you call them tracks in everyday live, and even if they aren't paved. Better use the highway tag according to its

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

2014-06-05 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 22:31 +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: (Greg) As for style, I mean something as simple as dashed casings when unpaved, What about countries where 90% of roads are unpaved? That's not going to look very nice. Janko, I am sure you don't mean to suggest we

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] generalized survey and consequences

2014-06-09 Thread David Bannon
I am not sure that I like (eg) survey:date A typical road will have a range of data associated with it, lets try it - source=survey name=blah highway=unclassified surface=unpaved lanes=1 survey:date=2014-06-10 I guess that makes good sense, but what if the initial source was, say, bing ?

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] generalized survey and consequences

2014-06-09 Thread David Bannon
at a later date. And again the change will be tagged with the time and when the *:confirmed tag was added or changed. -Tod On Jun 9, 2014, at 5:13 PM, David Bannon wrote: I am not sure that I like (eg) survey:date A typical road will have a range of data associated

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] generalized survey : proposed wiki update

2014-06-14 Thread David Bannon
Andre, sorry, I support what you are trying but not quite sure you have the proposal ready yet. I cannot post to the Belgium list so assume you see this on tagging ? Can you please give a few examples of how the data would appear ? I think that might clarify it. In particular, how you will

Re: [Tagging] Track grades

2014-07-08 Thread David Bannon
Jesse, you are very welcome ! I have campaigned on this topic a couple of times but without really achieving any consensus. Chief problem is some people's fear of 'subjectiveness'. I don't really care exactly how it is done as long as we end up with a clear model advising people whether or not

Re: [Tagging] [openstreetmap-carto] Render paved/unpaved (#110)

2014-07-28 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 06:47 -0700, Rovastar wrote: sorry but I don't like having new separate colours for each one. Agree Rovastar, whole new set of colours does not work, mainly IMHO because the casual user would not know the colour code. I think the only way we are going to do this is a

Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-20 Thread David Bannon
yes, agree strongly. Surface= is a good tag, provides important info but it is far too fine grained. Someone setting up a route cannot be expected to sift through all the possible values. Similarly, we may well have a chance to get the renderers to respect a clear, on/off tag like the proposed

Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-21 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 00:23 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: ..A good suggestion ... So it seems that yet again, we are going to reject this attempt to solve a real problem. Looking at the neg replies, because its not useful for bike riders; not useful for a number of undefined edge cases; is a

Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

2014-09-22 Thread David Bannon
Ah, Richard, its very hard to argue with someone who uses XKCD to illustrate their point, unfair ! But, no official tags ? truish. But when I am speaking to someone, I am free to make up new words and grammar, but should not expect to be understood. Better to agree in advance. And yes, bike

Re: [Tagging] User:Ulamm/Mappers, evaluators and feedback

2014-12-18 Thread David Bannon
I am not really sure what this article is trying to say. Like Mateusz, I object to the line - ... Important is that every mapper does not only note if the object or quality he has searched for is there, but also has to note if it is not there. There is wide agreement that many objects have

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=electronic_parts

2015-01-02 Thread David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-01-02 at 23:17 +0100, Michał Brzozowski wrote: I am writing to propose a new, hopefully more precise and self-describing tag for shops that sell electronic parts. Good move. David https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Delectronic_parts

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-03 Thread David Bannon
I have never seen the term chemical disposal point No, new term to me too. Must be a UK thing. In Aust, dump point rules and I am a caravanner. We'll need a list of terms that people might search for, little point in debating it, clearly everyone will have their own favourite but

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-04 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 12:58 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: Well, dump_point might be a workable compromise and it plays well with Dave, are we still looking for a name for a new tag when it seems we can work with whats already there ? tourism=camp_site amenity=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-04 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 08:23 +1100, Warin wrote: The 'amenity=waste_disposal does not look to have been through an aproval process ... nor does any tag. The 'approval process' is voluntary .. Not sure I agree there ! There is an approval process, if a key/tag gets the votes OR its agreed

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-04 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 10:02 +1100, Warin wrote: ...some sensible stuff Warin, I need to head out now and will look at rest of you questions later. But one question, how about a 'flatter' approach ? amenity=dump_point (or dump_station ...) amenity=dog amenity=trash_bin drop the intermediate

Re: [Tagging] Draft Additions to camp_site

2015-02-02 Thread David Bannon
amenity=dump_station OK, I was preparing text for that, I searched for dump_point which is the term used here, nothing. Its something we most certainly need and could be used as a standalone node or one associated with (eg) camp_site. Must make a clear distinction between waste and human waste,

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-02 Thread David Bannon
Good move Warin. At present, this key seems a bit light on for documentation, no history and little info for any of it children. Is it an 'approved' key ? Little use. In the context where this discussion came up, camp_sites, I'd suggest waste=chemical_toilet is the one we are interested in. The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

2015-02-06 Thread David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 13:58 +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote: Why not tourism=reception_desk? We have tourism=hotel, tourism=camp_site, tourism=information, it's only logical to use the same key. I think the idea of =reception_desk could be applied much more widely than just tourism. Commercial

Re: [Tagging] Wiki on amenity=waste_disposal Rewrite?

2015-02-06 Thread David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 19:31 +1100, Warin wrote: reasoned arg against (eg) amenity=waste_dog_excrement Yes, Warin, you are probably right, while a more sensible syntax, it will be resisted as too big a change. An alternative might be to declare that (eg) waste=waste_dog_excrement is on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

2015-02-06 Thread David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 11:16 +, Dan S wrote: However it occurs to me that it would be useful to have some way of indicating _what_ it is the reception for. In a lot of cases, we'd probably see a larger area mapped as something, be it caravan park, mine, whatever. Then a single node

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

2015-02-07 Thread David Bannon
On Sat, 2015-02-07 at 17:41 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: ... Amenity is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be marked as such. So I'd prefer to use it only when it's an obvious choice or there is nothing better. Well, while I agree that Amenity is pretty general, but

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

2015-01-15 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 18:07 +0100, Michał Brzozowski wrote: Some people in Poland (the ones who never browse community forums) maniacally tag every dirt road as highway=track, even if it should be residential+unpaved Thats is a case of tagging for the renderer I'm afraid. They do that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin wrote: go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* - To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying anything .. possibly

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 22:42 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's a recycling bin next to a dump station, that recycling bin can and should be a different node. Agree. The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:53 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people use in the

[Tagging] elsan v dump_station

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:33 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. Bryce, here in Australia, we use a lot of UK terms (and frown on the horrid American ones creeping into our

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - dump_station

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
Subject renamed for clarity. * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) ...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:31 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function of a place to dump a sewage holding tank.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-17 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. OK, then lets

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

2015-02-19 Thread David Bannon
Well done Bryce, I did not realise that there was a 'failed' attempt to get this through as dumpstation in the past ! The name may not be ideal IMHO but I'll definitely vote for it. Mind if I add a bit of the recent history, how we arrived at this proposal ? David On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:23

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station (side talk)

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
and popular, it becomes part of the local vocabulary. Recently the Oxford English Dictionary added yada yada to its massive list of entries. You and I might disagree on that but it is included in the OED nonetheless. Sorry, I just had to respond g On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:55 AM, David Bannon

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

2015-02-19 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 14:00 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The goal of mentioning Elsan is so someone searching will find it. It's an alias. Do you mean in the context of the suggested brand=Elsan ? I just added a comment to the page questioning this. Dump Stations apply to boats also.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:46 +1100, Warin wrote: ... though it has no page as yet.. True, and given the lack of support, I don't think it is likely to need one ! Lets drop this proposal. This particular proposal started when Dave S complained about multi tags needed but even he is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-16 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com ..For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks. On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:39 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: .. discussion are resisting it as a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

2015-02-16 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 20:47 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Please comment the proposal to add the value intermittent to the key power_supply. Jan, good move, just wondering what you mean by 'intermittent' ? Two cases may need to be enlarged on - 1. Where I live, power goes off, typically due

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

2015-02-17 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 06:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: ... Trying to invent as few new tags as possible the updated proposal would become: * power_supply=nema_5_15 * power_supply:schedule= [...] - has syntax as defined for opening_hours Or *

Re: [Tagging] RFD Camp ground Kitchens and their fittings

2015-01-30 Thread David Bannon
On Sat, 2015-01-31 at 14:55 +1100, Warin wrote: ... I think the following things should be mapped to add information to the map in regards some, mainly commercial, camp grounds that have communal kitchens; Warin, I recently was looking at Tag:tourism=camp_site and thinking it lacked a lot

[Tagging] Draft Additions to camp_site

2015-02-01 Thread David Bannon
Subject Was - RFD Camp ground Kitchens and their fittings On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 09:47 -0600, Paul Johnson wrote: Another one: caravan sites. There's not any way to cleanly distinguish one at a state park that, save for the campground host, doesn't allow long term stays, to ones that allow

Re: [Tagging] Draft Additions to camp_site

2015-02-01 Thread David Bannon
On Sun, 2015-02-01 at 15:22 -0800, Tod Fitch wrote: . I would like to have some of the items on Extend_camp_site page brought onto the main camp_site page. Specifically the site/pitch specific tags at

Re: [Tagging] Draft Additions to camp_site

2015-02-01 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 12:24 +1100, Warin wrote: I've edited the wiki page on camp sites https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site to include links to the tags for fee, shower, laundry, firepit and water tap. OK, if thats how its done, I have added toilets. But seems

Re: [Tagging] RFD Camp ground Kitchens and their fittings

2015-01-31 Thread David Bannon
are allocated a site and must keep you guy ropes in it. But they are not my favourite ! David On 31/01/2015 3:18 PM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-01-31 at 14:55 +1100, Warin wrote: ... I think the following things should be mapped to add information to the map in regards some, mainly

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

2015-01-13 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 11:28 +1100, Warin wrote: What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? Are 'we' tagging for What things are? eg highways OR What things are used for? eg amenity I think its a very good question Warin. Perhaps, at the hart of much angst amongst OSM'ers.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-08 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) Sigh ... . OK, its a good solution but before I'd vote for it, I'd like someone to explain a few things to me - Firstly, how is rubbish= a better solution than the slight redefinition of

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-13 Thread David Bannon
the disposal point is is of value. rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ??? Lets see some hands please ? David On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 08:47 +1100, Warin wrote: On 9/02/2015 1:59 PM, David Bannon wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-09

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-13 Thread David Bannon
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are

[Tagging] Waste_collection - a new Feature Proposal - RFC

2015-02-13 Thread David Bannon
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste David On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 12:00 +1100, Warin wrote: On 14/02/2015 11:43 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 15:11 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Thus: amenity=toilet_waste_dump amenity=chemical_toilet_disposal amenity=chemical_toilet_disposal_point amenity=toilet_holding_tank_disposal Is it fair to say that none of those terms are widely used ? But, yes, valid. But please

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

2015-02-18 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:06 +, Dudley Ibbett wrote: An alternative description found on camping/caravanning sites in the UK is a Chemical Disposal Point or CDP. Wow, think so ? As I see it, dump station is likely to be recognised in at least North (and maybe South) America and Australia.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-22 Thread David Bannon
22, 2015 at 4:37 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Dave S, think you missed the list On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 09:19 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: Okay then, Your idea is to define

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-22 Thread David Bannon
Dave S, think you missed the list On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 09:19 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: Okay then, Your idea is to define the campgrounds inside of national and state parks as commercial ones? Well, its more a case of are you paying to camp there ? And are you being provided with

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-22 Thread David Bannon
On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 08:02 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: ... I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the tag camp_site=permitted_area as attribute of a country border (like Sweden) to show that camping is allowed anywhere. Jan, not sure thats a good idea. Here in Oz, you would not camp

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

2015-03-15 Thread David Bannon
On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and only being involved to vote 'no' is - 1. Bad manners. And any community

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

2015-03-17 Thread David Bannon
OK, must assume there is no strong feelings that new values are needed for smoothness= We had 3 votes for no change, and only one each for a range of possible models. So, lets drop it. Still leaves us with no way to indicate that one piece of information an end user is likely to ask, should I

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-17 Thread David Bannon
On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 16:58 +, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: So far, nobody has proposed what I have come to think would be the most exact and most usable bit of information a _mapper_ can provide: Did you get through with transport mode x? Possible answers are: - no - just barely - with extra

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-17 Thread David Bannon
Yep, count me as +1 David On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:04 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: Dear all, I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for accepted/rejected decision was self-contradicting. Even if

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

2015-03-17 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: road_usable=car;4x4;mtb Tag what's there: measure something. Don't tag an interpretation. Bryce, please tell us how it should be done then. Don't just sit there saying computer says no. A drovers dog can tell this capability is

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

2015-03-18 Thread David Bannon
Kotya, in no way was I criticising the leadership you have shown in this matter ! Its just that I preferred Dan's approach. Key IMHO is - * A proposal gets to wiki in much the same manner as now. * Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a like or dislike button and

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

2015-03-18 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote: So here's how I would answer your question of how would an interested party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded: instead of approved/rejected, some sort of visual widget on the wiki page which summarised the {{yes}} and

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-18 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:09 +1100, Warin wrote: I see no point in having a proposal open for voting over 1 year, those that want to vote have done so, the proposals voting should be closed and resolved. Hmm, I disagree. Just because the proposal did not get enough votes does not mean it

Re: [Tagging] Wiki 2.0 Proposal: Unregulated voting : But you must convince another mapper to finalize changes

2015-03-19 Thread David Bannon
Bryce, I think this proposal is far to complicated to be developed on a mailing list. And probably on a Forum. Is it time your bare bones plan move to a wiki page, perhaps as a Best Practice document ? Then we can concentrate on each section, bit by bit and massage it into something great. I do

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

2015-03-19 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 10:24 +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 18/03/2015, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to objectively determine what the discussion concluded. [...] No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

2015-03-19 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 11:30 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer I believe the current requirement to add a reason for a dislike is important and should not be dropped by substituting it with a simple click

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-19 Thread David Bannon
OK, is it fair to say any non specific vote, one that is neither a clear yes nor a clear no is 'informal', not counted. Such a vote was cast with the intention of it adding to neither yes nor no so we should observe the voter's wish. Note their opinion but not count an uncountable vote ? David

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

2015-03-19 Thread David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 08:46 +1100, Warin wrote: I've come across regular filling stations without a roof. Indeed, absolutely no reason a full service or pump based fuel supplier must have a roof. Usually an office (or shipping container) nearby but pumps out in the open is very common.

Re: [Tagging] Wiki 2.0 Proposal: Unregulated voting : But you must convince another mapper to finalize changes

2015-03-19 Thread David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 15:26 +1100, Warin wrote: if stinker proposals are promoted to Active, with lots of negative votes. How is it determined that it is a majority view? Vote? .. back to square one. Possibly, but probably not in most cases. I doubt too many people on this list would be

[Tagging] List v Forum - was Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-19 Thread David Bannon
One thing I'll say for Forums, at least the format will be consistent. With our List users all using different email clients, with top posters, bottom posters, middle posters, some (me) who like to thin down a message when replying and some who like the message to just get bigger I'm

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-20 Thread David Bannon
Dave, to clarify. You use the term 'RV' as meaning a MotorHome, accommodation built on a truck chassis, and excluding things towed behind a car, SUV or 4x4 ? Here, we use RV to mean Motorhome, caravan, camper. Sometimes even broader. David On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 06:34 +0700, Dave Swarthout

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

2015-03-20 Thread David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 18:23 +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote: ... sensible stuff about off line work... In an ideal world we would have one discussion platform that can be used by a mail client as well as by a web forum software. I don't know if anything like that exists, but basically it's the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-21 Thread David Bannon
On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 07:45 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: I don't think this is accurate. In my experience, designated sites are very similar to commercial sites except you pay a government for the No no no ! Dave, if its effectively similar to a commercial camp ground, it should be mapped as

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

2015-03-09 Thread David Bannon
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:18 +, ael wrote: The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. Indeed. Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

2015-03-10 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 11:38 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: .. Using a tag that is not on the wiki will probably mean it is not rendered. rendered where? Many if not even most of the tags that are described in the wiki are actually not rendered on the OSM-Carto style. While true

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

2015-03-10 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 09:35 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The wiki has a very low correlation to the rendering. Does it ? Are you suggesting that there is substantial usage of tags that don't appear on the wiki ? If so, I'd suggest we need to fix the wiki. Rendering is not the only goal of OSM

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-24 Thread David Bannon
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote Are we better saying - tourism=camp_site toilets=yes sanitary_dump_station=yes amenity=showers fee=yes Yes

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-24 Thread David Bannon
While loosing faith in the proposal, I'd still like to make it work. On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 16:18 +0900, johnw wrote: Also - as Martin mentioned - how is the fee associated with the grounds change their usage? All the car camping grounds in Japan are private businesses. They all charge a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-24 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote: No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the most important pero=son is the end user! 'Customers' first! :-) I don't think there are too many end users who look up the raw data! The map user wants to search for

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-25 Thread David Bannon
Warin suggested new category names and implied meanings. Think it was a quick draft, I have a counter quick draft along same lines. On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote: None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Basic = None + a toilet Standard = Basic +

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-25 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: .that will require a separate node for each of them. The nodes will be hard to place unless you actually visit the campground in Indeed Dave, thats my worry with this model. Same applies for survey people in many cases. I'd need to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-26 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 05:51 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation between the camper and the land owner: Yes Jan, I agree. You have summed it up perfectly ! I'm

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-26 Thread David Bannon
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote: To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and enjoy. As you can see the quality

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-25 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:49 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: When we were looking for a campsite, we often visited [1]. The list of features they show is much longer than any of you have in mind. Indeed, that list was 1 minute of thought ! ... Should all this information be available in OSM ? Yes,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-25 Thread David Bannon
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the Middle East. It is a site with

  1   2   >