Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a synthetic a/b boundary? Unless of course the name refers to some feature like a road or a river which in a specific case may be part of the boundary. As administrative bodies (and their boundaries) are usually hierarchical in nature, it feels a more natural fit to allow segments of a boundary way to be shared between admin areas at different levels, which are defined in relations. All the names and other characteristics of the admin unit go on the relation, and the ways which represent segments of the boundaries don't need tags at all (although a basic boundary=administrative is usually applied to make them render, although this should not be required). In this way there are no conflicts in the tagging. There is also a single point of definition for the name of the admin unit; any changes only need to be made on the relation, and do not need propagating to the constituent ways. The discussion then shifts to the rendering - how do you control how boundaries are rendered? What is to be the text on the boundary - if any? Let's not make the tagging suboptimal for the sake of getting our preferred text to show up on the map. This is called tagging for the renderer and we don't do that. Colin On 2013-11-06 10:31, Pieren wrote: Now I see that the county free big city. is incorrect. If the admin level exists but is just matching another level boundary, we duplicate the relation in my country since years. See for instance - Paris, the municipality (city), level 8 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444 [1] - Paris, the departement (equ. to your county), level 6 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/71525 [2] (there is even one for admin_level 7) We just had a dispute about the tag name. Some countries seem to apply a different name for the county and the city relation. Two examples: - Orange county (vs Orange) in US : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/396466 [3] - Canton Capellen (vs Capellen) in Luxemburg : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/407813 [4] Personnally, I'm in favour to apply the same policy in France where others said that the tag admin_level is providing the information. Pieren Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [5] Links: -- [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/71525 [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/396466 [4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/407813 [5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a synthetic a/b boundary? To clarify, my remark was just about the tag name in the two relations which are indeed identical excepted the admin_level value. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
OK, sorry if I misunderstood. On 2013-11-06 11:25, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Surely the boundary way itself is unlikely to have a name, other than a synthetic a/b boundary? To clarify, my remark was just about the tag name in the two relations which are indeed identical excepted the admin_level value. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - 2nd RFC
I read the page Classification_of_Powerlines http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Classification_of_Powerlines and for power line there are electric line, phone line, ecc -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-Power-transmission-refinement-2nd-RFC-tp5784044p5784288.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com Now I see that the county free big city. is incorrect. If the admin level exists but is just matching another level boundary, we duplicate the relation in my country since years. See for instance - Paris, the municipality (city), level 8 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/7444 - Paris, the departement (equ. to your county), level 6 : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/71525 (there is even one for admin_level 7) but ARE there such things as Paris level 8 AND Paris level 6 (i.e. are there governments for both levels, or is there only one government?), or is there just one Paris level 6 which has also the competence/duties/power over what elsewhere has a distinct legal body with levels 7 or 8? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: but ARE there such things as Paris level 8 AND Paris level 6 (i.e. are there governments for both levels, or is there only one government?), or is there just one Paris level 6 which has also the competence/duties/power over what elsewhere has a distinct legal body with levels 7 or 8? It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? good question, one might argue that if there is only one administration, maybe there aren't two administrative boundaries, but just one, with a missing level (not all levels have to occur everywhere, there might be exceptions where some levels, usually found in a specific country, simply don't exist). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New feature: amenity=creche
Gilbert Hangartner kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com writes: I wrote a proposal to correctly tag Crèches or Childcare-centres or Daycare-centrers or Kindertagesstätte. Thank you in advance for your comments and thoughts. My reaction on seeing the subject was that creches are not amenities, but temporary religious displays for the holidays! But seriously, in the US, the place where people leave their children while they work is called day care. And in the US the word creche refers to a display of a manger, Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus, three wise wen, shepards, and sheep, typically about 0.25 m wide in a home, but occasionally several m wide in public, typically in front of churches. Almost always they are displayed only in Decemeber, plus or minus a bit. pgpkH9jlaUmwk.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres
I like that idea Martin, I've added a link to the playground tag for tagging individual pieces of equipment (if anyone feels the need to). Should I just start the voting by putting today's date, or do you think it should be left for more comments first? Thanks, Dom On 5 November 2013 14:57, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/11/5 Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com I think it's not such a good idea to use leisure=playground + fee=yes, since it most certainly is not a playground, but sure playgrounds really do span a very big range from a sandbox to extremely large contraptions . +1, I think his current proposal leisure=indoor_play is fine, I'd encourage mappers to add explicitly fee=yes/no/amount because otherwise (if fee is implied) we would have to invent another tag for those places that are non-commercial or offer this kind of service as included in the general entrance fee to a bigger place. It would be interesting to tag place where kids can play, many museums/science centers have that as well. IMHO the same tag could be used. I'd also add a link from the current proposal to this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:playground because the tagging of the equipment could be the same than for leisure=playground where possible. 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] opening-hours: how to code always but...? Syntax diagram.
On 14:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC), [[User:Ypid|Ypid]] wrote : I am not sure if we need two syntax diagrams. Sorry that the syntax diagram I added to the Wiki ([[Key:opening_hours:specification]]) was not so obvious. Oh yes, OSM taggers badly need an easier to read syntax diagram. I spent more that one hour figuring how to tag the most simple Opening Hours rule there is, reading four times almost the whole OH=* page, which is a lot. There is no doubt that other taggers would have given up adding that tag in less than one minute. That's why I made the diagram. Because I now realized that, although translating the whole page, my diagram is incomplete compared to the hidden diagram, I changed the title to Simplified Syntax diagram and a good idea would be to simplify it even more while still covering 95% of the cases, because my main conclusion is that there is complete misunderstanding. I met ten different opinions regarding key points such as usage of '24/7, the meaning and the necessity of off and what is the initial state of the logic, open or closed. I realized that nobody knew the existence of the open and closed tokens for the simple reason that, no more that the initial state, they don't appear in the OH=* page and that people wouldn't take time to read the full diagram in addition to a whole page anyway, unless to clarify some point. So, I added open and closed to the simplified diagram. But most of all, if you really want programs to use that tag, make the rules very strict and not a fuzzy matter as the general tone about discussing this tag was, like discussing many tags in general. (OSM even refuses to label the keys as objects or attributes because, they say, it's a matter of each tagger's opinion !!! ) In short: if you want taggers to use Opening Hours, yes I urge you to keep a Simplified Diagram and if you want them to do it all in the same correct way and programs to use it, make sure it is correct (and maybe write an Osmose plugin: they and everybody will appreciate). I hope this will be my last contribution to OH; many other things to do. Anybody's opinion? Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? good question, one might argue that if there is only one administration, maybe there aren't two administrative boundaries, but just one, with a missing level (not all levels have to occur everywhere, there might be exceptions where some levels, usually found in a specific country, simply don't exist). With the German Kreisfreie Staedte these Citys take the administrative Burden from the coutnys and citys. So i think do we have more than one administrative instance is bogus. They take both level of administrative functionality. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
Administrative boundaries are defined by a unique administrative instance ? Let's take the problem the other way around: Is this boundary x an admin level 6? If yes, create a level 6 relation. Is this boundary x an admin level 8? If yes, create a level 8 relation. Do you want to know if a relation is similar to another one ? Define 'similar', download data and consume it, as a data consumer, a geocoder and a renderer would. Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de a écrit : On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:32:08PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com It's two different adminitrative levels. In this particular case, it's also two different administrations but does it count since we just identify admin boundaries ? good question, one might argue that if there is only one administration, maybe there aren't two administrative boundaries, but just one, with a missing level (not all levels have to occur everywhere, there might be exceptions where some levels, usually found in a specific country, simply don't exist). With the German Kreisfreie Staedte these Citys take the administrative Burden from the coutnys and citys. So i think do we have more than one administrative instance is bogus. They take both level of administrative functionality. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] opening-hours: how to code always but...? Syntax diagram.
Following my message that my Simplified Opening Hours syntax diagram http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours#Simplified_syntax_diagram is needed for taggers to achieve 95% of such tags correctly in a reasonable time and, most of all, that data consumers understand what they tagged, I have simplified even more and added a clear description of intent. I have some remarks about the modification to this footnote: 1. ↑ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours#cite_ref-always_1-0 if all ranges are followed by off, an initial always period is assumed. *(Not true for any implementation that I know of. -- **User:Ypid http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ypid**)* * It seems to confuse specification and discussion page. * It would be more interesting to say what is true instead of what is not true. * implementations: not clear: implementations of what? * must the tagger follow unspecified implementations or this specification? * it's the fifth different opinion I hear about this essential matter and a simple tag * in consequence, as there was no clear specification, I followed the most probable advice *Fr 14:00-22:00 off* which both seemed to make sense and is what is written on the sign plate * But, after more than 15 days, not a reasonable time for a simple tag, I am still uncertain * I think that the data consumer programs such as Osmand must be as puzzled as the taggers For the success of Opening Hours (and OSM), I recommend clear specifications and my corrected diagram which is something that should be followed step by step, avoiding searching a needle in a haystack. I am waiting for an announcement of a correct Opening Hours page to put my tags right definitely; I won't change them on each different personal opinion any more. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte
2013/11/6 Yves yve...@gmail.com Let's take the problem the other way around: Is this boundary x an admin level 6? If yes, create a level 6 relation. Is this boundary x an admin level 8? If yes, create a level 8 relation. Do you want to know if a relation is similar to another one ? Define 'similar', download data and consume it, as a data consumer, a geocoder and a renderer would. +1, easy, although in another case: Is this boundary x an admin level 4? --yes, create a level 4 relation. Is this boundary x an admin level 6? -- no, do not create a level 6 relation now, where are the level 6 relations inside this level 4 entity, I can find level 8 and 10 but where are the level 6? There are none. Why are there none? a) they do not exist b) they are not mapped or otherwise broken In some cases a) seems to be true (Stadtstaaten Hamburg and Berlin, the city is a Land, no level 6 entity), creating problems in various apps like Nominatim. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
