Re: [Tagging] objectivity

[Colin Smale]

The best way to keep it objective would be to tag what it IS and not
what it is CALLED. An outdoor shop is what some people call a shop (not
so controversial) which sells camping gear (probably not too
controversial) and clothing, safety equipment, ... 

If we had a taxonomy of classes of things, mapped to a managed
vocabulary, we can say what the shop sells, at whatever level is
appropriate. Maybe at a high level, like "clothing", and maybe at a much
lower level like "rock climbing shoes"... whatever you want. Of course
each shop will sell multiple types of thing.

On 2017-10-29 22:37, Thilo Haug wrote:

> Regarding the "objectivity in the tag definition " there's still a lot of 
> work to do in the wiki.
> What defines a sport shop versus an outdoor shop, for example ? IMHO only a 
> number of values may define something 'objective'.
> Recently, there's been a discussion about landing strips for airplanes. I'm 
> not in favour to nail it down to the best definition of the main tag, but to 
> describe it using the keys.
> 
> Am Sonntag, 29. Oktober 2017 22:18:56 CET schrieb Stefan Keller 
> : That's probably to be discussed over at tagging mailing 
> list. Sorry, forget this last sentence.
> 
> Given that there's like wheelchair=yes and kids_area=yes [1 [1]] one could
> introduce s'thing like animal friendly properties to amenities (bar,
> restaurant, hotel, ...).
> But IMHO it should be declared as such at the location and/or the webpage.
> No idea yet about the key/values except that it should include also
> other animaly besides dogs :-).
> 
> :Stefan
> 
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kids_area
> 
> 2017-10-29 22:08 GMT+01:00 Stefan Keller : Hi,
> 
> There are similar keys like "wheelchair" and allowed vehicles in
> streets (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ).
> If there's enough objectivity in the tag definition I'd support that.
> That's probably to be discussed over at tagging mailing list.
> 
> :Stefan
> 
> 2017-10-29 21:56 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes : On Sun, 
> 2017-10-29 at 21:29 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 29.10.2017 16:44, Andrew 
> Hain wrote: How should an establishment that bills itself as "the dog friendly
> cafe" be tagged? 
> dog=* is used 8615 times, of which 1875 are dog=yes.
> 5498 uses are on highways, 854 on amenities and 1114 together with
> opening_hours
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog#values
> 
> Though without its own page, this would be my first recommendation.
> See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals
 Its a bit more than simply allowed, although I do think dog friendly is
a bit subjective in the same way motorcycle friendly was.

Maybe you can tag the features that make it dog friendly, such a jar of
biscuits, water bowls provided for example.

Cafes are not somewhere you would normally classify as dog friendly,
non-assistance dogs are not allowed where food is being served, but dog
friendly pubs are fairly common.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Links:
--
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kids_area___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dog-friendly cafes

[Stefan Keller]

> That's probably to be discussed over at tagging mailing list.
Sorry, forget this last sentence.

Given that there's like wheelchair=yes and kids_area=yes [1] one could
introduce s'thing like animal friendly properties to amenities (bar,
restaurant, hotel, ...).
But IMHO it should be declared as such at the location and/or the webpage.
No idea yet about the key/values except that it should include also
other animaly besides dogs :-).

:Stefan

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kids_area


2017-10-29 22:08 GMT+01:00 Stefan Keller :
> Hi,
>
> There are similar keys like "wheelchair" and allowed vehicles in
> streets (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ).
> If there's enough objectivity in the tag definition I'd support that.
> That's probably to be discussed over at tagging mailing list.
>
> :Stefan
>
>
> 2017-10-29 21:56 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes :
>> On Sun, 2017-10-29 at 21:29 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>>> On 29.10.2017 16:44, Andrew Hain wrote:
>>> > How should an establishment that bills itself as “the dog friendly
>>> > cafe” be tagged?
>>>
>>> dog=* is used 8615 times, of which 1875 are dog=yes.
>>> 5498 uses are on highways, 854 on amenities and 1114 together with
>>> opening_hours
>>>
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog#values
>>>
>>> Though without its own page, this would be my first recommendation.
>>> See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals
>>>
>> Its a bit more than simply allowed, although I do think dog friendly is
>> a bit subjective in the same way motorcycle friendly was.
>>
>> Maybe you can tag the features that make it dog friendly, such a jar of
>> biscuits, water bowls provided for example.
>>
>>
>> Cafes are not somewhere you would normally classify as dog friendly,
>> non-assistance dogs are not allowed where food is being served, but dog
>> friendly pubs are fairly common.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Dog-friendly cafes

[Stefan Keller]

Hi,

There are similar keys like "wheelchair" and allowed vehicles in
streets (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ).
If there's enough objectivity in the tag definition I'd support that.
That's probably to be discussed over at tagging mailing list.

:Stefan


2017-10-29 21:56 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes :
> On Sun, 2017-10-29 at 21:29 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>> On 29.10.2017 16:44, Andrew Hain wrote:
>> > How should an establishment that bills itself as “the dog friendly
>> > cafe” be tagged?
>>
>> dog=* is used 8615 times, of which 1875 are dog=yes.
>> 5498 uses are on highways, 854 on amenities and 1114 together with
>> opening_hours
>>
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog#values
>>
>> Though without its own page, this would be my first recommendation.
>> See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals
>>
> Its a bit more than simply allowed, although I do think dog friendly is
> a bit subjective in the same way motorcycle friendly was.
>
> Maybe you can tag the features that make it dog friendly, such a jar of
> biscuits, water bowls provided for example.
>
>
> Cafes are not somewhere you would normally classify as dog friendly,
> non-assistance dogs are not allowed where food is being served, but dog
> friendly pubs are fairly common.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> ___
> 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] Dog-friendly cafes

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2017-10-29 at 21:29 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 29.10.2017 16:44, Andrew Hain wrote:
> > How should an establishment that bills itself as “the dog friendly
> > cafe” be tagged?
> 
> dog=* is used 8615 times, of which 1875 are dog=yes.
> 5498 uses are on highways, 854 on amenities and 1114 together with
> opening_hours
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog#values
> 
> Though without its own page, this would be my first recommendation.
> See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals
> 
Its a bit more than simply allowed, although I do think dog friendly is
a bit subjective in the same way motorcycle friendly was.

Maybe you can tag the features that make it dog friendly, such a jar of
biscuits, water bowls provided for example.


Cafes are not somewhere you would normally classify as dog friendly,
non-assistance dogs are not allowed where food is being served, but dog
friendly pubs are fairly common.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Dog-friendly cafes

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 29.10.2017 16:44, Andrew Hain wrote:

How should an establishment that bills itself as “the dog friendly cafe” be 
tagged?


dog=* is used 8615 times, of which 1875 are dog=yes.
5498 uses are on highways, 854 on amenities and 1114 together with opening_hours

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog#values

Though without its own page, this would be my first recommendation.
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals

tom

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

[Tagging] Dog-friendly cafes

[Andrew Hain]

How should an establishment that bills itself as “the dog friendly cafe” be 
tagged?

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

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Janko Mihelić]

We are arguing about a temporary state of affairs. Sooner or later,
Nominatim and others will be able to assign addresses to nodes inside a
polygon, and renderers will be able to see that the same address is
rendered 3 times. Until then we have to do what we can with what we have.
And not start making up some strange new schemes to make newcomers lifes
hell.

Just start rendering offices, and the problem is temporarily averted.

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

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2017, at 17:01, Marc Zoutendijk  wrote:
> 
> Because all three companies had an office=research tag and because the office 
> tag is not rendered at all on the standard map(!!) but only shows the 
> addr:housenumber (when present), the above described tagging resulted in 
> showing 3 times the same address node on the map. Which by definition is 
> wrong because a given street address (addr:city + addr:street + addr:postcode 
> + addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at least in the country (The 
> Netherlands) where I live and where I found this situation.


there’s nothing incompatible with street addresses having to be unique and 
multiple objects having the same address properties. Indeed, they are all 
located at the same unique address. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

[Andrew Harvey]

On 29 October 2017 at 08:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
>
> & I must admit to being "guilty" of listing both types of address -
> filling in the address details of the type of building / shop / POI & then
> also adding an address node, usually on it's driveway.
>
> My reasoning is that my navigation program (OSMAND) doesn't appear to find
> street numbers if they're only part of the address, but will if they're a
> separate node.
>
> Is it the "right" way of doing things? - who knows & does it matter? What
> is the purpose of the map - looking good, laid out neatly & tidily, or
> being usable for navigation purposes?
>

I think that's fine. By adding the address tags to a shop, someone who
searches for the shop, immediately has the full formed address for it.

By adding an address as it's own generic node (mailbox, driveway, entrance,
etc) or way (parcel of land) someone who searches for the address can find
it irrespective of the shop. This is kind of what GNAF in Australia offers
by the way, complementary to address existing on other OSM features.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging