I'm not sure what's the way to reply this, sorry about that... - Martin Koppenhoefer: "there's also a tag shop=herbalist" but i think is not the best tag for this, because the supplements can be or can't be herbs and herbalist definition: Shop focused on selling herbs, often for medical purposes. - Warin: Thanks for your comments, i will change the definition. I mentioned the past proposal in Examples section and in the Talk section.
2015-08-03 2:35 GMT-05:00 <[email protected]>: > Send Tagging mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > 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 > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction > footway vs path (geow) > 2. landcover=trees definition (Daniel Koć) > 3. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction > footway vs path (Ilpo Järvinen) > 4. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction > footway vs path (Warin) > 5. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Warin) > 6. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements) (Warin) > 7. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements) > (Martin Koppenhoefer) > 8. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Martin Koppenhoefer) > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: geow <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 15:06:00 -0700 (MST) > Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction > footway vs path > Richard Z. wrote > > ... > > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a > > variant > > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles > > unless > > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways. > > ... > > @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5 > or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic? > > Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path" > along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access > properties. That way we could replace all > highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway > keys. > > The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and > assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys. > > geow > > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851515.html > Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: "Daniel Koć" <daniel@koć.pl> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:55:48 +0200 > Subject: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition > I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, it's > quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just > about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a generic > tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper if it's natural or > not ("forest" vs "wood"). > > Do you agree with this idea? > > -- > "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags > down" [A. Cohen] > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 01:58:41 +0300 (EEST) > Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction > footway vs path > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote: > > > Richard Z. wrote > > > ... > > > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a > > > variant > > > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and > vehicles > > > unless > > > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways. > > > ... > > > > @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really > need 5 > > or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic? > > > > Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path" > > along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access > > properties. That way we could replace all > highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway > > keys. > > > > The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags > and > > assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys. > > Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because > of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could > go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the > same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?). > > I personally would prefer that something would really be defined into > highway=* for real paths that are not "constructed" (and that it would > also render with default mapnik as otherwise the feedback satisfaction > factor won't be there and it won't fly against highway=path mess that "at > least renders"). That would probably make the issue slightly less > convoluted eventually (and might allow easier migration between footway > and path or even defining eventually footway == path as someone > suggested). ...Sadly the highway=trail discussion lead to nowhere on this > front [1]. There's informal=yes (and perhaps wheelchair=no too) but that's > 2-3 keys with no really good reason, IMHO. > > However, I'm painfully aware that also all these discussions are unlikely > lead nowhere as highway=path only supporters seem to be unwilling to allow > such differentiation (which, according to their claims is exactly same > class as highway=path and therefore it would be trivial to match them in > the data user end). I also don't believe that it would be that hard to use > correctly in practice although some likely would try to claim that such > highway class woule be very subjective. > > > -- > i. > > [1] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-October/005417.html > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: Warin <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:10:25 +1000 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction > footway vs path > On 3/08/2015 8:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > >> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote: >> >> Richard Z. wrote >>> >>>> ... >>>> I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a >>>> variant >>>> of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles >>>> unless >>>> otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways. >>>> ... >>>> >>> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really >>> need 5 >>> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic? >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path" >>> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access >>> properties. That way we could replace all >>> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway >>> keys. >>> >>> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags >>> and >>> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys. >>> >> Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because >> of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could >> go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the >> same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?). >> > > And that leads to the mess 'we' have. > Taking this to an extreme there would be some 6(access)*6(surface)*6(set > widths) of highway=path/footway (216 types) > each with an individual tag > just so some mappers would not be put to the trouble of entering the data! > > Oh .. and I have left off the cycleway/bridle way too so add another 3! > > Personally I am for the amalgamation of highway=path/footway. > Not using the sub tag for detail ... is like using shop=yes ... you simply > mark the presence of something and leave the detail for someone who cares. > Most who don't use the sub tags are probably not correctly suing > path/footway either. > > > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: Warin <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:30:16 +1000 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging > On 3/08/2015 7:51 AM, Ruben Maes wrote: > >> 2015-07-23 0:12 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe <[email protected]>: >> >>> Finally, and regarding mobile telecom networks, there is this chart which >>> try to illustrate components and relations to be made on a mobile station >>> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radio_antennas_mapping_proposal.png >>> >> >> Is there a reason for using the key "azimuth" instead of "direction"? >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > Azimuth is used in the telecoms and antenna industries. Including GPS > antennas. So it is a recognised term within those industries and would be > easily recognised by people in those industries. > > Using a different term may lead to confusion and possible a reduction in > data entry. > > > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.html > > > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: Warin <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:57:15 +1000 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements) > On 2/08/2015 9:16 PM, Alberto Chung wrote: > > > > > > The proposal is on the wiki page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/nutrition_supplements > > And states > "Definition: A shop selling vitamins and minerals; food supplements." > > Does the shop have to sell BOTH vitamins and minerals? > And the semicolon does not make sense. > > Perhaps Definition: A shop selling food nutrition supplements. ??? > > Then states > > "Use for shops that offer vitamins and minerals, herbal supplements, > health and beauty items, strength and fitness supplements and weight loss > products." > > Might be better represents as a list ? > > "Use for shops that sells one or more nutritional supplements; > > - vitamins > - minerals > - herbal > - health > - strength > - fitness > - weight loss" > > Though I think the first three cover the rest ? So might even better as > > "Use for shops that sells one or more nutritional supplements (of > vitamins, minerals and/or herbs) used for; > > - health > - strength > - fitness > - weight loss" > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > The proposal should also mention the past proposal > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/supplements > > I have removed the beauty thing ... are these used for that too? If so > include it in the above. > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:25:38 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements) > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 03.08.2015 um 07:57 schrieb Warin <[email protected]>: > > > > herbal > > > there's also a tag shop=herbalist > > > cheers > Martin > > > > > ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < > [email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:34:54 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging > > > >> Is there a reason for using the key "azimuth" instead of "direction"? > > > > is there a good reason to use "direction" for the azimuth? The word > suggests to mean a combination of azimuth and altitude but the suggested > values indicate to mean azimuth. > > > cheers > Martin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
