Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Warin]

On 20-Aug-17 10:02 AM, Viking wrote:

colour:bonnet colour:cap colour:reflective seems for me to be in the reverse
order the colour of a building is building:colour not colour:building the same 
exist with roof:colour light:colour ...

+1
Fixed.


Umm reflective is not a colour.

Arr you now havereflective:colour 
=* 



This does not stipulate if it is the bonnet or cap or both?

Might be better as a single additional tag?

bonnet:reflective=yes/no

cap:reflective=yes/no

Or if the object has more than one colour and only one, or more, colour/s are 
reflective

bonnet:red:reflective=yes

cap:white;yellow:reflective=yes

?

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

Re: [Tagging] Creation of the tagging-fr list

[Warin]

On 20-Aug-17 07:15 AM, Severin Menard wrote:

Hi,

This email to inform you about the creation of the tagging-fr OSM 
mailing list for the discussions about tagging between French speaking 
people, facilitating the exchanges on that topic for all those that 
are more French than English speaker and allowing, at last, the 
contribution from the mappers that are not much or not at all English 
speakers (or rather writers).


Of course, these discussions about tagging in French will be about OSM 
tags in English. And once a discussion will come to what seems a 
meaningful proposition, it will be brought to the broader tagging 
list. It aims at providing a better contribution regarding the OSM 
tagging from French speakers, about the various, specific French 
contexts in the world but also about the generic tags.


Surprisingly, it seems this is the first tagging list dedicated to a 
specific language community. We will see if others are keen on 
following the same path.


Thanks for increasing the number of people discussing tagging issues. 
The more people = more ideas = probably better tags.




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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

> colour:bonnet colour:cap colour:reflective seems for me to be in the reverse
> order the colour of a building is building:colour not colour:building the 
> same exist with roof:colour light:colour ...

+1
Fixed.

> survey:date is the date of a survey (someone was there) not a functional 
> check.
> it would be better to use check_date (or check:date to keep date suffix)

+1 for check_date.
Fixed.

Francois, as a firefighters, I can say that it's very very important to 
distinguish a pressurized hydrant from a dry hydrant (or suction point). And we 
all agree.
And now I explain the reason why I prefer this distinction in the primary key.
First of all in many cases you don't know the pressure, but you know only that 
it's a pressurized hydrant. You should use something like 
fire_hydrant:pressure=positive that adds complexity and it's error prone for an 
inexperienced mapper.
Then, for my fire departement, I've extracted hydrants data from OSM, I've 
uploaded it on some old and new GPS and I've sent it on my colleagues 
smartphones.
The simplest (and in many case the only) way to tranfser hydrants attributes to 
GPS is to put them in waypoints names. But waypoints names lenght is limited in 
GPS, so it's likely that someone transferring data will loose the 
fire_hydrant:pressure information.
Then it's simpler to look for emergency=fire_hydrant or emergency=suction_point 
than look for emergency=fire_hydrant + fire_hydrant:pressure=positive or 
emergency=fire_hydrant + fire_hydrant:pressure=suction.
In conclusion grouping different items under the same primary key and, even 
worse, grouping all water sources under emergency=water_source, adds a not 
necessary complexity in data managament.
Simpler is always better. In this case it is simpler to keep 
emergency=fire_hydrant for pressurized hydrants and emergency=suction_point for 
all other non pressurized water sources.

For suction point another proposal of refinement is needed.

Best regards
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

[Tagging] Creation of the tagging-fr list

[Severin Menard]

Hi,

This email to inform you about the creation of the tagging-fr OSM mailing
list for the discussions about tagging between French speaking people,
facilitating the exchanges on that topic for all those that are more French
than English speaker and allowing, at last, the contribution from the
mappers that are not much or not at all English speakers (or rather
writers).

Of course, these discussions about tagging in French will be about OSM tags
in English. And once a discussion will come to what seems a meaningful
proposition, it will be brought to the broader tagging list. It aims at
providing a better contribution regarding the OSM tagging from French
speakers, about the various, specific French contexts in the world but also
about the generic tags.

Surprisingly, it seems this is the first tagging list dedicated to a
specific language community. We will see if others are keen on following
the same path.

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

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

[Christian Müller]

> Sent: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:06:29 +0100
> From: "Javier Sánchez Portero" 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas
> 
> Josm validation will raises a warning for duplicated ways (way1 and way2).
> If I use the open ways + MP relations schema mentioned by Christian,
> the situation is almost the same. I will end up with three MP relations
> instead of closed ways and Josm validation will raises a warning for
> relations with the same members.

Well, it's a warning, not an error.  Its purpose is to raise awareness,
i.e. you should double check what you did and check if the matter of
those warnings is what you intended to do.

You should also be aware that while josm devs try hard to stick to what
can be made out as a group consensus, its not always congruent with the
wiki description or vastly employed tagging methods.  Most of the time
the validator tries to reaffirm what may be deducted from taginfo.

Naturally, the usefulness of the validator decreases in "areas" where
a good data scheme is still in flux or worked on or discussed by the
community.

After all, you might not have raised questions about building:part
tags, if this was a solid and well documented (read beginner-proof)
part of OSMs map features [1].  Doing 3d stuff right is still subject
of discussion and well, mailing lists.

If you want to work with a current, least common denominator, you
should imho check the result rendering of new data entered with

- main map
- kendzi3d plugin
- osm2world.org
- demo.f4map.com

and maybe other data consumers listed in [2].  But again, if you
feel that all of these data consumers mistreat a certain aspect
of modeled 3d data that you think is a correct or good way to do
it, then please try to raise this issue here, in the forums or
relevant bug trackers.  Do not try to break a good modeling ap-
proach in favor of broken or incompatible renderers.


Greetings,
Christian

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings#Map_Support

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

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

Would any one support a proposal for a new tag building:part:levels=* to
separate the levels of the building from the part as in this case:

way1 {building=residential, building:part=yes, building:levels=4,
building:part:levels=3}
way2 {building:part=yes, building:levels=4}
way2 is inside way1

This will be needed only using horizontal slices model in buildings with
nested parts.

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

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

[marc marc]

Le 19. 08. 17 à 00:52, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> they are describing all "overground" building levels *without the roof levels*
right.

> and minus the building:min_level.
no. min_level is a 3D feature.
the level of a building as a whole doesn't take care of min_level.
A building as a whole can not begin at level 2.
A building as a whole must rest on the ground.
Therefore min_level can exist on "part", not on the whole.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging