Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

David Bannon wrote: > As a native English speaker, I often turn to OSM to help me understand > some of the global issues around at present. But even now, many of the > place names are rendered in local language, quite unreadable to me. This is true for any westerner.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Andy Townsend wrote: > OK - another googly* for you - what do you think should be in the "name" > tag for India**? Why do you think that I would want to change the current english tag there? As I already wrote in my other Mail: All I want to get rid of is english names in

[Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Hello, in our localized German map style we try to render Country names in German with local name in parenthesis. This works fine for a lot of countries. An example would be Thailand: Thailand (ประเทศไทย) or (more readable for westerners) France: Frankreich (France) Unfortunately there are

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Chris Hill wrote: > How would you propose making this change? I think we should come up whith a common sense rule what name should usually contain (hence this discussion) and thus the tagging can be changed by mappers accordingly. Currently the state is inconsistent (see

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Stefano wrote: > If you'd want the name only in official languageS the problem will arise in > countries with more than one (and equally) official language. Not really, I do not consider rendering something like this a bad idea: Algerien (ⵍⵣⵣⴰⵢⴻⵔ الجزائر) Kurrently we have

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Andy Townsend wrote: > As has already been said this _ought_ to be a job for wikidata. Thus one would need an additional external database to render a proper map! I don't think that this is the way to go in such a simple case. Frankly I don't care that much about the proper

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Andy Townsend wrote: > Straying from the point slightly, but what would be really, really nice > would be a worked example of a way of obtaining wikidata information > as part of map data processing There might be another option. Given a hstore database or wikidata column it

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Colin Smale wrote: > Are you talking about the "default map", or the underlying data (i.e. > the contents of name and name:xx tags)? Both. As I consider adding an english name in standard name tag as "tagging for the renderer" it is _not_ off-topic here. I hope we

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Kevin Kenny wrote: > Some problems don't have good solutions. The longer I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion, that having an official langage tag as Simon suggested might be the ways to go. This way producers of maps can avoid using "name" at all.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would any transcription be placed into name:la=* (la is the language code > for Latin)? The place for transcriptions is name:rm_XX which XX beeing somethiong like jp or kr. All I want to achieve is to get more consistency inte the generic name tag. I have

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Hello, looks like some people did not understand what I intend to do. My intention is to remove english names in the generic "name" tag in countries where english is neither an official nor otherwise important langage to the country in question. I'm well aware of the political impact of naming in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Hello again, forgot another one. At least here in Germany most campsites have different pitches for short term or long term campers. While the former ones usually stay for a few days or weeks only, the latter ones are more or less permanent residents which pay on a seasonal base rather than a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch Looks good, by and large :) Any reason for using a "camp_pitch:" prefix/namespace instead of generic tagging? A surface is just a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I'm not sure if direction is necessary. How would the direction tag be used? Direction would be like with benches. > If the pitch has a clear rectangular shape it could be mapped as an > area. Shure, if it can be copied from an aerial image but if its a wooden

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I assume these are caravan or motorhome sites? Yep mostly caravans with wheels removed and awnings. > But I think that a place with "permanent_camping=only" is mistagged. Hm basically these are members-only sites without reception but still campsites at least in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > It sounds like your sites are used as second homes or vacation homes > in the countryside, so I can see how that could still fit under > tourism=caravan_site. Exactly. However an access=private or access=members might be sufficient as well. Sven -- "Dynamische

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I’m fine with mapping individual pitches, but I don’t like the key. > “camp_site=*” sounds like a tag for the subtype of a camp site rather than > a different feature within such a site. Unfortunately its currently used for both.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > +1, btw, there are already 226 of these: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch I object using a generic key like tourism for something this specific as sub-features of a camp site. Although the existing ones do look like miss-tagged

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I would not say it is used frequently, we have 100.000 camp sites tagged, > and only 7000 pitches with this tag Given the fact, that about half of them do not have more tags than name (about a quarter lack even name) this ratio is not all that bad. Regards Sven

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I still think it's easiest for us to approve the fairly popular tag > "camp_site=camp_pitch", which is already supported by some editors, > since the alternatives also have some disadvantages. +1 -- Das Internet ist kein rechtsfreier Raum, das Internet ist aber auch

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Tobias Wrede wrote: > So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic? Mainly because the other type of tagging is the already established one and there is no good reason for changing this. The fact, that campsites with one pitch are not taggable is something I would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

Hello, first of all, as the author of http://opencampingmap.org I basically support any approach to streamline the tagging of campsites! However, I would also like to point out, that the main problem we currently have with campsite mapping in OSM ist not _inaccurate_ tagging but _no_ additional

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > That's an interesting idea. I don't know much about this concept > myself, so it would be better if this were kept separate. Is it like > renting a summer cabin, or more like having a permanent spot in a > mobile home park (eg for fixed caravans)? No this is all about

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > (While I wouldn't have picked the key "permanent_camping" myself if > it's only on a seasonal or annual basis, I think it's probably fine, > and I can't think of a better English term.) I can not talk for other countries, but in Germany this setting is definitely

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

Valor Naram wrote: > It's awful that we have two tags for the same puropose in our database and > that makes it more difficult for developers and researchers to work with > our data. I fully agree with this. In opencampingmap POI database I currently do a replacement of the following tags

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Unifying playground equipment tagging)

Sören Reinecke via Tagging wrote: > Proposal: > I propose the key playground to be deprecated and the use of key > playground:* instead. That would mean that on both playground and > playground equipment objects in OSM the key playground:* applies. This > then would also allow to map playgrounds

Re: [Tagging] Defining the meaning of capacity tag for tourism=camp_site

Jan Michel wrote: > In fact, capacity:caravan and capacity:motorhome are used more often > compared to caravans and motorhomes. > > I would go for > > - capacity:persons > - capacity:tents > - capacity:caravan > - capacity:motorhome We are already using plural when tagging

[Tagging] Defining the meaning of capacity tag for tourism=camp_site

Hello, I already have a diary entry for this issue, but I think it would be better discussing it here. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/giggls/diary/394619#comment48493 The problem is, that real-world usage of the capacity tag on camp-istes is currently inconsistent and thus mostly useless.

Re: [Tagging] Defining the meaning of capacity tag for tourism=camp_site

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 31. Oct 2020, at 11:27, Sven Geggus wrote: >> >> Similar in spirit would be deprecating "maxtents" unsing "capacity:tents", >> "capacity:caravans" and "capacity:visitors" in future

Re: [Tagging] Defining the meaning of capacity tag for tourism=camp_site

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the typical size of a RV may be regionally different Jepp. In Europe an average camping trailer is usually roughly the same as an average recreational vehicle. Sven -- "Thinking of using NT for your critical apps? Isn't there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - relation type=sled

Philipp Spitzer wrote: > I like to propose > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Sled (which is > actually a quite old proposal) which tries to overcome the shortcomings > of piste:type=sled (without replacing it). > > I would be happy if you could provide

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Jake Low wrote: > I would not recommend adding a node tagged tourism=camp_site into this > picture, as in my opinion it would be redundant with the site relation and > a violation of the "one feature, one OSM element" guideline. While this Approach would work well in OpenCampingMap, such

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Marc_marc wrote: >> Ignoring the principle (which is not absolute anyway) > > sorry but reading "No two campings", I can only agree > that a campsite has only one tourism=camp_site tag and not 2 Shure. However I do not consider the site-relation a campsite itself but a collection of other

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Marc_marc wrote: > taking one random exemple : > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13012999#map=19/49.12702/10.86422 > according to the parking name=*, the parking may be include in the > tourism=site_camp Yes but this is simply not as it is on the ground. The parking is not _part_ of the

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > multipolygons can solve any disjoint area problems, you only need a site > relation if some members are nodes or linear ways or relations. External objects of camp-sites are often node shaped. Sven -- "In my opinion MS is a lot better at making money than it is

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Yves wrote: > Instead of type=site + tourism=camp_site, type=site + site=camp_site would > be less prone to objections, maybe. Well, wiki states that site=something is not recommended anymore. Sven -- All bugs added by David S. Miller Linux Kernel boot message from

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Yes, using site relation in addition to actual object breaks this rule > and it is undesirable (and site relations in general are problematic). Why do you think that "site relations in general are problematic"? > Is there some reason why this camp sites

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Yves via Tagging wrote: > Site relations are often used to models thing that aren't spatially > joined, like windfarms, universities... I can easily imagine it's > reasonable to use them for campings in some corner cases where a single > area doesn't work. Yes, let me clarify this with an

[Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Hello, about a year ago I implemented support for site relations in OpenCampingMap. My announcement from back then is at: https://blog.geggus.net/2021/09/announcing-support-for-site-relations-in-opencampingmap/ Now a recent changeset discussion is questioning my whole approach because it

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > So > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13012999#map=19/49.12702/10.86422 > site relation is including nearby restaurant and shop? Right! > That are not actually part of camp site? Wellm, they are not part of it geographicaly because the are located