Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. +1 a camp could be access=permissive (trespassing tolerated) or access=private / access=customers where private and customers seem similar. access=yes /public (a right for everyone to access) is not a situation I have ever encountered on a camp site, but it might eventually exist. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. +1 An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. ownership is something different, at least in some countries which I know it is possible that the public has a legal right to access a privately owned site / land. This is typically written in the land register or is based on some general law (e.g. the public may enter any forest and any not-fenced field in Germany, but many of them are privately owned). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-30 4:01 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: 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. IMHO scout camps, while they merit to be mapped in certain cases (recurring camp on the same spot, or camp exists for at least several months), should not be tagged with tourism=camp_site. As you write, they are private facilities and no-one can go there to camp besides the scouts of the organization that operates the camp. At least in the Boy Scouts of America system, most districts, particularly at lesser used properties, do issue usage permits for their camps to outside individuals and groups. I'd go with access=private on that, since while it's not open to the general public, it's still a campground to roughly the same degree as an Oklahoma State Parks group camp (ie, offering either high volume tent camping or a mix of tent camping and hostel-style barracks; Oklahoma State Parks tend very nice, closer to what you'd find at a midrange private resort than what you'd typically find in the public commons outside the Soviet Union before it's collapse). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
2015-04-05 0:12 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: This mailing list community veers toward nit picking and bike shedding, and tends to block rather than guide forward change. It's also a tiny fraction of the mapping community, which is sad. *Published *in this sense means published on the wiki, a resource that is referenced by editing tools, but not considered authoritative. OSM has an open tagging system, and mappers are free to pick their own conventions. Decision makers for rendering software are free to pick from the tag soup, and render only select details. A successful tag proposal often involves much more than just wiki publishing. I support the change in naming from approved to published, but not from approved to recommended (I would if it was recommended by these 42 mappers: , but otherwise recommended sounds even more official than approved). *Approved* means approved the tagging mailing list participants, a small fraction of the OSM community. no, it means approved by the people who participated in the wiki vote for this tag. It has nothing to do with this mailing list (OK, there is some overlap). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. +1 a camp could be access=permissive (trespassing tolerated) or access=private / access=customers where private and customers seem similar. access=yes /public (a right for everyone to access) is not a situation I have ever encountered on a camp site, but it might eventually exist. Any camp that doesn't allow any access, even hikers/bikers without paying a fee is access=customers, right? Even if it is a public park? if you can access the camp without a car (like a lot of state parks) for just daytime access for free and then fee=yes on the parking... And some camping:fee= or something to show that camping there is for a fee, but independent of actual access to the grounds? A lot of govt operated campgrounds Do feel like access=public, as you can show up there and expect access during business hours of the camp (like a library) - but *using the camping specific amenities* requires a permit/fee - but is still open to the general public (like a public park or public parking, which are also subject to regulation fees, now that I think about it, like parking meters and time limits). Permissive would have to be on any privately owned camps that open to the general public right? Or am I misunderstanding the access=key? Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
+1, Totally agree with this. I think I also mentioned the be in proposal for an extended period before. Give a tagging scheme the time to mature, new variations/needs might pop up only after a couple of months. regards m On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: In my opinion changing the word doesn't get rid of the problem. Especially if the word - no matter if it is published, approved, whatever - is the result of another glorious vote. There should be no vote at the end of any discussion, because the discussion never ends! Especially there should be no vote before the tag is used on a wide base and proves itself! (A very, very bad habit that established itself on this mailing list in the previous months.) Instead of any status we should show to the wiki reader how wide the acceptance and support of a given feature is. There should be a list of supporting mappers, supporting applications and - if possible - a number from taginfo. On each wiki page we should only show the number of supporting mappers and applications (including a link to the respective lists where) and the usage from taginfo. Every new tag/feature should be a proposal for at least a year (yes, I mean a year and not a week, day or hour). If after a year the tag/feature is used(!) by the community, it will be moved outside the proposal namespace. The determination of used by the community of course will be highly subjective and we can not define rules for this, because the usage strongly depends on the feature itself, e.g. camp-site features will have different usage numbers than traffic signs. But the number of supporters will provide some objective to the wiki readers. Finally - some of you may ask now: what about the rejecters, disapprovers, vetoers? Easy! They should find a better solution than the proposed one, document it, use it, support it. Best regards, 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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Don't mistake voting with documenting. And btw: neither the one nor the other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag. 2015-04-07 13:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2015-04-07 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Especially there should be no vote before the tag is used on a wide base and proves itself! If different mappers use the same tag for different purposes we got a real problem, because you won't be able to tell what a tag on a given object is meant to say. voting somehow confirms a given definition and makes it possible to more or less rely on that definition, while pure usage numbers don't work to show acceptance for a certain tag, because it could mean different things. 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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
In my opinion changing the word doesn't get rid of the problem. Especially if the word - no matter if it is published, approved, whatever - is the result of another glorious vote. There should be no vote at the end of any discussion, because the discussion never ends! Especially there should be no vote before the tag is used on a wide base and proves itself! (A very, very bad habit that established itself on this mailing list in the previous months.) Instead of any status we should show to the wiki reader how wide the acceptance and support of a given feature is. There should be a list of supporting mappers, supporting applications and - if possible - a number from taginfo. On each wiki page we should only show the number of supporting mappers and applications (including a link to the respective lists where) and the usage from taginfo. Every new tag/feature should be a proposal for at least a year (yes, I mean a year and not a week, day or hour). If after a year the tag/feature is used(!) by the community, it will be moved outside the proposal namespace. The determination of used by the community of course will be highly subjective and we can not define rules for this, because the usage strongly depends on the feature itself, e.g. camp-site features will have different usage numbers than traffic signs. But the number of supporters will provide some objective to the wiki readers. Finally - some of you may ask now: what about the rejecters, disapprovers, vetoers? Easy! They should find a better solution than the proposed one, document it, use it, support it. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
I agree with fly that it would be good to actually change the proposal page to make it closer resemble the tag description page. Currently it mainly addresses the RFC process and questions. As the result, there is no good page for which we could vote. All discussion could be moved to the Talk subpage. Cheers, Kotya On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:55 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Nice that you follow the new, unwritten rules. Sorry, but I usually only vote by using the tag and not on the wiki, still I would say, give it more time and improve the documentation as we will need it anyway (both the tag and its docu). Cheers fly Am 01.04.2015 um 03:02 schrieb Warin: Hi, I have taken this back to the Draft status/stage. There is not much of a change to the basic proposal amenity=reception_desk. There is a much more verbose explanation of things .. like what key to use. Summary of voting .. Thank you all for voting. 38 votes is I hope a good representation. 21 for 17 against. Of those against; 10 state it should not be an amenity key and most of those are for it being in the tourism key. My failing there for not explaining that it has applications to offices, industries and educational areas where tourism is not an appropriate key. 1 says it needs more time. 1 says it is not necessarily a desk. I have never come across one that was not a desk - telephone, public address system and sign in in all housed on a desk. 2 (with another supportive comment from someone else) says it should embedded in 'the indoor tagging scheme'. The 'indoor tagging scheme'? That is going to have the same kind of problems with the tags for toilets, telephones, shops swimming pools, etc etc. The problem posed by this tag exists for many others and will need to be addressed by the indoor tagging system NOT by this tag alone. The 'indoor tagging system' looks to be in evolution ... and will probably take some time before being generally accepted. How is reception desk shown to be part of another feature? By its location in most instances. It has also been suggest that a site relation could be used. The site relation looks to be in some state of 'proposed'... I could not hazard a guess as to when it will progress onwards. (proposed) relation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature Also note the other proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Cluster I don't see how the problem can be addressed by the simple value of the proposed reception_desk .. particularly as it is a problem/solution for other things too? ___ 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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
2015-04-07 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Especially there should be no vote before the tag is used on a wide base and proves itself! If different mappers use the same tag for different purposes we got a real problem, because you won't be able to tell what a tag on a given object is meant to say. voting somehow confirms a given definition and makes it possible to more or less rely on that definition, while pure usage numbers don't work to show acceptance for a certain tag, because it could mean different things. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
2015-04-07 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than tags that are already in use. +-0, typically mappers want to use the same tags that other users also use to make usage of the map data easier (i.e. they want their stuff rendered, etc.). Of course everyone could invent new tags for everything everytime they map, and conflicts could be very much avoided (especially with a common tagging scheme and namespaces, e.g. martin_koppenhoefer:highway=motorway, martin_vonwald:highway=motorway, etc.). Not what you wanted to say? Can you expand in which cases one should use a different tag than those already in use? A proposal should be the documentation of new tags that are actually used(!). proposals sometimes also extend or restrict the usage of tags that aren't new. How do we resolve cases of different people using the same tag for different things? How do we discover these cases? When should you write a proposal for a new tag (i.e. how much use should a tag have before you can document it?). A proposal should not be a drawing board idea that will only be used after some vote, just to find out five minutes later that it can't handle some common cases. +1 Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
2015-04-07 13:33 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Don't mistake voting with documenting. And btw: neither the one nor the other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag. the difference is that someone who has a different idea of the definition of a proposal in draft or proposed status could think that the definition will change in the direction he promotes, while for a feature that has been successfully voted on he would more likely choose a different tag to avoid conflict. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Here again comes the spirit of approved, i.e. voted-on tags :-( If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than tags that are already in use. A proposal should be the documentation of new tags that are actually used(!). A proposal should not be a drawing board idea that will only be used after some vote, just to find out five minutes later that it can't handle some common cases. 2015-04-07 13:40 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2015-04-07 13:33 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Don't mistake voting with documenting. And btw: neither the one nor the other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag. the difference is that someone who has a different idea of the definition of a proposal in draft or proposed status could think that the definition will change in the direction he promotes, while for a feature that has been successfully voted on he would more likely choose a different tag to avoid conflict. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap
2015-04-05 9:59 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: No. The correct way is man_made=water_tap drinking_water=yes See the wiki.. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap The addition of amenity=drinking_water may get it rendered .. but that is just tagging for the render. no to your no and to the term correct ;-) I agree with Mateusz, you can use amenity=drinking_water and man_made=water_tap on the same object (if you want you can also add the additional tag drinking_water=yes). I don't think your edit to the drinking water tag page was necessary, but it also doesn't seem you had introduced any inconsistencies. Please also be aware that the wiki documents the current state of tagging (where most publicly usable water taps are tagged as amenity=drinking_water). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] model airplane airfield
2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us: Check out sport=model_aerodrome. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome this looks like a bad tag, because aerodrome is a place and not a kind of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into leisure (aside pitch, track etc.)? For sport (if this can be considered a sport) I'd expect to see a value like model_aviation Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] model airplane airfield
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday the Easter eggs were dropping from model airplanes. Of course I want to map where this happened and were this club has their airfield. Check out sport=model_aerodrome. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
2015-04-07 15:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: I was refering to different idea of the defintion. If someone has a different idea about what a tag should mean, one will either * be ignorant and use the tag in a (completely) different way the issue is typically not a completely different way, but a slightly different way. When should you write a proposal for a new tag (i.e. how much use should a tag have before you can document it?). I would write a short documentation right at the beginning and expand/adjust it continuously while increasing the discussion and usage of the tag. Actually that's the way I wrote all my proposals up to now and will continue to do it that way. Unless - of course - someone comes up with a better idea of introducing new tags. I'm also doing it like this, when I start using a new tag. Actually I am using the draft state as long as I think I'd maybe want to change or refine the definition, and I set it to proposed when I think I won't have to change the definition. IMHO this is important for others to know when they think about using the same tag, to communicate how settled the definition is, and how likely it will still be changed. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] model airplane airfield
Hi, Yesterday the Easter eggs were dropping from model airplanes. Of course I want to map where this happened and were this club has their airfield. Any suggestions? Jo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
2015-04-07 14:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2015-04-07 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than tags that are already in use. +-0, typically mappers want to use the same tags that other users also use to make usage of the map data easier (i.e. they want their stuff rendered, etc.). Of course everyone could invent new tags for everything everytime they map, and conflicts could be very much avoided (especially with a common tagging scheme and namespaces, e.g. martin_koppenhoefer:highway=motorway, martin_vonwald:highway=motorway, etc.). Not what you wanted to say? Can you expand in which cases one should use a different tag than those already in use? I was refering to different idea of the defintion. If someone has a different idea about what a tag should mean, one will either * be ignorant and use the tag in a (completely) different way * be cooperative and use a different tag. The type of documentation will not influence this behaviour. A proposal should be the documentation of new tags that are actually used(!). proposals sometimes also extend or restrict the usage of tags that aren't new. But the extended usage is new. How do we resolve cases of different people using the same tag for different things? How do we discover these cases? Exactly in the same way as we do it now. Nothing changes. We only use a different name for our documentation and its state. And we do not tell people that this is good, because three-and-a-half people made some green ticks somewhere, and this is bad, because my brother and his son hate this tag personally and therefore made some red ticks somewhere else. When should you write a proposal for a new tag (i.e. how much use should a tag have before you can document it?). I would write a short documentation right at the beginning and expand/adjust it continuously while increasing the discussion and usage of the tag. Actually that's the way I wrote all my proposals up to now and will continue to do it that way. Unless - of course - someone comes up with a better idea of introducing new tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] model airplane airfield
If it has a formal airfield then the name would indicate what it is, such as the 'Avondale Model Flying Club' but this tag needs a bit more investigation and discussion as there are over 800 clubs affiliated to the British Model Flying Association, some are indoors, some are outdoor airfields for model and large model aircraft. At a glance I would say there are more than a hundred of these outdoor airfields dotted around England. I agree with the tag leisure but would suggest leisure=model_airfield and leisure=largemodel_airfield for the area (a lot of the leisure tags are for 'a place' or 'designated area'). As there are tags and rendering for runways, etc. for normal airports these can be used here as well to tag the take-off strips etc. On 7 April 2015 at 16:04, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us: Check out sport=model_aerodrome. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome this looks like a bad tag, because aerodrome is a place and not a kind of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into leisure (aside pitch, track etc.)? For sport (if this can be considered a sport) I'd expect to see a value like model_aviation 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] model airplane airfield
I agree with leisure but where they're flown is a place model_aerodrome differentiates it clearly from other types. On 07/04/2015 16:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us: Check out sport=model_aerodrome. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome this looks like a bad tag, because aerodrome is a place and not a kind of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into leisure (aside pitch, track etc.)? For sport (if this can be considered a sport) I'd expect to see a value like model_aviation Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
Am 07.04.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F.: As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required. +1 From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there any others do other renderings have different rules regarding this? railway=platform should not need it but renderer are sometimes dumb. highway=service are often drawn as area and I have also seen highway=path/footway Another subject are aeroways=* though the last discussion ended in preferring lines and have the renderer interpret width=* There are some barriers like wall and retaining_wall (city_wall ? ) where an explicit area=yes makes sense. In the end we could always use a multipolygon for areas where it might make problems to distinguish between closed way but line and closed way and area and could get rid of area=yes. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] model airplane airfield
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: this looks like a bad tag, because aerodrome is a place and not a kind of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into leisure (aside pitch, track etc.)? For sport (if this can be considered a sport) I'd expect to see a value like model_aviation Yes, Leisure= is needed for sport=. Not knowing what kind of location the model airplane club is located, I didn't want to suggest that tag. For example, inside of a building might be leisure=sports_center, sport=model_aerodrome. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
Hi I thought it was required for platform as some were being drawn as a single line as OSM has no specific closed polygon entity, renderers can't tell if it's an area to be filled or an extremely squiggly platform. Ah, I forgot about aeroways. I'm surprised the conclusion was the width tag. With locations that have aerial imagery it's much more accurate to trace its width. Couldn't the renderers adapt to both? If it has area then fill it, if it has width render it as such. Cheers Dave F. On 07/04/2015 16:55, fly wrote: Am 07.04.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F.: As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required. +1 From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there any others do other renderings have different rules regarding this? railway=platform should not need it but renderer are sometimes dumb. highway=service are often drawn as area and I have also seen highway=path/footway Another subject are aeroways=* though the last discussion ended in preferring lines and have the renderer interpret width=* There are some barriers like wall and retaining_wall (city_wall ? ) where an explicit area=yes makes sense. In the end we could always use a multipolygon for areas where it might make problems to distinguish between closed way but line and closed way and area and could get rid of area=yes. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
Hi As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required. From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there any others do other renderings have different rules regarding this? Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
Am 07.04.2015 um 18:39 schrieb Dave F.: Hi I thought it was required for platform as some were being drawn as a single line as OSM has no specific closed polygon entity, renderers can't tell if it's an area to be filled or an extremely squiggly platform. No problem with platform as way (line) but as closed way, really. Wonder about platform building a ring but no area. All the the ones I know at least have different ref=* and therefore need to be splitted. Could you show us a real world example, please ? Ah, I forgot about aeroways. I'm surprised the conclusion was the width tag. With locations that have aerial imagery it's much more accurate to trace its width. Couldn't the renderers adapt to both? If it has area then fill it, if it has width render it as such. Same problem as highway=*, you never know if a closed way tagged with aeroway=taxiway is an area or a loop. As far as I can judge a clean separation would be the best: for highway and aeroway representing the area as area:highway=* respectively area:aeroway=* and only tag ways with highway and aeroway. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] model airplane airfield
Am 07.04.2015 um 18:04 schrieb Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us: Yes, Leisure= is needed for sport=. it is typically done like this, but it is not needed, you could have also other tags where a combination with the key sport might have sense, eg amenity=club Not knowing what kind of location the model airplane club is located, I didn't want to suggest that tag. For example, inside of a building might be leisure=sports_center, sport=model_aerodrome. thing is, aerodrome or model aerodrome, is not a sport nor an activity, it is a physical place. It doesn't fit into the set of other values that can be found within sport. In your example you could have an area leisure=sports_centre and within this area you could have another area leisure=model_aerodrome, sport=model_aviation cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
Another one is man_made=pier. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] model airplane airfield
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: thing is, aerodrome or model aerodrome, is not a sport nor an activity, it is a physical place. It doesn't fit into the set of other values that can be found within sport. You might want to change the wiki entry for sport=model_aerodrome then. (I wouldn't object) I remembering my parents trying to get me to take up bowling. They kept saying it is a great sport. But any activity that involves smoking and drinking isn't really a sport. Seeing as archery and shooting are olympic sports and gambling is considered a sport, you could argue that model airplanes are technically a sport. Unfortunately we shouldn't leave people to guess which tag to use. Right now the wiki has sport=model_aerodrome so it is a valid tag. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
highway=track too. -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
leisure=track, (With area=no because leisure is a key which suggests an area yes default) cheers Martin Am 07.04.2015 um 21:18 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi: highway=track too. -- i. ___ 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] model airplane airfield
How related to this discussion are dedicated model rocket ranges? Someone just posted this note a couple of hours ago which got me thinking about this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/344001 This seems like a similar activity. Or does it deserve its own thread? :) Toby On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: thing is, aerodrome or model aerodrome, is not a sport nor an activity, it is a physical place. It doesn't fit into the set of other values that can be found within sport. You might want to change the wiki entry for sport=model_aerodrome then. (I wouldn't object) I remembering my parents trying to get me to take up bowling. They kept saying it is a great sport. But any activity that involves smoking and drinking isn't really a sport. Seeing as archery and shooting are olympic sports and gambling is considered a sport, you could argue that model airplanes are technically a sport. Unfortunately we shouldn't leave people to guess which tag to use. Right now the wiki has sport=model_aerodrome so it is a valid tag. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ 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 - Reception Desk
The wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Page_details says /Proposal/ /A short description of what you want to map, including links to relevant material with photos if possible./ /Rationale/ /Why the tag is needed, considering significance and potential uses of the data./ /Examples/ /Names, locations, rough idea of numbers (e.g., one on every street corner, several in each suburb in Germany, half a dozen in each South American country)./ /Tagging/ /The category the tag falls under (//man_made http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:man_made//, //waterway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway//, //tourism http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism//, etc,), with//*a justification of why other similar categories are not suitable*//(for instance, there may be too many to map individually - such as residential properties in which case a //landuse http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse//tag would be of more use if they are grouped closely enough?)./ /The name of the tag itself - keep it as short as possible (15 characters is generally as long as they get), whilst still being logical, descriptive enough to need little explanation and not overlapping with another tag in a different category./ That suggests that the proposal page presents justifications ... I am simply doing what the wiki page suggests! Should the wiki be changed? And, of course, it needs to be done while this proposal is in progress... just like the voting change.. grr .. ;-) The tag description page is based on the proposal page .. but it does not have a '/Rationale' /section, a/'rough idea of numbers'/ ... it is edited into the tag page. - Note .. I have started a new topic for the mark 2 reception desk .. it would be best to use that so there is less 'baggage' on any further discussion. -fly Time? There are many proposals that are sitting around .. waiting on this 'time' thing.. years ... Why? The ones I have looked at are not changing .. nothing is happening with them - thus there looks to be no 'development' while they sit and wait. This proposal is fairly simple - the addition of one simple value to an already existing key? Any implications ... no I don't think so, any developments over time .. again I don't see them. Consensus .. that is what I'm aiming for. New rules or not. If your only voting on the tag (amenity=reception_desk) why are you commenting on the documentation? :-) ... That is a joke by the way. I have 'improved' the documentation .. there is not much to say about a reception desk ... fortunately. ( Off topic ; Unlike 'temperature' .. that is getting very big! Perhaps it needs to be broken up into sections?) On 7/04/2015 9:09 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: I agree with fly that it would be good to actually change the proposal page to make it closer resemble the tag description page. Currently it mainly addresses the RFC process and questions. As the result, there is no good page for which we could vote. All discussion could be moved to the Talk subpage. Cheers, Kotya On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:55 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Nice that you follow the new, unwritten rules. Sorry, but I usually only vote by using the tag and not on the wiki, still I would say, give it more time and improve the documentation as we will need it anyway (both the tag and its docu). Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
One more point... Some of those opposing the proposal say they don't have time to follow discussion on the tagging group.. they may also claim they don't have time to read the dissuasion page .. so for that point of view the reasons why things are done should be on the proposal page... Not saying their view is right or wrong, it is their view. I am simply trying to provide the information on the proposal page that best describes the value and why it is needed, tagged this way and its' impact on other things. I'd think the actual page would be very simple .. like bbq http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbbq bench http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbench though this raises some interesting things for the temperature tag .. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Attributes On 7/04/2015 9:09 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: I agree with fly that it would be good to actually change the proposal page to make it closer resemble the tag description page. Currently it mainly addresses the RFC process and questions. As the result, there is no good page for which we could vote. All discussion could be moved to the Talk subpage. Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap
Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified, ion exchanged I believe, water for drinking. Current practice seems to be to tag them with amenity=drinking_water and leave it at that. What opinions do you have on that? On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-05 9:59 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: No. The correct way is man_made=water_tap drinking_water=yes See the wiki.. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap The addition of amenity=drinking_water may get it rendered .. but that is just tagging for the render. no to your no and to the term correct ;-) I agree with Mateusz, you can use amenity=drinking_water and man_made=water_tap on the same object (if you want you can also add the additional tag drinking_water=yes). I don't think your edit to the drinking water tag page was necessary, but it also doesn't seem you had introduced any inconsistencies. Please also be aware that the wiki documents the current state of tagging (where most publicly usable water taps are tagged as amenity=drinking_water). Cheers, Martin ___ 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] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:46:56 +0700 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: Tagging it as amenity=drinking_water is fine, but I would add also fee=yes. Describing it as vending machine also would be a good idea. Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified, ion exchanged I believe, water for drinking. Current practice seems to be to tag them with amenity=drinking_water and leave it at that. What opinions do you have on that? On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-05 9:59 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: No. The correct way is man_made=water_tap drinking_water=yes See the wiki.. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap The addition of amenity=drinking_water may get it rendered .. but that is just tagging for the render. no to your no and to the term correct ;-) I agree with Mateusz, you can use amenity=drinking_water and man_made=water_tap on the same object (if you want you can also add the additional tag drinking_water=yes). I don't think your edit to the drinking water tag page was necessary, but it also doesn't seem you had introduced any inconsistencies. Please also be aware that the wiki documents the current state of tagging (where most publicly usable water taps are tagged as amenity=drinking_water). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes
Hedge requires area=yes when used on an area. I use it for median and sidewalk hedges all the time. Javbw On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required. From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there any others do other renderings have different rules regarding this? Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ 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] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap
On 8/04/2015 1:46 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified, ion exchanged I believe, water for drinking. Current practice seems to be to tag them with amenity=drinking_water and leave it at that. What opinions do you have on that? Me? I'd expand http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Ddrinks amenity=vending_machine vending=drinks drink:water=yes payment:cash=yes I think that would map what is on the ground. ? Other ideas? On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-05 9:59 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com: No. The correct way is man_made=water_tap drinking_water=yes See the wiki.. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap The addition of amenity=drinking_water may get it rendered .. but that is just tagging for the render. no to your no and to the term correct ;-) I agree with Mateusz, you can use amenity=drinking_water and man_made=water_tap on the same object (if you want you can also add the additional tag drinking_water=yes). It is not a question or can or cannot, but one of should or should not. From the wiki /when tagging a //natural http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural=spring http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dspring//that has potable water for use, tag the spring with //drinking_water http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drinking_water=yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:drinking_water%3Dyesaction=editredlink=1//./ There is no suggestion of tagging this with amenity=drinking_water, nor should there be. I would think something tagged with both amenity=drinking_water and man_made=tap has both a bubbler and a tap. I don't think your edit to the drinking water tag page was necessary, but it also doesn't seem you had introduced any inconsistencies. I do try not to damage things .. but improve, remove conflicts. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
