Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Wiki created:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dthreshing_floor

Please comment and/or edit accordingly.


Às 17:53 de 12/11/2020, António Madeira via Tagging escreveu:

Thank you, Joseph.

If no one opposes, I'll do just that.
Regards.


Às 16:43 de 12/11/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:

Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values)
you can create a page to document this, however, you would also need
to mention that historic=threshing_floor is much more common
(actually landuse=threshing_floor is also equally common), and it
would probably be fair to create a historic=threshing_floor wiki page
too, in that case.

If you want to suggest deprecating historic=threshing_floor and
replacing it with man_made=threshing_floor, or otherwise changing
existing common usage, you should make a proposal so that the
community can discuss this.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:53 PM António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed
that threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I
add it to the wiki or create a Feature Proposal?


Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>>:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

...

To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing
the same objects having more or less historic value.
If there is something to distinguish at all, my
suggestion would be to add a qualifier to those
objects of exceptional historical value (if this is
verifiable).


We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional
historical value, it's
historic=*.  Objects of unexceptional historical value,
or of no historical
value do not get tagged with historic=*.  That's because
historic is
not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old,
disused or
repurposed.


just that it is not what we are currently doing.

That is not what some of us are currently doing.  Others read
the wiki page
and tag accordingly.

It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and
some of the
discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by
those who do not have English as a first language.  There is a
difference between "historical" and "historic."

Historians are concerned with historical data. Old data (about
populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data.  The
assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant
at the time, quickly turned into a historic event.

When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that
historians do, that is incorrect.  What historians mostly do is
look at historical data, some small fraction of which is
also historic.

See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/
for a better explanation.

So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states)
to the important
things of the past, not everything some random historian might
happen
to be looking into.

So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have
misused
the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it?

--
Paul


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Thank you, Joseph.

If no one opposes, I'll do just that.
Regards.


Às 16:43 de 12/11/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:

Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values)
you can create a page to document this, however, you would also need
to mention that historic=threshing_floor is much more common (actually
landuse=threshing_floor is also equally common), and it would probably
be fair to create a historic=threshing_floor wiki page too, in that case.

If you want to suggest deprecating historic=threshing_floor and
replacing it with man_made=threshing_floor, or otherwise changing
existing common usage, you should make a proposal so that the
community can discuss this.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:53 PM António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that
threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it
to the wiki or create a Feature Proposal?


Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>>:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

...

To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing
the same objects having more or less historic value.
If there is something to distinguish at all, my
suggestion would be to add a qualifier to those
objects of exceptional historical value (if this is
verifiable).


We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional
historical value, it's
historic=*.  Objects of unexceptional historical value,
or of no historical
value do not get tagged with historic=*. That's because
historic is
not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old,
disused or
repurposed.


just that it is not what we are currently doing.

That is not what some of us are currently doing. Others read the
wiki page
and tag accordingly.

It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and
some of the
discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by
those who do not have English as a first language.  There is a
difference between "historical" and "historic."

Historians are concerned with historical data. Old data (about
populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data.  The
assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant
at the time, quickly turned into a historic event.

When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that
historians do, that is incorrect.  What historians mostly do is
look at historical data, some small fraction of which is
also historic.

See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/
for a better explanation.

So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states)
to the important
things of the past, not everything some random historian might happen
to be looking into.

So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have
misused
the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it?

--
Paul


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that
threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it to the
wiki or create a Feature Proposal?


Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>>:

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing the
same objects having more or less historic value. If there
is something to distinguish at all, my suggestion would be
to add a qualifier to those objects of exceptional
historical value (if this is verifiable).


We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional historical
value, it's
historic=*.  Objects of unexceptional historical value, or of
no historical
value do not get tagged with historic=*.  That's because
historic is
not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old,
disused or
repurposed.


just that it is not what we are currently doing.

That is not what some of us are currently doing.  Others read the wiki
page
and tag accordingly.

It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and some of the
discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by
those who do not have English as a first language.  There is a
difference between "historical" and "historic."

Historians are concerned with historical data.  Old data (about
populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data. The
assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant
at the time, quickly turned into a historic event.

When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that
historians do, that is incorrect.  What historians mostly do is
look at historical data, some small fraction of which is
also historic.

See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/
for a better explanation.

So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states) to
the important
things of the past, not everything some random historian might happen
to be looking into.

So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have misused
the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it?

--
Paul


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

This is not correct. Threshing floors do not have protected status in
Portugal. There are some that are included in open air museums and maybe
in archaelogical sites, but there are thousands all over the country and
only maybe 10 or 20 are "protected".
As I said, they're still used, although rarely with the original intent.

Here's a proposal on how to map these features, from the Portuguese
mailing list:
*
man_made=threshing_floor*
   (**) "man_made" is mandatory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshing_floor

*historic=threshing_floor
*
   (***) "historic" is optional, but *highly recommended*, if
"historic" is relevant
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/historic/threshing_floor

*surface=paving_stones*|*
   ()  optional, any value admissible for tag "surface"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface

*access=yes|no|private*
   (*) optional, any value admissible for tag "access"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values



Às 05:26 de 06/11/2020, Jez Nicholson escreveu:

I believe that a key point is that these threshing floors have
protected status in Portugal and Spain due to their historical
significance. The suggestion of using 'historic[al]' is to represent
this.

In other parts of the world, where it is in current use and not
ancient/protected then perhaps it is an 'amenity'?

Is there a subtag to distinguish an historical/protected amenity from
a straight/unprotected one?


On Thu, 5 Nov 2020, 23:08 António Madeira via Tagging,
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Yes, as I said in the previous message, it was my
misunderstanding. Sorry about that.


Às 20:02 de 05/11/2020, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:

I was referring to

"
I see there's a reference to this feature in this
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_Objects/Map_Properties>
wiki page, but wouldn't it fit better in the man_made tag? After all,
this is still an used feature, although not always with the original intent.
"


Nov 5, 2020, 19:55 by tagging@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

I didn't get it, Mateusz.
What does historic=wayside_shrine have to do with threshing
floor?




On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via
Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is
used for ones that are not historic at all.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Yes, as I said in the previous message, it was my misunderstanding.
Sorry about that.


Às 20:02 de 05/11/2020, Mateusz Konieczny escreveu:

I was referring to

"
I see there's a reference to this feature in this

wiki page, but wouldn't it fit better in the man_made tag? After all,
this is still an used feature, although not always with the original intent.
"


Nov 5, 2020, 19:55 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

I didn't get it, Mateusz.
What does historic=wayside_shrine have to do with threshing floor?




On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via
Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is used for
ones that are not historic at all.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Oh, I see what you mean. I was lost in translation I guess.
As I wrote in my first message, they're still used for their original
purpose in the Mediterranean area, although not as much as before, of
course. Still, they are used for other purposes, like festivals, as you
mentioned, family reunions and many other agricultural purposes.



Às 16:14 de 05/11/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:

historic=wayside_shrine and some other values of historic=* are
examples which show that the key "historic=" can be used for features
which are still functional.

A threshing floor is probably still usable for beating grain to remove
the chaff and straw, as intended, but with modern machinery available,
these features will no longer be used in countries with access to
capital. They are still used in remote areas where farmers have very
few resources (e.g Afghanistan, according to some photos available
online). But most of those in use in richer countries will be as
historic sites or for special festivals, as shown in the photos in the
wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshing_floor

My preference would be for man_made=threshing_floor however.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:57 AM António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

I didn't get it, Mateusz.
What does historic=wayside_shrine have to do with threshing floor?



On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via
Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is used for
ones that are not historic at all.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

[António Madeira via Tagging]

In many modern places near cemeteries there's not a room, but several.
So, I would prefer amenity=place_of_mourning


Às 12:39 de 05/11/2020, Peter Elderson escreveu:


rate the following "favourable", "acceptable" or "unfavourable"?

amenity=mourning


acceptable, though I think an amenity should be a feature, not an
activity

amenity=place_of_mourning


favourable. Secondary tags could add details if necessary

amenity=mourning_room


unfavourable. Too specific.

amenity=viewing_arrangements


unfavourable. I think an amenity should describe a feature, not
arrangements.

amenity=deceased_viewing


unfavourable.

Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I didn't get it, Mateusz.
What does historic=wayside_shrine have to do with threshing floor?



On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
wrote:


We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is used for ones
that are not historic at all.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Greetings.

In Portugal and all Mediterranean countries, there are thousands of
thresing floors . Most of
them are not used anymore, of course, but they are still preserved and
are private spaces used for many purposes. I myself have one.
I see there's a reference to this feature in this

wiki page, but wouldn't it fit better in the man_made tag? After all,
this is still an used feature, although not always with the original intent.

Regards.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

[António Madeira via Tagging]

In Portugal, the Government's employment centre gets you a job and gives
you professional formation. It has  a list of all the companies seeking
for workers and distribute them based a very specific system.
The money that comes from the Government to people without job is given
via Social Security, it's not handed by the employment centre. The
function of the employment centre is only to get people a job and give
them professional formation if needed.
Given these arguments, I'm getting more inclined to use
office=government + government=employment_centre


Às 18:23 de 11/10/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu:

We have a Govt Dept that controls everything, decides whether you will
be paid Unemployment Benefits (under a number of different names), but
does nothing about you actually getting a job. This would be an
office=government.

You then have to register with a private Job Agency that will
supposedly help you find a job, but which don't actually do much :-(,
but which would be mapped as an office=employment_agency. They don't
pay you, but are themselves paid by the Govt for "helping" you.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Portugal has a very similar social structure from that of England's , so
I relate to what you wrote.
Although an employment centre is not an office that governs, like Tom
Pfeifer wrote, (nevertheless we could argue they govern/regulate the
unemployed and the work market) it operates very differently from an
employment agency (the difference in the name is not incidental) and I
think that should be stated or even differentiated in the wiki.


Às 09:07 de 11/10/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

Sigh.  Managed to hit some keystroke combination on this damned
laptop that triggered a send.  Now what I intended to write...

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 02:16, António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Anyway, maybe the wiki could be updated to reflect the entire scope of
the office=employment_agency

Perhaps.  With qualifications and exceptions.  In the UK there were
differences between Jobcentres and employment agencies. Those
differences became more pronounced when Jobcentres turned
into Jobcentres+ (or is that Jobcentre+s?).

Employment agencies are happy to have you on their books even if you are
currently employed and many will notify you by e-mail if suitable
opportunities
arise; Jobcentres deal with the unemployed who are looking for work.

If you sign up with an employment agency you do not receive any
money for doing so; signing up with a Jobcentre is how you
qualify for unemployment benefit.

[Now the new/fixed stuff]

Jobcentres merged with the Benefits Agency (which handled benefits
other than unemployment benefits) and so pay out money for more
than just unemployment; employment agencies don't pay out any of
those benefits either.

Jobcentres are staffed by civil servants and are part of the
Department of Work and Pensions (a branch of government);
employment agencies are non-governmental.

I'd say UK Jobcentre+s are definitely office=government rather
than office=employment_agency because they ARE government
offices and do things that employment agencies do not.
I'd settle for government=employment_agency even though
they do more than just that.

--
Paul




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Seen by that perspective, I have to agree.
Anyway, maybe the wiki could be updated to reflect the entire scope of
the office=employment_agency

Thanks.


Às 06:32 de 10/10/2020, Tom Pfeifer escreveu:

As Volker said, office=employment_agency is the established tag.

office=government is wrong, since the employees in the job centre do
not govern.

The government might be the operator of the job centre, which can be
expressed in the operator tag,
e.g. operator=Government of Example County

tom

On 10.10.2020 09:21, Volker Schmidt wrote:

If you go to the (admittedly, very short) wiki page for
office=employment_agency, you find that the picture illustrating the
tag shows a German "jobcenter" of the Agentur fuer Arbeit, which is a
government agency.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesagentur_f%C3%BCr_Arbeit>
So I think your starting assumption is not reflecting the actual tagging
This means also that your idea of creating a new "government" related
tag would be in conflict with the established tagging, at least in
Germany

Volker
(Italy)


     > On 10/10/2020 00:09, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:
 >> I was searching for a way of tagging a government job centre
and I found
 >> there's no suitable way of doing this.
 >> There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit
here, cause
 >> it seems to correspond to private companies who work with
this kind of
 >> services.


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I've seen that on the taginfo website, but I don't think there's need
for another amenity, with such good scheme already in hand.
The office=government has these explicit subtags in the wiki:
    government=ministry
    government=prosecutor
    government=tax
    government=register_office
    government=data_protection

I think it's just a matter of thinking about the correct value here.



Às 20:30 de 09/10/2020, Jeremy Harris escreveu:

On 10/10/2020 00:09, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:

I was searching for a way of tagging a government job centre and I found
there's no suitable way of doing this.
There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit here, cause
it seems to correspond to private companies who work with this kind of
services.

I thought about using the office=government scheme, with the subtag
government=job_centre.
You think this is ok or is there a better way?

My local one has amenity=job_centre - for which there is no doc...



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

[António Madeira via Tagging]

You can not duplicate tags on the same feature...


Às 20:29 de 09/10/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu:




On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 at 09:12, António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit here, cause
it seems to correspond to private companies who work with this kind of
services.

I thought about using the office=government scheme,


How about simply double it up to
office=government + office=employment_agency ?

The name of "Federal Employment Service" or whatever should then be
enough to dispel any doubts!

Thanks

Graeme


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Hi there.

I was searching for a way of tagging a government job centre and I found
there's no suitable way of doing this.
There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit here, cause
it seems to correspond to private companies who work with this kind of
services.

I thought about using the office=government scheme, with the subtag
government=job_centre.
You think this is ok or is there a better way?

Regards.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[António Madeira via Tagging]

The problem, I believe is with iD's presets.
When I started mapping some years ago I always marked crossings as
zebras, then iD changed the preset to crossing =marked and I believe
that's what you're seeing with the increasing number of this tag.
Although iD presents the type selector within that element, with
"uncontrolled", "traffic_signs", "unmarked", "zebra", "no", "toucan",
"pelican" and others, most mappers just leave the first value, which is
"marked".


Às 11:33 de 16/09/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:



Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>:

I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you
cross checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed?



crossing_ref is a different kind of beast, as some people use it to
tell whether there are zebra markings (can also apply to traffic light
controlled crossings).

Frankly, I do not like the tag for zebra crossings, because this
approach requires me to set 3 tags (one of crossing=zebra / marked /
uncontrolled(?)  +, crossing_ref=zebra + highway=crossing, on every
zebra crossing while I could use 2 and be done (highway=crossing with
crossing=zebra).


Cheers
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a social vacation centre?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I ended choosing leisure=resort.
There is an ill documented key for this tag, which seems to address the
problem of defining the type of resort:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:resort

Maybe we could expand and better the type of resort, based on this key.


Às 21:12 de 10/09/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu:




On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:40, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:

Hi there.

How should I tag an area dedicated to vacations, which is not a
resort,
only for members of an institution? Those centres are very common near
the sea, and they range from kids camps (sons of government
workers), to
bank or police pensioners/workers.
I was about to tag that as amenity=social_facility but I can't
find any
suitable subtag that conveys the idea of vacations.


I think I would just go with tourism=hotel (or campsite, chalet,
hostel as applicable) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism

That page makes reference to including group_only=yes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:group_only and also
access=private if it's only open to members of a particular group.

You could also include a description "Only open to members of the
Retired Police Officers Association"

Thanks

Graeme


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I just want wikis to be in accordance between them. As they are now, the
induce mappers with doubt.

Mind you that "These ways should all point direction of travel and imply
oneway=yes (like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is
redundant and should be avoided." is not telling that it's forbidden to
use oneway=yes, only it should be avoided.



Às 11:25 de 18/08/2020, Steve Doerr escreveu:

On 17/08/2020 15:02, Matthew Woehlke wrote:


FWIW, I am also in favor of preferring explicit tagging;
oneway={yes,no} says that someone paid enough attention to
intentionally annotate the way thusly. An implicit tag is impossible
to tell apart from an oversight. IMHO we should never, *ever*
discourage adding explicit tags even if they are "superfluous".


Important to remember that yes and no are not the only values. There
is also -1.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

iD already adds oneway=yes automatically, so no problem there. I don't
know about JOSM, but that can be added as a warning/alert if there isn't
one already.


Às 22:04 de 14/08/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu:




On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 07:59, António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

In this
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway#How_to_map>
section, I suggest changing the text:
"These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged
with oneway=yes."

to

"These ways should all point direction of travel and imply
oneway=yes (like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is
redundant and should be avoided."


While I agree with you that the oneway tag is probably redundant, if
we remove them are we possibly opening ourselves / OSM to criticism
"But my GPS didn't say it was one-way only" (& yes, I have that little
faith in any number of drivers! :-()

Thanks

Graeme


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

In this

section, I suggest changing the text:
"These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with
oneway=yes."

to

"These ways should all point direction of travel and imply oneway=yes
(like junction=roundabout), therefore the oneway tag is redundant and
should be avoided."



Às 17:09 de 14/08/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:

It is nicer to avoid contradictions, but I am not planning to work on
this specific case.

If you want you may propose specific edit and post it here for review
(or make it and discuss if someone disagrees).

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

Aug 14, 2020, 20:35 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not?



Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:

Based on my experience it is usually better to write something,
even not ideal and
ask for a review.

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

May 26, 2020, 10:58 by vosc...@gmail.com :

Please come back to my original question: /I would like to
eliminate the contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you
propose?/

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier
mailto:j...@liotier.org>> wrote:

On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed
that the JOSM style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes
not show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's
probably a bug in the
style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.


I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If
anything, it gives validators more to work with if you
start doing something weird.


Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

[António Madeira via Tagging]

So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not?


Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:

Based on my experience it is usually better to write something, even
not ideal and
ask for a review.

"Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored.

May 26, 2020, 10:58 by vosc...@gmail.com:

Please come back to my original question: /I would like to
eliminate the contradiction in the wiki. What wording do you propose?/

On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 10:23, Jean-Marc Liotier mailto:j...@liotier.org>> wrote:

On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that
the JOSM style
that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not
show ways
properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a
bug in the
style more than an indictment of implying oneway=yes.


I'm on the side of "team tag explicitly" on this.  If
anything, it gives validators more to work with if you start
doing something weird.


Isn't that what oneway=no is for ?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I mean physically. If a vehicle can't use it legally, the access key
must be activated, like in any other feature.
I believe that the legality of circulation shouldn't interfere with the
tagging of a track. For example: a dirt highway in a Natural Reserve
should be always a track, regardless of who can use it. If it's only for
rangers or emergency vehicles, there are tags to reflect that. If only
bikes or hikers can use it, then it's a path.


Às 13:56 de 10/06/2020, Mike Thompson escreveu:



On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM António Madeira
mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:
> If a motor vehicle can and uses the way, it's a track.

When you say "can use" do you mean both legally and physically, or
only physically?. If legally, do you mean just the general public? As
someone pointed out, law enforcement has access to almost everything
via motor vehicle.  Also, the land manager (e.g. parks and recreation
department) has access to almost all of their properties via motor
vehicle.

Does this only apply to unpaved ways?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

[António Madeira via Tagging]

After communicating with lutz from Historic.Place, he told me they
didn't create this heritage scheme, they just adopted it.
I took the opportunity to present him my proposal of refining this
scheme and I got his support to go ahead with it, so I'm presenting it
here in order to make the necessary adjustments with a new proposal.

heritage=* - This is the main tag, which uses the admin_level [not changed].
heritage:operator=xxx - This is the tag for the official operator. I
propose using separators [;] in those cases where an heritage has an
international and a national operator.
heritage:ref:xxx=* - This tag is for the code/number reference of the
operator(s) above. It changes the previous ref:xxx=*
heritage:xxx:criteria=* - This tag is for the classification criteria
used by the xxx operator. It changes the previous xxx:criteria=*
heritage:xxx:inscription_date=* - This tag is used for the date the
heritage was officially registered by xxx operator. It changes the
previous xxx:inscription_date=*
heritage:xxx:designation_title=* - This tag is used for the heritage
title (international or national). This is new and is an attempt to
circumvent the use of protection_title=* which is wrong in this context.
heritage:xxx:website=* - Used for the heritage official website
(international or national).


Regards,
António.


Às 17:49 de 14/04/2020, António Madeira via Tagging escreveu:

Thanks, Paul.
I'll contact them then.


Às 17:44 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:02, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:


Às 10:15 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:


They're the ones you'd have to convince to alter their code to
handle your
proposed change.


You mean this?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map


That's where it's documented.  The map is here:gk.historic.place
<http://gk.historic.place>  If
you've not played with it before, here's a place where I've added most
of the heritage info:
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/l/en/index.html?zoom=16=52.03846=-4.46621=3=HaHbHcSaHe

The "problem" with criteria is that it seems to be used with
numbers or abbreviations, like a list that corresponds to some
longer definitions.


That's how others have done it, listing what those abbreviations mean
on the wiki
page.  But there's nothing (I can see) that says you have to restrict
yourself to
abbreviations.

Since heritage=* is largely ruled over by the historical places
people, the best
place to get an opinion is https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lutz
In the end, he and his team decide how the historical places map
interpret
the tags.

--
Paul


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Thanks, Paul.
I'll contact them then.


Às 17:44 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:02, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:


Às 10:15 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:


They're the ones you'd have to convince to alter their code to
handle your
proposed change.


You mean this?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map


That's where it's documented.  The map is here:gk.historic.place
  If
you've not played with it before, here's a place where I've added most
of the heritage info:
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/l/en/index.html?zoom=16=52.03846=-4.46621=3=HaHbHcSaHe

The "problem" with criteria is that it seems to be used with
numbers or abbreviations, like a list that corresponds to some
longer definitions.


That's how others have done it, listing what those abbreviations mean
on the wiki
page.  But there's nothing (I can see) that says you have to restrict
yourself to
abbreviations.

Since heritage=* is largely ruled over by the historical places
people, the best
place to get an opinion is https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lutz
In the end, he and his team decide how the historical places map interpret
the tags.

--
Paul


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Refining heritage tag

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Hi there.

In the last few days, the Portuguese community has been trying to create
a national standardization with the heritage tag.
We came up to a possible solution which can be seen at the wiki page
 based on the previous
information on the wiki itself.

Still, I have some questions I would like to raise here:
- is ref:xxx=* a good solution to add the official reference
code/number? Why not heritage:ref:xxx as stated here
?
Doesn't this collide with other ref tags?
- the same for xxx:inscription_date=*. Wouldn't it be more consistent to
use heritage:xxx:inscription_date=* ?
- we've adopted the tag protection_title=* to define the protection
category of the heritage, although the German wiki clearly states this
is used for natural areas only. Would it be better to create another tag
or is OK to adapt this one, since this is also a protected feature?

Regards.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Please fix unnamed square tagging / was: ... description of place=square

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Although in Portugal squares are very well defined, either from their
physical significance or from their name, this is surely not the case in
every country.
Maybe one of their main common characteristics is that they're open
urban areas, a point of confluence where people can gather for social or
cultural events.
I think it won't be possible to find a better common denominator and
that's why there should be good examples on the English wiki and on
other countries' wiki.


Às 06:42 de 23/03/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:



Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 06:26 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>:

"Praça ou largo: Praça, praceta ou largo: espaço numa zona urbana,
normalmente sem edifícios (apenas a volta desta), que constitui um
espaço público aberto"

This translates back to English as (approximately):
"Praça, praceta or largo: space in an urban area, usually without
buildings (except for around it), which constitutes a public open
space"



sounds reasonable (apart that there may be buildings on a square, is
not untypical)


 I'll update this to the new definition from the English page.




Which you keep reverting to your interpretation of square. It
currently reads "A town or village square: a hardscaped open public
space, generally of architectural significance, which is surrounded by
buildings in a built-up area such as a city, town or village."


While I do not object that this is describing a part of all squares, I
do object that these are criteria which are suitable to exclude
objects. For example  "surrounded by buildings" is a typical
situation, but is not a strict requirement. A public square surrounded
by walls would be equally ok, for instance. A square which is not
paved would be ok as well (not usual in many parts of the world, but
quite common in others, where road paving is generally rare). Let me
post some more examples of squares here:


Example for a famous square with buildings on it (Krakov):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.06164/19.93764

Example for a square that is not mainly hardscaped (although in a
developed country), Strausberger Platz in Berlin (socialist urbanism)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.51865/13.42866

Two adjacent squares, with significant parts not hardscaped: Platz vor
dem Neuen Tor, and Robert-Koch-Platz in Berlin
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.52851/13.37865

Another example for a socialist square, mostly open / flowing space,
center is a traffic junction: Platz der Vereinten Nationen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.52328/13.42999

Square that is not surrounded / delimited by buildings (but by walls):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24534437

Another example for a square that is not at all delimited by buildings:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2743565

Example for a minor square without a lot of "architectural
significance" (well, this may depend on your definition of
significance, significant compared to what? One could also say thisi
is significant, as it clearly stands out as open space from the road
grid): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125988144


I've also created an Indonesian page, which gives a couple examples of
"alun-alun" in Indonesia which fit the definition:

1)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Alun-alun_Garut.jpg/400px-Alun-alun_Garut.jpg

2)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg/400px-Alun_-_Alun_Bandung_Masjid_Raya_Bandung.jpg

But there are many other alun-alun that are grassy urban parks,
not squares:

A)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zpwpVxKz0q0/UXoUmFzUAXI/BpI/brIHP9_dQQY/s400/images.jpg

B)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alun-alun_Tugu_-_Bunder_-_panoramio.jpg

C)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Square_Trenggalek_-_Alun-Alun_Trenggalek_-_panoramio_(10).jpg



From photos it is hard to judge these, because you would usually need
to see the context in order to understand whether these are just parks
or parks on squares. I also notice that these are all huge. Try to
think of small squares as well, e.g. places like this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/41/da/8341dab9b3f5b929cc136f06b01bb3cb.jpg
http://www.italymoviewalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/fontana-delle-tartarughe-roma-movie-walks.jpg

Cheers
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to match multiple destinations and destination:ref?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

This was of a great help, Jan. That tool is awesome!

Wouldn't it be the right time to go ahead with this proposal? I mean,
this is used for most of the routing softwares that uses OSM, including
OSMAnd.


Às 14:17 de 13/02/2020, Jan Michel escreveu:

On 13.02.20 18:02, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:

Thank you, Jan!
This was exactly what I was searching for.
So, for destination:ref you propose using ";;" for empty values and for
destination:symbol you propose "none"?


There are different options:
destination:ref = ;123;;
destination:ref = none;123;none;none
destination:ref =  ;123; ;

I personally prefer the first one, but while interpreting tags I treat
all of them the same. In any case I would decide for one style and use
this for all tags. Note that 'none' as a placeholder might be
ambiguous in some cases, because some tags also have 'none' as a valid
value (e.g. maxheight = none) and then there is the case of the
Italian city 'None'.


How come this is not in the destination tag wiki?

This scheme was never officially proposed or discussed, it's just an
extension of the (old but never voted on) proposal for extended
destination:XYZ tags.

At least in Germany it's currently used to quite some extent to
represent more complicated signs properly, e.g.
http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/destinationsign/example/index.htm#way=153364494_sgn=1_way=1=DE



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to match multiple destinations and destination:ref?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Thank you, Jan!
This was exactly what I was searching for.
So, for destination:ref you propose using ";;" for empty values and for
destination:symbol you propose "none"?

How come this is not in the destination tag wiki?



Às 13:30 de 13/02/2020, Jan Michel escreveu:

Hi,
You can just add empty entries to the destination:ref tag, like
destination:ref=;123;;
Some people prefer to use 'none' instead of empty entries, but I would
not recommend that.

I don't know if you have found it, but there is some documentation I
wrote in the Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mueschel/DestinationTagging


Jan


On 13.02.20 16:07, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:

Hi there.

I've stumbled with a problem for which I couldn't find a satisfactory
answer.
Say I have a destination sign in a motorway junction exit with 4
destinations, but only the second one has a ref. How do we match the
right destination with its ref?

I've noticed that we can use "none" in the destination:symbol tag. Could
this be applied here too?

Regards.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to match multiple destinations and destination:ref?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Hi there.

I've stumbled with a problem for which I couldn't find a satisfactory
answer.
Say I have a destination sign in a motorway junction exit with 4
destinations, but only the second one has a ref. How do we match the
right destination with its ref?

I've noticed that we can use "none" in the destination:symbol tag. Could
this be applied here too?

Regards.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Ok, let's stay in the same page then. :)
Regarding schools, I don't know what you mean, because here, schools
dont have fountains, just taps and those of the bubbler type (maybe old
century schools have fountains in their yards or something similar).

Às 18:20 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

Which is the case in Britain for ornamental/decorative fountains. 
Regardless
of whether or not they supply drinking water, they're fountains.  But
utilitarian
drinking fountains, of the kind found in schools, are not "fountains"
in normal
British English usage.


This was assumed from my side since the beginning. What spurred me to
start this thread was that the element "fountain" in Portuguese iD was
translated as "decoration fountain" and the wiki seemed to support that
distinction.
So, as it is now, there are no decoration fountains, only fountains that
need drinking_water=yes if they provide potable water, which seems a
more encompassing and more close to reality solution.



What I was objecting to was the idea that in some countries
amenity=fountain
is assumed to supply drinking water by default.  It needs an explicit
drinking_water=yes.

--
Paul



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

This also is important. There are fountains (not many) which have an
official document in situ to inform that the water was tested, with the
analysis results and date.
This could go into another key, which would compose even better the
fountain tag. I had never noticed that legal=yes/legal=no keys but I
think it would be a good addition to the fountain wiki, at least on the
countries where they apply.

Às 16:02 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

You may also need to make use of drinking_water:legal=no on some
fountains.  I wouldn't use it myself because it implies the water is
drinkable but not certified as drinkable and I'd be worried about the
legal consequences of making such a claim.



I think this is a good summary on the issue that could be applied to
other tags. I believe OSM would have much to gain if this was the case.

Às 17:03 de 06/02/2020, Diego Cruz escreveu:

I don't think it's that hard to concede that a fountain, ornamental in
nature, may be used for drinking too in other countries by adding a
simple subtag. We should be a little more respectful of cultural
differences here, since this project intends to map the whole world
and a single language is just but a poor tool to describe everything
we can find in it.

I'm not trying to target English for this inability to describe
things. All languages suffer from that, especially things that are
foreign to one's own culture. We are just using British English as a
convention, not because it is more adequate, so please let us at least
deviate a little to accommodate differences.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I did read the description closely, and what I said still applies: in
Portugal it is a fountain in the way it is described in Britain, an
amenity=fountain with no drinking water.
That's what I'm trying to explain from the beginning: it doesn't matter
if it has drinking water or not, it will always be a fountain. But in
the cases (the majority of them) that they have, we should be allowed to
apply the drinking_water=yes, regardless if in Britain that's not the case.
This way, everyone is happy: you still call it fountain in Britain, and
I still call it fountain in Spain, Italy, France, Portugal or wherever,
with the difference that the chance of them having potable water is higher.


Às 16:02 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:10, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:


If you come to Portugal and want to find drinkin water, you should
know that most fountains have drinking water, like I need to know
the opposite when I go to the UK.


But OSM maps can be viewed from anywhere in the world by people planning
trips.  It's better that tags mean the same thing everywhere. 
Otherwise you
have to check what each country means by each tag.

Yes, that example in Portugal that's a fountain (a
decorative/historic)


If you had read the description closely, you'd have been able to work
out that
it was originally a decorative drinking fountain. Current legislation
means that
the water is no longer considered potable so it is now just a
decorative fountain.

If it says not do drink water from it, we simply use
amenity=fountain. Like you.

Only if it has potable water we could add drinking_water=yes.


That's all I was ever saying: amenity=fountain doesn't imply the water is
drinkable because the tag values are in British English. If it also
supplies
drinking water then add drinking_water=yes.  If there is no drinking_water
tag then the default is that it is not drinkable.  That way we have a
standard
way of tagging things.

You may also need to make use of drinking_water:legal=no on some
fountains.  I wouldn't use it myself because it implies the water is
drinkable but not certified as drinkable and I'd be worried about the
legal consequences of making such a claim.

--
Paul



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Just to complement.
If you come to Portugal and want to find drinkin water, you should know
that most fountains have drinking water, like I need to know the
opposite when I go to the UK.
Also, if you come here, you need to know that we drive on the opposite
side of the road. That doesn't mean that highway has a different meaning
than in the UK. It's just used in a onother way.

Yes, that example in Portugal that's a fountain (a decorative/historic)

If it says not do drink water from it, we simply use amenity=fountain.
Like you.
Only if it has potable water we could add drinking_water=yes.




Às 14:51 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:


BTW,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrasting_messages_on_Harford_Fountain,_Harford_Square,_Lampeter_-_geograph.org.uk_-_6178011.jpg

--
Paul



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

That's what drinking_water=yes is used for, right?

In Britain, you don't use drinking_water=yes, in Portugal (or whatever
country it may be) we use amenity=fountain (which is always
decorative/ornamental/historic, so it fits your conception of fountain)
AND drinking_water=yes.
For me, it's simple. I don't see any issue with that.


Às 14:51 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:


A person outside Europe will still find what she/he wants by
searching the tag fountain, either with OR without drinking_water.


How?  I go to your country looking for drinking water and all I see on
the map
are ornamental fountains because that's what "fountain" means to me. 
You come
to the UK looking for drinking water and drink from an ornamental
fountain that
doesn't doesn't supply drinkable water because that's what "fountain"
means to
you.  This way madness lies.

BTW,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrasting_messages_on_Harford_Fountain,_Harford_Square,_Lampeter_-_geograph.org.uk_-_6178011.jpg

--
Paul



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

It's not arbitrary and you're missing the point by circling around a non
issue.
I'm not saying to change the meaning of fountain, which can have some
subtle differences between countries, I'm saying to let it open to
retain its British meaning and add the possibility to have different
uses depending on the country. A person outside Europe will still find
what she/he wants by searching the tag fountain, either with OR without
drinking_water.


Às 14:24 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 16:48, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:

Paul, I'm not calling it anything. We all know that OSM uses
British English for tagging. What I'm saying is that it's better
to widen the scope of the tag, than restrict it to a

certain reality.
A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies
drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European
countries, it does imply, so it's just fair and logical that the
wiki reflects that.


You've just admitted OSM uses British English yet you still want to
expand the
meaning of fountain to have a meaning that is not British English. 
Yes, many
European countries ascribe a different meaning to "fountain."  But
many outside
Europe don't have the word "fountain" in their language. So, knowing that
OSM uses British English, they find out what "fountain" means in
British English
(or already know).  And would then be puzzled if OSM were using it
differently,
because OSM is supposed to use British English, not British English plus
arbitrary additional meanings from elsewhere.

--
Paul



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Paul, I'm not calling it anything. We all know that OSM uses British
English for tagging. What I'm saying is that it's better to widen the
scope of the tag, than restrict it to a certain reality.
A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies
drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European countries,
it does imply, so it's just fair and logical that the wiki reflects that.


Às 13:00 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:



On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:27, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:


If, in Britain, a fountain is normally a ornamental fountain, that
shouldn't restrict the possibility of widening its meaning to
encompass the reality in other countries,


OSM tag names and values use British English where possible.  There's
a reason
for that: mappers from around the world are exposed to tag names and
values and
they have to know how to interpret them.  This is difficult enough
when they are
in British English, but it becomes impossible if mappers have to guess
that
words that are recognizably English are being used with meanings in
randomly-chosen languages.  It's bad enough having to look up the British
English meaning, it's even harder to guess which language should be used
to interpret the tag.  Are we using the French interpretation of
"fountain" or
the Italian interpretation or...?

Call it cultural imperialism if you wish, but OSM uses British English for
tagging.

--
Paul



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I'm not going into etymologic discussions, but fountain, be it in
British English or any other language with Latin origins is a source of
drinkable water (a spring). Maybe, just guessing, there were fountains
in Britain and they're not used anymore or were simply abandoned because
they were not needed in the modern age, thus the evolution of the word
to simply mean "ornamental fountain", but that's not the case in
Mediterranean and Eastern countries.
That was the main purpose of this thread, to discuss the "restrictions"
that the wiki imposed on that main feature.

If, in Britain, a fountain is normally a ornamental fountain, that
shouldn't restrict the possibility of widening its meaning to encompass
the reality in other countries, where fountains are, in fact, a potable
source of water and an ornamental fountain (which doesn't allow to drink
water due to the absence of a tap or a pipe) is just an extension of
that or a subtype.
I think that was fairly accomplished with the recent changes in the wiki
and the use of drinking_water=yes on such features.
Drinking fountain could be a good alternative, but it seems reserved to
"a man-made device providing a small jet of water for drinking", which
doesn't include at all the type of fountain I started this thread with.

I just commented that I agreed that amenity=drinking_water should be
abandoned, because you can use drinking_water=yes on all existing
features that provide water (fountains, springs, wells, taps, drinking
fountains, etc.)

Regards.


Às 11:40 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:15, António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

A fountain should be first and foremost a place where there's
water served to the public.


That may be the meaning of the word in some languages, but OSM uses
British
English.  In British English the word "fountain," by itself, usually
means an
ornamental fountain.  In British English, a fountain which supplies
drinking water is
known as a "drinking fountain."

The concept of "sculptural and/or decorational" should be just a
component of the fountain, depending on the country/culture.


Nope.  The concept should be that "fountain" in OSM reflects its
meaning in British
English and not its meaning in another language.

Decorational fountains without the use of drinking water are just
a subtype of fountain, because the main use/purpose of the vast
majority is to serve water.


This is just plain wrong.  There can be ornamental fountains which do
not supply
drinking water (because there are issues which mean it's not
potable).  There
can be utilitarian, ugly drinking fountains such as those in schools. 
And there
can be ornamental fountains that also supply drinking water.  And all
come under
the generic term "fountain" in British English.  That's why there is a
subtag
drinking_water=yes which can be applied to an amenity=fountain (which
means
a decorative fountain) that also supplies drinking water.  If it's an ugly
fountain there is amenity=drinking_water.



--
Paul




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

A fountain should be first and foremost a place where there's water
served to the public. The concept of "sculptural and/or decorational"
should be just a component of the fountain, depending on the
country/culture. As its historical/heritage value.
In Portugal, where there are thousands of fountains, this is the norm.
Decorational fountains without the use of drinking water are just a
subtype of fountain, because the main use/purpose of the vast majority
is to serve water.
So, if we see fountains in this prism, I believe they are clearly a
necessity. In cities they lost some of their importance, but in villages
and rural areas (80% of the territory) they're still one of the main
features, without which many of them wouldn't have a consistent source
of potable water.


Às 07:05 de 06/02/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 10:55 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni
mailto:cascaf...@gmail.com>>:


Since fountain is intended as "sculptural and/or decorational", IMHO
amenity=fountain is not consistent. AFAIK object belonging to
"amenity" are in someway necessities. So one day, I hope to see
fountain value removed from amenity tag.




I would like to reject the idea that something that is decorational
and cultural is not a "necessity" (along these lines, where do you see
place of worship?). Fountains, seem to fit reasonably well into the
amenity concept. Much more than prisons, grave_yards, hunting stands,
grit bins, private toilets (sic), and many more things to be found in
amenity with some usage:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity#values

Cheers
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Greetings.

In Portugal there are olive oil mills all over the place, as I'm sure
there are in Spain, Italy and Greece. Unfortunately, there's no easy way
to map them on OSM.
I found an ancient proposal for this tag, but it never went forward:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/olive_oil_mill

I contacted its author one month ago via OSM profile, but received no
answer.
What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?

Regards,
António Madeira.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging