Re: [Tagging] Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare
I personally like when OSM definitions are linked to other references, especially a well-known source like wikipedia. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+service: social service n. 1. Organized efforts to advance human welfare; social work. 2. Services, such as free school lunches, provided by a government for its disadvantaged citizens. Often used in the plural. or Merriam Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20service : an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance (as of the disabled or disadvantaged) I can add these references to the tag page if people consider them better form. As for removing the daycare reference in social_facility, I agree that replacing it with a link to an approved childcare feature makes sense. There are service organizations that focus on children and I wouldn't be surprised if some provided daycare, but this is such a specific service that I think a node is better described by combining tags. So a social facility that provided childcare service could use: amenity=childcare social_facility:for=child age=2-17 operator=ABC Kids -- Sean On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:59, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Actually I perceive as well some reference to class struggle, especially in the introduction of the linked wikipedia article: pursuit of social welfare, social change and social justice. I suggest to remove this reference, as it is not even helpful in its generic definition, and social change, social justice and to some point also welfare are not about what it is, but why it is (so it belongs to philosophy / politics / economy and not to OSM). It is also not helpful to have the basic definition (A social facility is any place where social services, as defined here, are conducted:) linked to a dynamic page ;-), and I think in OSM we could well live without the as defined here part. Given all this I agree that there is not yet a suggested value, but there is daycare as an example: social_facility:for=child e.g. daycare center for children, i.e. following the logics of the cited page there would be social_facility=daycare, social_facility:for=child to be amended. Following the logics of your proposal instead, there could be an amendment to your proposal saying that daycare should be removed from the example section of social_facility:for (or a link to your tag added. Removing daycare from social_facility would not be a problem because there is not yet a single object with this tag in the database (according to taginfo), cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 11.05.2011 23:45, schrieb Stefan Bethke: Am 11.05.2011 um 23:01 schrieb Tobias Knerr: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . .* | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. The last time I checked, we're mapping in two dimensions, not one :-) I'm not sure that mapping the actual physical extent of the various parts of roads is feasible in terms of number of mappers and their motivation, but if anybody is serious about mapping crossings and physical properties of these areas, I think mapping them as areas is the obvious and logical way forward. Well, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be happy if mappers felt that they had to draw the outline of every single lane in a road. I also wouldn't be happy to implement support for two different mapping styles (especially considering that these are We already map waterways with both a way and an area. I'd map the road, the sidewalks, connecting areas, crosswalks, parking spots, what have you, all as areas (if I felt I had exhaused housenumbers on buildings etc.) I'd probably add curbs as ways, not areas, unless they have multiple steps in them and approach a meter or so in width. Of course, that doesn't answer how anybody would be able to tell that all these features together form the road, except for their proximity. I'd like to learn about where that information would actually be required. Example: A 2D rendering wants to visualize highway=residential as a way with two : Describe an algorithm that does that based on a bunch of ways, each with its own area, where these areas don't even necessarily share nodes. Any sensible rendering for applications will *not* render . You wouldn't see anything in lower zoom levels, and the exact shape of a sidewalk is pretty much irrelevant for most purposes. So they will draw a fixed-width line for a highway (much wider than it is in reality), and maybe colored casings depending on whether or not there are sidewalks. Stefan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . .* | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. How a cross-section of a road looks will of course vary a lot along the road - lanes, including sidewalks, might change their width, disappear entirely etc. But that isn't a problem as long as you can determine the road structure at each interesting point along the road. So your point is that we should use width=* to describe that? How about large sidewalks that get narrower were a bay of sort is reserved to cars (bus stops, parkings)? Should I break the way of the street into three parts, each with its own width? Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Sorry for my previous unfinished mail, I didn't want to send it. To summarize what I intended to say: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. * If everyone mapped road parts as separate areas, it would actually make it *easier* for me to support them in my application. But it seems like an excessive amount of effort for mappers. * For some applications, it will be necessary to reconstruct the entire road from the various separate ways, and I assume that an area around the entire road could reduce the amount of guessing involved. Of course, that's not the purpose the area:highway key was originally invented for. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - voting - childcare
i changed the main key to service_times, but i kept the subkey. otherwise it would be problematic in case someone want to tag the office hours separately. flaimo Message: 6 Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 01:15:26 +0200 From: M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - voting - childcare Message-ID: BANLkTi=ppc1iyporccpzk5vor-yvjre...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2011/5/11 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare#Voting I don't see why there should be service_hours:childcare. Can't we reuse service_times? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service_times ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Also, sidewalks are not always directly next to the driving lanes. There are sometimes grassy borders between the driving lanes and the sidewalk. Typically, this is a meter or so, but can be wider. On one street here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, the sidewalk is about three meters to the side, and about two meters above the roadway, with occasional steps down to the roadway (the road ascends a steep hill on a diagonal). ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway From :mailto:simone.savi...@gmail.com Date :Thu May 12 03:09:50 America/Chicago 2011 2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). I don't think this contradicts my argument. Look at the cross-section of the road at any point: | * . . . . * | The vertical lines are road area outlines, the stars are sidewalk ways and the dots are other lanes. If we make the assumption that each way marks the center of that lane, we can easily calculate the width of the two sidewalks at this particular cut through the road: It's 2 times the width between the sidewalk and the area outline. How a cross-section of a road looks will of course vary a lot along the road - lanes, including sidewalks, might change their width, disappear entirely etc. But that isn't a problem as long as you can determine the road structure at each interesting point along the road. So your point is that we should use width=* to describe that? How about large sidewalks that get narrower were a bay of sort is reserved to cars (bus stops, parkings)? Should I break the way of the street into three parts, each with its own width? Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: Sorry for my previous unfinished mail, I didn't want to send it. To summarize what I intended to say: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? * If everyone mapped road parts as separate areas, it would actually make it *easier* for me to support them in my application. But it seems like an excessive amount of effort for mappers. Ultimately, that's up to the mappers to decide. I think it'll be a while before I would get around mapping to this level of detail, but I won't stop anyone putting in the work. * For some applications, it will be necessary to reconstruct the entire road from the various separate ways, and I assume that an area around the entire road could reduce the amount of guessing involved. Of course, that's not the purpose the area:highway key was originally invented for. There already is a concrete requirement to have the different spaces (for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians) represented appropriately, plus visually impaired users who would love to get information on physical features of these. By mapping both a conventional highway=* way as well as an area, applications can decide what level of detail they're interested in. The areas are complementary to the ways; they don't replace them, just as with waterways. Stefan -- Stefan Bethke s...@lassitu.de Fon +49 151 14070811 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 Stefan Bethke s...@lassitu.de Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: Sorry for my previous unfinished mail, I didn't want to send it. To summarize what I intended to say: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? * If everyone mapped road parts as separate areas, it would actually make it *easier* for me to support them in my application. But it seems like an excessive amount of effort for mappers. Ultimately, that's up to the mappers to decide. I think it'll be a while before I would get around mapping to this level of detail, but I won't stop anyone putting in the work. * For some applications, it will be necessary to reconstruct the entire road from the various separate ways, and I assume that an area around the entire road could reduce the amount of guessing involved. Of course, that's not the purpose the area:highway key was originally invented for. There already is a concrete requirement to have the different spaces (for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians) represented appropriately, plus visually impaired users who would love to get information on physical features of these. By mapping both a conventional highway=* way as well as an area, applications can decide what level of detail they're interested in. The areas are complementary to the ways; they don't replace them, just as with waterways. +1 about everything. You worded it great. Stefan Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - voting - childcare
2011/5/12 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: i changed the main key to service_times, but i kept the subkey. otherwise it would be problematic in case someone want to tag the office hours separately. IMHO the key service_times refers to the feature, which is children daycare in this case. There is no need to namespace this tag. If you namespace it, you make it more difficult You could have office_hours for the office hours. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/12/2011 7:58 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Also, sidewalks are not always directly next to the driving lanes. There are sometimes grassy borders between the driving lanes and the sidewalk. Typically, this is a meter or so, but can be wider. On one street here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, the sidewalk is about three meters to the side, and about two meters above the roadway, with occasional steps down to the roadway (the road ascends a steep hill on a diagonal). More importantly, there may be features between the sidewalk and roadway. This is something that cannot be represented by using a sidewalk=* tag on a highway. This is not as important on suburban residential streets, but there are still issues with representing the fact that sometimes the (paved) sidewalk curves around a corner without a branch allowing one to cross the street to the next segment of sidewalk without walking across or hopping over the grass. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 j...@jfeldredge.com: Also, sidewalks are not always directly next to the driving lanes. There are sometimes grassy borders between the driving lanes and the sidewalk. Typically, this is a meter or so, but can be wider. On one street here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, the sidewalk is about three meters to the side, and about two meters above the roadway, with occasional steps down to the roadway (the road ascends a steep hill on a diagonal). If the sidewalks are separated from the driving lanes by grass or some other divider I would map them separately. (i.e. if you draw area:highway-objects you will draw different objects for the sidewalk and the street). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare
2011/5/12 Sean Horgan seanhor...@gmail.com: I personally like when OSM definitions are linked to other references, especially a well-known source like wikipedia. at least then link to a specific version of an article. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+service: social service n. 1. Organized efforts to advance human welfare; social work. 2. Services, such as free school lunches, provided by a government for its disadvantaged citizens. Often used in the plural. or Merriam Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20service : an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance (as of the disabled or disadvantaged) I can add these references to the tag page if people consider them better form. -1, please copy the definition. Do not link them from external sites. To the content of dictionaries you cited: the exact meaning of social is generally tainted by political / philosophical ideologies/point of view as well as cultural background. I wouldn't dig too much into the details. As for removing the daycare reference in social_facility, I agree that replacing it with a link to an approved childcare feature makes sense. IMHO no link but a short description in the OSM wiki. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact:website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website According to taginfo, the former isn't used much... and in JOSM i havent yet seen it actually used.. For consistency, please help align the tagging schema to JOSM. So then when changes are decided, it gets changed across the board. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Am70fsptsPF2dHJxMG05Zmg2YS1LeFg2czRZOWZEU3chl=en This allows you to view the chart, and you can download a copy of it. Please don't fix the chart, I'm highlighting where these inconsistencies are. I am not debating on which of these keys to use, im just pointing out that both of these pages exist, Ideally, it would be great to see 1 wiki page per key/value pair, along with the key=definition page, as this makes it easy for users to fully understand how the tagging works. Cheers, Sam P.S. if anyone wants editing access (to help point out errors), i can add you in as an editor. --- Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network Victoria, BC Canada Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: 'Sam Vekemans' Member, CommonMap Inc. http://commonmap.org/ IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap Also find us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? I wondered how I could implement this, and drafted a possible solution: http://tobias-knerr.de/temp/Road%20area%20draft.pdf Then I tried to imagine situations that wouldn't work well with that solution, only found ones that I considered rare, and most of these were only of minor interest to me anyway. That was how I arrived at that assumption. Therefore, what I'm still hoping for are practical examples along the lines of the following situation is relatively common in [Someplace], you cannot describe it without separate areas for sidewalks, and it's important for applications to understand that situation because -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 12.05.2011 19:03, schrieb Tobias Knerr: Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out the window here? What examples to you need? What is this assumption of yours based on? I wondered how I could implement this, and drafted a possible solution: http://tobias-knerr.de/temp/Road%20area%20draft.pdf Then I tried to imagine situations that wouldn't work well with that solution, only found ones that I considered rare, and most of these were only of minor interest to me anyway. That was how I arrived at that assumption. Therefore, what I'm still hoping for are practical examples along the lines of the following situation is relatively common in [Someplace], you cannot describe it without separate areas for sidewalks, and it's important for applications to understand that situation because +1 Yeah, the big problem is to whole area of the road/street. Then we end up that the highways gonna be only lanes. What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
the reason for that might be, than no editor supports the contact: syntax. personally, i always use it and type it in manually without the JOSM preset, because it makes locating all the contact information in long tag lists much easier. same goes for addr:, payment: and fuel: hopefully in the future, when tag list tend to become longer and have to be scrolled all the time, editors implement some sort of collapse feature for namespaces. so +1 for contact: from me. flaimo -- Message: 8 Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:10:43 -0700 From: Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url* Message-ID: banlktimpac2nubz5bkvkwr12bj3bmpq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact:website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website According to taginfo, the former isn't used much... and in JOSM i havent yet seen it actually used.. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. if they are constantly connected (no change of the paving, no physical barrier) it's actually not a dual-carriage way. If these connections are punctually you'd simply draw them explicitly and tag them as what they are (incl. turn restrictions. etc.) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
On 5/12/2011 2:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/5/12 flylowfligh...@googlemail.com: What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. if they are constantly connected (no change of the paving, no physical barrier) it's actually not a dual-carriage way. If these connections are punctually you'd simply draw them explicitly and tag them as what they are (incl. turn restrictions. etc.) Well, one could have a single area of pavement with barriers placed on top to separate it into two carriageways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
Am 12.05.2011 20:26, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/5/12 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: the reason for that might be, than no editor supports the contact: syntax. personally, i always use it and type it in manually without the JOSM preset, because it makes locating all the contact information in long tag lists much easier. +1 OSM allows everybody to tag whatever he likes, which is great. Still I don't think that a website is contact-information, like a phone number is. Neither has contact:webcam anything to do with contact. +1 surveillance !! Actual usage shows that the whole contact is a typical wiki stillbirth: 108398 website (wiki page created 20:17, 3 April 2008 ) 240537 url (wiki page created 23:19, 8 May 2008 ) 4332 contact:website (wiki page created 08:06, 22 January 2009 ) sometimes a webscript is the only possibility to contact someone Almost all the times the contact information is on the website, even if it is sometimes outdated ! Btw.: there is (still) 0 contact:addr:street and 0 contact:addr:housenumber in the database. Actually, I know some places where the postal address is different than the building address ( including addr:street, addr:postcode Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
when was the topic of webcams ever mentioned? they have nothing to do with this topic. also we are not talking about what counts as a contact information and what not. pretty much everybody agrees that phone, fax, e-mail and website are seen as contact information, probably because millions of people put those on their business cards. the topic is whether to use the contact namespace for those (four) keys or not. the numbers you list are like that because, as i mentioned before, most use the presets for tagging. if the presets would be changed to use the contact: prefix, the situation would be exactly the contrary in two years. so we should list advantages and disadvantages of a namespace and think about if it might make sense to group them under contact: in the future by modifying the presets. existing tag could easily be changed to the namespace (or the other way around) by a simple one time batch job in the database. flaimo Message: 4 Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:26:46 +0200 From: M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url* Message-ID: BANLkTi=7lnrpmvmzjsbqoyg-cqm3qdw...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 OSM allows everybody to tag whatever he likes, which is great. Still I don't think that a website is contact-information, like a phone number is. Neither has contact:webcam anything to do with contact. Actual usage shows that the whole contact is a typical wiki stillbirth: 108398 website (wiki page created 20:17, 3 April 2008 ) 240537 url (wiki page created 23:19, 8 May 2008 ) 4332 contact:website (wiki page created 08:06, 22 January 2009 ) For the disputed phonenumbers (many mappers argue that phonenumbers are no geoinformation) the situation is similar: 88147 phone 9015 contact:phone Btw.: there is (still) 0 contact:addr:street and 0 contact:addr:housenumber in the database. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
On 5/12/2011 4:52 PM, Flaimo wrote: the numbers you list are like that because, as i mentioned before, most use the presets for tagging. if the presets would be changed to use the contact: prefix, the situation would be exactly the contrary in two years. so we should list advantages and disadvantages of a namespace and think about if it might make sense to group them under contact: in the future by modifying the presets. existing tag could easily be changed to the namespace (or the other way around) by a simple one time batch job in the databas There's another factor - there are now map data consumers, and I can tell from experience that they all use 'phone=', not 'contact:phone=' for example. Changing data consumers is much more difficult than just the Wiki and editor presets. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
Am 12.05.2011 22:27, schrieb Stefan Bethke: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.569837lon=10.027266zoom=18layers=M For comparison: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8hq=ll=53.569829,10.026878spn=0.0015,0.003468t=hz=19 (about two years old, a couple of details have changed since.) As you can see, some attemps have been made to represent areas where pedestrians and bikes are allowed, but a lot of detail is (still) missing. I don't see how your proposal would model for example the bus bay at the stop next to the Subway on Mundsburger Damm, and the adjoining parking spots, at least not easily. Or the intersection of Mundsburger Damm, Uhlenhorster Weg, Heideweg, and Birkenau, just to the south west on Mundsburger Damm. Drawing areas from aerial pics or from carefully selected waypoints seems straightforward to me, putting ways just so that the medians between the ways fall on the actual borders between the areas seems unnecessarily complicated, and would likely require significant support in the editor. Maybe first try to add the kerbs, green areas, bus bay as highway=service and the parking lot. There are probably even more barriers in this area. Are these footways really highway=footways with bicycle=yes ? (designated/offical?) The cycleways are track seperately and at the roads as cycleway=track but nothing about a sidewalk. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
2011/5/12 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: when was the topic of webcams ever mentioned? they are part of the contact-proposal. I mentioned them to point out, that even if everyone followed this proposal and added contact: to some of the tags, this wouldn't improve overall consistency. contact information and what not. pretty much everybody agrees that phone, fax, e-mail and website are seen as contact information, probably because millions of people put those on their business cards. yes, like they put their name and address. That's why I pointed out that nevertheless in OSM noone so far used contact:addr:street. the topic is whether to use the contact namespace for those (four) keys or not. not cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
Out of boredom I tried to think up all the non-physical tags currently in wide spread use: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Devent#Why_even_obscure_tags_should_be_documented_if_they_are_likely_to_be_mapped.21 I doubt the list is exhaustive, but these are obviously important to people, otherwise they wouldn't get tagged. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
