Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 05:53 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured
> dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place
> in a "trailer park" in the USA. Some of these look rather house-like,
> if they are "double-wide" and have to be delivered in 2 parts, others
> are somewhat similar to camping caravans but are designed for
> year-round living in one place, in mild climates.
>
>

how "mobile" are those, e.g. compared to a container home, or a
prefabricated single family home? (Intending with the latter term a
construction that does not remain "mobile" once it is set up and put in
place, and the former as "maybe" mobile = dismountable and reusable with
some effort. Ultimately, every kind of construction can be dismounted (or
moved entirely, if you don't mind an extraordinary effort), and often the
material can be reused. Are we going to look at how complicated / work
intensive / technically feasible without destroying parts, this will be, or
will it simply follow the self-declaration of the vendor? (probably the
latter).

To give a concrete example, is this a mobile home of the kind you are
asking about?
https://www.gilmorecityiowa.com/vertical/Sites/%7BAF493C7D-8EF8-4030-AA1E-B40B51320DEF%7D/uploads/over_sized_load.JPG

Or is it something like this:
https://bestofhouse.net/wp-content/uploads/trailer-homes-sale-new-mobile_117483.jpg

This would be an example for a (bigger) container home:
https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/shipping-container-homes-4.jpg



> Another user made the page shop=mobile_home but I'm guessing that this
> is American English and might not be correct.
>


I would expect these "trailer homes" to be an american specialty, so I
wouldn't mind if we used an american term for it (we generally do not have
the possibility to transport oversized things on the roads in Europe,
traffic is too dense, and too many obstacles like adjacent buildings,
bridges and narrow roads, so with the legal requirements for such
transports it would cost too much to do it for something like a "cheap"
home.

There might also be other legal obstacles, like you could not live
permanently in such a structure (maybe unless you set it up on ground that
is zoned as residential area, but then this would cost too much to use it
as extensively as these, or maybe there isn't cultural acceptance for
these, or a mix of all these, in the end these are not frequent.

There are similar situations though, like alotment gardens with huts on
them, where people may live occasionally (but usually not legally), or
campsites with semi-permanent residents, generally used as holiday homes
(and mostly only in the warmer period of the year).



> "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also
> *trailer*
> , *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, *residential caravan*)
> is a prefabricated  >structure,
> built in a factory on a permanently attached chassis before being
> transported to site (either by being towed or on a trailer).
>


so the chassis must be there, is a strict requirement? Would a
box-structure (container) satisfy this requirement?

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 04:49 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Are you sure that the information that you want is not already
> available from a Digital Elevation Model?
>


I do not agree with this. DEMs (at least what is commonly and freely
available currently) do not provide the same kind of information, and are
generally lacking the resolution and in particular, do not contain specific
detail (e.g. shape), they treat every spot the same, are not focused on
features (you can recognize the features that are visible and discernible
on them, but they do not specifically represent them). We could also say:
the buildings and roads are already on aerial imagery, no need to map them
;-). Or peaks are contained in DEMs, why map them in OSM?


Large embankments should be clearly visible in the topography, so we
> do not need to reproduce them as 3D model in the database, any more
> than we need to map the exact contours of a quarry or mountain.
>


if there are interesting features on a mountain (particularly those
features with names or other attributes, wikipedia references etc.), we do
map them, (e.g. peaks, ridges, passes, ...)

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features, toll (1/5)

[Herbert Allmeier]

1) There was a discussion about the proposal already. There were some problems with the preferred place of discussion. I move the discussions from the mailing list to the discussion page on the wiki and back.

 

Link to the original discussion: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/thread.html It started on 8 May.

Link to the proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll

Link to mailing list discussion on wiki.openstreetmap.org: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll/mailing_list

 


2) I wanted to do it threaded, but I it took 15 minutes for me to get the mail back. I thought that the mail would be instant so I send the other mails after I did not get a reply after 5 minutes. The more you know.


Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. November 2019 um 00:15 Uhr
Von: "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com>
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Proposed features, toll (1/5)



On 12/11/19 09:06, Herbert Allmeier wrote:



Hello tagging list!

I agreed to move conversations from this list to the wiki and back so that the discussion can keep going here.

 

I hope that it works that I stack all replys behind each other.

If it does not work, don't hesitate to help me out by telling me what I am doing wrong ;-)

I am quite new to the system and do not know a whole lot




1) The 'proposal' page should be the proposal .. not a string of 'discussions'. Any discussions there should really be on the discussion page behind the proposal or on the tagging list. There is no requirement to copy then back and forth between the two.

2) the messages on the tagging list should be 'threaded' .. do not create a new thread (usually by 'writing' a new email) but 'threaded' (use the 'reply' on your email thing).


What is your proposal??? There is nothing to say what it is.

Read
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
Examine a past proposal to see how it goes ..
e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic

-
toll already exists. I assume your thinking of the method of payment?
Consider https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment#Road_toll




___ 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] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I looked back at that discussion but it seems to be about
> RVs/caravans/motor homes/camper trailers.
> 
> I'm not asking about shops that sell "motor homes" or "RVs" or "5th
> wheels" or "camper trailers" or "caravans" or "camper vans". I
> understand that both self-propelled "motorhomes" and pulled "caravans"
> can be sold at a shop=caravan.
> 
> Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured
> dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place
> 
> Do they have shops that sell these in Britain?

They do, however not very common.

The only local place I can think of that sells them also sells touring caravans 
and motorhomes.

Most are sold as part of a package, with the pitch through the sites.

It is not uncommon to see examples to order on these sites. One observation 
about these sites is that the static caravans are usually identical indicating 
the site owners have deals with manufacturers.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Philip Barnes]

A static caravan is very movable, providing you have a hgv and the necessary 
equipment to lift it.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 19 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 05:53 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured
> > dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place
> > in a "trailer park" in the USA. Some of these look rather house-like,
> > if they are "double-wide" and have to be delivered in 2 parts, others
> > are somewhat similar to camping caravans but are designed for
> > year-round living in one place, in mild climates.
> >
> >
> 
> how "mobile" are those, e.g. compared to a container home, or a
> prefabricated single family home? (Intending with the latter term a
> construction that does not remain "mobile" once it is set up and put in
> place, and the former as "maybe" mobile = dismountable and reusable with
> some effort. Ultimately, every kind of construction can be dismounted (or
> moved entirely, if you don't mind an extraordinary effort), and often the
> material can be reused. Are we going to look at how complicated / work
> intensive / technically feasible without destroying parts, this will be, or
> will it simply follow the self-declaration of the vendor? (probably the
> latter).
> 
> To give a concrete example, is this a mobile home of the kind you are
> asking about?
> https://www.gilmorecityiowa.com/vertical/Sites/%7BAF493C7D-8EF8-4030-AA1E-B40B51320DEF%7D/uploads/over_sized_load.JPG
> 
> Or is it something like this:
> https://bestofhouse.net/wp-content/uploads/trailer-homes-sale-new-mobile_117483.jpg
> 
> This would be an example for a (bigger) container home:
> https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/shipping-container-homes-4.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> > Another user made the page shop=mobile_home but I'm guessing that this
> > is American English and might not be correct.
> >
> 
> 
> I would expect these "trailer homes" to be an american specialty, so I
> wouldn't mind if we used an american term for it (we generally do not have
> the possibility to transport oversized things on the roads in Europe,
> traffic is too dense, and too many obstacles like adjacent buildings,
> bridges and narrow roads, so with the legal requirements for such
> transports it would cost too much to do it for something like a "cheap"
> home.
> 
> There might also be other legal obstacles, like you could not live
> permanently in such a structure (maybe unless you set it up on ground that
> is zoned as residential area, but then this would cost too much to use it
> as extensively as these, or maybe there isn't cultural acceptance for
> these, or a mix of all these, in the end these are not frequent.
> 
> There are similar situations though, like alotment gardens with huts on
> them, where people may live occasionally (but usually not legally), or
> campsites with semi-permanent residents, generally used as holiday homes
> (and mostly only in the warmer period of the year).
> 
> 
> 
> > "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also
> > *trailer*
> > , *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, *residential caravan*)
> > is a prefabricated  > >structure,
> > built in a factory on a permanently attached chassis before being
> > transported to site (either by being towed or on a trailer).
> >
> 
> 
> so the chassis must be there, is a strict requirement? Would a
> box-structure (container) satisfy this requirement?
> 
> Cheers
> Martin
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> peaks are contained in DEMs, why map them in OSM

Mainly so we can add their name=* and elevation based on survey.

But also, DEMs have trouble localizing point and line features, so if
you climb the peak or walk along a ridgeline to check the location
with GPS, it is usually more accurate than most DEMs.

For the same reasons, mapping a dyke or embankment or cutting as a
line is a great idea.

Mapping the area is less important, since usually adding 'width=' is
enough, or mapping 2 embankment lines on each side, though I am not
opposed to other mappers doing this if they really want to.

On 11/19/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 04:49 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Are you sure that the information that you want is not already
>> available from a Digital Elevation Model?
>>
>
>
> I do not agree with this. DEMs (at least what is commonly and freely
> available currently) do not provide the same kind of information, and are
> generally lacking the resolution and in particular, do not contain specific
> detail (e.g. shape), they treat every spot the same, are not focused on
> features (you can recognize the features that are visible and discernible
> on them, but they do not specifically represent them). We could also say:
> the buildings and roads are already on aerial imagery, no need to map them
> ;-). Or peaks are contained in DEMs, why map them in OSM?
>
>
> Large embankments should be clearly visible in the topography, so we
>> do not need to reproduce them as 3D model in the database, any more
>> than we need to map the exact contours of a quarry or mountain.
>>
>
>
> if there are interesting features on a mountain (particularly those
> features with names or other attributes, wikipedia references etc.), we do
> map them, (e.g. peaks, ridges, passes, ...)
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

A search of "static caravans" and "for sale" finds many
previously-owned static caravans but does not show results for a
specialty retailer of these residential caravans.

So perhaps they are not really "a thing" in Britain. In that case
shop=mobile_home is acceptable, as long as "mobile home" does not have
some other meaning in British English which is different than
"(static) caravan".

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 11/19/19, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> A static caravan is very movable, providing you have a hgv and the necessary
> equipment to lift it.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On Tuesday, 19 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 05:53 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured
>> > dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place
>> > in a "trailer park" in the USA. Some of these look rather house-like,
>> > if they are "double-wide" and have to be delivered in 2 parts, others
>> > are somewhat similar to camping caravans but are designed for
>> > year-round living in one place, in mild climates.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> how "mobile" are those, e.g. compared to a container home, or a
>> prefabricated single family home? (Intending with the latter term a
>> construction that does not remain "mobile" once it is set up and put in
>> place, and the former as "maybe" mobile = dismountable and reusable with
>> some effort. Ultimately, every kind of construction can be dismounted (or
>> moved entirely, if you don't mind an extraordinary effort), and often the
>> material can be reused. Are we going to look at how complicated / work
>> intensive / technically feasible without destroying parts, this will be,
>> or
>> will it simply follow the self-declaration of the vendor? (probably the
>> latter).
>>
>> To give a concrete example, is this a mobile home of the kind you are
>> asking about?
>> https://www.gilmorecityiowa.com/vertical/Sites/%7BAF493C7D-8EF8-4030-AA1E-B40B51320DEF%7D/uploads/over_sized_load.JPG
>>
>> Or is it something like this:
>> https://bestofhouse.net/wp-content/uploads/trailer-homes-sale-new-mobile_117483.jpg
>>
>> This would be an example for a (bigger) container home:
>> https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/shipping-container-homes-4.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> > Another user made the page shop=mobile_home but I'm guessing that this
>> > is American English and might not be correct.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I would expect these "trailer homes" to be an american specialty, so I
>> wouldn't mind if we used an american term for it (we generally do not
>> have
>> the possibility to transport oversized things on the roads in Europe,
>> traffic is too dense, and too many obstacles like adjacent buildings,
>> bridges and narrow roads, so with the legal requirements for such
>> transports it would cost too much to do it for something like a "cheap"
>> home.
>>
>> There might also be other legal obstacles, like you could not live
>> permanently in such a structure (maybe unless you set it up on ground
>> that
>> is zoned as residential area, but then this would cost too much to use it
>> as extensively as these, or maybe there isn't cultural acceptance for
>> these, or a mix of all these, in the end these are not frequent.
>>
>> There are similar situations though, like alotment gardens with huts on
>> them, where people may live occasionally (but usually not legally), or
>> campsites with semi-permanent residents, generally used as holiday homes
>> (and mostly only in the warmer period of the year).
>>
>>
>>
>> > "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_home: "A *mobile home* (also
>> > *trailer*
>> > , *trailer home*, *house trailer*, *static caravan*, *residential
>> > caravan*)
>> > is a prefabricated > > >structure,
>> > built in a factory on a permanently attached chassis before being
>> > transported to site (either by being towed or on a trailer).
>> >
>>
>>
>> so the chassis must be there, is a strict requirement? Would a
>> box-structure (container) satisfy this requirement?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> 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] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> So perhaps they are not really "a thing" in Britain.


I don't know if Britain has any of these.  What does tend to be common is
that
site operators buy static caravans themselves, install them on site and
then rent them
to tourists and/or rent them as homes and/or sell them as homes.  E.g.,
http://www.patchcaravanpark.co.uk/


> In that case shop=mobile_home is acceptable, as long as "mobile home" does
> not
>
have some other meaning in British English which is different than
> "(static) caravan".
>

I'm not convinced by that line of argument: I could propose shop=mxyzptlk
provided that
"mxyzptlk" does not have some other meaning in British English which is
different than
"(static) caravan."   To me, the "mobile" in "mobile home" implies that
it's mobile - a
caravan that is towed behind a car from place to place.

Sites may offer them as park homes, leisure lodges or other marketing
bovine excrement,
but that's once they're in place.  The generic term is static caravan.
Some of them will
actually be caravans that can be, and often are, towed by a car.  Some of
them will be of a
type that aren't really designed to be towed, just transported on a
truck/lorry.

As always, real life is messy.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features, toll (1/5)

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 09:07, Herbert Allmeier 
wrote:

> 1) There was a discussion about the proposal already. There were some
> problems with the preferred place of discussion. I move the discussions
> from the mailing list to the discussion page on the wiki and back.
>

You missed the entire point of that discussion.  Nobody asked you to copy
discussions from
one to the other.  I doubt that anybody wants you to copy discussions from
one to the other (I
certainly do not).  What people objected to was your statement that you
would ignore anything
said on the list and only deal with things on the wiki.

It's really quite simple: deal with discussions on both the list and the
wiki. don't copy stuff
from one to the other.  That's how everybody else does it.

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

[Tagging] Real time in public transport

[A A]

Hello everyone.

What do you think about the possibility of standardizing the use of a url in 
"departures_board" or "passenger_information_display" tags to be able to report 
arrival times in real time at a stop or train / subway / bus station?

I think it can be very useful information. If it is added in a simple way 
through a tag, it could be easily implemented by mapping and navigation 
software and used for navigation in public transport or simply for querying the 
waiting time at a specific stop or public transport station.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Real time in public transport

[Janko Mihelić]

There is a mailing list for public transport, it's
talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

And I don't understand the intention. Do you mean a tag for a URL to the
timetable of a line?

uto, 19. stu 2019. u 13:24 A A  napisao je:

> Hello everyone.
>
> What do you think about the possibility of standardizing the use of a url
> in "departures_board" or "passenger_information_display" tags to be able to
> report arrival times in real time at a stop or train / subway / bus station?
>
> I think it can be very useful information. If it is added in a simple way
> through a tag, it could be easily implemented by mapping and navigation
> software and used for navigation in public transport or simply for querying
> the waiting time at a specific stop or public transport station.
> ___
> 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] Real time in public transport

[Jo]

He means the URL of a dedicated page for a stop on the operator's website.

My preference would be to simply use URL for this purpose.

Polyglot

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 15:40 Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> There is a mailing list for public transport, it's
> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
> And I don't understand the intention. Do you mean a tag for a URL to the
> timetable of a line?
>
> uto, 19. stu 2019. u 13:24 A A  napisao je:
>
>> Hello everyone.
>>
>> What do you think about the possibility of standardizing the use of a url
>> in "departures_board" or "passenger_information_display" tags to be able to
>> report arrival times in real time at a stop or train / subway / bus station?
>>
>> I think it can be very useful information. If it is added in a simple way
>> through a tag, it could be easily implemented by mapping and navigation
>> software and used for navigation in public transport or simply for querying
>> the waiting time at a specific stop or public transport station.
>> ___
>> 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] Real time in public transport

[Jo]

I mean url, not URL

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 17:17 Jo  wrote:

> He means the URL of a dedicated page for a stop on the operator's website.
>
> My preference would be to simply use URL for this purpose.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 15:40 Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
>> There is a mailing list for public transport, it's
>> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
>> And I don't understand the intention. Do you mean a tag for a URL to the
>> timetable of a line?
>>
>> uto, 19. stu 2019. u 13:24 A A  napisao je:
>>
>>> Hello everyone.
>>>
>>> What do you think about the possibility of standardizing the use of a url
>>> in "departures_board" or "passenger_information_display" tags to be able to
>>> report arrival times in real time at a stop or train / subway / bus station?
>>>
>>> I think it can be very useful information. If it is added in a simple
>>> way through a tag, it could be easily implemented by mapping and navigation
>>> software and used for navigation in public transport or simply for querying
>>> the waiting time at a specific stop or public transport station.
>>> ___
>>> 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] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Steve Doerr]

On 19/11/2019 01:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:


Right now there is a page documenting "shop=mobile_home" which is used
only 14 times -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmobile_home

But is seems like this isn't the right terminology in British English.
What would be better? shop=static_caravan perhaps?



The term 'mobile home' is definitely British English, and there is a 
series of Mobile Homes Acts regulating them. But I do not have much 
familarity with the subject, and do not know whether a distinction is 
made between mobile homes and static caravans in general usage. There is 
also a term 'park home', which I think designates the more permanent 
type of residential home within this category (but informally, probably 
not in the legislation).


--
Steve


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

Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/11/2019 11:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

A search of "static caravans" and "for sale" finds many
previously-owned static caravans but does not show results for a
specialty retailer of these residential caravans.


The places that I've seen these advertised for sale in the UK have all I 
think been existing static caravan sites, so an extra "shop" may be 
considered a bit unnecessary.


The same applies for "park homes" (the more permanent variety - though 
I'm not convinced what the best tag is for those).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 18:04 +0100, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 19/11/2019 11:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > A search of "static caravans" and "for sale" finds many
> > previously-owned static caravans but does not show results for a
> > specialty retailer of these residential caravans.
> 
> The places that I've seen these advertised for sale in the UK have
> all I 
> think been existing static caravan sites, so an extra "shop" may be 
> considered a bit unnecessary.
> 
Most I have seen have been on existing sites however Salop Leisure in
Shrewsbury do sell and have them on display.

They do also sell Touring Caravans, Motorhomes and accessories so
doesn't justify a new tag.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

[Tagging] How to tag earth walls in a shooting ramge

[Volker Schmidt]

Shooting ranges often have earth walls to separate the individual shooting
"booths".
I see three alternative tagging approaches, but none is satisfactory
1) man_made=dyke (but the wiki says this is only for water)
2) trace the flat top of the earth mounds with a man_made=embankment closed
way - drawback it only traces the top rim, but not the footprint.
3) barrier=retaining_wall - this is frequently used on the shooting ranges
in Swìtzerland, behind the targets. But these are in fact earth walls on
one side and retaining walls on the other.

This is the object that triggers my question:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305768541
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Real time in public transport

[A A]

Yes, I mean add a url of a dedicated page for a public transport stop. It can 
be useful for querying the waiting time at a specific stop or public transport 
station.

If we use the website or url tags in important public transport stations, these 
tags may be in use with other urls with general information about that station.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag earth walls in a shooting ramge

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I was wondering about barrier=wall, even though it's possibly not a
constructed wall as such?

When I was just looking at barriers, I spotted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:barrier#Bund_barriers_used_in_spate_irrigation,
used  22 times, but undocumented.

While this, & wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunding mainly refer to
walls to retain water, they do also mention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunding#Anti-noise_bunds

Bunds are also commonly used around explosive or ammunition storage sites &
one definition is: " “bund” means an embankment of earth or a wall
constructed of brick, stone, concrete or other approved material to form
the perimeter or part of the perimeter of a compound;"

That would probably work for you?

& an interesting Pistol Club you've got there, sitting in the middle of
fields / farmland!

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 07:11, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Shooting ranges often have earth walls to separate the individual shooting
> "booths".
> I see three alternative tagging approaches, but none is satisfactory
> 1) man_made=dyke (but the wiki says this is only for water)
> 2) trace the flat top of the earth mounds with a man_made=embankment
> closed way - drawback it only traces the top rim, but not the footprint.
> 3) barrier=retaining_wall - this is frequently used on the shooting ranges
> in Swìtzerland, behind the targets. But these are in fact earth walls on
> one side and retaining walls on the other.
>
> This is the object that triggers my question:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305768541
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Real time in public transport

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Do you have the permission / approval / waiver to use your local city's
GTFS feed (assuming you have one)?

I tag bus stops like this:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6259036974 ,
including "timetable", which in this particular case, links to
https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/stops/300433

May not be perfect, but it works!

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 07:38, A A  wrote:

> Yes, I mean add a url of a dedicated page for a public transport stop. It
> can be useful for querying the waiting time at a specific stop or public
> transport station.
>
> If we use the website or url tags in important public transport stations,
> these tags may be in use with other urls with general information about
> that station.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Proposed features, toll (1/5)

[Warin]

On 19/11/19 22:21, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 09:07, Herbert Allmeier > wrote:


1) There was a discussion about the proposal already. There were
some problems with the preferred place of discussion. I move the
discussions from the mailing list to the discussion page on the
wiki and back.


You missed the entire point of that discussion.  Nobody asked you to 
copy discussions from
one to the other.  I doubt that anybody wants you to copy discussions 
from one to the other (I
certainly do not).  What people objected to was your statement that 
you would ignore anything

said on the list and only deal with things on the wiki.
It's really quite simple: deal with discussions on both the list and 
the wiki. don't copy stuff

from one to the other.  That's how everybody else does it.


I will be voting no on the proposal. As the author has no intent to 
discus the proposal here I will not elaborate on on my reasons .. 
because the author will not respond here to discuss the issues. I look 
forward to voting no.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Real time in public transport

[marc marc]

Le 19.11.19 à 13:22, A A a écrit :
> What do you think about the possibility of standardizing the use of 
> a url in "departures_board" or "passenger_information_display" tags to 
> be able to report arrival times in real time at a stop or train / subway 
> / bus station?

yes. departures_board:url seems a good candidate.

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

Re: [Tagging] Real time in public transport

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 00:27, marc marc  wrote:

>
> yes. departures_board:url seems a good candidate.
>

That would be a URL giving information about the departures board itself:
its dimensions
and display type.  Maybe even if it has a build-up of snow on it in winter,
if it's a really
advanced board.

I'd find departures:url to be more informative because it would tell me
about departures.

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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Is there something else that we are expecting could be done by mapping
> this in great detail which cannot be done with a simpler
> representation + a DEM?

I understand that, topographically speaking, we can get information about it 
from another source and see the mound of dirt. In that sense, you are correct. 

But just as we show red diagonal lines through military bases, we should convey 
the extent of this man-made structure beyond inferring it’s existence from the 
road access limitations and other mapped barriers (fences, lack of roads, 
grass, scrub, etc). the height is just one feature of the structure that is 
massive and dominates the surroundings. 

- just as we tag hedges and guardrails and other barriers that are not gates 
and bollards directly on ways,  understanding there is a massive man-made 
barrier nearby is useful. It really limits access. A small levee can be stepped 
over in a few steps. These you have to climb. Both cannot be represented by a 
way (IMO). 

- I like tagging the detail of some things. It is useful to me and others to 
visualize the situation. Roads there are weird and complicated - explained only 
by being on the levee. We have roof:part and bridge:support and =tree other 
details for other objects of interest, and these giant structures seem worthy 
of being rendered differently than just the topo contours like the the side of 
a hill. I will be mapping them *anyways* to set their landcover, so having a 
scheme to map them is “free” mapping detail.  

- everything large should be represented with an area. I have 600m wide rivers. 
I have sluice gates you could drive a bus through. Levees wider than apartment 
complexes. All of them are things people see and navigate around as they 
traverse the levee, and correctly conveying to them “this is that levee” helps 
people orient themselves and properly plan their routes when moving 
in-on-around the levee. Right now, I can map the river, and I can map the 
ground cover, but not the structure - unlike other man-made structures (dams, 
bridges, buildings, parking lots, railway corridors, etc). Infrastructure, even 
giant piles of dirt, should be represented in a base map. 

- levees are a function. They block water. Their construction is of an inter 
and outer embankment. They move separately and branch and move, so representing 
the levee requires (IMO) mapping the embankments and the top - all three are 
“features” of the levee. Mapping the two embankments in a relation gives you 
the “top” for free. 

- Between the raised tollways that sit on 5m high raised road beds across my 
entire region and the hundreds of KM of levees, I have a lot of man-made piles 
of dirt that severely restrict access kris-crossing everything. And the levees 
are often adjacent *many* public amenities - parks, sports grounds, cycling 
roads, and other *heavily used* features. 

- they are very very important during a flood. In some areas, they might be the 
only safe spaces. They are covered with emergency spaces and other areas safe 
in a flood. Understanding you are “inside” the levee Vs “outside” the levee 
might be the difference between life and death. If a levee breaks, the only 
safe space might be on top of it. Mapping and rendering these structures makes 
it obvious to everyone where it is without inferring it from topo information. 

- they are known landmarks.

Javbw. 



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

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

John

Just wondering if the suggestion I gave Volker this morning about walls
around a shooting range may also work for you?

" I was wondering about barrier=wall, even though it's possibly not a
constructed wall as such?

When I was just looking at barriers, I spotted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:barrier#Bund_barriers_used_in_spate_irrigation,
used  22 times, but undocumented.

While this, & wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunding mainly refer to
walls to retain water, they do also mention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunding#Anti-noise_bunds

Bunds are also commonly used around explosive or ammunition storage sites &
one definition is: " “bund” means an embankment of earth or a wall
constructed of brick, stone, concrete or other approved material to form
the perimeter or part of the perimeter of a compound;""

Maybe barrier=bund, drawn as an area, rather than a way, & with the roads
etc "inside" the area, possibly as layer=1?

Could that work?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 15:12, John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Nov 19, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is there something else that we are expecting could be done by mapping
> > this in great detail which cannot be done with a simpler
> > representation + a DEM?
>
> I understand that, topographically speaking, we can get information about
> it from another source and see the mound of dirt. In that sense, you are
> correct.
>
> But just as we show red diagonal lines through military bases, we should
> convey the extent of this man-made structure beyond inferring it’s
> existence from the road access limitations and other mapped barriers
> (fences, lack of roads, grass, scrub, etc). the height is just one feature
> of the structure that is massive and dominates the surroundings.
>
> - just as we tag hedges and guardrails and other barriers that are not
> gates and bollards directly on ways,  understanding there is a massive
> man-made barrier nearby is useful. It really limits access. A small levee
> can be stepped over in a few steps. These you have to climb. Both cannot be
> represented by a way (IMO).
>
> - I like tagging the detail of some things. It is useful to me and others
> to visualize the situation. Roads there are weird and complicated -
> explained only by being on the levee. We have roof:part and bridge:support
> and =tree other details for other objects of interest, and these giant
> structures seem worthy of being rendered differently than just the topo
> contours like the the side of a hill. I will be mapping them *anyways* to
> set their landcover, so having a scheme to map them is “free” mapping
> detail.
>
> - everything large should be represented with an area. I have 600m wide
> rivers. I have sluice gates you could drive a bus through. Levees wider
> than apartment complexes. All of them are things people see and navigate
> around as they traverse the levee, and correctly conveying to them “this is
> that levee” helps people orient themselves and properly plan their routes
> when moving in-on-around the levee. Right now, I can map the river, and I
> can map the ground cover, but not the structure - unlike other man-made
> structures (dams, bridges, buildings, parking lots, railway corridors,
> etc). Infrastructure, even giant piles of dirt, should be represented in a
> base map.
>
> - levees are a function. They block water. Their construction is of an
> inter and outer embankment. They move separately and branch and move, so
> representing the levee requires (IMO) mapping the embankments and the top -
> all three are “features” of the levee. Mapping the two embankments in a
> relation gives you the “top” for free.
>
> - Between the raised tollways that sit on 5m high raised road beds across
> my entire region and the hundreds of KM of levees, I have a lot of man-made
> piles of dirt that severely restrict access kris-crossing everything. And
> the levees are often adjacent *many* public amenities - parks, sports
> grounds, cycling roads, and other *heavily used* features.
>
> - they are very very important during a flood. In some areas, they might
> be the only safe spaces. They are covered with emergency spaces and other
> areas safe in a flood. Understanding you are “inside” the levee Vs
> “outside” the levee might be the difference between life and death. If a
> levee breaks, the only safe space might be on top of it. Mapping and
> rendering these structures makes it obvious to everyone where it is without
> inferring it from topo information.
>
> - they are known landmarks.
>
> Javbw.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

[Jorge Aguirre]

I had been out for the last few weeks and had left this proposal in standby.  I 
am back now and have revised and updated the original proposal and included 
some images as examples, so hopefully it is all more clear now and better 
explained, so everyone understands just how important this new tag is for the 
address system used in Latin America and several other countries in the world.

I would appreciate all to read the newer version found here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Addr:milestone


Thank you all.


Jorge

> On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:17 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
>   tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: New tag proposal: 'add=milestone' (Agustin Rissoli)
>   2. Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
>  (Frederik Ramm)
>   3. Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or
>  two (Mateusz Konieczny)
>   4. Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or
>  two (Dave Swarthout)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:26:07 -0300
> From: Agustin Rissoli 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
>> 
>> this implies road markers must be present, right? Isn’t this mainly about 
>> the distance from some zero point, even in the absence of road distance 
>> markers?
>> 
>> No, many times there are no marks, for me it does not have to be implicit
> 
> I would not invent myself these numbers, I would copy them from
>> the gate where they have been put by the owner or municipality (regardless
>> of actual distances or even if they are in slight contradiction with nearby
>> road markers, as I have seen occur). If nothing is signposted, I would
>> rather map the road markers nearby (if any).
>> 
>> agree, many times these addresses are calculated by the same owner
> 
> Somebody remarked earlier in the thread that there are places in the US
>> where the distances are
>> used as house numbers.  I think the duck test applies.  It doesn't matter
>> if a house number is
>> assigned sequentially, or is based upon distance from some specified point,
>> or is based upon
>> some mad king throwing darts at a map: if it looks like a house number, is
>> treated like a house
>> number, and appears on the house/gate/whatever as a house number, then it's
>> a house number.
>> House numbers don't have to be sequential or monotonic, I can think of a
>> couple of roads in my
>> town where the house numbers are counter-intuitive.  So it doesn't matter
>> if those house numbers
>> were assigned based on a distance along a road, and that subsequent road
>> remodelling has
>> resulted in them all being inaccurate without a milepost equation: if it
>> quacks like a house
>> number then it's a house number.
>> 
>> If they're not house numbers marked somewhere on the property, and if there
>> are sometimes
>> (as the OP has stated) missing markers, and if road remodelling has
>> rendered the distances
>> incorrect, then what good is addr:road_marker in those particular
>> circumstances?
>> 
>> It appears addr:road_marker is only really applicable where all of the
>> following apply:
>> 
>> 1: The number is not marked on the property (otherwise it's a house number,
>> however
>> derived).
>> 
>> 2) Road remodelling has not significantly changed the distances between the
>> property
>> and the two nearest road markers (so you know it's somewhere between marker
>> X and
>> marker Y).
>> 
>> 3) Road markers have not been recalibrated following extensive road
>> remodelling.
>> 
>> --
>> Paul
>> 
>> In Argentina it is common to have addresses with house number, street
> name, and also address per km., For example Avenida San Martín 5440, Ruta 9
> km 60.5
> It is often used on routes that cross small towns and suburban areas. I
> also saw the same thing in Uruguay, where I got to see addresses with
> street name, lot number, km number of the route without house number (the
> number of km belongs to the route and not the street numbering )
> 
> Agustin
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 08:38:28 +0200
> From: Fr

Re: [Tagging] How to tag earth walls in a shooting ramge

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The tag barrier=wall should only be used for barriers which are
vertical walls on both sides.

When you have a wall with higher ground on one side, level with the
top of the wall, that's a retaining wall: barrier=retaining_wall

It looks like the original question is about man-made earth slopes,
however, and these are usually tagged man_made=embankment, with the
line at the top of the slope as previously mentioned.

In another thread we have been discussing an additional tag that could
be added for the area of the embankment, perhaps
man_made=embankment_area or similar, but this would be in addition to
mapping the top of the embankment as a line.

(BTW, the whole area of Gualtieri Shooting Club should probably be
leisure=sports_centre rather than leisure=pitch)

Joseph eisenberg

On 11/20/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> I was wondering about barrier=wall, even though it's possibly not a
> constructed wall as such?
>
> When I was just looking at barriers, I spotted
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:barrier#Bund_barriers_used_in_spate_irrigation,
> used  22 times, but undocumented.
>
> While this, & wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunding mainly refer to
> walls to retain water, they do also mention
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunding#Anti-noise_bunds
>
> Bunds are also commonly used around explosive or ammunition storage sites &
> one definition is: " “bund” means an embankment of earth or a wall
> constructed of brick, stone, concrete or other approved material to form
> the perimeter or part of the perimeter of a compound;"
>
> That would probably work for you?
>
> & an interesting Pistol Club you've got there, sitting in the middle of
> fields / farmland!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 07:11, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> Shooting ranges often have earth walls to separate the individual
>> shooting
>> "booths".
>> I see three alternative tagging approaches, but none is satisfactory
>> 1) man_made=dyke (but the wiki says this is only for water)
>> 2) trace the flat top of the earth mounds with a man_made=embankment
>> closed way - drawback it only traces the top rim, but not the footprint.
>> 3) barrier=retaining_wall - this is frequently used on the shooting
>> ranges
>> in Swìtzerland, behind the targets. But these are in fact earth walls on
>> one side and retaining walls on the other.
>>
>> This is the object that triggers my question:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305768541
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

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