On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de wrote:
If we want to extend the tagging, we should use a new but generic tag
(camera?) in my opinion.
Yes, this may result in parallel tagging - but we should not run in the next
cul-de-sac with one's eyes open.
We already
Dear all,
sorry for my long silence, but I was away.
I seems that my opinion are minoritarian, but still I want make one last try to
explain things clearly and then I will shut up on this subject.
1. Why is man_made bad
*
It's a very unclear category anyway.
If you
2013/12/2 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki)
is it? The long standing interpretation was that website is about the
official website of a feature, while url is just another / some webpage.
cheers,
Martin
___
Am 02.12.2013 14:52, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/12/2 Pieren pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com
website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki)
is it? The long standing interpretation was that website is about
the official website of a feature, while url is just another /
On 02.12.2013 15:22, Zecke wrote:
Am 02.12.2013 14:52, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
The long standing interpretation was that website is about
the official website of a feature, while url is just another / some
webpage.
I heared it also as Pieren wrote. URL should be replaced by website for
Am 02.12.2013 11:31, schrieb Pieren:
Adding a sub-tag will simply move the current 21700
man_made=surveillance elements without subtags in uncertainty.
OK, that is a point, I agree here.
I still think that a (public) webcam could be tagged differently from
a CCTV because it's not the same
On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is
man_made=surveillance
surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public *
surveillance:type=camera *
surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic *
contact:webcam=url
name=*
operator=*
description=*
On 01. des. 2013 00:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need
anything more to tell its a webcam?
I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact
On 01. des. 2013 09:52, yvecai wrote:
On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is
man_made=surveillance
surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public *
surveillance:type=camera *
surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic *
Hi,
I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves
a different purpose.
contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the
webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to
contact e.g. a shop by phone).
1) I would change the order,
On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Hi,
I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves
a different purpose.
contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the
webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to
contact e.g.
Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Hi,
I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves
a different purpose.
contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the
webcam, or whom to contact BY
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 00:44 +0100, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need
anything more to tell its a webcam?
I think contact:webcam is nonsense,
On 12/01/2013 03:18 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
I am not at all interested in spending months of my life arguing about
an elaborate schemes for cameras. I will just Get It Done.
I can't blame you for that :)
I think the key here is to use contact:webcam=url . That alone is
enough to get make
Yes!
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 01/12/2013 14:28, Peter Wendorff wrote:
2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the
webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=*
___
Tagging mailing list
I would agree, the contact key has not taken off and may fit for phone
or fax (although the old way is still more popular) the use for webcam
is back to front. Was the original intention to cover video calls like
skype?
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 01/12/2013 17:11, Peter Wendorff
Yes, I was vague in my comments. What I meant was that most,
fun/weather/scenic/city cams are open to all comers and therefore
providing uncontrolled surveillance where at least police or council
cameras are strictly regulated and their feed is largely private (except
if used in court).
My
On 01. des. 2013 18:11, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Hi,
I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves
a different purpose.
contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions
Am 01.12.2013 21:04, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
On 01. des. 2013 18:11, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Hi,
I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves
a different purpose.
On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
I think, contact should be restricted to ways of getting in contact to
someone, and IMHO seeing images of a webcam is not getting in contact
to the webcam or someone else. regards Peter
I agree. Contact usually refers to a way to reach a person;
Or this is how you contact someone via webcam such as with skype (BTW I
realise that's not a webcam is but some people call it that)
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 01/12/2013 21:39, John F. Eldredge wrote:
On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
I think, contact should be restricted to ways
I agree the man_made tag is ludicrous, but we're stuck with that for the
time being, changing that is a whole other thread.
The two level tagging is what is currently defined for cameras that film
public spaces, I was just suggesting a new value of webcam etc and the
addition of a new key of
2013/11/29 nounours kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com
completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging!
why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common?
BUT:
1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should also
tag highways, restaurants
Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can we not have:
man_made=surveillance
surveillance:type=webcam
surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic.
url=http://
The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because
no matter what the intention of a webcam it
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/11/29 nounours kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com
completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging!
why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common?
BUT:
1) man_made does not make any sense for
I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the
personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more
creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it
goes and who has it.
It should be tagged accordingly.
Jonathan
On 29. nov. 2013 09:15, Martin Vonwald wrote:
Hi!
2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no
mailto:pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no
I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do
not have huge problems with it as long as it is documented.
If something is
man_made is A tag for identifying man-made /(artificial)/ structures
added to the landscape. taken from the Wiki.
It's not just technical, and when you look at what is now included under
this bizarre heading: adit, clearcut, monitoring_station, pier,
snow_net, snow_fence, wastewater_plant,
Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need
anything more to tell its a webcam?
I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam.
Cheers,
Martin
I agree, contact doesn't make sense.
webcam:url=http://... is better
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 30/11/2013 23:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote:
Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
contact:webcam=url is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we
On 11/30/2013 11:22 AM, Jonathan wrote:
I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the
personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more
creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it
goes and who has it.
It should be tagged
Hi!
2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no
I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do not have
huge problems with it as long as it is documented.
If something is properly documented in OSM it is a near to perfection as it
will ever get ;-)
I also think
I would agree, I think that covers it.
A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it
available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than
an official camera that is regulated.
Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter
On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote:
I would agree, I think that covers it.
A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it
available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement
than an official camera that is regulated.
Maybe the wiki page needs
Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am
interested in:
http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/
http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg
A webcam is a webcam. This example is also called a weathercam:
Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote:
I would agree, I think that covers it.
A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making
it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater
infringement than an official camera that
+1
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 29/11/2013 13:18, Zecke wrote:
Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland:
I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I
am interested in:
http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/
http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg
A webcam is a webcam. This
I have no problem to use a different tag. The purpose is not the same.
It's maybe country specific but a webcam is usually not allowed to
film the public in such a way that people can be identified. In the
opposite, a CCTV can film more things and the aim is to be able to
identify faces. Regarding
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Yves yve...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, for me 'surveillance' conotes a security related camera.
I fear that if the actual definition is extended to the so called webcam,
this connotation will prevent the use of it to webcams.
A simple scheme like
Why can we not have:
man_made=surveillance
surveillance:type=webcam
surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic.
url=http://
The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because
no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet
and therefore there
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can we not have:
man_made=surveillance
surveillance:type=webcam
surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic.
url=http://
The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because no
matter what
2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for
tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place,
so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a
service to the
Hi Egil,
So I feel man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance
cameras are not public on internet.
I think amenity=webcam is a good tag. Applies to node.
amenity is definitvely a bad choice. First, we should be careful to tag
everything with amenity. Second, an
On 28. nov. 2013 20:07, Dan S wrote:
2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland pri...@egil-hjelmeland.no:
I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for
tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place,
so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions
44 matches
Mail list logo
