[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:hexagonal_bolt

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi,

I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like
to propose an addition to my earlier proposal for survey_point:benchmark:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:hexagonal_bolt


Definition: Ordnance survey point replacing rendered over or lost OS
points of the benchmark type.
Thank you for your time,

Anne


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi,

I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like
to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark
The reason being that I would like to also propose
survey_point:hexagonal_bolt and survey_point:ground_bolt with it.

Definition: Ordnance survey point usually chiselled in stone with its
typical horizontal bar and arrow below on vertical surfaces, dot with
arrow below on horizontal surfaces. Now often replaced by hexagonal
bolts in walls or bolts in the ground.

Thank you for your time,

Anne


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi everyone,

mostly for European use (I think), I propose a new node type barrier,
namely "guard stone":

   A guard stone is in most cases a stone built onto or into the corner
   of a building or wall. They are usually found on either side of an
   entrance to a laneway or gateway. Guard stones may be put alongside
   a wall to protect it. Many are historical barriers that kept the
   wheels of carriages from damaging buildings. Some of them bear
   survey markers such as benchmarks.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/guard_stone

Thanks, have a good time, stay safe.

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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - guard stone

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi,

there haven't been any comments on it in a while, so I think it is safe
to start the voting process on

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/guard_stone

Voting ends on January 4th.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion and proposal page!

Happy holidays,

Anne (b-unicycling)


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

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I thought that using photographic examples in the proposal would make it
fairly clear, but apparently not.

If you come to a bench that is no longer there, "vandalised:" would not
apply. If the seats are damaged to an extend that you cannot sit on it
any longer, then it would. There is hope that the local authorities or
whoever puts up benches will fix it eventually, hence the "temporarily
out of order" in the infobox.

Graffiti doesn't appear spontanously on signposts covering only a
certain language; receivers don't just fall off a phone box, and I doubt
the local authorities would use those desctructive methods.

I don't know how to make it clearer to you.

You may use survey:date instead, if you like. I've expanded the
explanation on the wiki.

Anne

On 17/09/2023 13:08, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 17.09.23 à 12:50, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit :

I'm proposing to establish the lifecycle prefix "vandalised:" which
has been in use for at least 8 years in some form

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Vandalised:


I wonder if it makes sense to be so precise about "past" life cycles:
you arrive at a place, the bench is no longer there
Has it been dismantled? destroyed? vandalised ? unintentionally damaged?

If you're not there at the precise moment of the change of state,
the only thing you can see is that the bench is no longer there
or isn't in a working state anymore
2 "past" lifecycles seems sufficient to me (was: for when there's
nothing left, damaged or equivalent for when there's something
non-functional)

PS : and what's the meaning of vandalised:last_check ?
someone vandalised your last_check ?
it seems more logical to me to put survey:date
if you want to store this meta data

Regards,
Marrc



___
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] oops, sorry

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

The colon after the "Vandalised" made the link not work on mastodon and
maybe here as well, so I've deleted it from the Proposal name. Sorry
about the confusion.

Anne


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

[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I'm proposing to establish the lifecycle prefix "vandalised:" which has
been in use for at least 8 years in some form, but hasn't been documented.

This was triggered by noticing this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11196545305 (unfortunately, I didn't
take a photo).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Vandalised:

I'm not active in the forum, so if anyone wants to let people know
there, that'd be fabulous.


Cheers,

Anne


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

[Tagging] cancelling proposal

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

I've decided to cancel the proposal I started on August 22 in favour of
using the vending machine option in combination with fee=no instead.
Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Free_period_products

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Re: [RFC] Feature Proposal - free period products

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 Fair points. Transgender people are also one of the reasons why I didn't want to use the terminology "feminine hygiene".AnneOn 23/08/2023, 08:31 Amanda McCann  wrote:

  On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 23:53 +02:00, Anne-Karoline Distel  wrote:
   > I've created a proposal to map whether free period products are
   > available in a toilet which seems to become more common in recent years.
   > It think it's as valid as adding changing tables.
   >
   > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Free_period_products
   
   
   Great Idea. How about adding something for the location of where the period products are. There is already `changing_table:location=wheelchair_toilet,female_toilet,male_toilet,…`
   
   PS: Remember that trans men might need period products too .
   -- 
   Amanda
   
 


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

[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - free period products

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

I've created a proposal to map whether free period products are
available in a toilet which seems to become more common in recent years.
It think it's as valid as adding changing tables.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Free_period_products

Kind regards,

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] dinosaurs

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

There were 4, tagged as dinosaur trackway or dinosaur footprints or
similar. Obviously, even though dinosaurs were quite big, I can't see
them on satellite view, so I just changed the key to description and
added geological=palaeontological_site.

Anne

On 16/10/2022 17:02, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Do you have a feeling how many "archeologic" sites in OSM are in
reality palaeontological? I fear this is a frequent error, but
difficult to spot.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, 17:33 Anne-Karoline Distel, 
wrote:

Hello all,

I'm doing a huge tidy-up amongst the values for "site_type",
documented
in a diary post:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400151

I've come across a few dinosaur footprints, but that is not
archaeology,
because archaeology is about man made structures. Is there a way to
implement a warning into the editors not to combine
"archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found
with geological=palaeontological_site

(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:geological%3Dpalaeontological_site).

Maybe this is the wrong mailing list for it...

Anne


___
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] dinosaurs

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I'm just saying it would be nice if the editors (iD, JOSM) would give a
warning if someone tries to put dinosaurs within the range of human
habitation.

On 16/10/2022 18:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 16 Oct 2022, at 18:05, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

Do you have a feeling how many "archeologic" sites in OSM are in reality 
palaeontological? I fear this is a frequent error, but difficult to spot.


It doesn’t seem a huge problem, but even if this was widespread my stance would 
be to fix these as errors rather than accepting them as consistent use

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] dinosaurs

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

I'm doing a huge tidy-up amongst the values for "site_type", documented
in a diary post:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400151

I've come across a few dinosaur footprints, but that is not archaeology,
because archaeology is about man made structures. Is there a way to
implement a warning into the editors not to combine
"archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found
with geological=palaeontological_site
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:geological%3Dpalaeontological_site).

Maybe this is the wrong mailing list for it...

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi Andy,

all the existing archaeological sites with site_type would have to be
retagged, if this is approved. I'm not proposing this lightly, but it is
what the people criticising the "_type" suffix want, apparently.

It just occured to me that it would probably also affect histosm.org.
But I must presume the critics have thought of all that before they voted.

Anne

On 22/10/2022 13:34, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:

Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
"Rationale":

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site



Hello,

That page says "This would apply to c. 113 000 features".  For the
avoidance of doubt, are you suggesting (after the acceptance of this
proposal) that people would "just start using the new values", or are
you planning a series of edits following
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ,
or do you believe that acceptance of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site
implies acceptance of a change to OSM data as well?

The reason that I'm asking is as can be seen from
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type#projects I'm
currently using that tag to control display of features (actual
example code at
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5622
for info) and it'd be good to know when I need to change that to say
something else.

Best Regards,

Andy




___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

What is the use of the proposal process then?

Anne

On 22/10/2022 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel  wrote:

Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type


such a retagging would be a waste of time, I would not pursue this idea, and 
given the high majority that is required nowadays it is also unlikely to 
succeed.

You could just continue mapping the settlement sites and crannogs as you please 
and have a wonderful time, document the tags, speak about it so that other 
people interested in mapping this kind of feature can join you. :-)

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
"Rationale":

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site


If anyone has any doubts about my contributions to OSM:
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?b-unicycling

Enjoy the weekend,

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

the proposal for crannog has been rejected with 6 yes votes, 5 no votes
and 2 abstain votes. Thank you all for your input.

This will be followed up shortly with a new proposal.

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
my findings which might give food for thought:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164

(I hope you like footnotes...:-) )

Anne

On 07/10/2022 11:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

who cares for "in use" or "approved", the question is only whether
there are alternative tags available, in which case you either have to
decide or put both.
The voting isn't binding, at most it could be relevant if there is an
alternative value for the same key.

So while this could be seen as a conceptual problem, it does not
really matter IMHO for actual tagging.
In practice I would not "approve" the whole chain up, just because one
particular value was approved, and if I were the proponent of this
tag, I would use it also if it got rejected, unless it was rejected by
other people familiar with the domain or area where these occur, and
they would propose a better alternative.

Also because you cannot rely on the information given in the wiki. I
just changed the "site_type" key to de facto, because this is what it
is. Furthermore also site_type=settlement could be seen as de-facto,
but I did not make this edit immediately because I see there is maybe
some more wiggle room to see it still as "only" in significant use
(3600 times) without alternatives proposed as far as I can see.

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] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Depends entirely on the our hopefully to come definition of
"archaeological site". But I don't have a solution for it yet either.
But I definitely think that some of the features mapped merely as
"historic" should be mapped as archaeological sites just because of the
state they're in. I would think that - without having looked at them on
satellite view most of the "historic=city" and "historic=town" are
actually archaeological sites, because otherwise all cities and towns in
the world are more or less historic. Unless one only maps the "old town"
part of the town as "historic" which is still inhabited.

I'd say most of the historic=shieling I would classify as archaeological
sites, but I can't give a good definition why. I would suspect them to
be in ruins, but I'm only guessing that from the booleys (roughly the
same thing) in Ireland. I think there is an annual archaeological summer
school at the one on Achill Island anyway (https://achill-fieldschool.com/).

Anne

On 17/10/2022 20:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel  wrote:

Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
my findings which might give food for thought:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164

which alternative of the 3 available would you prefer?



___
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] Literal translation of street names

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 I agree that it is interesting to know what the street name means, but there is no ground truth for it.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 19/09/2022, 11:42 "Janko Mihelić"  wrote:

  
   
A user in my city (Zagreb) started translating street names into English, and I don't know what to do about it. An example of translation is Butcher Street for Mesnička ulica, or Stone Street for Kamenita ulica. I found a few of these in Berlin, for example, Straße der Erinnerung translated Road of Remembrance. These are valid translations, but it isn't helpful for a map. If an english user of our map saw "Road of Remembrance", she won't be able to find that street sign, or explain to a taxi driver where she wants to go.

   
   

   
   
I think I've seen someone talk against such translations, but I can't find a wiki page that talks about it. I can create one if there is consensus that this is wrong tagging. Or maybe just add a few sentences about it on the name=* wiki page.

   
   

   
   
The problem is, he is doing valid work, so it feels wrong to just delete it. Another way to deal with this is to create a new tag, name:literal_translation:en=* or just literal_translation:en=*.
   
   

   
   
Another question, what is the right name:en=* in these cases, or is there none? Erinnerung Road?
   
   

   
   
Thanks!
   
   
Janko Mihelić

   
   ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 I was sceptical at first, but after looking at the example, I understand the necessity for hikers. However, I'm not entirely convinced it classifies as a "highway", because there doesn't seem to be a clear way visible; you just try to get from A to B as best you can.--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 14/09/2022, 10:47 Asa Hundert  wrote:

  
   It is proposed to create the tag highway=scramble as a base tag for hiking paths, where use of hands is required, be that for keeping balance or be it for pulling up.
   Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/highway%3Dscramble
   Thank you in advance
   Asa
   ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - site_type=defensive_settlement

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello everyone,

I'm proposing to introduce a new sub class of (archaeological) site
types "defensive settlement":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:site_type%3Ddefensive_settlement

My reasoning will hopefully be clear from the proposal page.

Feel free to point out examples from your part of the world.

Have a good Sunday,

Anne


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

[Tagging] RFC - defensive_settlement

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

I wish to withdraw my proposal, because I have come to the conclusion
that I'm over-categorizing and that settlement will have to do with
further settlement_types down the hierarchy which are partly already in use.

I will add the "archived" template which is usually only done after the
vote.

Kind regards,

Anne aka b-unicycling
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I could have just gone and used it and not made a proposal, but I don't
feel very comfortable making videos about tags that are just "in use"
(mostly by me) and not approved. It's a risky strategy, but I hope it'll
pay off for this one, because there are at least two videos in it. it
also delays the video production by at least four weeks into the rainy
season...

But I would also like to re-tag the ringforts from fortification_type to
settlement_type, because they are not military. That's for the next
proposal, though.

Anne

On 22/09/2022 20:39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 22 Sep 2022, at 18:06, Anne-Karoline Distel 
wrote:

Following that swiftly with a new proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog



at first I thought that’s quite a specific value for such an
apparently generic term like settlement type, but likely it will be
easier to get specific settlement types, e.g. from information boards
on site, as it will be to come to a global level of generalized types.
Many of the specific types are probably occurring only within regions
and smaller areas, and this is part of why it’s interesting, and there
the specific type is what you’d want to know.

I’d support the tag although probably not use this specific value  :)

Cheers Martin

PS: following wikidata I came to a redirect in the 19th century
encyclopedia, a printed redirect, funny how such concepts have been
there already for a long time:
https://de.m.wikisource.org/wiki/MKL1888:Crannoges


___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Following that swiftly with a new proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog

I still have 23 crannogs mapped as defensive_settlement=crannog; I don't
know if I should wait until after the vote to change them. I've only
changed the two Scottish ones referred to in the Proposal page so far.

Have a good weekend!

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - site_type=defensive_settlement

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

There are apps for that. ;-) For trees, I mean. But thanks for adding
them anyway.

Anne

On 20/09/2022 20:03, martianfreeloader wrote:

I agree.

We have loads of tags that only mappers with special knowledge can use
correctly (just dive into the world of railways). This doesn't mean
these tags shouldn't used by those who know what they're doing.

When it comes to trees, I'm a quite "ordinary" mapper. I have no idea
how to use genus=*. I still find the tag very much deserves to exist.

On 20/09/2022 20:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 20 Sep 2022, at 18:07, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:

This proposed tag would be used for much less well known sites. How
should ordinary mappers determine if a ruin is an old fort or a
fortified settlement or a an ancient prison?



either there will be a sign explaining what you see, or other sources
like guides, or if you do not know it you cannot tag it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Most times, I don't map the number of seats, because I don't have a
number of 3-4 friends with me when I'm mapping to test the bench, so I
can't tell how many people can sit on it. They installed a few 1-seater
"benches" in my locality during lockdown, I added it then. But I agree
that it might make it easier to simplify from seats to capacity.

Anne

On 29/09/2022 17:26, martianfreeloader wrote:

I personally find it more consistent to reduce the number of
synonymous keys across all objects.

But yes, I am considering two groups of mutually exclusive proposals
to settle this issue. Something along these lines:

-
ISSUE 1
Should the capacity of a bench be tagged on all benches or only on
those which have clear seat separation? This is independent of issue 2.

Proposal 1A) Only on benches with have clear seat separation.

Proposal 1B) On all benches.

Question to be resolved:
Can a thing that has individual seats be considered a bench at all?

---

ISSUE 2:
Which key should be used to tag the capacity of a bench? This is
independent of issue 1.

Proposal 2A) Use seats=* on all benches.

Proposal 2B) Use capacity=* on all benches.

Proposal 2C) [Only if 1B is approved] Use seats=* on benches with
clear seat separation and capacity=* otherwise.
---

This is just a sketch, let's see if I have time to spell this it out
in the next days.




On 29/09/2022 17:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 29 Sep 2022, at 14:10, martianfreeloader
 wrote:

Facing heavy objections and no support, I have come to the
conclusion that my proposal is not considered useful by the community.

I thus decided to retract it.



as you are interested in consistency, have you considered proposing
the opposite, retagging of the 1000 capacity on benches to seats?

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

Re: [Tagging] camp sites in Haiti

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I left 3 fixmes, even tried one in French, just in case.

Anne

On 12/10/2022 10:51, Illia Marchenko wrote:

I think that amenity=refugee_site & fixme=Review may be solution, it
isn't the ideal, but are better then leave "as is".

ср, 12 окт. 2022 г., 11:54 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:


On 12/10/22 02:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> Would it be possible to re-tag those refugee camps in an
automated edit? … I'm not even sure if they all still exist 12
years later.

It would not be possible, because we do not know if they still
exist.



So you leave them with an incorrect tag?

I'd re-tag them.. but only after looking at imagery to see if they
are refugee sites.

And I'd try to find the most upto date imagery to confirm there
existence ..




However a local mapper or someone who has visited the area could
re-tag them, after confirming that they still exist and are in
fact refugee sites



A local mapper or visitor can also confirm or delete them after
they have been retagged by a remote mapper.

And after 212 years of inactivity the change may prompt a local to
think about these sites.



-Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 4:20 AM Anne-Karoline Distel
 wrote:

Hello,

I noticed that many of the refugee camps in Haiti are tagged as
tourism=camp_site which made me uneasy. Turns out there is
the tag
amenity=refugee_site. Would it be possible to re-tag those
refugee camps
in an automated edit? There are about 60 or 70 mapped. I'm
not even sure
if they all still exist 12 years later.

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little
frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion
period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather
than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only
coming out with your opinion now, because it was announced here and on
the weeklyOSM.

As so many things, yes, the settlement and site_type group of tags is a
mess. I tried to tidy up the settlement and related tags before I
started my proposal, though.  And yes, we do have two different uses for
settlement_type, as I have laid out on the page
. I would
propose that where it is not used in an archaeological sense, that the
few cases (related to the earthquake in Haiti maybe?) be changed to
settlement:origin=planned/ spontaneous/ unspecified or something like that.

I chose settlement_type as a parallel use to fortification_type which
was established long before I started mapping heritage in Ireland afaik,
so I was only trying my best to follow an established pattern.

The mess with defensive_settlement=crannog is my fault - I had created a
preset for JOSM and forgotten to adapt it after retracting that
proposal. I've cleaned up that mess now. I meant to wait until this
proposal was approved, in case it got rejected.

If anyone wants to start a proposal for site_type, please be my guest.

Cheers,

Anne

On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same
time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not
say what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the
settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with
values yes and no.

As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone
would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is
postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think
it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not
principal. It's just not big enough.

Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:


    On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
    Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
    vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*.
There
    is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

    The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
    discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
    these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
    should
    probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog

    (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog

    matters
    little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word
"crannog"
    is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped
into
    some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.

    What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s
currently
    in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.

    Best Regards,

    Andy

    * We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230




    ** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were
apparently
    as many as 1200 in Ireland.


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



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

On 08/10/2022 05:39, Warin wrote:



On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
I note that settlements are already on the values for the key
historic, e.g farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where
people lived. So historic=crannog would 'work'?

If people say they are archaeological sites then why not the above
farm, manor, monastery, castle etc???


Personally, I use historic=castle/ church/ creamery for ones that are in
ruins (wall(s) still standing in combination with building=ruins), not
ones that are archaeological sites (mostly ground level or below
ground). And crannogs, because of their material, tend to be
archaeological sites rather than ruins.

I'm not totally opposed to cutting out the "settlement" bit; maybe I
just like to categorize things more than other people.

Anne


Cheers,

Anne



Good luck. May need a strong drink.


On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the
same time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also
does not say what kind of categorisation is used for the values.
But the settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something
else, with values yes and no.

As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If
anyone would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current
vote is postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think,
but I think it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about
this, not principal. It's just not big enough.

Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:


    On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
    Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
    vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no
value*. There
    is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

    The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
    discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care)
what
    these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
    should
    probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog>
    (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog>
    matters
    little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word
"crannog"
    is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be
remapped into
    some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.

    What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s
currently
    in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.

    Best Regards,

    Andy

    * We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230
<https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230>



    ** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were
apparently
    as many as 1200 in Ireland.


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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@open

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Obviously, I support this. It has its own preset scheme in the iD
editor, its own icons etc.

The following are missing (of the top of my head, because I proposed
them) from the list and were approved already:

creamery 

ogham stone 

Anne
On 11/10/2022 14:15, martianfreeloader wrote:

Hello.

I’m proposing to approve the historic=* key together with a number of
tags:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic

historic=* is in widespread use and currently documented as de facto.

Please comment wherever you feel most comfortable:
- Here
- On the wiki talk page
- In the forum

___
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] camp sites in Haiti

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello,

I noticed that many of the refugee camps in Haiti are tagged as
tourism=camp_site which made me uneasy. Turns out there is the tag
amenity=refugee_site. Would it be possible to re-tag those refugee camps
in an automated edit? There are about 60 or 70 mapped. I'm not even sure
if they all still exist 12 years later.

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Re: Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities, residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes because of noise and pollution, at least in theory.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 12/10/2022, 08:53 Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

  
   sent from a phone
  
   > On 12 Oct 2022, at 07:11, Evan Carroll  wrote:
   >
   > Let's say you're in an industrial zone: do you tag as such (landuse=industrial) if half of the buildings have been converted to lofts?
  
  
   I would see landuse=residential on the parcels where people live and landuse=industrial on parcels with industrial landuse.
  
  
   > It would go both ways. But only if it's automated can we get an indicator of the agreement between the macro-level landuse and the buildings contained.
  
  
   if there are industrial and residential buildings, they should not go into the same landuse.
  
   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] Re: Tagging Digest, Vol 156, Issue 68 Seats or capacity ?

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 Thanks, but I don't think our medieval pavement adheres to European industrial standards. Also, benches along hiking trails etc. I should just being a measuring tape with me, I suppose.--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 30/09/2022, 11:02 St Niklaas  wrote:
 
   
   
   
Hi Anne,  
  
By lack of friends use your elbows they wont mind.  
A seat with friends is 0.50 m closely of cosey. With a 'normal' format of strangers its about 0.60 the length of the top of your stretch fingers up to the backside of your elbow. But an estimated guess would do as well or the size of the pavement could be helpful as well. 
A tile is 0.30 x 0.30 or 0.40 x 0.60 regular size and a kerbstone is 1.00 length. Take you’re pick.  
  
Greetz  

   
   
  
   Van: tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org  Verzonden: vrijdag 30 september 2022 04:07 Aan: tagging@openstreetmap.org  Onderwerp: Tagging Digest, Vol 156, Issue 68 
   
 

   
  

 
  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: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity
     (martianfreeloader)
      2. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Mobile apps (Davidoskky)
      3. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity
     (Martin Koppenhoefer)
      4. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity
     (martianfreeloader)
      5. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity
         (Anne-Karoline Distel)
      6. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity
     (Peter Elderson)
      7. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity
     (stevea)
   
   
   --
   
   Message: 1
   Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 11:58:35 +
   From: martianfreeloader 
   To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
   Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats
       by capacity
   Message-ID: 
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
   
   Facing heavy objections and no support, I have come to the conclusion 
   that my proposal is not considered useful by the community.
   
   I thus decided to retract it.
   
   
   
   --
   
   Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:10:25 +0200
   From: Davidoskky 
   To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
   Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mobile apps
   Message-ID: <693129da-c6e8-cb0b-5e3d-8992db7b3...@yahoo.it>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
   
   Hi,
   
   I have added a few comments in the wiki.
   
   
   Davide
   
   On 29/09/22 10:18, Martin Fischer wrote:
   > Hey everybody,
   >
   > I just drafted a proposal to formalize app:* which is currently used 
   > in Sweden to link Android & iOS apps of pharmacies.
   > My proposal also addresses the inconsistency between the currently in 
   > use app:apple, app:google, payment:app:android and payment:app:ios.
   >
   >  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Mobile_apps
   >
   > Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
   >
   > Best,
   > Martin
   >
   > ___
   > Tagging mailing list
   > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
   >  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
   
   
   
   --
   
   Message: 3
   Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:19:51 +0200
   From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
   To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
       
   Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats
       by capacity
   Message-ID: <01e0cfda-c88f-4032-9e81-cbfc7936e...@gmail.com>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   
   
   
   sent from a phone
   
   > On 29 Sep 2022, at 14:10, martianfreeloader  wrote:
   > 
   > Facing heavy objections and no support, I have come to the conclusion that 

Re: [Tagging] Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 I agree that an objective value like the actual width would be better. (And I've finally seen what I believe to be 2-seat benches for the first time in my life over the weekend.)Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 02/10/2022, 23:07 Raphael  wrote:

  Until very recently, the wiki said that seats=* means seats, not capacity:
  
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dbench=2357111=2347958
  
   In my opinion, this should be reverted.
  
   Besides, i'm not very enthusiastic about using capacity=* because this
   is quite subjective - people have different figures (and feelings at
   which minimum distance to the neighbour they are still comfortable).
   It seems much better to tag the length of benches.
  
   Best regards
   Raphael
  
  
   On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 19:44, Peter Elderson  wrote:
   >
   > I have stopped tagging seats, because most benches do not have seats. Capacity is ok with me, I will start using that, but still I don't think I will tag that very often, unless it's a huge bench for 20 (I have seen one!) or a very small one for 1 person. I don't mind if others tag seats or estimate the capacity different, as long as they don't remove my capacity tag.
   >
   > Peter Elderson
   >
   >
   > Op do 29 sep. 2022 om 14:10 schreef martianfreeloader :
   >>
   >> Facing heavy objections and no support, I have come to the conclusion
   >> that my proposal is not considered useful by the community.
   >>
   >> I thus decided to retract it.
   >>
   >> ___
   >> 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

[Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Voting has started on the crannog proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog

There was only one comment during the fortnight of discussion, so it
should be fairly forward. I know there are a lot of discussions about
more important tags going on at the moment, but maybe you can find a minute.

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Re: Route names being applied to tracks/paths

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 +1Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 30/12/2022, 20:59 Peter Neale via Tagging  wrote:

  +1
  
   
  
  
   PeterPan99
   
   
   
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
   
   
   

 
  On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 20:02, Dave F via Tagging
 
 
   wrote:
 


  On 29/12/2022 09:47, Warin wrote:
 > Hi,
 >
 > I think the 'names' should be removed from these 'unnamed' things
 > ..the 'name' is the name of the route not the individual tracks/paths
 > some of which existed before some routes were created.
 
 +1
 
 DaveF
 
  
  ___
  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] Private ambulance / patient transport service

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 Maybe it would be more like an amenity=ambulance_station?--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 03/01/2023, 07:10 Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

  
   
Tried asking about this on the Community but no response so I'll bring it out here.
   
   

   


 In the process of clearing Notes & found one referring to this business: https://moretongroup.com/ It’s a private business that does first aid training, but also provides ambulances to attend sporting events, does patient transport between hospitals or hospital > home, & even takes doctor’s around acting as mobile clinics! 
 What to tag them as? 
 Talk:Tag:emergency=ambulance station - OpenStreetMap Wiki says it is for emergency vehicles only, NOT patient transport? 
 I wouldn’t call it a medical centre, as by their description, they don’t have doctor’s there, they only transport them. 
 Thoughts?
 
   
   

 
  
   

 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] Re: foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 I personally found old, yet now maybe offensive names on OpenStreetMap very useful when I was trying to locate senders' locations of postcards written by German soldiers in WW1 from the eastern and western front. No other online map would have been any help to me, especially since many of the placenames were written phonetically. And it was another point for me to believe in OSM. I say, keep those, but don't willy nilly translate place names. Historic truth beats dictionary truth.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 04/01/2023, 22:16 Frederik Ramm  wrote:

  Hi,
   
   On 1/4/23 13:05, Marc_marc wrote:
   > or nothing due the fact that the only "Mörthe und Mosel“
   > is on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/51856
   > with a name=* in french :)
   
   It does have a name:de though, like other French departements - I was 
   rahter surprised to read "Großer Osten" on a map with German labels, and 
   later found out that there are indeed German tourist guides for this 
   part of France that carry this name.
   
   It is not always easy to determine whether a name is (a) harmless and in 
   use, (b) a silly translation that has no basis in reality ("pont neuf" = 
   "Neue Brücke", or the recently discovered Latin name "sub tilias" for 
   the well-known street "Unter den Linden" in Berlin), or (c) a tactless 
   reminder of times of occupation.
   
   We shold prioritize names that are actually signposted on the ground, 
   and for those that aren't, at least require a clear indication that the 
   name is actually used in everyday language by living beings.
   
   Bye
   Frederik
   
   -- 
   Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
   
   ___
   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] Re: foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 I would call that ground truth.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 07/01/2023, 19:15 Alexander Kane <1998alexk...@gmail.com> wrote:

  
   I've been pondering whether to add name:en to European train stations when the English announcement is usually translated. For example Cologne South for the train station Köln Süd.
   

   
   
Alex
   
  
  
  
   
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> schrieb am Fr., 6. Jan. 2023, 04:27:

   

 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  Jan 5, 2023, 17:36 by frede...@remote.org:
  
 
 
  
   Hi,
   
  
  
   
  
  
   On 1/5/23 11:00, Anne- Karoline Distel wrote:
   
  
  
   I personally found old, yet now maybe offensive names on OpenStreetMap very useful
   
  
  
   
  
  
   Yes, this is something people occasionally quote as a reason for keeping old street names as well - genealogy and other historic research. Such names should always be in an old_name tag though, to avoid a multi-lingual map showing them prominently.
   
  
 
 
  sometimes with language suffix, like old_name:de
  
 
 
  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3Ade#values
  
 
 
  
  
 ___
 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] Feature Proposal - Approved - archaeological_site

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

the proposal has been approved with 20 pro and 4 contra votes. Thank you
all who took part in the discussion and the vote!

Cheers,

Anne


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

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

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Ah, fond childhood memories... Anyway, I was a bit confused about the
word "sled", but I get it, now that I have seen the wiki page. How about
calling it "sledding", though, in parallel to "walking" or "hiking"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledding

Regards,

Anne

On 10/12/2022 09:11, Philipp Spitzer wrote:

Dear all!

I like to propose
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Sled (which is
actually a quite old proposal) which tries to overcome the
shortcomings of piste:type=sled (without replacing it).

I would be happy if you could provide thoughts/comments in the
corresponding wiki page (preferred) or here.

Thank you,
Philipp

___
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] plantation=yes?

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

That was my thought at first. But maybe, forest as in "planted woodland"
is not necessarily always for chopping down later, they might be planted
for recreative purposes or for the air quality.
Hard to tell from aerial view, though.

On 10/12/2022 17:49, Florian Lohoff wrote:

On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 01:10:33PM +, Dave F via Tagging wrote:

Hi

What does plantation=yes represent?
Associated with woods, but nothing in the wiki. 2437  uses worldwide.
Seems too vague to be OSM useful.

Interesting - I would say natural=wood + plantation=yes is more likely
landuse=forest isnt it?

At least for me natural=wood is a non artifical forest, but those are
pretty rare at least around where i live. All of the forest has been
chopped down at least a hundret times since mankind arrived in Europe.

Flo

___
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] barrows and tumuli

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the
map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information
to the wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus).
In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are
now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.

I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a
table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible
redundant tags.

However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.
This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as
archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?

Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, IMHO.

Anne



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

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Well, yes, they're not historic; they're prehistoric. But we tend to map
those features with the historic tag nonetheless.

I don't understand why you say that they're not archaeological, when
they're written about by archaeologists and part of archaeological surveys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow

Like many British and Irish barrows (and maybe other areas, but I
haven't looked at those in much detail), they are man_made=cairn,
though, just under a layer of soil.

Anne

On 18/01/2023 17:04, Philip Barnes wrote:

Long barrows are not always archeological or even historic.

Maybe they could be man_made=long_barrow.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 18 January 2023 15:48:42 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel
 wrote:

The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the
map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information
to the wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus).
In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are
now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.

I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a
table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible
redundant tags.

However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.
This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as
archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?

Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, IMHO.

Anne

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] barrows and tumuli

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Fair enough, that's not historical yet. I was referring to the other 171
already mapped (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qiS).

Anne

On 18/01/2023 18:40, Philip Barnes wrote:

I am using local knowledge here,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow

It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 18 January 2023 17:55:57 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel
 wrote:

Well, yes, they're not historic; they're prehistoric. But we tend
to map those features with the historic tag nonetheless.

I don't understand why you say that they're not archaeological,
when they're written about by archaeologists and part of
archaeological surveys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow

Like many British and Irish barrows (and maybe other areas, but I
haven't looked at those in much detail), they are man_made=cairn,
though, just under a layer of soil.

Anne

On 18/01/2023 17:04, Philip Barnes wrote:

Long barrows are not always archeological or even historic.

Maybe they could be man_made=long_barrow.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 18 January 2023 15:48:42 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel
 wrote:

The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the
map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information
to the wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus).
In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are
now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.

I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a
table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible
redundant tags.

However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.
This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as
archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?

Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, 
IMHO.

Anne

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

Martin is too busy the next couple of days, so with his permission I
have opened the voting booths for the key historic to be approved. The
minimum 2 weeks passed a couple of days ago, and the discussion has died
down, so hopefully everyone is ready to vote.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic

Take care, everyone!

Anne aka b-unicycling


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and will open
again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you correct
an oversight on the proposal page.

Anne

On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote:

Please,

Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting
time. Some issues are not cleared resolved.

Thank you.


Regards,


Daniel Capilla


___
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

The point I was trying to make is that in the iD editor, the field
"inscription" comes up as a default and is mis-used for descriptions. I
would like to see a way to prevent that.

Obviously, a signpost has an inscription, but that field maybe comes up
for signpost which I would presume is the primary key. I usually map
signposts/ guideposts in situ rather than in iD, so I don't know off the
top of my head what fields come up for it.

Anne

On 04/11/2022 16:01, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:

I'll offer a well-known example from my country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign

It's on the US National Register of Historic Places which should
qualify it as a historic sign.  Although I suppose those in Europe
would just consider the sign to be a little old.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:56 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District


Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by annekadis...@web.de:

I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered
historic now. :P

On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de:

I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot
where it should be description. I think that's the
"fault" of the iD editor form for historic features. The
inscription field only makes sense for memorials IMHO.

I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, amenity =
drinking_water, man_made = signpost,

  * amenity = bicycle_parking
 *

  * I see it also being validly used for many other objects.



___
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I don't know if people didn't get the message that I had to stop the
voting process, because I had to make a change to the proposal page, and
if they're not reading the headings on the page.

The opening of the voting booths is retracted and you can merrily
discuss away.

Martin can re-open the vote when he has the time.

Anne

On 03/11/2022 13:36, Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging wrote:

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:56:45AM +, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:

Hello all,

Martin is too busy the next couple of days, so with his permission I
have opened the voting booths for the key historic to be approved. The
minimum 2 weeks passed a couple of days ago, and the discussion has died
down, so hopefully everyone is ready to vote.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic

I'm not quite sure if that has been discussed yet with three places for
discussion to chose from, but the proposal has a rather big flaw in my
eyes:

historic=* is one of these keys that is used as a primary key to define
the object but also frequently seen as a property for other objects to
mark them as historic. In contrast to other keys, there doesn't even
seem to be any clear distinction for single values if they are meant to be
used as a property or a main tag.

Random example: historic=manor. About 77% of objects tagged with
historic=manor have a building=* tag, which makes perfect sense. A manor
is a building after all. So it looks like historic=manor is more of a
property tag to a building. But what about the 23% other manors that are
not tagged as building? Is a historic=manor without a builing=* tag
meant to be used as a primary key?

I would expect that an apporved wiki page to historic=* mentions this
problem and gives some guidance to mappers and data users how to handle
this situation.

Sarah

___
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I agree in the observation that some people just tag anything old as
historic, even just shops that have closed (now, I don't know - maybe
those specific shops played a vital role in the community). And it might
also be due to language barriers, I don't know how the editors present
in other languages, I'm just saying.

Anyway, I've been thinking about criteria for the historic key, and I
think it would go somewhat similar to the relevancy requirements on
Wikipedia (not that I always agree with those):

The feature should be of local, regional, national or international
relevance from a historic viewpoint, proven by them

 * having a plaque on them about the specific feature or a plaque
   showing they're heritage (see images below)
 * being part of a heritage trail
 * being on some sort of locally produced heritage map on paper/ online
   or on tourism=information
 * being on a local, national or international heritage register
 * having something scholarly published about them
 * being part of a larger group of features which have been
   acknowledged as being historic without this specific one being
   written about (church, creamery, smithy, school); this often applies
   to disused or re-used amenity buildings
 * primary source for historic research (graveyards, memorials)
 * (having a wikidata item. But things might be more likely to be on
   OSM than having a wikidata item. Maybe wikipedia page is easier)

I'm personally not happy about the wayside crosses and shrines being
part of the historic group, but I have no alternative idea.

It also needs to be made clear that the values following the historic
key need to be in English and not be the proper name or description of
the feature. I've been doing a lot of work translating many of the
values and subsequently re-tagging in the last couple of weeks.

I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it should be
description. I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for
historic features. The inscription field only makes sense for memorials
IMHO.

File:Fógra (notice), Tory Island - geograph.org.uk - 2492988.jpg

Notice on national monument in Ireland

https://emailschildershop.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Denkmalschilder-Denkmalschutz.jpg

Sign (also available as metal plaques) in Germany for national monuments

Anne

On 04/11/2022 07:17, Warin wrote:



On 4/11/22 00:20, Volker Schmidt wrote:

I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the
strings of characters we use for tagging.
Let's document that we have have certain values for the key
"historic" that describe objects that are not historic, and not even
old.
After all the purpose of the wiki is to describe the tagging as is,
not as it should be an ideal tagging system.



Disagree.

Pedantic hat on: This way we end up with colour=black for the colour
white. And colour=clam for some aesthetic judgement of the colour.


We voting on the key/tag, as proposed not the past use (misuse) of the
key.

If people want to tag 'old' things with  the key 'old' .. I would
rather they use the tag start_date=* as that would have more information.

A 30 year old may think something 50 years 'old' is 'old', an 80 year
'old' probably would not think that is 'old'. Some will conclude that
"old' is too subjective to tag within OSM ...


Future example: cloths lines.

There are 4 possible key values - two of them exist in OSM ... one of
them I 'like' because I have been using it since childhood. That does
not mean that any of the 4 values is 'wrong' .. the question should be
what makes the most sense for most people, failing that what is
easiest to meaningfully translate into other languages (note the
trailing s!). Still thinking about that.

Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or
word group) is simply confusing and should be avoided.




On Thu, 3 Nov 2022, 14:05 Brian M. Sperlongano,
 wrote:

The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a
longstanding controversy regarding the historic key.  Namely, the
question of whether it is used for things that are historic or
merely old.  I don't see how a proposal centered around this key
can move forward with that fundamental debate unaddressed.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 8:56 AM Anne-Karoline Distel
 wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and
will open
again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when
you correct
an oversight on the proposal page.

Anne

On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote:
> Please,
>
> Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening
the voting
> time. Some issues are not cleared resolved.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Daniel Capilla
>
>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic
now. :P

On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de:

I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it
should be description. I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor
form for historic features. The inscription field only makes sense
for memorials IMHO.

I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, amenity = drinking_water,
man_made = signpost,
# amenity = bicycle_parking
#

# I see it also being validly used for many other objects.


___
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:archaeological_site

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Voting is open on the archaeological_site key.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site

Cheers,

Anne


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

[Tagging] drones

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

What do people think about a key like drone? I'm thinking of heritage
sites/ tourist attractions, of course. I noticed on a Welsh heritage
site that they had an icon for all the amenities and permissions, and
they had one for "Drones not allowed". Obviously, we could add drone=no
to every airport as well, but that's not my main concern.

In Ireland, drones are not allowed over Office of Public Works sites,
unless you're the photographer for the National Monuments Service. Or
maybe an archaeologist with special license for a dig. But as a drone
pilot, you might not know whether a site is OPW or not.

I don't have a drone myself, I'm just not sure if this would be useful
or not. There are 9 uses so far
.

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

Re: [Tagging] Picnic_table with barbecue table extension.

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I recently saw one where just a metal protection was added to the picnic
table for the disposable grill. No photo, sorry.

I'd be interested in that too.

On 22/05/2023 19:00, Dave F via Tagging wrote:

https://snipboard.io/H5FYGT.jpghttps://snipboard.io/H5FYGT.jpgHi
I've a leisure=picnic_table but has an extended table top made of
metal to accommodate disposable barbecues.

Can anybody recommend a sub-tag that's more descriptive than barbecue=yes?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpicnic_table

https://snipboard.io/H5FYGT.jpghttps://snipboard.io/H5FYGT.jpg

Cheers
DaveF





___
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] Coach parking

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

I came across a case where someone had added name=coach and name=car to amenity=parking, which is obviously not how we do things, but I can't find a good way to mark coach parking as such. I've added bus=yes in the meantime, but that won't render a bus icon instead of a car icon, I believe, which would however be useful.This is often needed in touristy places where there are separate parking areas for coaches and cars. Hard to believe nobody has thought of it before, and maybe I'm just too incompetent to find it on the wiki.Cheers,Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi,

parking spaces for women are usually closer to the entrance to the shop,
so the rapist doens't get a chance to get you, if you're too far into a
vast parking garage and nobody can hear you scream. Or maybe just to
make you feel safer. Parents' parking is closer to the shop/ shopping
trolley return point, so your toddler doesn't have to walk too far or
you don't have to carry them all the way back to the car or leave them
unattended in the car, while you're returning the trolley. Both options
are quite common in Europe.

You're right about caravans/ RVs, that should be its own tag as well and
be rendered. For coaches, I'm in favour of amenity=coach_parking (or
"bus_parking", if people don't like the term "coach". This might be
easier for non-native British English speakers), since that's how it's
done with cars and bicycles.

On a cynical sidenote, we're gonna need "SUV_parking" soon, because they
take up so much space.

Anne

On 09/06/2023 10:52, Greg Troxel wrote:

Anne- Karoline Distel  writes:


I came across a case where someone had added name=coach and name=car
to amenity=parking, which is obviously not how we do things [snip]

I can't find it either.  I remembered that JOSM presets have a lot more
detail than the wiki.  But I checked, and I don't see anything about
"coaches" (which I think is the word in EU for what we Yanks would call
"bus", a large vehicle that can transport say 40 people).

In JOSM, I see

   spaces overall
   spaces for disabled
   spaces for women
   spaces for parents

but the implication is that these are all car-sized.

I find the women/parents strange, as I have never seen such spaces.  In
the US pretty much everywhere has restricted parking for disabled only
(one has to display a placard which is a government-issued license to
use these spaces, needs a doctor's certification, likely similar
elsewhere).  I am guessing they exist someplace though.

The tags are e.g. capacity:parent=1.

I mention this because one could easily extend and add

capacity:coach=N


Another approach would be, if the parking lot (en:GB: carpark er
coachpark) is for buses/coaches only:

  amenity=coach_parking

This also brings up "Recreational Vehicles", abbreviated RV, which I
think might be "caravan" in en_GB (in en_US, caravan refers to a group
of perhaps related vehicles traveling together).  There are often spaces
for those, as they don't fit in car spaces.





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

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

That's what I mean, tourist busses.  I see now that there is a tag
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourist_bus), but my point is
that it should also be rendered with a bus/ coach symbol. Also, they are
often seasonal, at least in Ireland, so during the winter, can be used
by cars, but during the season, only for coaches. How do we map that?
seasonal=May-October (according to signage), but somehow connected to
the "tourist_bus" key?

Anne

On 09/06/2023 11:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 9 Jun 2023, at 12:04, Greg Troxel  wrote:

I can't find it either.  I remembered that JOSM presets have a lot more
detail than the wiki.  But I checked, and I don't see anything about
"coaches" (which I think is the word in EU for what we Yanks would call
"bus", a large vehicle that can transport say 40 people).


there is tourist_bus (a bus class  vehicle which is not a psv).
In the EU a bus is a motor vehicle with more than 8+1 seats


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

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Oh, yeah, it might be useful to create a MapRoulette task to get rid of
all the name tags.

Anne

On 09/06/2023 21:46, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 09/06/2023 21:21, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:

Since these are all descriptive values in the name which we are not
supposed to do, I don't understand what you're trying to say.



Two things really - one was in case one of them was your "name=coach"
that you thought that you've seen; the other was that anyone seeing
one of these near them (like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118443549 near me) might ask
themselves whether more tags might be helpful.

Best Regards,

Andy



___
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] Coach parking

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

It was only a suggestion, I'm not gonna start the Maproulette task. Too
much else to do.

On 09/06/2023 23:06, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 09.06.23 à 23:12, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit :

it might be useful to create a MapRoulette task to get rid of
all the name tags.


if you want to make a mass edit, please don't hide it under
a MapRoulette task but send a notice/request to talk



___
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] Coach parking

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

capacity:coach depends entirely on the length/ size of the vehicle.

This is the one that started the conversation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/608428074 If you look at the
mapillary, there is a left arrow for car parking and a right arrow for
"bus park".

This one is closer to home: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180680774
The seasonality is marked on the road, as far as I recall.

I would also think that public transport have depots (landuse=depot?)
for off-duty parking.

As far as I can ascertain, in Ireland "bus" and "coach" are both used
for tourist busses, posher people tend to use "coach", methinks. But I'm
not a native speaker. Tourists take public transport, too, anyway.

Anne

On 09/06/2023 17:19, Greg Troxel wrote:

Colin Smale  writes:


UK native here...

Looking at the vehicles, a bus would be more spartan, set up for fare
collection, doors for speedy un/loading etc whereas a coach would
almost always have only a single door (although some have more), be
more luxurious, be equipped with seat belts etc. In bus-lover-land
there are even so-called "Dual Purpose" vehicles which are in between
being a bus and a coach.

Looking at the usage of the vehicles, a bus would typically be used on
scheduled services with a predefined timetable and (mostly) predefined
stops, whereas a coach would often be used on "private hire"
arrangements for one-off journeys.

Having said that, there are many scheduled long-distance (city to
city) services using coaches, and buses can also be used for private
hire. There is also a grey area of express services with multiple
stops along a predetermined route (I am thinking of the old Green Line
network for example).

 From the perspective of traffic law, a "Bus Lane" may be restricted to
scheduled services by a licensed operator. Even empty buses returning
to the depot may not be allowed (as it is not on "active
service"). Other bus lanes might also allow private hire vehicles, it
depends on the specific legislation.

My main point being that the way the vehicle is constructed may not be
enough to determine whether it can use a bus lane or use a coach
parking area - the circumstances of its use may also be significant.

Thanks.  That is complicated, and it's interesting how close the
bus/coach distinction is to US usage.

For this case, I  think Anne might be asking about a parking lot
(carpark) where buses/coaches can park,  such as at a tourist attraction
type place, where there is either a lot for cars and one for buses, or
one with sections.

I would expect the fare/scheduled/etc. city buses would not park out in
the world, and there would be some sort of depot that is in an
industrial area, for only the buses belonging to that agency.

so to me it sounds like amenity=coach_parking or capacity:coach is
reasonable, leaving the access rules fuzzy  (but no fuzzier than they
are in general)


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

Re: [Tagging] road accident memorials

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

On 10/06/2023 20:33, Greg Troxel wrote:

Anne-Karoline Distel  writes:


I would like to be able to differentiate memorials for road traffic
accidents from other memorials along a road, because I'd really like to
know how many there are. Sometimes, it will be difficult to say without
local knowledge whether it was that or maybe if the family uses
"accident" as a euphemism for suicide, of course.

In general I don't think it's possible to  separate "accident" from
"suicide" fully for "motor vehicle crashes", just as it isn't possible
to separate "overdose" from "suicide" for opiod deaths.

I think OSM has to tag what is, and not evaluate things that can't
really be evaluated.  In the northeast US, you find crosses along the
road, often simple white wood that do not necessarily endure more than a
year or so, and occasional metal permanent ones.  And, often a cross
with flowers that is there for 1 to several months - the same thing, but
sometimes too brief to end up mapped (not because it shouldn't be, just
because it has to last long enough for someone who maps these to notice
and get to it).

I would say that memorial:cause=traffic_accident would leave the options
open whether the victim intended to die or not.



I don't know if wayside_cross is used for this in some instances, for
example, which IMHO it shouldn't be.

I don't follow.  If there is a cross by the road, are you saying that
depending on the beliefs of the people that put it up about cause, then
it should or shouldn't be tagged wayside_cross?


A historic=wayside_cross does not mark the spot; it is not left in a
location where someone is buried or died. It is a way to make sure the
soul of the deceased gets into heaven easier by having passers by pray
for the soul. You don't have to believe in it, but that's what people
believed back then (and maybe some still do). I didn't grow up with this
practise, but this is what Catholic people did in Early Modern Ireland.
Not every cross by the wayside is a wayside cross. Like so many things
in the historic category, the tagging is a bit messy. Some examples in
my area: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vVq

I guess I have a topic for a new video... There are a couple more
surviving in County Kilkenny, but I want to keep some work for the video.

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] road accident memorials

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Yes, I'm aware of ghost bikes, even if only since recently. Would
memorial:cause or something like that be useful? If it was a war
memorial, one could use memorial:cause:wikidata then to link to the
specific war or skirmish.

I wouldn't link to the wikidata entry for traffic accident, just to make
that clear.

(At least I put some effort into mapping some 17th century wayside
crosses in my area as a result. Or what's left of them.)

Anne

On 10/06/2023 17:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 10 Jun 2023, at 17:58, Anne-Karoline Distel 
wrote:

I don't know if
wayside_cross is used for this in some instances, for example, which
IMHO it shouldn't be



agreed. One tag I am aware of in this context is memorial=ghost_bike
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/memorial=ghost_bike#overview

___
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] road accident memorials

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

On 10/06/2023 20:57, Greg Troxel wrote:

Anne-Karoline Distel  writes:


I would say that memorial:cause=traffic_accident would leave the options
open whether the victim intended to die or not.

OK but IMHO traffic_crash is better.  'accident' is an assertion of no
blame, and there are messy issues of bad luck and negligence.   crash is
objectively what happened.

Very true.



I don't know if wayside_cross is used for this in some instances, for
example, which IMHO it shouldn't be.

I don't follow.  If there is a cross by the road, are you saying that
depending on the beliefs of the people that put it up about cause, then
it should or shouldn't be tagged wayside_cross?

A historic=wayside_cross does not mark the spot; it is not left in a
location where someone is buried or died. It is a way to make sure the
soul of the deceased gets into heaven easier by having passers by pray
for the soul. You don't have to believe in it, but that's what people
believed back then (and maybe some still do). I didn't grow up with this
practise, but this is what Catholic people did in Early Modern Ireland.
Not every cross by the wayside is a wayside cross. Like so many things
in the historic category, the tagging is a bit messy. Some examples in
my area: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vVq

I guess I have a topic for a new video... There are a couple more
surviving in County Kilkenny, but I want to keep some work for the video.

I see; that's different.  In the US, one typically finds crosses by the
road where presumably the crash occured and nobody thinks it is
necessarily the location of death.   But again, do these have labels?
How do you tell?   Definitely a good thing to explain to everyone.


We have loads of those as well, but they should be differentiated from
modern cross shape memorials which do "mark the spot". And not all
memorials for crashes/ accidents are cross shaped:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8243154427

Anne


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

[Tagging] road accident memorials

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I would like to be able to differentiate memorials for road traffic
accidents from other memorials along a road, because I'd really like to
know how many there are. Sometimes, it will be difficult to say without
local knowledge whether it was that or maybe if the family uses
"accident" as a euphemism for suicide, of course. I don't know if
wayside_cross is used for this in some instances, for example, which
IMHO it shouldn't be.

On a side note, I'd also like to tag memorials for pets different than
for events and people. They're not terribly common in public places, but
I just mapped this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10967549672
and there are two in the Army Barracks in Kilkenny for dogs as well (one
not mapped yet, because it's fairly new).

I can't find anything for "pet" or "accident" on taginfo.

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Since these are all descriptive values in the name which we are not
supposed to do, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Anne

On 09/06/2023 13:35, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 09/06/2023 10:52, Greg Troxel wrote:

Anne- Karoline Distel  writes:


I came across a case where someone had added name=coach and name=car
to amenity=parking, which is obviously not how we do things [snip]

I can't find it either.


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/name#values allows you to
search within values, and entering "coach" in the search box at the
right finds:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Coach%20Park#overview

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Coach%20Parking

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Coaches

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Coach%20Stop

and also

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=car#overview

which seems to be commonly used as a name for (presumably coach)
parking in France

Some of those (especially "Coach Park") are likely to be entirely
valid names, but some may not be.

Best Regards,

Andy




___
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] road accident memorials

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10967549672

subject=Sandy or subject=Sandy the dog or subject=pet?

Maybe memorial:animal=dog would be an option.

Anne

On 10/06/2023 23:50, Marc_marc wrote:

Le 10.06.23 à 16:40, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit :

I would like to be able to differentiate memorials for road traffic
accidents from other memorials along a road


memorial:conflict=road_accident


On a side note, I'd also like to tag memorials for pets different than
for events and people.


subject=*

Regards,
MArc



___
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] road accident memorials

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I would think that they are still memorials, if they commemorate an
accident or suicide.

I'm not aware of terribly many use cases for man_made=cross, maybe at
open air church service locations or along stations of the cross.

Food for thought, anyway.

Anne

On 11/06/2023 10:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

I typically tagged such crosses as man_made=cross

historic=memorial memorial=cross man_made=cross ?

Jun 11, 2023, 02:27 by annekadis...@web.de:

A historic=wayside_cross does not mark the spot; it is not left in a
location where someone is buried or died. It is a way to make sure the
soul of the deceased gets into heaven easier by having passers by pray
for the soul. You don't have to believe in it, but that's what people
believed back then (and maybe some still do).

note that it is not the only reason for placing them


___
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] Re: road accident memorials

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 The only problem, whatever we decide about the wording, if it includes "road" what do we do about the ones on bridges, where it's not clear whether the person died on the road or in the water?Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 11/06/2023, 11:26 Craig Wallace  wrote:

  On 2023-06-10 20:57, Greg Troxel wrote:
   > Anne-Karoline Distel  writes:
   >
   >> I would say that memorial:cause=traffic_accident would leave the options
   >> open whether the victim intended to die or not.
   > OK but IMHO traffic_crash is better. 'accident' is an assertion of no
   > blame, and there are messy issues of bad luck and negligence. crash is
   > objectively what happened.
  
   Or "Road traffic collision". That is now the preferred, official term,
   used by the police and government etc (in the UK).
  
  
   ___
   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] ladders

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

in my endeavour to improve the mapping and tagging along waterways, I
noticed that there is no approved or documented tag for ladders along
shorelines. There is ladder=yes
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ladder), but it seems to be
meant for hiking paths and is only rendered on lines. I mapped a few
ladder=yes along river shores on OSMAnd, only to discover that I need to
add the quay wall to have them rendered which is a lot of extra effort,
and cannot be done casually using OSMAnd.

After talking to someone who canoes, they tell me that many of the ones
I had mapped along the retaining wall in the town where I live are
actually for emergencies, when people fall into the river. They're not
meant to be used by swimmers, i.e. they're not actually accessible from
the shore with a gate in the fence. Then I'm thinking, should it be
emergency=ladder? But what if one isn't sure if they are for boating
people or only for emergency situations? So I'm now mapping them as
man_made=ladder (and add ladder=yes, so they get rendered), as other
people have done in harbour or river situations before me, but only very
infrequently.

30 are mapped as ladder for scuba diving
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/scuba_diving%3Aentry%3Aladder#overview),
but the average person might not know, if there is no signage. I think a
simpler way would be to just use man_made=ladder and add the sport or
the emergency tag to the best of ones knowledge.

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

Re: [Tagging] Re: ladders

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 So ladder=emergency?There are a couple emergency=ladders mapped in Germany for rescuing people who've broken into an icy lake. With plural though.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 06/08/2023, 13:40 bkil  wrote:

  Think about emergency doors, emergency steps and emergency paths
   leading to them all along motorways. Sounds a bit exhaustive to create
   a new emergency value for each one. An access restriction sounds more
   reasonable.
   
   On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:33 PM Anne-Karoline Distel  wrote:
   >
   > Hello all,
   >
   > in my endeavour to improve the mapping and tagging along waterways, I noticed that there is no approved or documented tag for ladders along shorelines. There is ladder=yes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ladder), but it seems to be meant for hiking paths and is only rendered on lines. I mapped a few ladder=yes along river shores on OSMAnd, only to discover that I need to add the quay wall to have them rendered which is a lot of extra effort, and cannot be done casually using OSMAnd.
   >
   > After talking to someone who canoes, they tell me that many of the ones I had mapped along the retaining wall in the town where I live are actually for emergencies, when people fall into the river. They're not meant to be used by swimmers, i.e. they're not actually accessible from the shore with a gate in the fence. Then I'm thinking, should it be emergency=ladder? But what if one isn't sure if they are for boating people or only for emergency situations? So I'm now mapping them as man_made=ladder (and add ladder=yes, so they get rendered), as other people have done in harbour or river situations before me, but only very infrequently.
   >
   > 30 are mapped as ladder for scuba diving (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/scuba_diving%3Aentry%3Aladder#overview), but the average person might not know, if there is no signage. I think a simpler way would be to just use man_made=ladder and add the sport or the emergency tag to the best of ones knowledge.
   >
   > Anne
   >
   > ___
   > 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] Area of young trees - saplings

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 A tree nursery? I think there's a tag for it.My phone won't open the wiki right now, but maybe that helps already.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 16/05/2023, 13:49 Dave F via Tagging  wrote:

  Is there a tag for areas where you trees are planted? Too small to be
   self supporting they're often individually attached to a pole & encased
   in a protective tube.
  
   natural=wood seems inappropriate, as does scrub.
  
   I thought 'saplings' would be suitable, but taginfo return none
  
   DaveF
  
   ___
   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] Re: Area of young trees - saplings

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 Landuse=forest plus start_date then maybe? That would imply their age.--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 16/05/2023, 15:38 Dave F  wrote:

   That appears to be for commercial purposes.
   These samplings are 'out in the wild' planted in a publicly accessible field.
  
   Cheers
   DaveF
  
  
  
   On 16/05/2023 15:27, Anne- Karoline Distel wrote:
   
  
  
   
A tree nursery? I think there's a tag for it.
 My phone won't open the wiki right now, but maybe that helps already.

 Anne

 --
 Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
   
   
On 16/05/2023, 13:49 Dave F via Tagging  wrote:

  Is there a tag for areas where you trees are planted? Too small to be
  self supporting they're often individually attached to a pole & encased
  in a protective tube.
 
  natural=wood seems inappropriate, as does scrub.
 
  I thought 'saplings' would be suitable, but taginfo return none
 
  DaveF
 
  ___
  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] shops for display

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Thanks to everyone for their input. I will sustain from using
shop=display_only or similar and use advertising tags and shop=vacant
instead.

Anne

On 23/11/2023 02:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Nov 22, 2023, 22:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:



sent from a phone

On 22 Nov 2023, at 18:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:

I would consider it more as device than showroom



can you provide a dictionary definition for “device” that could
refer to a room? Because the ones I looked at wouldn’t fit.

I was referring to display setup in windows and/or orientationally
boarded up
vacant shop, not to a room.


___
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] shops for display

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi,

is there a way to tag shops that are not used for selling goods
directly, but are just used for display for the actual shop or even to
advertise something different? Here in Ireland, I think they are often
used to hide the fact that it's actually a vacant premises, and rates
are also different, I believe, if you're not actually conducting
business there. Would "shop=display_only" be a way to do it? I would
still like to have an option to mark them as vacant,  in a way.

They could be using the space inside to display their goods or even just
have the windows covered in decals to advertise that they have moved or
to advertise local sights or whatever.

Cheers,

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] Re: shops for display

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 I agree, but you can't even go in. I've talked to someone, and they said that if you only use the premises for display, you don't have to pay rates.--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 21/11/2023, 12:59 Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

   
   sent from a phone
   
   > On 21 Nov 2023, at 12:47, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
   > The wiki for Tesla says that Tesla showrooms are tagged shop=car
   > A lot of shop=kitchen are really showrooms where you can order a
   > kitchen which will be installed in you kitchen. The shop do not actually
   > have kitchens for sale in the store.
   
   
   „ordering“ a kitchen or car in a shop is a sale, IMHO. The word sale does not imply you take the goods away with you immediately, nor that they are necessarily present at the point of sale.
   
   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] Re: shops for display

[Anne- Karoline Distel]

 
 My case was where you can't enter the premises, it's really just displaying goods or even (slightly different) displaying contact details for the business which has moved to the outskirts of town.--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 22/11/2023, 10:22 Philip Barnes  wrote:

  
   This is becoming much more of a problem.
   
   In the UK we have a shop called Argos, where you order from a catalogue then the item appears on a conveyor from an attached storage area a few minutes later. You could also ask to see something before you bought it. A few years ago they were large shops that had stock of pretty much everything in the catalogue.
   
   Now they have become small areas in a supermarket which have no stock and everything has to be ordered online and collected the next day. Other high street shops are going the same way and making themselves irrelevant.
   
  
  
  
  
   
On 21 November 2023 20:42:02 GMT, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
   


 
  On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:01:32 +0100
  Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
  
  
 
 
  
   
   sent from a phone
   
   
  
  
   
On 21 Nov 2023, at 12:47, Niels Elgaard Larsen 
wrote: The wiki for Tesla says that Tesla showrooms are tagged
shop=car A lot of shop=kitchen are really showrooms where you can
order a kitchen which will be installed in you kitchen. The shop do
not actually have kitchens for sale in the store.

   
  
 
 
  
  I agree with that.
  
  But from the users point of view, there are some implicit expectations
  depending of what is sold.
  
  For shop=estate_agent it should be obvious that you do not get anything
  physical at the store.
  
  For shop=car it is less clear.
  Also for shop=kitchen, some places will sell you a flatpack kitchen,
  that you can put in the back of your car.
  
  I once drove to a shop=pet only to find out that it was the office for
  a pet webshop that had a small showroom of cat scrathcing pads, etc.
  
  For eg furniture, appliances, bathroom devices, bicycles, glassware
  there are showrooms and a user could reasonable expect to be able to go
  there and just buy an item.
  
  With more stuff being sold online, we will probably see more showrooms,
  and I think we should have a way to tell users if they can buy anything
  at a shop, or it is just a showroom.
  
  
 
 
  
   „ordering“ a kitchen or car in a shop is a sale, IMHO. The word sale
   does not imply you take the goods away with you immediately, nor that
   they are necessarily present at the point of sale.
   
   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 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 "loose" paving stones

[Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging]

Hi,

yes, I think paving_stones is right, but I'm fairly convinced that it
was built wiggly on purpose, otherwise the politician wouldn't have had
a special word for it. I couldn't find anything on wikipedia about the
topic, unfortunately.

Cycling across is not a problem, if you don't mind the sound. I don't
think the whole width of the street is paved wiggly, just enough to let
the water drain, so skaters could use it on the sides.

I wasn't too concerned about the mapping for traffic users of the
street, more for flood prevention analysis, but maybe that's just not
within the scope yet.

Anne

On 21/02/2024 09:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

I also would go with surface=paving_stones - and maybe add also
smoothness tag,
and agree with Fernando


Feb 21, 2024, 01:47 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

I think they are surface=paving_stones because:
- the stones are very flat on top
- it seems that the objective was to arrange them snugly, although
the fit may have deteriorated a little
- it seems pretty easy to ride a bike there, but not skate, which
is what one generally expects from surface=paving_stones;
surface=sett is a little more difficult for cycling because the
stones are less flat and the surface as a whole is also less flat

I think surface=sett is usually more like this:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.345215550023994=-6.265817519990492=19.230259053537715=516305962724410=photo=0.5077006613416395=0.584942612357=0

<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.345215550023994=-6.265817519990492=19.230259053537715=516305962724410=photo=0.5077006613416395=0.584942612357=0>

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 at 15:55, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging
 wrote:


That's the best I can do for now:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.65192667=-7.251596667=17=1685817985195902=photo=0.22772882642716127=0.968169011381621=0

<https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.65192667=-7.251596667=17=1685817985195902=photo=0.22772882642716127=0.968169011381621=0>
You can kind of see the gaps between the stones.

On 17/02/2024 17:46, Åbn wrote:

I think you should provide a picture.


On February 17, 2024 5:19:06 PM UTC, Anne-Karoline Distel via
Tagging 
<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

I'm not sure I'm understanding the differences between
surface=sett and surface=paved or if what I'm trying to
map is covered by either. Where I live, there are some
streets that are paved, but the stones aren't set firmly,
so they wobble a bit when you drive/ cycle over them. It
is perfectly safe, but it allows rainwater to drain
quicker, at least I think that is the reason for this
type of paving. It sounds a bit like a xylophone (well,
lithophone, I guess), when going over them. Considering
climate change and the higher likelihood of flooding etc,
it would be important to map the difference between paved
streets that don't allow for quick drainage and these
loosely paved streets. There is probably some technical
term for it. So, in short: Do we have a tagging scheme
for those or not? Anne


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


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



--
Fernando Trebien



___
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] Re: tagging "loose" paving stones

[Anne- Karoline Distel via Tagging]

 
 I was going to say, it was either that or he was taking the piss. Turns out, it must have been the latter, because there were some roadworks going on and I just asked one of the workers. And it's just wear and tear, but he did confirm that there are special paving stones for easier drainage.Well, I guess we all learned something.--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 21/02/2024, 15:35 Yves via Tagging  wrote:

  
   Out of curiosity, I looked the Web for wiggly pavement for drainage. Somme pavement have extra tips on the side for increased spacing. 
   Apparently, as long as it's built on sand, the drainage is pretty good, no mention of a loose setup.
   Maybe the politician is very good at his job? ;-)
   Yves 
  
  
  
  
   
Le 21 février 2024 12:25:39 GMT+01:00, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging  a écrit :
   

Hi, 
yes, I think paving_stones is right, but I'm fairly convinced that it was built wiggly on purpose, otherwise the politician wouldn't have had a special word for it. I couldn't find anything on wikipedia about the topic, unfortunately. 
Cycling across is not a problem, if you don't mind the sound. I don't think the whole width of the street is paved wiggly, just enough to let the water drain, so skaters could use it on the sides.   
I wasn't too concerned about the mapping for traffic users of the street, more for flood prevention analysis, but maybe that's just not within the scope yet. 
Anne  

 On 21/02/2024 09:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
  
 
  
 
  I also would go with surface=paving_stones - and maybe add also smoothness tag,
   
  
 
  and agree with Fernando
  
 
   
  
 
   
  
 
  Feb 21, 2024, 01:47 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
   
  
  
   
   
I think they are surface=paving_stones because:
 

   
- the stones are very flat on top
 

   
- it seems that the objective was to arrange them snugly, although the fit may have deteriorated a little
 

   
- it seems pretty easy to ride a bike there, but not skate, which is what one generally expects from surface=paving_stones; surface=sett is a little more difficult for cycling because the stones are less flat and the surface as a whole is also less flat
 

   
 

   
I think surface=sett is usually more like this: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.345215550023994=-6.265817519990492=19.230259053537715=516305962724410=photo=0.5077006613416395=0.584942612357=0
 

   
  

   
   
   
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 at 15:55, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
 



  
 
 
 That's the best I can do for now: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.65192667=-7.251596667=17=1685817985195902=photo=0.22772882642716127=0.968169011381621=0 You can kind of see the gaps between the stones.  
 
  On 17/02/2024 17:46, Åbn wrote:
   
  
  
  
   I think you should provide a picture.

   
  

   
  

   
   
   
On February 17, 2024 5:19:06 PM UTC, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging  wrote:
 



 
  I'm not sure I'm understanding the differences between surface=sett and
surface=paved or if what I'm trying to map is covered by either. Where I
live, there are some streets that are paved, but the stones aren't set
firmly, so they wobble a bit when you drive/ cycle over them. It is
perfectly safe, but it allows rainwater to drain quicker, at least I
think that is the reason for this type of paving. It sounds a bit like a
xylophone (well, lithophone, I guess), when going over them.

Considering climate change and the higher likelihood of flooding etc, it
would be important to map the difference between paved streets that
don't allow for quick drainage and these loosely paved streets. There is
probably some technical term for it.

So, in short: Do we have a tagging scheme for those or not?


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



  

   
  
 

 ___
  
 

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

   
  

   
  

   
  
   --

   
  
   Fe

[Tagging] tagging "loose" paving stones

[Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging]

I'm not sure I'm understanding the differences between surface=sett and
surface=paved or if what I'm trying to map is covered by either. Where I
live, there are some streets that are paved, but the stones aren't set
firmly, so they wobble a bit when you drive/ cycle over them. It is
perfectly safe, but it allows rainwater to drain quicker, at least I
think that is the reason for this type of paving. It sounds a bit like a
xylophone (well, lithophone, I guess), when going over them.

Considering climate change and the higher likelihood of flooding etc, it
would be important to map the difference between paved streets that
don't allow for quick drainage and these loosely paved streets. There is
probably some technical term for it.

So, in short: Do we have a tagging scheme for those or not?


Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging "loose" paving stones

[Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging]

Judging from those photographs, they would be material=sett, but the
surface is not the same, as I said, the stones have some room to wiggle,
there is no filler in between the stones.

On 17/02/2024 18:41, Yves via Tagging wrote:

Surface=Paved is generic. Maybe you're talking about cobblestone?
<https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tordanik-once-again-about-sett-and-cobblestone/85564>


Le 17 février 2024 18:19:06 GMT+01:00, Anne-Karoline Distel via
Tagging  a écrit :

I'm not sure I'm understanding the differences between
surface=sett and surface=paved or if what I'm trying to map is
covered by either. Where I live, there are some streets that are
paved, but the stones aren't set firmly, so they wobble a bit when
you drive/ cycle over them. It is perfectly safe, but it allows
rainwater to drain quicker, at least I think that is the reason
for this type of paving. It sounds a bit like a xylophone (well,
lithophone, I guess), when going over them. Considering climate
change and the higher likelihood of flooding etc, it would be
important to map the difference between paved streets that don't
allow for quick drainage and these loosely paved streets. There is
probably some technical term for it. So, in short: Do we have a
tagging scheme for those or not? Anne

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 "loose" paving stones

[Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging]

I asked a local Green politician, and it's apparently called "subsidence
paving",  invented in earthquake zones in northern Italy.

On 17/02/2024 17:46, Åbn wrote:

I think you should provide a picture.


On February 17, 2024 5:19:06 PM UTC, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging
 wrote:

I'm not sure I'm understanding the differences between
surface=sett and surface=paved or if what I'm trying to map is
covered by either. Where I live, there are some streets that are
paved, but the stones aren't set firmly, so they wobble a bit when
you drive/ cycle over them. It is perfectly safe, but it allows
rainwater to drain quicker, at least I think that is the reason
for this type of paving. It sounds a bit like a xylophone (well,
lithophone, I guess), when going over them. Considering climate
change and the higher likelihood of flooding etc, it would be
important to map the difference between paved streets that don't
allow for quick drainage and these loosely paved streets. There is
probably some technical term for it. So, in short: Do we have a
tagging scheme for those or not? Anne

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 "loose" paving stones

[Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging]

That's the best I can do for now:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.65192667=-7.251596667=17=1685817985195902=photo=0.22772882642716127=0.968169011381621=0
You can kind of see the gaps between the stones.

On 17/02/2024 17:46, Åbn wrote:

I think you should provide a picture.


On February 17, 2024 5:19:06 PM UTC, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging
 wrote:

I'm not sure I'm understanding the differences between
surface=sett and surface=paved or if what I'm trying to map is
covered by either. Where I live, there are some streets that are
paved, but the stones aren't set firmly, so they wobble a bit when
you drive/ cycle over them. It is perfectly safe, but it allows
rainwater to drain quicker, at least I think that is the reason
for this type of paving. It sounds a bit like a xylophone (well,
lithophone, I guess), when going over them. Considering climate
change and the higher likelihood of flooding etc, it would be
important to map the difference between paved streets that don't
allow for quick drainage and these loosely paved streets. There is
probably some technical term for it. So, in short: Do we have a
tagging scheme for those or not? Anne

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] [RFC] Barbers (hairdresser=barber)

[Anne- Karoline Distel via Tagging]

 
 I'm very much for that, I've intuitively started using that as well recently. I had used male=only before, but that's no longer PC and hairdresser=barber makes a lot more sense.Good luck,b-unicycling aka AnneOn 02/02/2024, 16:31 Nathan Case  wrote:

  Hi all,
  
   RFC for the proposal to introduce "hairdresser"="barber" as the approved way of tagging barbershops: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Barbers
  
   Please also see previous discussion on the Community Forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-of-barbers-barbershops/107657
  
   Thanks,
  
   Nathan
  
  
   ___
   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] clootie trees/ rag trees

[Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging]

Hello there,

does anyone have any opinions about how to map what is called clootie/
cloughtie/ cloutie trees in Scotland and rag trees or raggedy bushes in
Ireland? I have used place_of_worship=rag_tree (to avoid the many
different spellings) in combination with natural=tree, but there is also
a category on Wikimedia called "Prayer trees". But for some prayer
trees, you stick coins in the bark instead of tying rags or ribbons (or
other votive offerings) to the branches, so I think rag trees should be
mapped different to coin ones. They're not historic, but still very much
in use in Ireland, the UK (by Neo-Pagans and Christians alike), and I
believe there are other cultures like Hinduism who use them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clootie_well

To my knowledge, "clootie tree" is not used in Ireland at all and wasn't
in the past either (only in the wikimedia category). In Ireland, the
tree is also usually not necessarily connected to a well. There is one
at the Hill of Tara, for example.

If you like fairy tales, I think there is one in Cinderella, at least in
the Brothers Grimm version. As far as I remember, the dress for the ball
appeared in the tree.

Anne aka b-unicycling
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] clootie trees/ rag trees

[Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging]

Oh, forgot to say that when I started with place_of_worship=holy_well,
some people didn't like the word "holy", because it meant only
Christian. That's why I'm not suggesting "holy_tree", but maybe
"sacred_tree" would be an option as well, but it doesn't cover the rags,
of course.

On 03/03/2024 20:48, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging wrote:


Hello there,

does anyone have any opinions about how to map what is called clootie/
cloughtie/ cloutie trees in Scotland and rag trees or raggedy bushes
in Ireland? I have used place_of_worship=rag_tree (to avoid the many
different spellings) in combination with natural=tree, but there is
also a category on Wikimedia called "Prayer trees". But for some
prayer trees, you stick coins in the bark instead of tying rags or
ribbons (or other votive offerings) to the branches, so I think rag
trees should be mapped different to coin ones. They're not historic,
but still very much in use in Ireland, the UK (by Neo-Pagans and
Christians alike), and I believe there are other cultures like
Hinduism who use them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clootie_well

To my knowledge, "clootie tree" is not used in Ireland at all and
wasn't in the past either (only in the wikimedia category). In
Ireland, the tree is also usually not necessarily connected to a well.
There is one at the Hill of Tara, for example.

If you like fairy tales, I think there is one in Cinderella, at least
in the Brothers Grimm version. As far as I remember, the dress for the
ball appeared in the tree.

Anne aka b-unicycling


___
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] Re: clootie trees/ rag trees

[Anne- Karoline Distel via Tagging]

 
 Makes me wonder whether decorating Xmas trees goes back to that tradition. Since Martin Luther introduced them who was dead against Paganism, it is doubtful, but maybe he only introduced the tree, and the decorations came later.I'm learning towards "sacred tree" now, there are quite a few trees described as "sacred" in some way or other according to taginfo.AnneAnne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 04/03/2024, 20:43 Philip Barnes  wrote:

  This reminded me of The Arbor Tree in Aston-on-Clun. 
  
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/436200174
  
   It is decorated annually on Oak Apple Day (29th May). It is decorated
   with flags these days but it goes a log way back so I assume it was
   simpler cloths at one time.
  
   https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5642115
  
   Phil (trigpoint)
  
  
   On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 20:48 +, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging
   wrote:
   >  
   > Hello there,
   >  
   > does anyone have any opinions about how to map what is called
   > clootie/ cloughtie/ cloutie trees in Scotland and rag trees or
   > raggedy bushes in Ireland? I have used place_of_worship=rag_tree (to
   > avoid the many different spellings) in combination with natural=tree,
   > but there is also a category on Wikimedia called "Prayer trees". But
   > for some prayer trees, you stick coins in the bark instead of tying
   > rags or ribbons (or other votive offerings) to the branches, so I
   > think rag trees should be mapped different to coin ones. They're not
   > historic, but still very much in use in Ireland, the UK (by Neo-
   > Pagans and Christians alike), and I believe there are other cultures
   > like Hinduism who use them.
   >  
   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clootie_well
   >  
   > To my knowledge, "clootie tree" is not used in Ireland at all and
   > wasn't in the past either (only in the wikimedia category). In
   > Ireland, the tree is also usually not necessarily connected to a
   > well. There is one at the Hill of Tara, for example.
   >  
   > If you like fairy tales, I think there is one in Cinderella, at least
   > in the Brothers Grimm version. As far as I remember, the dress for
   > the ball appeared in the tree.
   >  
   > Anne aka b-unicycling
   >  
   >  
   > ___
   > 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] Re: clootie trees/ rag trees

[Anne- Karoline Distel via Tagging]

 
 Strange that the tags aren't on the actual bridge, though.I'm sure there are trees with other things than rags, I think I've seen pacifiers, which might be a votive offering be to help with fertility.However, I wouldn't mind having a general tag like place_of_worship=sacred_tree and then subcategories using sacred_tree as a key. tourism=attraction can of course be added in addition.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 05/03/2024, 10:59 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

   On 4/3/24 07:48, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging wrote:
   >
   > Hello there,
   >
   > does anyone have any opinions about how to map what is called clootie/
   > cloughtie/ cloutie trees in Scotland and rag trees or raggedy bushes
   > in Ireland?
   >
  
   There are things like 'Fairy Bridge on the Isle of Man ' mapped as a
   tourist attraction https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10169482883
  
  
   Some trees are hung with various things too ...
  
  
   ___
   Tagging mailing list
   Tagging@openstreetmap.org
   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
 


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