Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
2015-04-20 2:14 GMT+02:00 David Bannon : > Would camp_site:pitch=42 be more appropriate ? > I think the number should go into ref, e.g. ref=42 camping:pitch=yes or camp_site:pitch=yes (etc., e.g. permanent, tent, ...) not actually proposed or detailed yet Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Outdoor DSLAM
I'm looking for a good tagging for an outdoor DSLAM: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Subscriber_Line_Access_Multiplexer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line_access_multiplexer (in Austria they are called ARU = "Access Remote Unit" and bear a label "ARU###", so they are rather easy to identify; and they spring up like mushrooms these days) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet#Street_cabinet_categories suggests: man_made=street_cabinet street_cabinet=telecom but this "telecom" is too little as it doesn't distinguish the DSLAM functionality (with an active DSLAM component) from a regular old "Kabelverteiler" (cable distribution box, which is just passive). Taginfo finds: communication=outdoor_dslam291 man_made=Outdoor DSLAM18 and some notes and comments So it seems suitable to tag: man_made=street_cabinet street_cabinet=telecom communication=outdoor_dslam Comments? /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Outdoor DSLAM
Am 20.04.2015 um 15:31 schrieb Andreas Labres: > I'm looking for a good tagging for an outdoor DSLAM: > >http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Subscriber_Line_Access_Multiplexer >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_subscriber_line_access_multiplexer > > (in Austria they are called ARU = "Access Remote Unit" and bear a label > "ARU###", so they are rather easy to identify; and they spring up like > mushrooms > these days) > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet#Street_cabinet_categories > suggests: > >man_made=street_cabinet >street_cabinet=telecom > > but this "telecom" is too little as it doesn't distinguish the DSLAM > functionality (with an active DSLAM component) from a regular old > "Kabelverteiler" (cable distribution box, which is just passive). > > Taginfo finds: > >communication=outdoor_dslam291 >man_made=Outdoor DSLAM18 >and some notes and comments > > So it seems suitable to tag: > >man_made=street_cabinet >street_cabinet=telecom >communication=outdoor_dslam > > Comments? Think the type of communication transmitted is tagged with name space so far communication:mobile_phone=* communication:dslam=outdoor ? communication:outdoor_dslam=* ? cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
I was doing some mapping in Michigan and noticed that the National Park Service uses the tag backcountry=yes to indicate remote or primitive camping areas. I think it needs to be added it to the list of related tags in this proposal. There are 1300 of these tags existing presently. It might also need inclusion on the other camp_site page we've been working with. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:59 AM, David Bannon wrote: > 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 > -- 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] Way inside riverbank
The location of the deepest channel can change over time, as mudbanks or sandbanks shift position. This is why commercial vessels operating on rivers frequently rely upon a succession of pilots, each familiar with a particular portion of the river. Unless an OSM mapper has surveyed a portion of the river recently with a depth gauge, they would have to rely on possibly-out-of-date information from some other map. On April 18, 2015 11:32:49 AM CDT, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 13.04.2015 15:06, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø wrote: > > I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the > data > > set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest middle > way > > as required by the wiki [1]. > > As the deepest middle way is hard to identify for regular mappers, I > would be surprised if many people considered that a strict > prerequisite > for mapping rivers. So from my point of view, it would be acceptable > for > your import to automatically generate the way from the riverbank area > and upload both the way and area. This is assuming you know the flow > direction, which I do consider important. > > ___ > 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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank
IMO you guys are kidding yourselves if you think most mappers actually measure the depth of rivers before drawing in the "main stream". That would be nice but it ain't so. Speaking for myself, as someone who has added hundreds of rivers and streams to OSM, there isn't one for which I've actually used "real" depth data. Cal me carelss but my feeling is, better to get it on the map that waitinguntil I can go there in person and measure such fine details.. Cheers, Dave On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:47 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > The location of the deepest channel can change over time, as mudbanks or > sandbanks shift position. This is why commercial vessels operating on > rivers frequently rely upon a succession of pilots, each familiar with a > particular portion of the river. Unless an OSM mapper has surveyed a > portion of the river recently with a depth gauge, they would have to rely > on possibly-out-of-date information from some other map. > > > On April 18, 2015 11:32:49 AM CDT, Tobias Knerr > wrote: > > On 13.04.2015 15:06, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø wrote: > > > I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the > > data > > > set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest middle > > way > > > as required by the wiki [1]. > > > > As the deepest middle way is hard to identify for regular mappers, I > > would be surprised if many people considered that a strict > > prerequisite > > for mapping rivers. So from my point of view, it would be acceptable > > for > > your import to automatically generate the way from the riverbank area > > and upload both the way and area. This is assuming you know the flow > > direction, which I do consider important. > > > > ___ > > 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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. > > ___ > 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] Way inside riverbank
2015-04-20 18:14 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout : > IMO you guys are kidding yourselves if you think most mappers actually > measure the depth of rivers before drawing in the "main stream" yes, it is not the typical way we do map, but it is an ideal / a clear definition how it ideally should be. Sometimes you can see the deepest part of a river, e.g. when the aerial imagery was taken in a dry period or you have been there when the river had very few water (and/or if the river is of the kind that mostly has not much water, but does in the spring time when the snow melts, e.g. in the mountains). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Dave, do you think that the characteristics of 'backcountry' overlap with the more generic 'basic' ? 'Basic' currently includes roadside stops so we could not replace it with 'backcountry'. As I understand it, the term 'backcountry' is unique to the US ? I am not opposed to adding another value, just don't want to do it unnecessarily. David On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 17:56 +0300, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I was doing some mapping in Michigan and noticed that the National > Park Service uses the tag > > backcountry=yes > > > to indicate remote or primitive camping areas. I think it needs to be > added it to the list of related tags in this proposal. There are 1300 > of these tags existing presently. It might also need inclusion on the > other camp_site page we've been working with. > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:59 AM, David Bannon > wrote: > 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 > > > > > > -- > 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 11:13 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I think the number should go into ref, e.g. > ref=42 > camping:pitch=yes or camp_site:pitch=yes (etc., e.g. permanent, > tent, ...) not actually proposed or detailed yet > Martin, think that makes sense, there are a whole range of things people might want to identify as belonging to a particular pitch. Power, tap, fireplace, shade, suitably to [caravan; tent] etc... I rather not add this to the existing proposal for camp_site= as I believe it needs a fair bit more "socalisation" (to us an IBM term). What say we get camp_site= through the process than start a new one looking at individual pitches ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Backcountry would be the same as a trekking site, as I understand it. Probably the same as a wilderness camp, or similar difficult-to-access camps with few or little amenities. Javbw > On Apr 21, 2015, at 7:27 AM, David Bannon wrote: > > Dave, do you think that the characteristics of 'backcountry' overlap > with the more generic 'basic' ? > > 'Basic' currently includes roadside stops so we could not replace it > with 'backcountry'. > > As I understand it, the term 'backcountry' is unique to the US ? > > I am not opposed to adding another value, just don't want to do it > unnecessarily. > > David > > >> On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 17:56 +0300, Dave Swarthout wrote: >> I was doing some mapping in Michigan and noticed that the National >> Park Service uses the tag >> >> backcountry=yes >> >> >> to indicate remote or primitive camping areas. I think it needs to be >> added it to the list of related tags in this proposal. There are 1300 >> of these tags existing presently. It might also need inclusion on the >> other camp_site page we've been working with. >> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:59 AM, David Bannon >> wrote: >>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 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > ___ > 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 - RFC - trailhead
Thanks to the 9 or so of you that responded here and the 2 on the Talk page. A few points: * My definition of a trailhead as "the point at which a trail begins" was a dictionary definition. Others such as Oxford define it a "place where a trail begins". I think it is clear from that and from the excellent examples that Javbw gave that a trailhead is quite often thought of as an actual area (sometimes named) and not just an access point, regardless of how we choose to map it. Updated the proposal page with a new definition. * If the majority of points that serve as access to a trail fall within the boundaries of larger trailhead area, then I agree that a trailhead as an actual relation type is definitely overkill. That part of the proposal stemmed from my poor understanding of relations. * Agree that it doesn't make sense to have a trailhead way (open, non-area). I was thinking that the trailhead in the access point definition could actually be a short path, but in that instance it would be either a small area or a node. * I'm intrigued by the idea of separating the trailhead area from the access point. leisure=trailhead + entrance=trailhead makes the most sense to me. That way, one could still map a smaller trailhead (maybe a small turnout and a sign) with just the entrance tag. I saw mention of a tourism=trailhead but am not sure how this fits into all of this. questions: 1) For the instances in which the access point falls outside of the area, could we map a leisure=trailhead and entrance=trailhead and then group them into a site relation? 2) Currently, many maps/spatial databases outside of OSM represent trailheads as points, regardless of the size of the area. If represented as point in OSM for simplicity sake, would it be appropriate to attach bunch of yes/no tags for bathrooms, parking, information boards, etc? One of my motivations is for people to be able to locate and get information about trailheads and accompanying features and it's not always possible to micro-map the separate objects. -geobrando ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-04-20 2:14 GMT+02:00 David Bannon : > >> Would camp_site:pitch=42 be more appropriate ? >> > > I think the number should go into ref, e.g. > ref=42 > camping:pitch=yes or camp_site:pitch=yes (etc., e.g. permanent, tent, > ...) not actually proposed or detailed yet > I think ref has a different meaning. Imagine you imported a park service database of pitches, each might have a ref different from the pitch number known to the public: tourism=camp_site operator=Aurthur Dent addr:housenumber=100 addr:street=The Road name=The Answer Campground sanitary_dump_station=yes addr:unit=1 ref=AZQ-1A sanitary_dump_station=no addr:unit=42 ref=AZQ-42A sanitary_dump_station=yes highway=service addr:interpolation=1 adrr:unit=43-101 ref=AD-ROAD-123 Now imagine say "The Answer Campground site 42" and getting routed all the way to the pitch. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:47 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > The location of the deepest channel can change over time, as mudbanks or > sandbanks shift position. This is why commercial vessels operating on > rivers frequently rely upon a succession of pilots, each familiar with a > particular portion of the river. Unless an OSM mapper has surveyed a > portion of the river recently with a depth gauge, they would have to rely > on possibly-out-of-date information from some other map. At least to the navigable depth, in theory, this can be inferred from navigational markings for anyone familiar with the relevant fixtures, beacons and bouys. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?
Is there an aerial we can correspond this with? On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:33 PM, 715371 wrote: > Am 26.02.2015 um 12:06 schrieb Paul Johnson: > > What's the location we're working with? > > Here a location for cycleway=opposite_track: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4769712#map=18/53.07986/8.80454 > > There is no kerb between the carriageway and the cycleway. Just some > bollards. > > And here a location for cycleway=track: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4741710#map=19/53.07233/8.80515 > > A kerb between the cycleway and the carriageway. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
