Re: [Tagging] Wadi vs intermittent stream?

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 23.08.2014 23:52, Tod Fitch wrote:
> When looking into how to render them I have become aware of an alternative 
> tagging of waterway=wadi as mentioned at 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dwadi

That page was created in 2013, probably to document existing usage (12000 by
now). However,  intermittent=yes had been approved 2 years earlier, and it
is more flexible and even more widely used. So it seems that waterway=wadi
was only used on features created before 2011, or by mappers who don't know
about the intermittent=yes tag. For rendering, I would treat waterway=wadi
as a shortcut for waterway=river + intermittent=yes. The usual rendering for
intermittent waterways is to make them dashed. If a renderer has a distinct
signature for wadis but does not support intermittent=yes, I would call that
a bug.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Wadi vs intermittent stream?

[Richard Z.]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 02:52:41PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:

> So which is the preferred tagging?
> 
> If waterway=wadi then I have some OSM editing to do but at least the renderer 
> should be easy. If waterway=stream, intermittent=yes then I need to get some 
> changes done by the project who's rendering database I am using.
> 

Wadi is something different than a wash. While not easy to state
objectively, some hints are

* wash tends to be shorter and steeper, they often run out in 
  alluvial fans as soon as they get into flat areas. Some collect
  into intermittent rivers though.
* the wash-valley form  will be merely a deepening from erosion
  and often quite young and quickly changing ( in the order of 
  decades or hundreds of years )
* when a wash is dry there is no water flow close underneath the
  surface

* wadi will be longer, perhaps 10km or much more
* the valley is older, has gone through several geological stages 
  of riverbed formation
* even in dry seasons there will be often underground water,
  places with swamps or pools and distinct vegetation.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Wadi vs intermittent stream?

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 23 August 2014 22:52, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> With at least one renderer that I am looking at, the default database 
> creation tool supports waterway=wadi but not intermittent=*.

I'm not sure what you are looking at. The latest version of osm2pgsql
does support intermittent:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style

The main renderer does not currently support intermittent=yes, but we
have plans to add it:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/805

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 20.08.2014 10:18, Holger Jeromin wrote:
> Andreas Labres wrote on 20.08.2014 04:10:
>> On 19.08.14 23:17, fly wrote:
>>> but 265-267 is wrong
> 
> Read as "tagging 265-267 alone is wrong".
> 
>> Disagree. addr:housenumber is the official number given to that building. 
>> And if
>> it's "265-267", then addr:housenumber=265-267 is the only correct 
>> implementation
>> of this.
> 
> But osm db needs a hint that 266 is missing. That is obvious on the
> street (by looking at the right and left building) but not in the data.

The OSM db does not need to know about (the meaning of) housenumbers. Its
sole purpose is to store data. In this case, the housenumber is "265-267",
literally! This is not a shortcut for "265;266;267". Applications should not
attempt to resolve housenumbers that way.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Wadi vs intermittent stream?

[Hans De Kryger]

Thanks Matthijs, i was about to submit a render request for it.

Regards,
Hans
On Aug 24, 2014 2:50 AM, "Matthijs Melissen" 
wrote:

> On 23 August 2014 22:52, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> > With at least one renderer that I am looking at, the default database
> creation tool supports waterway=wadi but not intermittent=*.
>
> I'm not sure what you are looking at. The latest version of osm2pgsql
> does support intermittent:
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style
>
> The main renderer does not currently support intermittent=yes, but we
> have plans to add it:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/805
>
> -- Matthijs
>
> ___
> 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] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Fabrizio Carrai]

Hi Lorenzo,
my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium. My
rationale comes from a potential utilization of the tag and tags
combinations. If I wants to query for all and only acquariums, a query on
"attraction=acquarium" will work. Viceversa, if we rise one step above and
querying for "tourism=attraction", the acquarium  tagged as
"tourism=acquarium" would not be reported, that is obviously not correct
(the acquarium is a touristic attraction).

Ciao
FabC


2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi :

>  I would like to submit a new request to vote for the tag
> tourism=aquarium.
>
> The proposal was first considered approved and then excluded due to lack
> of feedback.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium
>
> Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is non connected at any
> other but the proposal. I found also a german page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>
> tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was 187 but someone moved
> the one I had put in a simple tourism=attraction and this is why I am here
> :)
>
> Other similar taggings i found:
> tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times
> tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times
> tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops
>
>
> Look forward for comments before updating the proposal page and sending
> the request
>
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 18.08.2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> What happens when the same entrance has two housenumbers, each from its own
> street? I'm sure this exists somewhere.

The housenumber belongs on the building or building part, not the
entrance(s). When a building (part) has two equivalent addresses, use the
addr:* schema for one address and the addr2:* schema for the other.

> > I propose to deprecate "comma" and use "semi-colon" instead to harmonize
> > our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values.
> 
> 
> +1

Semicolons seem more consistent than commas, but I doubt that either of them
are applicable for real-world addresses. In Austria, we use dashes as
separators, as Andreas pointed out; except when housenumbers relate to
different streets (see above).

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Dan S]

2014-08-24 11:05 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
> On 20.08.2014 10:18, Holger Jeromin wrote:
>> Andreas Labres wrote on 20.08.2014 04:10:
>>> On 19.08.14 23:17, fly wrote:
 but 265-267 is wrong
>>
>> Read as "tagging 265-267 alone is wrong".
>>
>>> Disagree. addr:housenumber is the official number given to that building. 
>>> And if
>>> it's "265-267", then addr:housenumber=265-267 is the only correct 
>>> implementation
>>> of this.
>>
>> But osm db needs a hint that 266 is missing. That is obvious on the
>> street (by looking at the right and left building) but not in the data.
>
> The OSM db does not need to know about (the meaning of) housenumbers. Its
> sole purpose is to store data. In this case, the housenumber is "265-267",
> literally! This is not a shortcut for "265;266;267".

Agree strongly - I think it is a mistake to say "osm db needs a hint
that 266 is missing" when considering an address which is officially
labelled as "265-267". If addresses truly are compounds like that (and
not number-ranges) then we can't really make standard inferences about
which numbers are "present" and which are "missing".


> Applications should not attempt to resolve housenumbers that way.

...unless they have been explicitly marked with "addr:interpolation",
which tells us explicitly that they should be resolved :) - discussed
in a separate thread recently.

Dan

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed change to Tag:access=designated page

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 20.08.2014 13:44, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 20/08/2014 12:38, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> Currently only weakest reason to use this tag are described. I propose to
>> add "Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated to specific modes of
>> travel
>> by a law or by the rules of traffic." as described on
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:access%3Ddesignated
>>
> 
> The problem with "legally dedicated" is that it might mean "are legally
> allowed to use" or "are legally required to use rather than an
> alternative".  I've always understand "designated" to suggest the second of
> these and "yes" the first.

For me, "designated" means that there's a respective sign, e.g. a cycleway
sign => bicycle=designated.

For compulsory use, *=official was introduced, but that tag is rather
useless without a relation to the way where access is forbidden.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Dan S]

2014-08-24 11:24 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
> On 18.08.2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>> What happens when the same entrance has two housenumbers, each from its own
>> street? I'm sure this exists somewhere.
>
> The housenumber belongs on the building or building part, not the
> entrance(s). When a building (part) has two equivalent addresses, use the
> addr:* schema for one address and the addr2:* schema for the other.

There are quite a lot of objects in the database that disagree with you ;)
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/entrance#combinations

This is one of those cases which probably has a strong flavour of
country- or location-specific conventions. There are many addresses in
London which, if I had to tag them as buildings or building parts, I
could not stay sane! On the ground, around here, they are _very_ often
associated with multiple entrances on a building and not with
explicitly indicated building parts.

Best
Dan


>> > I propose to deprecate "comma" and use "semi-colon" instead to 
>> harmonize
>> > our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values.
>>
>>
>> +1
>
> Semicolons seem more consistent than commas, but I doubt that either of them
> are applicable for real-world addresses. In Austria, we use dashes as
> separators, as Andreas pointed out; except when housenumbers relate to
> different streets (see above).
>
> --
> Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
> Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
>
> ___
> 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 - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named

[Lukas Sommer]

Hello everyone.

In some countries (Japan, Korea…), people orient themselves in the local
area using the names of road junctions or traffic signals rather then the
names of streets.

I have documented the current tagging practice for simple junctions at the
following new wiki pages:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Named_spots_instead_of_street_names

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Dyes

Furthermore, some more text has been added here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#Named_traffic_signals.2Ftraffic_signal_systems_.28Japan.E2.80.A6.29

Feedback and/or corrections are welcome.

The current tagging practice works well for simple junctions, but makes
problems on complex junctions. Therefore, the proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex_junctions_or_traffic_signals_that_are_named
has been created. Particularly if you are mapping in one of the concerned
countries please participate at the discussion at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex_junctions_or_traffic_signals_that_are_named

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 18.08.2014 17:10, Pieren wrote:
> I'm afraid that the main problem here is not the use "location" or
> "layer" or "cave" but "highway=path". This tag was created for
> multiple vehicles ways, not exclusive to a transportation like
> footways or cycleways. Currently the wiki tries to reflect this in the
> "path" definition:
> 
> "A route open to the public which is not intended for motor vehicles,
> unless so tagged separately. This includes snowmobile trails, ski
> trails, hiking trails, horse trails, bike trails and paths, mountain
> bike trails as well as combinations of the above and other modes of
> transportation. "
> 
> Unfortunatelly, this tag was abusively (impov) reused later for
> climbing routes.

I don't consider that abusive, as there's no clear line between hiking
trails and climbing routes. Many hiking trails in Austria are UIAA grade 2.
There are marked "trails" up to grade 6. For the same reason, I oppose
highway=via_ferrata.

> And now for caving.

When there's a visible trail inside a cave, it's essentially the same as an
outside trail. Therefore, I support highway=path (or footway) in such a case.

But I disadvise the mapping of non-existing paths...

> But none of these activities are
> open to the main public, requires special skills and equipments (incl.
> for survey) and, as already mentionned, needs a better handling of
> elevation data which is not easy in our model. I'm afraid that the
> main reason to not create new "highway" tags was/is to see them
> immediately on the rendered maps...
> 
> That's why I would prefer something new like "highway=cave" (or
> whatever you like)

For the cave (structure) itself, we could resurrect natural=cave.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed change to Tag:access=designated page

[Georg Feddern]

Am 24.08.2014 12:43, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:

For me, "designated" means that there's a respective sign, e.g. a cycleway
sign => bicycle=designated.


yes that is the typically (non native-language?) (mis)understanding of 
designated - and guided by the phrase "A way _marked_ for a particular use".


Nevertheless e. g. all highway=residential are _designated_ by law - 
without any signs at all... - which leads to _my_ understanding of 
designated ...


Georg

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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Dave Swarthout]

+1 for tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium

I agree with Fabrizio on the use of the two-tag structure for aquaria.
Cheers
Dave


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Fabrizio Carrai 
wrote:

> Hi Lorenzo,
> my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium. My
> rationale comes from a potential utilization of the tag and tags
> combinations. If I wants to query for all and only acquariums, a query on
> "attraction=acquarium" will work. Viceversa, if we rise one step above and
> querying for "tourism=attraction", the acquarium  tagged as
> "tourism=acquarium" would not be reported, that is obviously not correct
> (the acquarium is a touristic attraction).
>
> Ciao
> FabC
>
>
> 2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi :
>
>>  I would like to submit a new request to vote for the tag
>> tourism=aquarium.
>>
>> The proposal was first considered approved and then excluded due to lack
>> of feedback.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium
>>
>> Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is non connected at any
>> other but the proposal. I found also a german page
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>>
>> tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was 187 but someone moved
>> the one I had put in a simple tourism=attraction and this is why I am here
>> :)
>>
>> Other similar taggings i found:
>> tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times
>> tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times
>> tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time
>> tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time
>> Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops
>>
>>
>> Look forward for comments before updating the proposal page and sending
>> the request
>>
>>
>> Lorenzo
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Fabrizio*
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Christian Quest]

In that case, how should application resolve housenumbers ?
What tagging do you propose to allow it ?

I'm working on the BANO project who aims to create a nationwide address
database, using in part OSM data.
I already have to deal with this kind of addr:housenumber=*

For the moment, 265-269 is transformed into 265 and 269 only, but having
some tag based clue that we have an odd number range meaning that 267 is
located at the same place would be a real benefit.



2014-08-24 12:05 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> On 20.08.2014 10:18, Holger Jeromin wrote:
> > Andreas Labres wrote on 20.08.2014 04:10:
> >> On 19.08.14 23:17, fly wrote:
> >>> but 265-267 is wrong
> >
> > Read as "tagging 265-267 alone is wrong".
> >
> >> Disagree. addr:housenumber is the official number given to that
> building. And if
> >> it's "265-267", then addr:housenumber=265-267 is the only correct
> implementation
> >> of this.
> >
> > But osm db needs a hint that 266 is missing. That is obvious on the
> > street (by looking at the right and left building) but not in the data.
>
> The OSM db does not need to know about (the meaning of) housenumbers. Its
> sole purpose is to store data. In this case, the housenumber is "265-267",
> literally! This is not a shortcut for "265;266;267". Applications should
> not
> attempt to resolve housenumbers that way.
>
> --
> Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
> Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed change to Tag:access=designated page

[SomeoneElse]

On 24/08/2014 11:43, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

For me, "designated" means that there's a respective sign, e.g. a cycleway
sign => bicycle=designated.

For compulsory use, *=official was introduced, but that tag is rather
useless without a relation to the way where access is forbidden.



I'd tend to use "designated" rather than "yes" where there's a sign 
saying "go this way" where there wouldn't normally be one; where it's 
somehow an exception.  For an example of this, have a look here:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.36141/-1.25996

(it's a brand new road, so no background imagery I'm afraid)

The footpath from the south is a "public footpath" (an English/Welsh 
legal term which means that you're allowed to walk on it, despite it 
being across private land, where you wouldn't normally be allowed to 
go*).  I've interpreted that as "foot=yes" rather than 
"foot=designated"***.


The road is a dual carriageway with an armco barrier, but with no 
signage at either end saying that you can't walk along or across it.  
There is a wide cycleway/footway at each side of the road.


There is signage at the north end of the southern footpath pointing 
pedestrians to the right (to cross the road at the crossing near the 
roundabout).  I've interpreted this as "foot=designated" on the southern 
and northern bits of cycleway to the crossing.


Footways (and even bridleways) crossing dual carriageways in the UK 
aren't rare; other than the bit of the highway code**  that says "follow 
the signs", there isn't anything that says that it's "foot=no" across 
the road, which is why I've used "=designated" on the route via the 
crossing.


That's my interpretation, anyway.

Cheers,

Andy

* I love our legal system
** The "user friendly" summary of all of the various bits of road 
legislation
*** There are UK mappers who add "foot=designated" to all public 
footpaths, but they're very much in the minority.

 and arguably could in the future be mapped as separate ways.

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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Dan S]

Hi Christian,

As I've already mentioned, in the other thread we discussed a
disambiguation. I would suggest that if you find only

  addr:housenumber=265-269

then you can't really assume any interpolation, and I would argue that
even transforming it to "265" and "269" is going beyond what the data
tells you. However, even though it is "going beyond" the data, it may
be a sensible thing to do if you are working specifically on a
geocoding system. (That is application-dependent.)

The problem with going beyond the data is that there may be
housenumbers which officially have dashes in, but would be meaningless
if broken up. (I found these ones for example:

- but there are only a tiny quantity so these examples are not too
serious.)

On the other hand, if you see an object tagged

  addr:housenumber=265-269
  addr:interpolation=odd

then we can be quite confident that the mapper intended you to
interpret this as "265" and "267" and "269".

Best
Dan


2014-08-24 12:31 GMT+01:00 Christian Quest :
> In that case, how should application resolve housenumbers ?
> What tagging do you propose to allow it ?
>
> I'm working on the BANO project who aims to create a nationwide address
> database, using in part OSM data.
> I already have to deal with this kind of addr:housenumber=*
>
> For the moment, 265-269 is transformed into 265 and 269 only, but having
> some tag based clue that we have an odd number range meaning that 267 is
> located at the same place would be a real benefit.
>
>
>
> 2014-08-24 12:05 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
>> On 20.08.2014 10:18, Holger Jeromin wrote:
>> > Andreas Labres wrote on 20.08.2014 04:10:
>> >> On 19.08.14 23:17, fly wrote:
>> >>> but 265-267 is wrong
>> >
>> > Read as "tagging 265-267 alone is wrong".
>> >
>> >> Disagree. addr:housenumber is the official number given to that
>> >> building. And if
>> >> it's "265-267", then addr:housenumber=265-267 is the only correct
>> >> implementation
>> >> of this.
>> >
>> > But osm db needs a hint that 266 is missing. That is obvious on the
>> > street (by looking at the right and left building) but not in the data.
>>
>> The OSM db does not need to know about (the meaning of) housenumbers. Its
>> sole purpose is to store data. In this case, the housenumber is "265-267",
>> literally! This is not a shortcut for "265;266;267". Applications should
>> not
>> attempt to resolve housenumbers that way.
>>
>> --
>> Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
>> Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
> ___
> 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] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi]

I'm not sure that would be right to categorize a feature like this as an
attraction. I see most of the attraction=* are used to tag singular
things like amusement park games. There are many attraction=animal that
is vague but I assume refer to more specific things than a zoo.
What i want represent is a complex structure like this, more like a zoo,
or a museum, subject to subtags like public facilities
http://en.acquariodicattolica.it/

Lorenzo



Il giorno dom, 24/08/2014 alle 18.29 +0700, Dave Swarthout ha scritto:
> +1 for tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Fabrizio on the use of the two-tag structure for aquaria.
> Cheers
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Fabrizio Carrai
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Lorenzo,
> 
> my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction +
> attraction=acquarium. My rationale comes from a potential
> utilization of the tag and tags combinations. If I wants to
> query for all and only acquariums, a query on
> "attraction=acquarium" will work. Viceversa, if we rise one
> step above and querying for "tourism=attraction", the
> acquarium  tagged as "tourism=acquarium" would not be
> reported, that is obviously not correct (the acquarium is a
> touristic attraction).
> 
> 
> Ciao
> FabC
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi
> :
> 
> I would like to submit a new request to vote for the
> tag tourism=aquarium.
> 
> The proposal was first considered approved and then
> excluded due to lack of feedback.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium
> 
> Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is
> non connected at any other but the proposal. I found
> also a german page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%
> 3Daquarium
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%
> 3Daquarium
> 
> tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was
> 187 but someone moved the one I had put in a simple
> tourism=attraction and this is why I am here :)
> 
> Other similar taggings i found:
> tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times
> tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times
> tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops
> 
> 
> Look forward for comments before updating the proposal
> page and sending the request
> 
> 
> Lorenzo
> 
> 


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

[Andy Mabbett]

On 18 August 2014 16:10, Pieren  wrote:

> correct me if I'm wrong but a cave is always
> underground

Not strictly speaking; some are in the sides of (near) vertical cliff
faces or mountain sides, with no horizontal, accessible ground above
them.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Wadi vs intermittent stream?

[Tod Fitch]

I was looking at OsmAndMapCreator as I was trying to address this on my 
cellphone first.

A bit over a year ago I used Mapnik, pre-cartoCSS, and vaguely recall that I 
had to add some things to get osm2pgsql to support what I needed. One item I 
used was intermittent=yes but I can't recall if I had to add that or not.

Thank you for having plans to add support for this in the main renderer!

Tod

On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:48 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

> On 23 August 2014 22:52, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> With at least one renderer that I am looking at, the default database 
>> creation tool supports waterway=wadi but not intermittent=*.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are looking at. The latest version of osm2pgsql
> does support intermittent:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style
> 
> The main renderer does not currently support intermittent=yes, but we
> have plans to add it:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/805
> 
> -- Matthijs


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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 24.08.2014 13:31, Christian Quest wrote:
> In that case, how should application resolve housenumbers ?
> What tagging do you propose to allow it ?

I wrote down some thoughts here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses
...although I do now prefer addr2:* instead of addr[2]:*, because the former
is more widely used and easier to understand.

Concerning number ranges, I think that they should be mapped as they are
(i.e. ranges), because that's how they are used in the real world (number
plates, addresses in letters, etc.).

> I'm working on the BANO project who aims to create a nationwide address
> database, using in part OSM data.
> I already have to deal with this kind of addr:housenumber=*
> 
> For the moment, 265-269 is transformed into 265 and 269 only, but having
> some tag based clue that we have an odd number range meaning that 267 is
> located at the same place would be a real benefit.

Applications need to incorporate country-specific rules. The wiki already
contains lists of country-specific maxspeeds and access restrictions for
routing, and we probably need a list of country-specific rules for house
numbers as well. E.g. house number ranges mean either either odd oder even
numbers in Austria. In other coutries, a range may stand for both odd and
even numbers.

Given that the BANO project aims for a nationwide database only, your task
seems easy. You probably already know the rules for your country.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Fabrizio Carrai]

The acquarium, like the zoos, are touristic attraction. See Tripadvisor if
you want to have a "reference". It also make sense to use attraction=animal
instead of attraction=zoo or acquarium. Doing that you continue the
progressive level of definitions. So, in my opinion you could describe the
Acquario di Cattolica as follow

tourism=attraction
attraction=animal
name=Acquario di Cattolica

Than you could add more details with

animal=penguin;jaws;frog; etc...

or maybe a more generic

animal=fish

Following this approach, you could even think to use differrent animal=*
tags for the different pavilion/tanks.

Ciao!
FabC


2014-08-24 14:49 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi :

>  I'm not sure that would be right to categorize a feature like this as an
> attraction. I see most of the attraction=* are used to tag singular things
> like amusement park games. There are many attraction=animal that is vague
> but I assume refer to more specific things than a zoo.
> What i want represent is a complex structure like this, more like a zoo,
> or a museum, subject to subtags like public facilities
> http://en.acquariodicattolica.it/
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
> Il giorno dom, 24/08/2014 alle 18.29 +0700, Dave Swarthout ha scritto:
>
> +1 for tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium
>
>
>
>  I agree with Fabrizio on the use of the two-tag structure for aquaria.
>
>  Cheers
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
>  On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Fabrizio Carrai <
> fabrizio.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Lorenzo,
>
>   my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium.
> My rationale comes from a potential utilization of the tag and tags
> combinations. If I wants to query for all and only acquariums, a query on
> "attraction=acquarium" will work. Viceversa, if we rise one step above and
> querying for "tourism=attraction", the acquarium  tagged as
> "tourism=acquarium" would not be reported, that is obviously not correct
> (the acquarium is a touristic attraction).
>
>
>
>   Ciao
>
>   FabC
>
>
>
>   2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi :
>
>   I would like to submit a new request to vote for the tag
> tourism=aquarium.
>
> The proposal was first considered approved and then excluded due to lack
> of feedback.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium
>
> Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is non connected at any
> other but the proposal. I found also a german page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>
> tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was 187 but someone moved
> the one I had put in a simple tourism=attraction and this is why I am here
> :)
>
> Other similar taggings i found:
> tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times
> tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times
> tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops
>
>
> Look forward for comments before updating the proposal page and sending
> the request
>
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Volker Schmidt]

The two-tag solution is definitely better

Volker


On 24 August 2014 12:00, Fabrizio Carrai  wrote:

> Hi Lorenzo,
> my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium. My
> rationale comes from a potential utilization of the tag and tags
> combinations. If I wants to query for all and only acquariums, a query on
> "attraction=acquarium" will work. Viceversa, if we rise one step above and
> querying for "tourism=attraction", the acquarium  tagged as
> "tourism=acquarium" would not be reported, that is obviously not correct
> (the acquarium is a touristic attraction).
>
> Ciao
> FabC
>
>
> 2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi :
>
>>  I would like to submit a new request to vote for the tag
>> tourism=aquarium.
>>
>> The proposal was first considered approved and then excluded due to lack
>> of feedback.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium
>>
>> Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is non connected at any
>> other but the proposal. I found also a german page
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>>
>> tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was 187 but someone moved
>> the one I had put in a simple tourism=attraction and this is why I am here
>> :)
>>
>> Other similar taggings i found:
>> tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times
>> tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times
>> tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time
>> tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time
>> Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops
>>
>>
>> Look forward for comments before updating the proposal page and sending
>> the request
>>
>>
>> Lorenzo
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Fabrizio*
>
> ___
> 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] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[John Packer]

I don't agree with the tourism=attraction argument.

Isn't a museum a touristic attraction too?
At least as much as an aquarium.
Yet we don't tag it as tourism=attraction + attraction=museum

As long as it is documented on the wiki, it shouldn't be a problem for
people making queries in OSM.



2014-08-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Volker Schmidt :

> The two-tag solution is definitely better
>
> Volker
>
>
> On 24 August 2014 12:00, Fabrizio Carrai 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lorenzo,
>> my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium. My
>> rationale comes from a potential utilization of the tag and tags
>> combinations. If I wants to query for all and only acquariums, a query on
>> "attraction=acquarium" will work. Viceversa, if we rise one step above and
>> querying for "tourism=attraction", the acquarium  tagged as
>> "tourism=acquarium" would not be reported, that is obviously not correct
>> (the acquarium is a touristic attraction).
>>
>> Ciao
>> FabC
>>
>>
>> 2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi :
>>
>>>  I would like to submit a new request to vote for the tag
>>> tourism=aquarium.
>>>
>>> The proposal was first considered approved and then excluded due to lack
>>> of feedback.
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium
>>>
>>> Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is non connected at
>>> any other but the proposal. I found also a german page
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
>>>
>>> tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was 187 but someone
>>> moved the one I had put in a simple tourism=attraction and this is why I am
>>> here :)
>>>
>>> Other similar taggings i found:
>>> tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times
>>> tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times
>>> tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time
>>> tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time
>>> Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops
>>>
>>>
>>> Look forward for comments before updating the proposal page and sending
>>> the request
>>>
>>>
>>> Lorenzo
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Fabrizio*
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Proposed change to Tag:access=designated page

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 13:25, Georg Feddern  
> ha scritto:
> 
> Nevertheless e. g. all highway=residential are _designated_ by law - without 
> any signs at all... -


designated for whom / as what? Can you expand what you are referring to here?

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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 20:11, John Packer  
> ha scritto:
> 
> I don't agree with the tourism=attraction argument. 


+1, tourism=attraction is a poor scheme from the early days, maybe we should 
deprecate it all together, either without alternative or in favor of a flag 
like attraction=yes (or level0 - level 3 etc), or tourist_attraction=* 


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

Re: [Tagging] usage of maxspeed:practical is described as recommended on wiki

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 
> 
> > Il giorno 23/ago/2014, alle ore 21:08, Ilpo Järvinen 
> >  ha scritto:
> > 
> > How much of such ways that would be a candidate for maxspeed:practical
> 
> 
> IMHO this is a highly subjective tag that depends heavily on your 
> driving ability and the vehicle and driving comfort you expect. E.g. a 
> moderately modern battle tank can drive 70-90km/h on an open field with 
> no road at all ;-)
>
> As we are generally rejecting subjective tagging like suitability and 
> the like, this practical speed tag does not fit well in our system

Like I said, I agree that it is pretty subjective tag and don't use it 
myself.

However, my point was to say that there are plenty of highways where
the legal speed is the most limiting one by any sane definition (I'm not 
interested in hearing about clever corners that somebody could certainly 
invent to counter this claim :-)). ...And one would not expect to have 
maxspeed:practical in any of those but only maxspeed as people use it only 
to solve a particular no-other-tag-exists problem case. Thus "low number" 
is sort of expected unless we'd have lots of active mappers on all those 
"open fields with no road at all" ;-).


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 13:30, Friedrich Volkmann  ha 
scritto:

>> And now for caving.
> 
> When there's a visible trail inside a cave, it's essentially the same as an
> outside trail. Therefore, I support highway=path (or footway) in such a case.
> 
> But I disadvise the mapping of non-existing paths...


+1


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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi]

Il giorno dom, 24/08/2014 alle 20.29 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer ha
scritto:
> 
> > Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 20:11, John Packer  
> > ha scritto:
> > 
> > I don't agree with the tourism=attraction argument. 
> 
> 
> +1, tourism=attraction is a poor scheme from the early days, maybe we should 
> deprecate it all together, either without alternative or in favor of a flag 
> like attraction=yes (or level0 - level 3 etc), or tourist_attraction=* 
> 

I'm also unsatisfied with tourism=attraction + attraction=animal. This
way isn't possible to distinguish a zoo from an aquarium unless I try to
understand according to what kind of animal is in.

I think there is no problem applying a tag like animal=* to
tourism=aquarium if it is documented


Lorenzo


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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 12:24, Friedrich Volkmann  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> The housenumber belongs on the building or building part, not the
> entrance(s).


In Germany house numbers belong mostly to the whole site, if necessary numbers 
can also be assigned to staircases or individual buildings. In Italy house 
numbers belong mostly to entrances, some exceptions might exist (e.g. Venice). 
This is really something handled differently in different parts of the world.

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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2014-08-24 20:11 GMT+02:00 John Packer :

> I don't agree with the tourism=attraction argument.
>
> Isn't a museum a touristic attraction too?
> At least as much as an aquarium.
> Yet we don't tag it as tourism=attraction + attraction=museum
>
> As long as it is documented on the wiki, it shouldn't be a problem for
> people making queries in OSM.
>

With [tourism=attraction, attraction=aquarium] it would be instantly
supported by anything supporting tourism=attraction.
And while documenting it on wiki is absolute minimum it still means that
complexity of processing OSM data increases.
Probably many people never attempted to create something using OSM data,
but it is not as easy as most people think.
And I think that cascading styles are a good idea - after all how often
somebody cares specifically about aquariums?

For example that processing OSM data is more complicated than most people
expect see default map style bugtracker -
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 14:03, Dan S  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> On the other hand, if you see an object tagged
> 
>  addr:housenumber=265-269
>  addr:interpolation=odd
> 
> then we can be quite confident that the mapper intended you to
> interpret this as "265" and "267" and "269".


Yes, but more simple you could tag as well addr:housenumber=265;267;269 with no 
need for interpolation or even a second tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 12:00, Fabrizio Carrai 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium.


Have a Look at current values, this doesn't fit into our system IMHO: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/attraction#values


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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[John F. Eldredge]

Just to let you know: there is no letter C in the English word aquarium.


On August 24, 2014 5:00:29 AM CDT, Fabrizio Carrai  
wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
> my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium.
> My
> rationale comes from a potential utilization of the tag and tags
> combinations. If I wants to query for all and only acquariums, a query
> on
> "attraction=acquarium" will work. Viceversa, if we rise one step above
> and
> querying for "tourism=attraction", the acquarium  tagged as
> "tourism=acquarium" would not be reported, that is obviously not
> correct
> (the acquarium is a touristic attraction).
> 
> Ciao
> FabC
> 
> 
> 2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi
> :
> 
> >  I would like to submit a new request to vote for the tag
> > tourism=aquarium.
> >
> > The proposal was first considered approved and then excluded due to
> lack
> > of feedback.
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium
> >
> > Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is non connected
> at any
> > other but the proposal. I found also a german page
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium
> >
> > tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was 187 but someone
> moved
> > the one I had put in a simple tourism=attraction and this is why I
> am here
> > :)
> >
> > Other similar taggings i found:
> > tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times
> > tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times
> > tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> > tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time
> > Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops
> >
> >
> > Look forward for comments before updating the proposal page and
> sending
> > the request
> >
> >
> > Lorenzo
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> *Fabrizio*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi]

Il giorno dom, 24/08/2014 alle 17.03 -0500, John F. Eldredge ha scritto:

> Just to let you know: there is no letter C in the English word
> aquarium.
> 


I've been careful. I always write it wrong too :)


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

Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium

[Janko Mihelić]

2014-08-24 12:00 GMT+02:00 Fabrizio Carrai :

> Hi Lorenzo,
> my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium.
>

I don't like attraction=aquarium, I'd rather have
tourism=attraction+man_made=aquarium.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging