Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

[johnw]

On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:

> 
> 2014-03-16 23:11 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> I'd like to clarify what I said before that landuse=civic_admin would be 
> useful. It would be useful for  tagging the only the compounds where 
> government offices are located (townhall, courthouse, etc.). I am not 
> suggesting that schools and hospitals would use the same landuse=civic_admin 
> tag.
> 
> +1, I agree that we COULD have some new landuse values, there is a lot of 
> stuff that isn't yet covered by
> the well introduced landuses, including:

This is a great post of yours. It really got me thinking about solving this, 
and this civic_admin stuff.  

Just thinking while typing here. in hindsight, landuse=institution is really 
useful with a subtag after typing all this. 

About half of these tags can be covered with landuse=institution. 

> 
> churches and other religion related areas


landuse=institution + institution= religion (or straight landuse=religion)

 there are a lot of religious areas in Japan that have a really big area with a 
lot of little, unnamed buildings, gardens, event areas, and other stuff to go 
with the main shrines. Moreover, the shrines themselves have separate names - 
but the complex has it's own big famous name as well (Ex: Asakusa in Tokyo) - 
so a separate landuse for religion is a great tag. Also: we need to update the 
icons for the religions in -carto as well (there is no Japanese buddhist 
symbol, for example, and the shinto one is overly detailed compared to the 
others). 


> theatres and cinemas,

> restaurants and nightclubs

landuse=retail amenity=restaurant/cinema/discotek (sp)  *or* 
landuse=entertainment + entertainment=[type].

also mixes into institution=arts_centre. To me the line is live people 
performance and commerical art (cinema)  is in entertainment, and exibition of 
cultural art (art gallery/ museum) is in institution, but I dunno. 

This overlaps into a lot of different tagging systems. Hopefully subtags can 
unify it without the need for retagging.  This is a messy problem.

> mixed use (like you'll find for instance in the centre of the typical 
> european city)

Shops downstairs, residential upstairs, right?

landuse=urban_mixed_use  (as opposed to a mixed use business park 
[retail+commercial])

> courthouses

Jails & Prisons too?  landuse=institution + institution=judicial The police 
side is mentioned below.

> parliaments and city counsels (and the levels in between) as well as 
> supranational "decision making"

Landuse=institution + institution=civic_assembly

 it could cover everything from a city council to the UN building.

> institutions
> museums

Landuse=institution + institution=museum / gallery / arts_centre *or*  
tourism=museum or proposed  =art gallery / amenity=arts_centre ...  


> hospitals and clinics


landuse=institution + institution=medical (or, of course Landuse=medical), as 
opposed to hospital. would cover chiropractic clinics, pharmacies, dentists, 
orthodontists, maybe even veterinary. existing amenity= or shop= would would 
work fine, or use medical= subtag.  using the institution here here seems weak 
though.

> public administration (with and without public access)

landuse=institution + institution=civic_office   

this would solve all my "civic_admin" troubles. could cover the white house 
down to townhalls and all the depts in between.


It's brother would be landuse=institution institution=civic_service(s)?+ 
existing amenity of choice,

public services like police, fire, plow stations, (ambulance 'station' too?) 
border patrol, immigration, park ranger stations, customs areas, the fruit and 
vegetable check areas on the highways between states (in the US),  Some of 
these are privately operated, but it is "for the public good." 


> universities and schools and colleges

landuse=institution + institution=education (or straight Landuse=education). 
covers just about everything, from a preschool to driving school to flight 
school to Jukus (private tutoring schools - "cram schools" like kumon or EFL 
schools) - where we really wouldn't want it tagged as amenity=school (I don't 
think). education=[type] also a possibility. amenity=school, to me, always is 
k-12. College or university is higher ed, the remainder could fall into this 
tag. 

> hotels etc.

landuse=hospitality + hospitality=[type] or the amenity=[type], like 
beach_resort (or the missing ski_resort) this could cover anything from a 
hostel or motel to casino or disneyland's hotel area ringing the parks.

There is a lot of hospitality things that are covered, but a few glaring 
omissions exist in amenity, like how to tag a skiing park - there is nothing to 
denote the actual landuse of the ski resort area (like there would be for a 
zoo, theme park, or other tourist attraction).

Hospitality is the official name for the industry of hotels and such, so it 
seems a good fit. 

> sports related areas

landuse=recreation?

 

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[fly]

On 10.03.2014 12:08, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 2014-03-10 12:01 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :
>> Just a quick reminder, the term "borough" has several meanings and could
>> easily be misused. In Alaska, where I'm from, boroughs are large
>> administrative areas — very similar to counties in the contiguous United
>> States. So they are districts, in a sense, but perhaps not in the way
>> intended in your example.
> 
> Which is exactly my point. The proposed scheme misuses some tags
> (addr:place), adds new tags duplicating already existing (addr:borough
> instead of addr:suburb) and adds more ambiguity by using the term
> borough which may mean things different from municipal districts, so
> I'm for reworking this scheme, but there are people who disagree with
> me. That's why I brought the topic here for more discussion.

+1

I have no problems with new tags if they are needed but they should be
clear in their meaning.

addr:borough is ambiguous and addr:suburb already exists.

addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.

cu fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

[Brad Neuhauser]

It might be good to see if any of these ideas are in use, despite lack of
documentation. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landuse

A couple potentially useful tags I noticed scanning through the list of
landuse=* values were
1) landuse=religious has 1100 uses
2) landuse=school and landuse=education both have hundreds of uses--might
be good to recommend one or the other?
3) landuse=leisure is used more often than landuse=recreation right now
(477 v. 62)
4) interestingly, landuse=institution is not used at all, but
landuse=institutional a bit (68 uses)

Among the other landuse=* values, there might be some ideas to pick up on,
or others which we'd like to avoid.

Cheers,
Brad


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:38 AM, johnw  wrote:

>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>
> 2014-03-16 23:11 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :
>
>> I'd like to clarify what I said before that landuse=civic_admin would be
>> useful. It would be useful for  tagging the only the compounds where
>> government offices are located (townhall, courthouse, etc.). I am not
>> suggesting that schools and hospitals would use the same
>> landuse=civic_admin tag.
>
>
> +1, I agree that we COULD have some new landuse values, there is a lot of
> stuff that isn't yet covered by
>
> the well introduced landuses, including:
>
>
> This is a great post of yours. It really got me thinking about solving
> this, and this civic_admin stuff.
>
> Just thinking while typing here. in hindsight, landuse=institution is
> really useful with a subtag after typing all this.
>
> About half of these tags can be covered with landuse=institution.
>
>
> churches and other religion related areas
>
>
>
> landuse=institution + institution= religion (or straight landuse=religion)
>
>  there are a lot of religious areas in Japan that have a really big area
> with a lot of little, unnamed buildings, gardens, event areas, and other
> stuff to go with the main shrines. Moreover, the shrines themselves have
> separate names - but the complex has it's own big famous name as well (Ex:
> Asakusa in Tokyo) - so a separate landuse for religion is a great tag.
> Also: we need to update the icons for the religions in -carto as well
> (there is no Japanese buddhist symbol, for example, and the shinto one is
> overly detailed compared to the others).
>
>
> theatres and cinemas,
>
> restaurants and nightclubs
>
>
> landuse=retail amenity=restaurant/cinema/discotek (sp)  *or*
> landuse=entertainment + entertainment=[type].
>
> also mixes into institution=arts_centre. To me the line is live people
> performance and commerical art (cinema)  is in entertainment, and exibition
> of cultural art (art gallery/ museum) is in institution, but I dunno.
>
> This overlaps into a lot of different tagging systems. Hopefully subtags
> can unify it without the need for retagging.  This is a messy problem.
>
> mixed use (like you'll find for instance in the centre of the typical
> european city)
>
>
> Shops downstairs, residential upstairs, right?
>
> landuse=urban_mixed_use  (as opposed to a mixed use business park
> [retail+commercial])
>
> courthouses
>
>
> Jails & Prisons too?  landuse=institution + institution=judicial The
> police side is mentioned below.
>
> parliaments and city counsels (and the levels in between) as well as
> supranational "decision making"
>
>
> Landuse=institution + institution=civic_assembly
>
>  it could cover everything from a city council to the UN building.
>
> institutions
>
> museums
>
>
> Landuse=institution + institution=museum / gallery / arts_centre *or*
>  tourism=museum or proposed  =art gallery / amenity=arts_centre ...
>
>
> hospitals and clinics
>
>
>
> landuse=institution + institution=medical (or, of course Landuse=medical),
> as opposed to hospital. would cover chiropractic clinics, pharmacies,
> dentists, orthodontists, maybe even veterinary. existing amenity= or shop=
> would would work fine, or use medical= subtag.  using the institution here
> here seems weak though.
>
> public administration (with and without public access)
>
>
> landuse=institution + institution=civic_office
>
> this would solve all my "civic_admin" troubles. could cover the white
> house down to townhalls and all the depts in between.
>
>
> It's brother would be landuse=institution institution=civic_service(s)?+
> existing amenity of choice,
>
> public services like police, fire, plow stations, (ambulance 'station'
> too?) border patrol, immigration, park ranger stations, customs areas, the
> fruit and vegetable check areas on the highways between states (in the US),
>  Some of these are privately operated, but it is "for the public good."
>
>
> universities and schools and colleges
>
>
> landuse=institution + institution=education (or straight
> Landuse=education). covers just about everything, from a preschool to
> driving school to flight school to Jukus (private tutoring schools - "cram
> schools" like kumon or EFL schools) - where we really wouldn't want

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[Serge Wroclawski]

My opinion is, as I've stated before, that having the boundaries of
the municipal area in OSM makes sense, but having it in each and every
object absolutely does not.

This would eliminate the tagging debate, make OSM cleaner, make the
objects more flexible and easier to manage in the future. It's a win
all around.

- Serge

2014-03-10 2:38 GMT-04:00 Andrew Shadura :
> Hello,
>
> I think it's important to add both tagging@ and talk-cz@ to the loop,
> as this question needs more serious consensus, in my opinion. I've left
> the original message below, just in case anyone wants to translate it
> from Czech directly.
>
> In short, Dalibor proposes to use addr:place and addr:borough as a more
> featureful replacement of addr:suburb, which I think is not very
> justified and is against common practices elsewhere. His proposed scheme
> is:
>
>> "addr:conscriptionnumber"="220"
>> "addr:housenumber"="220"
>> "addr:street"="K úvozu"
>> "ref:ruian:addr"="28413113"
>> "addr:place"="Lochkov" část obce
>> "addr:borough"="Praha-Lochkov" městská část
>> "addr:city"="Praha"
>> "addr:postcode"="15400"
>> "addr:country"="CZ"
>> "source:addr"="cuzk:ruian"
>
> The Czech term 'část obce' here, in my opinion, exactly matches what is
> 'a distinct section of an urban settlement (city, town, etc.) with its
> own name and identity, e.g. annexed towns or villages which were
> formerly independent', which is a definition of a suburb. However,
> addr:place is commonly used to define a part of address which has usage
> similar to the street part, but isn't related to the street.
>
> Speaking of addr:borough, the only difference I see between the
> proposed usage of it and what would be otherwise addr:suburb is that
> the official name of a municipal district may be not the same as the
> name of a locality. Dalibor, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I wonder, do we really need to introduce new tags now and redefine the
> meaning of old tags, or maybe we can fit this into the existing model
> somehow? I think that maybe it's enough to have the districts and
> boroughs as properly tagged boundaries, and to have addr:suburb set the
> the official name of a municipal district, what do you think?
>
> Anyway, I'd like to also hear the opinion of non-Czech or non-Slovak
> members.
>
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Dalibor Jelínek  wrote:
>
>> Ahoj,
>> dovolte mi přispět do diskuse a objasnit naše stanoviska.
>> Předně ono je to o hodně složitější. Fakt. Zejména Praha. Viz
>> http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8C%C3%A1sti_Prahy
>>
>> Ale od začátku:
>> addr:place jsme začali používat a úspěšně používáme pro malé obce a
>> části obcí
>> (tady je třeba říct, že "část obce" je termín z registru RÚIAN a
>> znamená v lidských termínech prostě malá vesnice, co nemá místní úřad
>> a patří pod jinou obec),
>> kde nejsou pojmenované všechny ulice. Před nějakou dobou totiž začal
>> Nominatim
>> úspěšně hledat podle addr:place, když nenašel nic podle addr:street.
>> Takže běžné adresy do malých vesnic jako je Libív 5 najednou šly
>> najít, pokud měly addr:place.
>>
>> Teď se snažíme doplnit všechny adresy podle RÚIAN a tam používáme
>> addr:place i ve městech, kde jsou používané ulice. A nevidíme žádný
>> problém, protože addr:street
>> máme pořád a navíc jméno části obce, což je ve městě rovno (podle nás
>> i podle RÚIAN městké čtvrti).
>> Jako bonus je, že se dá najít i dům podle čtvrti a čísla popisného,
>> což je informace, která je uvedena v katastru.
>>
>> Jenže nad tím je ten zmatek s většími městskými částmi. Praha je sice
>> extrém, ale ostatní
>> statutární města jsou taky nic moc.
>>
>> Naštěstí v RÚIAN je to o maličko jednodušší:
>>
>> Tady je jedno pražské adresní místo:
>> http://vdp.cuzk.cz/vdp/ruian/adresnimista/28413113
>>
>> Do OSM ho přepíšeme:
>> "addr:conscriptionnumber"="220"
>> "addr:housenumber"="220"
>> "addr:street"="K úvozu"
>> "ref:ruian:addr"="28413113"
>> "addr:place"="Lochkov" část obce
>> "addr:borough"="Praha-Lochkov" městská část
>> "addr:city"="Praha"
>> "addr:postcode"="15400"
>> "addr:country"="CZ"
>> "source:addr"="cuzk:ruian"
>> Rovnou upozorňuju, že neplatí, že by takhle podobné byly addr:place a
>> addr:borough všude.
>>
>> Tahle adresa ale má ještě další vyšší celky (dle RÚIAN)
>> správní obvod - Praha 16
>> městský obvod - Praha 5
>> A tady asi nastupuje addr:suburb, který by mohl mýt jedním z těch
>> obvodů, ale spíše bychom potřebovali dva. Mohli bychom použít
>> district, ale ten máme už využit jako okres a ani jeden z těch obvodů
>> není okres.
>> Borough je definován tady
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place
>> a vůbec nám nevadí, že zatím není addr:borough, to můžeme později
>> dopsat a adresní tagy většinou vznikají jako dvojčata addr:něco a
>> place=něco.
>>
>> Navíc použití suburb v OSM je prostě blbě. Suburb je periferie,
>> předměstí. Že ho OSM poutíbá ve významu městského obvodu, části je
>> sice možné, ale my se nechceme přidávat k špatnému používání
>> anglických slov.
>>
>> 

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[Petr Morávek [Xificurk]]

Dne 18.3.2014 16:48, fly napsal(a):
> addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.

Is it? In what way exactly?

Just to be sure, we're on the same page, please take a look at the
explanation of terms I've send to imports mailing list.

Best regards,
Petr Morávek aka Xificurk

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2014-March/003015.html

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

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-03-18 17:52 GMT+01:00 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :

> > addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.
>
> Is it? In what way exactly?


addr:place should be used instead of addr:street when the address has no
street-name in it but uses the name of the place instead. This occurs
sometimes in small settlements in Germany for instance.

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

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[Petr Morávek [Xificurk]]

Dne 18.3.2014 19:49, Martin Koppenhoefer napsal(a):
> 
> 2014-03-18 17:52 GMT+01:00 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"  >:
> 
> > addr:place is wrong as its meaning is twisted using it this way.
> 
> Is it? In what way exactly?
> 
> 
> addr:place should be used instead of addr:street when the address has no
> street-name in it but uses the name of the place instead. This occurs
> sometimes in small settlements in Germany for instance.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin

Alright, in Czech Republic this happens a lot more often - roughly half
of all the address points doesn't have a street name.

I don't see anything wrong with using addr:place even on the address
points that do have street name.

Let me ask you this: When a municipality ("obec") decides to officially
introduce the names for streets (yes, this happens - not often, but it's
not rare either), how should we reflect this fact in OSM data?
Obviously, we add name tags to ways and addr:streetname to address
points. Should we completely remove addr:place or move its content to
another tag? Why? The administrative entity ("část obce") still exists,
nothing about it has changed. The old address still works, it's just not
the preferred way of writing it.

Best regards,
Petr Morávek aka Xificurk

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

Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off

[yvecai]

All talk and no action :)
Remontees, do you want to make a nice proposal page ?

Yves

On 01/23/2014 10:51 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:35 PM, yvecai wrote:

I've checked the 8 piste:type=ski_jump mapped and a part one that is 
obscured by cloud, the others are what they are: the piste on the on 
the ski jump facility (I even forgot I mapped some myself from Bing). 
I was afraid this tag would be already used by freestyle jumps.


So I propose:

* piste:type=ski_jump

for the actual ski_jump_take_off way (this is why the piste:type
tag is here, and keep it simple, no take_off, no in_run)

* man_made=ski_jump

for the facility

* piste:type=ski_jump_landing

possibly with area=yes , this would allow an orthogonal leisure=
to be mapped for summer.

What do you think ?

Yves


+1 Sounds good to me and seems to fit the current piste:*=* usage.

Tod


___
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] surface=ground/dirt/earth

[David Bannon]

Yes Dave (Swarthout), I share your views here. I'd rather we looked at a
rating that reflected how well maintained and usable the road is likely
to be. That is what most road users want to know. "Should I use this
road or not ?"

tracktype= does claim to use that approach and that why its so popular.
Lets not move it into a purely descriptive model by defining the degree
of sand, bog, pot holes, slipperyness, steepness, angle, corrigations
etc ! If we take away that desirable "subjectivness" (there, I said it!)
from tracktype= people will have to go off and invent yet another tag
that says what they want and says what the map user wants. 

Please lets think of tracktype= as -

1. OK, its unsealed but smooth, level, well looked after.

2. Bit dodgy but almost any car (etc) will be fine if you slow down.

3. Likely to have holes, bogs, sand or something that will worry a city
driver.

4. Sort of road you may prefer to go around if you can.

5. Requires considerable care, watch for the unexpected.

And yes Dave, I am a big fan of extra grades to tracktype=

6. You probably should consider a SUV/4wd but experience will do.

7. A reasonable 4wd is probably required.

8. This is silly, a heavily modified 4wd is necessary. Take a film crew.

All right, just a bit tongue in cheek but you see what I mean.

David


On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:14 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Yes, I agree firmness works better than stiffness for describing a
> surface. I still would prefer a term that better characterizes what
> Fernando said above: "To me, the idea [of] a firm/soft mixture seems
> closely related to "how well maintained" the track/road is, as
> mixtures that are not so durable/steady/firm quickly wear down and
> look 'poorly maintained'."
> 
> 
> A poorly maintained road, or one that is not well engineered, or one
> composed of loose, uncompacted materials will be much less durable
> than one that has those characteristics. Consequently, I still think
> durability fits the bill. I hesitate to bring this up but the
> discussion about trafficability tried to rationalize the relationship
> between a highway's surface, hardness, composition and smoothness and
> ran into similar problems (David Bannon?)
> 
> 
> FWIW, borrowing again from Fernando above I would reword the
> definitions as so:
> 
> 
> grade1: "heavily compacted hardcore"
> grade1: [Usually paved. If unpaved then a heavily compacted mixture of
> materials (gravel, sand, earth, clay) that provide a fairly smooth,
> durable and relatively weather-resistant surface.]
> grade2: "unpaved (...) surface of gravel [a hard material] mixed with
> varying amount of [soft materials] sand, silt and clay"
> grade2: [Unpaved (...) surface of gravel mixed with a varying amount
> of other materials and lightly compacted or rolled to provide a good
> surface. Less durable or weather resistant than a grade1 track.]
> grade3: "even mixture of hard and soft materials"
> grade3" [Almost always an unpaved dirt road. A mixture of uncompacted
> hard and soft materials providing a reasonable surface. Subject to
> moderate degradation in bad weather. ]
> grade4: "prominently with soil/sand/grass [soft materials], but
> with some hard materials"
> grade4: [A rougher unpaved dirt road with a mostly soft surface,
> poorly maintained and not very durable. Rain and other bad weather
> degrade this type of track rapidly.]
> grade5: "lacking hard materials"
> grade5: [A very rough unpaved track composed of loose, uncompacted,
> soft materials often having a surface of grass and dirt, or, in wet
> weather, mud. Not very durable — easily eroded.]
> 
> 
> Other OSMers have amended this list to include grade6 and even grade7
> for tracks passable by 4WD or ATV only. What about those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fernando Trebien
>  wrote:
> "Firmness" sounds good to me:
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firmness
> 
> I know that "soundness" means the same but has some additional
> meanings
> (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soundness),
> "firmness" is more specific.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:09 PM, johnw  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Fernando Trebien
> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >  Replacing 'stiffness'
> > with something else is absolutely fine with me.
> >
> >
> >
> > What about firmness? soundness?
> >
> >
> > Javbw
> >
> 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
> 
> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18
> months." (Moore's law)
>