The ID editor already has multifaith as a selectable pull-down item for the religion= tag.
On January 9, 2015 7:23:54 PM EST, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: >Send Tagging mailing list submissions to > tagging@openstreetmap.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature question > (Dave F.) > 2. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature question > (Dan S) > 3. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature question > (Dave F.) > 4. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Sturdy) > 5. Re: religion=multi* ? (Philip Barnes) > 6. Re: religion=multi* ? (Andreas Neumann) > 7. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Willis) > 8. Re: religion=multi* ? (SomeoneElse) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:12:48 +0000 >From: "Dave F." <dave...@madasafish.com> >To: Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu>, "Tag discussion, strategy and > related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature > question >Message-ID: <54afc5c0.3030...@madasafish.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote: >> >>> I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes >layer, >>> that's separate (& hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the >>> layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let >alone >>> a newbie.. >> >> Well the problem is that what you see as a "button to turn on the >> notes layer" is what I see as a "button to add a new note" ;-) That >> button was intended to encode the "add a note" action, not the "view >> notes" action. > >OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. >Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a >note' function. > >> If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, I > >> would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer. > >On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user? > >> >> >>>> The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add >note >>>> control is disabled is that it might already have been on before >you >>>> started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we >had >>>> turned it on or if it was already on . >>> >>>> Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the >notes >>>> layers on and off manually while the add note control is active >just >>>> introduces even more levels of complication... >>> >>> By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that >>> complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers! >> >> No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm >saying >> it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of >view. > >I don't really see it as that confusing: > >I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view notes', >but lets assume it does: > >* The 'add note' button turns both the add & view layers on & should >them off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden >option under Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on. > >* If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible, >turn 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a >note. > >Cheers >Dave F. > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >http://www.avast.com > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:17:42 +0000 >From: Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> >To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature > question >Message-ID: > <CANuikkqvzrLNgqA5jHogDyBVOMcwCut2pzr7HxE=d8bchcv...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >This appears to be nothing to do with "tagging" - you've presumably >sent to this list by mistake... > >2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com>: >> On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: >>> >>> On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote: >>> >>>> I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes >layer, >>>> that's separate (& hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn >the >>>> layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let >alone >>>> a newbie.. >>> >>> >>> Well the problem is that what you see as a "button to turn on the >notes >>> layer" is what I see as a "button to add a new note" ;-) That button >was >>> intended to encode the "add a note" action, not the "view notes" >action. >> >> >> OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. >> Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a >note' >> function. >> >>> If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, >I >>> would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer. >> >> >> On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user? >> >>> >>> >>>>> The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add >note >>>>> control is disabled is that it might already have been on before >you >>>>> started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we >had >>>>> turned it on or if it was already on . >>>> >>>> >>>>> Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the >notes >>>>> layers on and off manually while the add note control is active >just >>>>> introduces even more levels of complication... >>>> >>>> >>>> By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that >>>> complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers! >>> >>> >>> No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm >saying >>> it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of >view. >> >> >> I don't really see it as that confusing: >> >> I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view >notes', but >> lets assume it does: >> >> * The 'add note' button turns both the add & view layers on & should >them >> off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden >option under >> Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on. >> >> * If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible, >turn >> 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a >note. >> >> Cheers >> Dave F. >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:21:10 +0000 >From: "Dave F." <dave...@madasafish.com> >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature > question >Message-ID: <54afc7b6.5050...@madasafish.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >Apologies & Thanks. > >On 09/01/2015 12:17, Dan S wrote: >> This appears to be nothing to do with "tagging" - you've presumably >> sent to this list by mistake... >> >> 2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com>: >>> On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: >>>> On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes >layer, >>>>> that's separate (& hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn >the >>>>> layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let >alone >>>>> a newbie.. >>>> >>>> Well the problem is that what you see as a "button to turn on the >notes >>>> layer" is what I see as a "button to add a new note" ;-) That >button was >>>> intended to encode the "add a note" action, not the "view notes" >action. >>> >>> OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view >notes'. >>> Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a >note' >>> function. >>> >>>> If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, >I >>>> would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer. >>> >>> On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user? >>> >>>> >>>>>> The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add >note >>>>>> control is disabled is that it might already have been on before >you >>>>>> started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if >we had >>>>>> turned it on or if it was already on . >>>>> >>>>>> Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the >notes >>>>>> layers on and off manually while the add note control is active >just >>>>>> introduces even more levels of complication... >>>>> >>>>> By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that >>>>> complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of >computers! >>>> >>>> No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm >saying >>>> it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of >view. >>> >>> I don't really see it as that confusing: >>> >>> I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view >notes', but >>> lets assume it does: >>> >>> * The 'add note' button turns both the add & view layers on & should >them >>> off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden >option under >>> Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on. >>> >>> * If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is >visible, turn >>> 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a >note. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Dave F. >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> http://www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >http://www.avast.com > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:52:28 +0000 >From: John Sturdy <jcg.stu...@gmail.com> >To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ? >Message-ID: > <CAFJf9KPwAYzpMCbK32izYH0vQm+KL8izt2KXXwXWOkp=1fb...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination" tag >out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or >denomination? > >__John > > >On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> >wrote: >> On 09/01/2015 01:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >>> >>> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-01-09 00:56: >>>> >>>> >>>> denomination=none >>>> ;-) >>> >>> >>> Nice, but we need to stay on the religion= level >>> >> But couldn't the sharing be inter-denominational, rather than >> inter-religion? >> >> As I see it: >> >> 1. No specific religion, such as rooms at hospitals, airports etc. >> 2. Shared places where different religions/denominations >preach/perform >> services at separate times. >> 3. Shared places where different religions/denominations >preach/perform >> services at the same time. I'm guessing this would more likely be >> denominations than religion. >> >> Dave F. >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:43:49 +0000 >From: Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ? >Message-ID: <1420818229.2132.2.ca...@trigpoint.me.uk> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 12:52 +0000, John Sturdy wrote: >> Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination" tag >> out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or >> denomination? >> >> __John >> >I think religion=multi is a good tag for this type of facility. >Multi-faith is a term that is common in real world usage and also >indicates that the mapper has surveyed and mapped what they have seen. > >Leaving religion blank on a place of worship is going to bring in the >error checkers and increase the risk of them being armchaired. > >Phil (trigpoint) > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:58:30 +0100 >From: Andreas Neumann <andr-neum...@gmx.net> >To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ? >Message-ID: <54affaa6.8040...@gmx.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >On 09.01.2015 13:52, John Sturdy wrote: >> Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination" tag >> out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or >> denomination? >> >> __John > >Hi, > >I see this problem: >Where is the difference between a multifaith place and an object with >missing religion-tag? > >Andreas > > >-- >Andreas Neumann >http://Map4Jena.de >http://Stadtplan-Ilmenau.de > >-------------- next part -------------- >A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >Name: signature.asc >Type: application/pgp-signature >Size: 648 bytes >Desc: OpenPGP digital signature >URL: ><http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150109/27c8c5f8/attachment-0001.sig> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:17:17 +0900 >From: John Willis <jo...@mac.com> >To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> >Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ? >Message-ID: <82639a05-9329-4e57-8fae-61783f92a...@mac.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >"multi" fits the sports tagging scheme well, and I think it is best for >the religion tag too. > >"All"is not good, as most sports places don have a clay sumo ring or a >sandy pit for beach volleyball set up, so "all" would be wrong. > >Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's >prayer room might get you arrested. > >Multi seems the best fit. > >Javbw > >> On Jan 10, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Andreas Neumann <andr-neum...@gmx.net> >wrote: >> >>> On 09.01.2015 13:52, John Sturdy wrote: >>> Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination" >tag >>> out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or >>> denomination? >>> >>> __John >> >> Hi, >> >> I see this problem: >> Where is the difference between a multifaith place and an object with >> missing religion-tag? >> >> Andreas >> >> >> -- >> Andreas Neumann >> http://Map4Jena.de >> http://Stadtplan-Ilmenau.de >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 8 >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:23:45 +0000 >From: SomeoneElse <li...@atownsend.org.uk> >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ? >Message-ID: <54b07111.1040...@atownsend.org.uk> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >On 10/01/2015 00:17, John Willis wrote: >> Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's >prayer room might get you arrested. >> > >Not even poodles? :) > >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020847.html > >Cheers, > >Andy > > > > >------------------------------ > >Subject: Digest Footer > >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > >------------------------------ > >End of Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 30 >*************************************** -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging