Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:10 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: I’ve been using the tagging suggested at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches so they have camp_site=pitch on them. Tod, there was a fair bit of discussion here in Feb (?) about terms. The consensus then was that a camp site is the larger area containing a number of pitches. This seems acceptable to most people around the world. Personally, I think of camp_site as meaning pitch but that was not the general answer. So, I don't think that camp_site=pitch makes a lot of sense as a tag. Would camp_site:pitch=42 be more appropriate ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On 17/04/2015 8:08 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 16.04.2015 06:25, Dave Swarthout wrote: But I'd be willing to bet that most trails are not part of a network of other trails or a route but are stand-alone. The trails I once hiked in the Adirondack Mountains in New York State all have names and trailheads but, with a couple of exceptions, are not part of any route. I think the mixed approach is best. If a given trail is part of a larger system of trails, or the area where it begins has related amenities, then the relation idea makes sense. Otherwise, keeping it simple with a named trailhead node where the transition from highway to footway takes place will suffice. Without a relation, how can applications determine which trail the trailhead belongs to? Is it all about rendering the trailhead icon? Surely the tailhead will be at least in close proximity to the trail !!! Why do applications need to determine this? I'd think the human end user will easly see the 'relationship'. Where I to map a tail head .. it would be a single node ON the trail it self. As I see little point in mapping a trailhead I'll probably not map them .. in my local area they have no name, no amenities other than that provided by the other mapped features around them. Oh .. and the local trails were put in by a bulldozer to make fire trails thus they were highway=track, some have deteriorated to highway=path. Most of them link up to many other trails .. one of them is a formal trail some 250 km long (and yes that would have many 'trailheads'). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 09:02 +1000, Warin wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site My comment. Any reason for the colours? Honestly, no, I prefer the (eg) map makers determined what suits them best. Quite happy to swap as you suggest but wonder if the proposal would be better without any suggested Icons ? I like icons where they describe what they are but here the colours are arbitrary. I'd think the blue is associated with water .. and might be better with 'standard' rather than 'serviced'? Possibly swap those two colours? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
On 18/04/2015 3:52 PM, David Bannon wrote: Folks, to revisit a topic that had lots of discussion last month ! I have updated the proposal page for camp_site=[basic; standard; serviced; delux]. I now avoid the question of how to tag multiple instances of (eg) amenity on the one node, area. People seem to have strong but conflicting views and frankly, the proposal does not depend on any particular style. Good. The proposal it self has nothing to do with tagging other things in it self. Those concerned should raise their concerns as separate issues/proposals. Please have a look and make (constructive if possible please) comments ! https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site My comment. Any reason for the colours? I'd think the blue is associated with water .. and might be better with 'standard' rather than 'serviced'? Possibly swap those two colours? (you may well ask why I left it on the table so long, well, I have been away, camping, for the last three weeks, I'd call that research !) Should be more of that .. the 'research' that is. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] inuse, defacto
Why is it important? The main thing that matters is than only one definition exists for an item, irrespective of how often it is used. A few months ago I looked a TagInfo for tags that people are using but have no Wiki entry. Once you get closer to like 100 uses and below you find a lot of tags that probably only have one definition, but aren't really that great. Like wrong key, bad/not english, used by just a few mappers, maybe local etc. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Apr 17, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: Is it all about rendering the trailhead icon? For some users, that answer is yes. I have a question about this. Assuming the entrance=trailhead + leisure=tourism model is used, then as long as the path has the entrance=trailhead node named, then the mapping (for visually representing and naming the area of) the trailhead area using leisure=trailhead is fine, and can be named and rendered with an icon, but the area is not needed for the route relation. if someone is getting walking directions, it will include the name of the trailhead and the fact that it is the entrance to the route, and be properly routed to the named entrance then along the trail. Someone is visually looking at the area, will see the area taken up by the trailhead (and the icons for the various amenities that leisure=trailhead encompasses), and see the rendered icon. If just tourism=trailhead is used on a node (because it is a named trailhead, but is tiny and has just a sign) then routing and visually rendering the icon would be handled correctly, right? seems similar to train stations and stop position for rail lines. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 19.04.2015 um 03:10 schrieb Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: they have camp_site=pitch on them. I believe the key is strange, typically in osm when we tag a=b b=c then c is a subtype of b, while here this scheme is used to tag a part of b cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
