Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Jan, That has certainly addressed everyone concerns that I can see. Thank you. Hopefully it fits your requirements and original desires. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: Sunday, 29 March 2015 21:47 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our discussions. It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation) and does no longer classify on facility level, ease of access or pricing. It can be found here. Regards,___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/03/2015 10:14 AM, David Bannon wrote: I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but a different special I think ?? Hmm David From very distant memory those were temporary .. some times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? It’s access=private with operator= or something. Scout Camps can be huge, with hundreds of people visiting year after year, they become local, sometimes regional, landmarks. And often times, even with smaller ones, the reason the people are going to the area is because there is a scout camp. The public map available for the California state park near my house clearly labels the Boy Scout camp in the middle of it (with “private” under the name, I think) because so many people are familiar with it’s location. It might also be a labeled feature on USGS topo maps, but I could be wrong. They are just private facilities, but they should be properly tagged as a camp site, as people drive long distances to take scouts there, so they should be searchable and routable. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I decided not to include the scout camp, because it then still might be confused with a place where ordinary campers can stay (like is the case with all options in the proposal). After the long discussion I have tried to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else will stand up to kick off the camp_site=* proposal for facility levels. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:03 AM johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/03/2015 10:14 AM, David Bannon wrote: I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but a different special I think ?? Hmm David From very distant memory those were temporary .. some times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? It’s access=private with operator= or something. Scout Camps can be huge, with hundreds of people visiting year after year, they become local, sometimes regional, landmarks. And often times, even with smaller ones, the reason the people are going to the area is because there is a scout camp. The public map available for the California state park near my house clearly labels the Boy Scout camp in the middle of it (with “private” under the name, I think) because so many people are familiar with it’s location. It might also be a labeled feature on USGS topo maps, but I could be wrong. They are just private facilities, but they should be properly tagged as a camp site, as people drive long distances to take scouts there, so they should be searchable and routable. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Those are access=private + operator=[bsa or council, sponsor group] You can also put a brand tag on it maybe brand=Boy Scouts of _. It isn't a chain, and is affiliated loosely through the national group, but operated by local groups. My private Buddhist school has a little facility up in the mountains for camping. The school also operates a school camp. They are not access=Buddhist students and access=Kiryu public students, They are both access=private. And set via operator (or just the name). Maybe there is a group or affiliation or similar tag, but access is not the place. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/03/2015 10:14 AM, David Bannon wrote: I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but a different special I think ?? Hmm David From very distant memory those were temporary .. some times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:49 +1100, Warin wrote: . From very distant memory those were temporary .. some times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? No Warin, don't think we are talking about the same sort of camp. There are quite a number of very permanent camp grounds owned by the Scout Association in Victoria, AU. I have personal knowledge of 5, my guess is there are very many more. I know there a lot worldwide. They may be 100 or more acres each. We'd need show the perimeter and some facilities. Reception ? :-(.I expect there are a number of other, limited access camp grounds, church, school etc owned. Being a specialised camp, are they best mapped under Jan's special provisions ? The key is, are we telling the end user more about the camp when we talk about its 'type' than when we talk about its 'facilities' ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 21:57 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: Just a note about using semicolon-delimited lists. Most renderers do not handle such lists very well so a tag like the following: amenity=bar;restaurant;picnic_table;sanitary_dump_station Most rendering will show nothing for such tagging. If you tag like that, few people will ever see it. So this is, IMHO, the crucial question. I've been too scared to ask it in fear of being accused to Tagging for the Render. Is the [SomeAmenityValue=yes] preferred by the rendered over a delimited list ? Can we get that authoritatively ? A reference ? amenity=camp_site bar=yes picnic_table=yes internet_access=wlan opening_hours=24/7 fee=$5 Cleaner and clearer. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: So this is, IMHO, the crucial question. I've been too scared to ask it in fear of being accused to Tagging for the Render. Is the [SomeAmenityValue=yes] preferred by the rendered over a delimited list ? Can we get that authoritatively ? A reference ? A dozen or more JOSM presets do it that way. That's as authoritative as you're going to get in Open Street Map. amenity=camp_site bar=yes picnic_table=yes internet_access=wlan opening_hours=24/7 fee=$5 Cleaner and clearer. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
But does having a JOSM preset that sets a tag bar=yes mean that the bar actually gets rendered, or is it just findable though a query you can make to OSMAnd or whatever? It all depends on which map or which renderer you're talking about does it not? On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:26 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: So this is, IMHO, the crucial question. I've been too scared to ask it in fear of being accused to Tagging for the Render. Is the [SomeAmenityValue=yes] preferred by the rendered over a delimited list ? Can we get that authoritatively ? A reference ? A dozen or more JOSM presets do it that way. That's as authoritative as you're going to get in Open Street Map. amenity=camp_site bar=yes picnic_table=yes internet_access=wlan opening_hours=24/7 fee=$5 Cleaner and clearer. ___ 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] probable tag
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: Use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed For good reasons, there is community reluctance and opposition to mapping non-existing features. Proposals come and go, and few people who map those features ever come back to clean up later. These features are also hard to verify. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
I don't see a benefit to complicating access tagging for just one mode. Routing engines are already capable of handling the situation quite handily if the way that bicycles are not allowed on is bicycle=no or bicycle=destination. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de wrote: Hallo fellow mappers and bicycle enthusiasts, I have created a proposal to tag obligatory roadside cycle ways with bicycle=obligatory. *https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage The proposals is in its early stages right now, but I would like to get your ideas and comments already. This value can be interpreted as an counterpart to bicycle=use_sidepath. As this tag would replace bicycle=designated in a quite a few cases, I am hoping for a lot of support from the community. Happy mapping Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I just followed the post voting instructions that ask for the listing. There is no condition for a minimal number of votes. I believe it is good to have a single list with all approved tags. The tag voting instructions lead a lot of people astray. Among other things, perhaps it would be better to change the final wiki vote status from *approved* to something more like *debate complete* or *published*. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: I don't see a benefit to complicating access tagging for just one mode. Routing engines are already capable of handling the situation quite handily if the way that bicycles are not allowed on is bicycle=no or bicycle=destination. You need to handle the last turn problem, where bikes are allowed in order to make a road connection. Thus the road tag should not be no, but use_sidepath or another new generic tag that indicates a mode is allowed limited use.The same situation exists for left turns in streetcar right of way, certain truck rules, and some carpool lanes that allow non-carpools to merge through. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] probable tag
Use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed 2015-03-29 1:38 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: By and large OSM maps things that are physically present. Once probable becomes under construction, there are tags for that: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
Am 28.03.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: (nearby road surfaces are already nearby in OSM data) in the case of several roads or different elevation (eg one of the ways on a steep hill separated by a retaining wall) it might still be very difficult or impossible to come to the correct conclusions just by analyzing a 2D projection of the situation These are surely very, very few exceptions, just wanted to mention that an explicit way is explicit while a spatial analysis in this case is an heuristic approach. cheers Marti ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: But does having a JOSM preset that sets a tag bar=yes mean that the bar actually gets rendered, or is it just findable though a query you can make to OSMAnd or whatever? It all depends on which map or which renderer you're talking about does it not? I reckon it doesn't matter all that much as long as you can make assessments of the camp_site when you want them. -- 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] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
On 29/03/2015 6:14 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: But does having a JOSM preset that sets a tag bar=yes mean that the bar actually gets rendered, or is it just findable though a query you can make to OSMAnd or whatever? It all depends on which map or which renderer you're talking about does it not? I reckon it doesn't matter all that much as long as you can make assessments of the camp_site when you want them. Maybe the JOSM presets have (preexisting) wiki entries. On 29/03/2015 3:57 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Much cleaner tagging, and the way it's frequently done now, is a node or area with: amenity=camp_site bar=yes picnic_table=yes internet_access=wlan opening_hours=24/7 fee=$5 Now it's clear that the camp site is open 24/7 and costs $5, but nothing specific is said about the other amenities. If you know more about the bar, then you can create a separate node with all the details. But you maintain that putting a node when you don't know exactly where it should be is a no no, and now advise to place a node .. just because you know the opening_hours? What if you do know details .. but not the exact location? Still place a node somewheres? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
Am 28.03.2015 um 22:12 schrieb Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com: You have to edit the Map Features template. yes, but map features are only the most used tags and not every tag that gets approved by 10 people in the wiki, indeed, map features contain tags that never have been voted but are still established cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: What if you do know details .. but not the exact location? Still place a node somewheres? How about at that point you go visit the site, and map based on that visit. OSM has a ten year history: have a look at existing convention. This tagging list has only moderate influence on anything that happens in OSM-land. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
I'm the one who reverted your edit to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:power The power features template isn't the appropriate place for this tag. The template includes important power infrastructure features such as power=line and some of the most essential attribute tags to these features such as voltage=*. Your proposed tag clearly doesn't belong there since it's not intended to be used with power features. It seems like it is rather to be used together with tourism=camp_site and similar features. Therefore it should be documented on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Camp_site . I see that there are already various other attributes defined on that page and it would be natural to include your tag there as well. Ole / opani On 28/03/2015 22:35, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in the tourism section. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com mailto:www.ha...@gmail.com wrote: You have to edit the Map Features template. Michał On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Power_supply:schedule http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl http://www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and only being involved to vote 'no' is - 1. Bad manners. And any community has many unwritten manners rules. 2. Unproductive. Lot of well meaning effort goes into a proposal, where is the pleasure in killing it, apparently just for the sake of killing it ? There is a lot more benefit in improving a tag. Please use the comments/draft time to do that. I would oppose firm rules like Jorg mentioned but, like any community, we need to indicate clearly just what bad manners are ! Perhaps a short para on good manners on the voting page ? Best Practice? And it needs to be for the draft/comments section. With an expansion on the voting section? David _ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
I just followed the post voting instructions that ask for the listing. There is no condition for a minimal number of votes. I believe it is good to have a single list with all approved tags. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:48 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 28.03.2015 um 22:12 schrieb Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com: You have to edit the Map Features template. yes, but map features are only the most used tags and not every tag that gets approved by 10 people in the wiki, indeed, map features contain tags that never have been voted but are still established cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
Hello Ole, I see your point, but it would have been nice if you would have let me know that you removed the entry. Regards, Jan On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 13:11 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl wrote: I'm the one who reverted your edit to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:power The power features template isn't the appropriate place for this tag. The template includes important power infrastructure features such as power=line and some of the most essential attribute tags to these features such as voltage=*. Your proposed tag clearly doesn't belong there since it's not intended to be used with power features. It seems like it is rather to be used together with tourism=camp_site and similar features. Therefore it should be documented on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Camp_site . I see that there are already various other attributes defined on that page and it would be natural to include your tag there as well. Ole / opani On 28/03/2015 22:35, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in the tourism section. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com mailto:www.ha...@gmail.com wrote: You have to edit the Map Features template. Michał On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Power_supply:schedule http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl http://www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and only being involved to vote 'no' is - 1. Bad manners. And any community has many unwritten manners rules. 2. Unproductive. Lot of well meaning effort goes into a proposal, where is the pleasure in killing it, apparently just for the sake of killing it ? There is a lot more benefit in improving a tag. Please use the comments/draft time to do that. I would oppose firm rules like Jorg mentioned but, like any community, we need to indicate clearly just what bad manners are ! Perhaps a short para on good manners on the voting page ? Best Practice? And it needs to be for the draft/comments section. With an expansion on the voting section? David _ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our discussions. It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation) and does no longer classify on facility level, ease of access or pricing. It can be found here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*. Regards, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 66, Issue 205
Warin, your answer does help. I meant that I was looking from a satellite image at something that may have been a building, but the imagery was not clear enough to determine if it was a building for sure. A survey would not be possible as it is a place in Africa. I think then what I should do is fixme=probable building” Thanks, Tom -- Message: 3 Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 20:21:27 -0400 From: Thomas Gertin tger...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] probable tag Message-ID: 98f8f099-964c-4c36-af3d-dfc760728...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Can I get some advice on marking features as probable? Nothing pops up for me when I type ‘probable' on the OSM wiki. Thanks, Tom -- Message: 4 Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:54:56 +1100 From: Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] probable tag Message-ID: 55174d60.9060...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 29/03/2015 11:21 AM, Thomas Gertin wrote: Can I get some advice on marking features as probable? Nothing pops up for me when I type ‘probable' on the OSM wiki. What do you mean probable ? If something is on the ground then it is there .. not probably there. If you think something might be there, from say a satellite view, go and see (called a survey) - you don't need a GPS .. just a visually survey would do. If you cannot go and see ... mark the node with a fixme= tag .. say fixme=probably bus stop for example... Does that answer your question? -- Message: 5 Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:38:36 -0700 From: Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] probable tag Message-ID: CAC9LFPcF_nySj3Zpt+TrEHfYiurUpTV+XcO=wWY54rW=4za...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 By and large OSM maps things that are physically present. Once probable becomes under construction, there are tags for that: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150328/18d23a23/attachment-0001.html -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
So you have renamed it Jan ? Happy to see the original name, camp_site, pop up in parallel ? Probably make sense to deal with them both as closely as we can. An outsider, someone who has not seen the effort put in here (especially by you), may see these as competing entries but they are really not. As we have established ! I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but a different special I think ?? Hmm David On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 20:47 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our discussions. It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation) and does no longer classify on facility level, ease of access or pricing. It can be found here. Regards, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 09:31 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Among other things, perhaps it would be better to change the final wiki vote status from approved to something more like debate complete or published. Indeed, published is good. I'd prefer that to debate complete as it sounds like no further input would be accepted. Published is better as its not unusual to see further 'editions'. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 30/03/2015 10:14 AM, David Bannon wrote: I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but a different special I think ?? Hmm David From very distant memory those were temporary .. some times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
