Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Jan 05, 2020 at 11:22:50AM -0700, Rob Savoye wrote:
>   I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?

In Germany we have both. And it depends on what actually makes sense.

These are my thoughts and usage:

If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address. Because
navigation goes to a single location and i want to specifiy the
exact location someone is sent to. And not some random location
calculated by an algorithm broken down from the outline.

Then there are buildings which is a single building with no seperation
inbetween but multiple entrances with individual housenumbers. I
use nodes on those.

All simple buildings e.g. individual residential detached houses
i put it on the outline.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Regardless of whether the main tag should be changed or not, on second thought, 
I think the following tags should be used:

brand= To indicate how the service is branded, for example, a recycling/bottle 
return company or the name of the super market where the machine is located

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse_Vending_Machine_-_Fresh_Plus_-_Pod_šiancom_-_Kosice.jpg
 

 
Located inside and branded as Fresh (a supermarket), the 
receipt can only be exchanged in Fresh.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reverse_vending_machine_for_the_NSW_Container_Deposit_Scheme_at_the_Kooringal_Mall_2.jpg
 

 
Located outside and branded as Return and Earn (a government 
scheme), retail vouchers, PayPal an e-vouchers are available.
operator= To indicate who maintains/services the machine, possibly the same as 
the brand, maybe hard to find out.
breweries= To indicate the brands of containers that the machine accepts 

> On 5 Jan 2020, at 21:43, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> On 2020-01-05 21:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not 
>>> be used.
>>> 
>>> They are frequently called "reverse vending" machines - instead of the 
>>> customer trading money for goods, they trade goods for money.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine 
>>> 
>>  
>> clearly „reverse vending machine" is a completely different term/concept 
>> than „vending machine", although it plays with the idea of using the same 
>> words and change the meaning by adding „reverse" to it
>>  
> It is also a clearly related concept. I hereby propose:
>amenity=reverse_vending_machine
>reverse_vending=bottle_return
> Problem solved.
>  
>  
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Maarten Deen]

On 2020-01-05 23:25, Tomek wrote:


EN (automatic translation)
I plan to remove the "name" and "wikipedia" tags from places that are
not associated with a specific nation or language:
* continents
* north and south poles
* seas and bays, but exceptionally leaving the "name" tag for seas
with a maximum of two (or three) languages of neighboring countries,
so for example "Белое море" will not change.
The purpose of this edition is to make the OSM map more neutral and
not humiliate people from any country. There is no reason for the


Humiliation is your own feeling. I am not British or American and I am 
not humiliated (or have any negative feelings) when I see such a tag.


Can you explain also what this fixes? If any rendering engine wants to 
render a name and the name tag is not present, it will want to revert to 
another name. That may be name:en. That probably will not be to your 
liking, so will you then also remove the name:en tag?



Baltic Sea to be the "Baltic Sea" or for South America to be "South
America" - this is an example of English imperialism.


This "imperialism" idea of yours is just your idea. It is not something 
that is widely felt.



Any data will not be lost - programs will be able to extract the
desired name from the tags name:en, name:pl, etc., Wikipedia links
will be available via Wikidata.
Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reason why not.


I vote against it, if not only because your stance on this is flawed, 
but also because this might remove correct and valuable information.


Regards,
Maarten

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Julien djakk]

Hello ! Please note that the highway tagging is designed for cars : there
should be also a highway-like tagging for trucks, for bikes, and for
pedestrians.

Plus : there is the commuter point of view and the long-distance point of
view :-)


I would vote for an importance tag, values from 1 to 6 : for some roads or
path we could reach a cool level of details : example :
 car:importance:commute=1, bike:importance:long-distance=3

We can merge : importance=6 is for cars, bikes ... and commuting and
long-distance (usually it is for a dead-end),

Importance=5 could still be called highway=unclassified.



Julien “djakk”


Le dim. 5 janv. 2020 à 16:46, Fernando Trebien 
a écrit :

> I know this discussion is US specific, but we've struggled with
> similar issues in Brazil as well, for very similar reasons. It seems
> we've made some progress in the southern region when we chose to judge
> importance according to a somewhat simple method (it started as: trunk
> = best routes between place=city, primary = best routes between place
> = town; then we refined the population targets for each level), with
> the cost of requiring some discussion for uncommon corner cases (such
> as when the best route between a pair of large cities actually takes
> unexpectedly undeveloped roads). Some requirements based on structure
> are still in place (primaries must be paved, motorways must be
> divided, but trunks don't have to be divided). We've also assumed that
> routing quality can only be achieved after mapping speed limits and
> surfaces and cannot depend entirely on classification. It is still an
> experimental approach, but it seems like mappers and users are much
> more satisfied now. For verifiability, after a consensus was reached,
> we documented everything in the wiki. It's a lot of work, but maybe
> something like this would work in the US as well.
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 3:39 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 17:09, yo paseopor  wrote:
> >
> >> You lost my point of view:(WHICH)  the best (or worst) conditions for a
> road you can find in a country. In some countries will be seem like a
> motorway, in other countries or zones will be a sand track. And the other
> focus: WHO can know these conditions (local communitters, people who lived
> in the country, etc.) .This is an issue OSM will have to front some day.
> And some day we will have an agreement about it.
> >
> >
> > We're actually conflating several issues:
> >
> > 1) Road construction (paved/unpaved).
> >
> > 2) Number of lanes.
> >
> > 3) Central barrier yes/no.
> >
> > 4) Entry/exit types (simple junctions/roundabouts versus motorway on/off
> ramps).
> >
> > 5) Legislation (kinds of traffic, stopping, etc).
> >
> > 6) Routeing preference:
> >
> >   a) Speed
> >   b) Distance
> >
> > In some countries, like the UK, these factors are all generally
> well-correlated.  To
> > a degree.  Good routes between important destinations tend to get good
> roads. Other
> > places, good routes between important destinations get bad roads, but
> they're still
> > the best roads around.
> >
> > I think we need to start splitting up these attributes into different
> tags and leave it
> > to editors to offer the appropriate combinations for a given country.
> Then carto can
> > handle different coutries differently.  Preferable two renderings, one
> aimed at
> > construction (motorway down to dirt track) and the other aimed at "good
> route,
> > shame about the surface."
> >
> > I now have a quote from Calvin and Hobbes going through my head: "And
> while
> > I'm dreaming, I'd like a little pony."  It's probably insoluble but if
> it is soluble
> > it will take us decades to agree on a solution.
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
>
> ___
> 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] depreciate recycling:metal in favor of recycling:scrap_metal

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:50 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> There is no useful difference
> therefore it is pointless to have two
> separate tags for that.
>

Domestic refuse metals like metal packaging from consumer products (think
like, food and beverage cans), something that you can typically drop off at
your average grocery store parking lot recycling center.  As opposed to
scrap metal, which is pretty much everything from car hulks to household
appliances to copper wiring and plumbing, etc...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

[Jarek Piórkowski]

Hello,

Just a bump here to see if anyone has opinions about tagging for
infrastructure allowing for two-stage bicycle turns. Please see
original message quoted below for more details.

I'm currently thinking of using the following:

- relation with tag type=bicycle_two_stage_turn (comments on this
particularly welcome! it doesn't really seem to be a route=bicycle
since it doesn't have a designated network=*?)
- optionally segregated=yes if there is a designated, separated
waiting area for the bikes rather than only a painted area that is
also driven over by other vehicles (would usually be at particularly
wide intersections or at T-intersections)
- members as in a turn restriction relation: `from` and `to` ways, and
`via` either node or way

Comments most welcome!

If there are no comments here, I suppose I will create a tagging
proposal on wiki in a couple of days.

Thanks,
--Jarek

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 20:05, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to
> safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn).
> I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though pointers to a better
> name would be welcome!
>
> They're paint-designated places for cyclists to wait to do a two-stage
> left turn from the right edge of the roadway. In regions that allow
> right turn on red traffic signal, they are usually coupled with
> no-right-turn-on-red restrictions. See for example
> https://bin.piorkowski.ca/2019/two_stage_left_turn.png - screenshot of
> Esri imagery for https://osm.org/node/25813496 at
> 43.6670781,-79.3746698
>
> To my understanding, this is not the same as a cycleway=asl (advanced
> stop line, "bike box") in OSM as an ASL is _behind_ the stop line and
> behind the pedestrian crossing, and thus not really easily usable for
> left turns - cyclists would have to cross the stream of pedestrians to
> get into the box.
>
> I am aware that in many regions left turn boxes are common to the
> point of being basically the default at bigger intersections, and thus
> doesn't really need tagging. However, the area I'm mapping has
> probably a single digit amount of them. As they make left turns a lot
> safer, I would like to map them so that routers can prefer them.
>
> Does anyone know of an established way to tag these that I could adopt?
>
> To tag unambiguously and in a computer-readable way, I guess it'll
> need a relation from-to-via?
>
> Previously discussed in OSM Canada Slack, #general channel on October
> 16, 2019 
> https://osm-ca.slack.com/archives/C36U69X18/p157123002600?thread_ts=1571265183.002300&cid=C36U69X18
> but we didn't come up with much. Looking for an alternatives to a
> relation, I came up with
> https://bin.piorkowski.ca/2019/possible_asl_node_tagging.png and
> described it as following: "I suppose something like this could work
> to avoid a relation, routers would then have to look for
> cycleway:asl=two_stage_left_turn a little to the right of where they'd
> like to make a left turn. Advantages: no relations - they seem to be
> somewhat disliked in OSM; representation as turn-right-then-U-turn is
> somewhat like how cyclists are used to turning left at hostile
> intersections. Disadvantages: the portrayed distance to turn off to
> right is further than the actual distance; routers might well find it
> easier to find left turns as they would normally and then prioritize
> those with a bicycle_two_stage_left_turn relation"
>
> But frankly I don't really like that solution much, and the other
> editor contributing in the Slack thread thought it would be
> "misleading, since the box is on a way not actually involved in the
> turn".
>
> Thanks for any leads!
>
> --Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Florimond Berthoux  
> wrote:
> 
>> I have just detected the wiki page "amenity=tourist_bus_parking"

Why is this it’s own amenity, instead of 

amenity=parking
bus=designated
access=customers

?

Many Service areas in Japan has an HGV/BUS parking lot with amenities for tour 
buses - should all those parking lots be retagged?

I really want to be able to tag specific uses and types of parking lots, but I 
think it is better left to a subkey (parking=*) to define them better, rather 
than having to make up new amenities for the same thing.

parking=tourism
parking=disabled
parking=loading_dock
parking=taxi
parking=waiting_lot
etc


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Tomek]

W dniu 20-01-06 o 02:25, stevea pisze:
> It's easy to goof things up and we shouldn't.
EO
Pardonu, mi ne estas provokisto, mi ne kondutas malserioze.

Mi skribas en mia lingvo (pola) en internacia lingvo (Esperanto) kaj iam
en via lingvo (angla), kial vi ne estimas min kaj ne parolas en mia lingvo?

Bonvolu koncentriĝu pri solvi la problemon pri nomoj.



PL
Przepraszam, nie jestem jakimś prowokatorem, nie wygłupiam się.
Piszę w moim języku (polskim) w języku międzynarodowym (Esperanto) i
czasami w Twoim (angielskim), dlaczego Ty nie piszesz w moim języku?

Proszę skoncentrować się na rozwiązaniu problemu nazw.



EN
I'm sorry, I'm not some kind of provocateur, I'm not fooling around.
I write in my (Polish) language in the international language
(Esperanto) and sometimes in your (English), why don't you write in my
language?

Please focus on resolving the name problem.
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Tomek]

EO
Ĉu tiu ĉi dissendolisto estas nur por anglalingvanoj aŭ por ĉiuj homoj?
Angla lingvo estis populara nur pro ekonomia potenco de Usono dum la
20-jarcento. Nuntempe estas la jaro 2020, ĉiu povas uzi elektronikan
tradukilon:

PL
Czy ta lista dyskusyjna jest tylko dla anglików, czy też dla wszystkich?
Angielski był popularny tylko z powodu potęgi ekonomicznej USA w XX
wieku. Obecnie mamy rok 2020, każdy może skorzystać z elektronicznego
tłumacza:

EN
Whether this mailing list is only for English speakers or for all
people? English language was popular only because of the economic power
of the United states during the 20th-century. Currently is the year
2020, everyone can use an electronic compiler:

https://translate.google.pl/
https://www.bing.com/translator/
https://translate.yandex.com/
https://www.deepl.com/translator

W dniu 20-01-06 o 01:33, stevea pisze:
> My grandfather was born in Poland and I grew up hearing and speaking Polish, 
> and I was a founding member of the University of California, Santa Cruz' 
> Esperanto Club (a long time ago).
>
> But, as others have said, (and English is my native language), this IS an 
> English-language "channel."
>
> May we please see posts in English (any dialect) here, please?  That is, if 
> you wish them (widely) read, here.
>
> SteveA
> California

<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[marc marc]

Le 06.01.20 à 01:28, Tomek a écrit :
> W dniu 20-01-06 o 00:24, marc marc pisze:
>> are you planning a mechanical edit ?
> NE, mi volas redakti ĉiun punkton aparte.

editing one by one, doesn't solve the the mechanical issue,
mechanical isn't about the size of the changeset,
it's about the "select objects by a query (for ex all sea in this area)
without a review/local knowledge.

> W dniu 20-01-06 o 00:24, marc marc pisze:
>> A more pragmatic solution would be to propose that each of these objects
>> have a name either in the most common language of that place, or in the
>> languages of that place or in a neutral language for example an
>> artificial language such as Esperanto.
> La problemo estas, ke ne eblas difini lingvon de ekzemple Balta Maro

really ? reading wikipedia for 2 min, I have a less chaotic vision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Baltic%20Sea?uselang=fr#Etymology
the current name is used extensively, including by a neighboring Baltic
country.
the article gives 2 other names used by 2 other neighboring countries.
the name tag of a multilingual zone must not contain 9 versions.

previous revert does not state on your arguments, it was done because
you are doing mass editions without following the rules that have been
written to avoid edit wars when 2 people have a different opinion.
it's sad to see that you've started again a few days ago.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Tomek]

EO
W dniu 20-01-06 o 00:24, marc marc pisze:
> are you planning a mechanical edit ?
NE, mi volas redakti ĉiun punkton aparte.

W dniu 20-01-06 o 00:24, marc marc pisze:
> Removing the name tag implies that each style/app that uses it will have
> to be modified to find out what is the most appropriate name for the
> place. And until then, all these name will disappear , which is not
> desirable.
>
> A more pragmatic solution would be to propose that each of these objects
> have a name either in the most common language of that place, or in the
> languages of that place or in a neutral language for example an
> artificial language such as Esperanto.
>
> to stay on the subject of tags, there is a proposal to define the
> language of a place, this is another fix to explore.
La problemo estas, ke ne eblas difini lingvon de ekzemple Balta Maro, mi
antaŭe proponis nomi ĝin kiel “Baltijas jūra / Baltijos jūra / Itämeri /
Läänemeri / Morze Bałtyckie / Östersjön / Østersøen / Ostsee /
Балтийское море”, sed mia ŝanĝo estis malfarita
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78060463).
Maroj de Suda Oceano kaj tieaj insuloj, kiuj apudas al neniu lando, en
kiu lingvo ili estu? Ĉu en Esperanto?
Por kontinentoj, mi ankaŭ proponis uzi nomon en la plej ofte parolataj
lingvoj ekz. “Europa / Europe / Evropa / Ευρώπη / Европа”, mia ŝanĝo
ankaŭ estis malfarita, kaj nun la nodo
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/25871341/ ne havas la etikedon “name”.
Plue restos problemo pri Antarkto.

La ĉefpaĝo openstreetmap.org nunempe NE BILDIGAS kontinentojn kaj
marojn, escepte se ili estas mapigitaj kiel rilatoj.
Sed iu OSM-estro diras, ke tiu mapigo estas malnecesa:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77922074



PL
W dniu 20-01-06 o 00:24, marc marc pisze:
> are you planning a mechanical edit ?
NIE, chcę przeedytować każdy punkt z osobna.

W dniu 20-01-06 o 00:24, marc marc pisze:
> Removing the name tag implies that each style/app that uses it will have
> to be modified to find out what is the most appropriate name for the
> place. And until then, all these name will disappear , which is not
> desirable.
>
> A more pragmatic solution would be to propose that each of these objects
> have a name either in the most common language of that place, or in the
> languages of that place or in a neutral language for example an
> artificial language such as Esperanto.
>
> to stay on the subject of tags, there is a proposal to define the
> language of a place, this is another fix to explore.
Problemem jest to, że nie można zdefiniować języka np. dla Morza
Bałtyckiego, zaproponowałem nazwanie go jako „Baltijas jūra / Baltijos
jūra / Itämeri / Läänemeri / Morze Bałtyckie / Östersjön / Østersøen /
Ostsee / Балтийское море”, ale moja zmiana została cofnięta
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78060463).
W jakim języku mają być morza Oceanu Południowego i tamtejszych wysepek,
które graniczą z żadnym krajem? W Esperanto?
Dla kontynentów zaproponowałem wprowadzenie nazwy w najczęściej
mówionych językach, np. „Europa / Europe / Evropa / Ευρώπη / Европа”,
moja zmiana również została cofnięta, i teraz węzeł 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/25871341/ nie posiada znacznika „name”.
Dalej pozostanie problem Antarktydy.

Strona główna openstreetmap.org obecnie NIE RENDERUJE kontynentów i
mórz, chyba że są one odwzorowane jako relacje.
Jednak pewien administrator OSM twierdzi, że takie odwzorowanie jest zbędne:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77922074

<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Jan 2020, 23:25 by to...@disroot.org:
>  > I plan to remove the "name" and "wikipedia" tags fromplaces that 
> are not associated with a specific nation orlanguage
>
This would be unacceptable damage,
for reasons already discussed.
> Wikipedia links will be available via Wikidata.
>
Removing human readable tags is a
horrible idea, and yelling about imperialism
is not a good argument.
>  > Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reasonwhy not.
>
I recommend familiarizing yourself
with requirements for automatic edits.

Automatic edits violating them can be 
reverted by anyone, at any time.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[marc marc]

Le 05.01.20 à 23:25, Tomek a écrit :
> I plan to remove the "name" and "wikipedia" tags from places 
> that are not associated with a specific nation or language:
> Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reason why not.

are you planning a mechanical edit ?
if yes, you misunderstood
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
there's no vote for a mechanical edition.
but you MUST consider the oppositions.
I'm not a native English speaker, I understand the problem you are
exposing (even if talking about imperialism gives the impression of a
speech from the past millennium) and I even agree that there is a
problem. but I OPPOSE your mass edition as proposed.
Removing the name tag implies that each style/app that uses it will have
to be modified to find out what is the most appropriate name for the
place. And until then, all these name will disappear , which is not
desirable.

A more pragmatic solution would be to propose that each of these objects
have a name either in the most common language of that place, or in the
languages of that place or in a neutral language for example an
artificial language such as Esperanto.

to stay on the subject of tags, there is a proposal to define the
language of a place, this is another fix to explore.

for the wikipedia tag, it's the same problem.
Saying that people just have to use the tag and the wikidata api
to display a wikipedia page is a serious regression compared
to the current situation.
For places where you find a local language, it is quite possible
to change the language of the wikipedia tag.
for others, it is possible to point to a wikipedia page in a neutral
language, at least if it exists and is not a draft.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Jan 2020, at 00:05, Tomek  wrote:
> 
> Listoj estas kategoriigitaj laŭ regionoj, la listo por angloj estas:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


that is the list for users in Great Britain.

 Here we’re on the tagging mailing list, which has global scope and discussions 
are held in English. If you don’t believe me, one indication could be that 
you’re the only one posting in different languages, have a look at the archives.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 22:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The archaeological site may cover several ruins, probably the entire 
> community. So I would map that over the entire area.


archaeological sites quite often are nested, overlapping (both, horizontally 
and vertically) and layered. 

“the entire area” may be quite big and typically will have a common name, but 
it is also common that bigger sites will have smaller archaeological sites 
within.

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

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Tomek]

Listoj estas kategoriigitaj laŭ regionoj, la listo por angloj estas:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

W dniu 20-01-05 o 23:55, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
> First I’d like to remind you that this is an English language list, please 
> stick to English and post esperanto on the esperanto lists. 

<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 23:22, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> x=designated means access only for x and and there is a sign, ore something 
> equivalent, stating this 
> x=designated AND y=designated means access only for x and for y and there is 
> a sign, ore something equivalent, stating this


sure, the reason why I was asking these questions is that people told me that 
cargo bike wasn’t a defined vehicle class in the French jurisdiction. 
If you see a sign motor_vehicle=designated you know that a motorcycle and a 
motorcar are both permitted on the way.
IIRR the thread about cargo bicycle parking went dead without providing answers 
about implications or legalities, that’s why I was asking again.

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

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 23:27, Tomek  wrote:
> 
> EN (automatic translation)
> I plan to remove the "name" and "wikipedia" tags from places that are not 
> associated with a specific nation or language:
> * continents
> * north and south poles
> * seas and bays, but exceptionally leaving the "name" tag for seas with a 
> maximum of two (or three) languages of neighboring countries, so for example 
> "Белое море" will not change.
> The purpose of this edition is to make the OSM map more neutral and not 
> humiliate people from any country. There is no reason for the Baltic Sea to 
> be the "Baltic Sea" or for South America to be "South America" - this is an 
> example of English imperialism.
> Any data will not be lost - programs will be able to extract the desired name 
> from the tags name:en, name:pl, etc., Wikipedia links will be available via 
> Wikidata.
> Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reason why not.


First I’d like to remind you that this is an English language list, please 
stick to English and post esperanto on the esperanto lists. 
I’m not sure about the name key, although moving values from name to name:en 
seems ok, provided you are verifying that the value is indeed the common 
English name for the feature. Removing Wikipedia article tags is not ok IMHO, 
there doesn’t seem a benefit from this, just potential harm. There is no reason 
Wikipedia article tags must be in local language, generally the agreement is 
that the first mapper for the wikipedia tag chooses the specific article (in 
the language) that best refers to an object.

Automatic edits like this must follow the appropriate guidelines by the way.

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

[Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

[Tomek]

EO
Mi planas forigi la etikedojn “name” kaj “wikipedia” por la lokoj, kiuj
ne estas ligitaj al iu specifa popolo aŭ lingvo:
* kontinentoj
* norda kaj suda polusoj
* maroj kaj golfoj kun escepto: forlasi la etikedon “name” se ekzistas
maksimume du (aŭ tri) lingvoj de apudaj landoj, do ekzemple “Белое море”
plue tenos sian etikedon.
La celo de tiu redakto estas igi OSM pli neŭtra kaj respekta al homoj de
ĉiuj landoj. Estas neniu kialo por ke Balta Maro estu “Baltic Sea” aŭ
Sudameriko estu “South America” - tio estas ekzemplo de angla imperiismo.
Neniuj informoj perdiĝos - programoj plue povos eltiri la deziratan
valoron per etikedoj name:en, name:pl, ktp, ligiloj al Vikipedio estos
plue alireblaj per Vikidatumoj.
Bonvolu subteni (voĉdoni) mian proponon aŭ skribu kialon kial ne.



PL
Planuję usunąć znaczniki „name” i „wikipedia” z miejsc, które nie są
powiązane z określonym narodem i językiem:
* kontynenty
* bieguny północny i południowy
* morza i zatoki, ale wyjątkowo zostawiając znacznik „name” dla mórz
posiadających maksymalnie dwa (lub trzy) języki sąsiadujących państw,
więc przykładowo „Белое море” nie ulegnie zmianie.
Celem tej edycji jest sprawienie, aby mapa OSM była bardziej neutralna i
nie poniżała ludzi z jakichkolwiek krajów. Nie ma jakiegokolwiek powodu,
aby Morze Bałtyckie było „Baltic Sea” albo Ameryka Południowa była
„South America” - jest to przykład angielskiego imperializmu.
Jakiekolwiek dane nie zostaną utracone - programy będą mogły wyciągnąć
pożądaną nazwę ze znaczników name:en, name:pl, itd, odnośniki do
Wikipedii będą dostępne przez Wikidane.
Proszę poprzeć (zagłosować) moją propozycję lub napisać powód dlaczego nie.



EN (automatic translation)
I plan to remove the "name" and "wikipedia" tags from places that are
not associated with a specific nation or language:
* continents
* north and south poles
* seas and bays, but exceptionally leaving the "name" tag for seas with
a maximum of two (or three) languages of neighboring countries, so for
example "Белое море" will not change.
The purpose of this edition is to make the OSM map more neutral and not
humiliate people from any country. There is no reason for the Baltic Sea
to be the "Baltic Sea" or for South America to be "South America" - this
is an example of English imperialism.
Any data will not be lost - programs will be able to extract the desired
name from the tags name:en, name:pl, etc., Wikipedia links will be
available via Wikidata.
Please support (vote) my proposal or write a reason why not.



IT (traduzione automatica)
Ho intenzione di rimuovere i tag "name" e "wikipedia" da luoghi che non
sono associati a una nazione o lingua specifica:
* continenti
* poli nord e sud
* mari e baie, ma in via eccezionale lasciando il tag "name" per i mari
con un massimo di due (o tre) lingue dei paesi vicini, quindi ad esempio
"Белое море" non cambierà.
L'obiettivo di questa edizione è rendere la mappa OSM più neutrale e non
umiliare le persone di qualsiasi paese. Non vi è alcun motivo per cui il
Mar Baltico sia il "Baltic Sea" o che il Sud America sia il "South
America" - questo è un esempio dell'imperialismo inglese.
Tutti i dati non andranno persi - i programmi saranno in grado di
estrarre il nome desiderato dai tag name:en, name:pl, ecc., I link di
Wikipedia saranno disponibili tramite Wikidata.
Sostieni (vota) la mia proposta o scrivi un motivo per cui no.
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Volker Schmidt]

We had this discussion recently regardng parking spaces. The cargobike vs
bike is the same as the car vs motorcycle access when it comes to parking
spaces.

My approach in my foot-bicycle-vehicle-motor_vehicle world is:
x=yes means x is allowed and nothing is said about other means of
transportation.
x=yes AND y=yes means x and y are allowed and nothing is said about other
means of transportation.
x=designated means access only for x and and there is a sign, ore something
equivalent, stating this
x=designated AND y=designated means access only for x and for y and there
is a sign, ore something equivalent, stating this

Volker


On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 20:37, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 5. Jan 2020, at 20:18, Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> is “designated” implying that other vehicles cannot (legally or
> physically?) use the parking, or that there are specific measures so that
> the designated vehicles fit perfectly into the fixtures?
> >
> > No, that would depend on the other access keys, I think the wiki is
> > clear https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> > "The value designated is not meant to imply that OpenStreetMap
> > access=* permissions have been automatically "designated" only to that
> > transport mode!"
>
>
> can you explain the difference of cargo_bike=yes and
> cargo_bike=designated? Can these occur together with bicycle=no? Are there
> cases of the other way round (bicycle=yes with cargo_bike=no)?
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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 historic ruins

[Warin]

The archaeological site may cover several ruins, probably the entire community. 
So I would map that over the entire area.

Then add any remaining structures with what they are now, which could well be 
historic=ruins.

You might consider adding them to OHM too.



On 06/01/20 06:21, Rob Savoye wrote:

On 1/5/20 11:55 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:

The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If
“Indian Ruin” is used for a value at all it should be in the
description tag. Probably the more politically correct nowadays
might be “Native American ruins”.

   That was my thought, "Indian Ruin" is overly generic, and should just
be deleted as file bloat.


Most of the larger sites have official names. “Montezuma Castle
National Monument”, “Casa Grande Ruins National Monument”, “Tuzigoot
National Monument”, “Tonto National Monument”, “Walnut Canyon
National Monument”, “Palatki Heritage Site” and “Canyon de Chelly
National Monument” in Arizona spring to mind. Within those sites the
there may be individual buildings/groups of buildings that have
names as well but those often seem to be descriptive (“Big House” or
“South Buildings”).

   Correct, but that's when 'name=' should be used. And the name may also
be subject to interpretation based on who you ask. Many official names
have little to do with what the locals call it. OSM can support both.


peoples (different native American tribes moving in, Spanish or
Anglo). So I think the official names, probably found in the GNIS
database is the best you are going to do.

   Yep, it's now the Ute reservation. I'm not going to add any names at
this point, just curious about cleaning up some existing data. Mapping
the ruins isn't the purpose of this trip, I just was wondering when
looking at the data, and had the motivation to be a data janitor since I
probably will try to ski/hike to some of these ruins.


Regarding historic:civilization tag using “Ancestral Pueblo people”
vs “Anazazi”, I think I’d go with “Ancestral Pueblo” as I think that
is, from current thinking, historically accurate. I believe that
“Anazazi” is Navajo for something like “ancient enemy” but could be

  I
   I'm going to ask in person what's the correct name as the locals think
of it. "Pueblo People" is a catchall for multiple peoples that have
lived there over the centuries and probably the least accidentally
insulting. There's always the old joke about some person who gets a
"ceremonial" native name, and later finds out it means something like
'stupid dog s$%t'...


Regarding mapping of the individual buildings, my single feeble
attempt at one site was foiled by the fact that it was, as is
typical, in an overhang under a cliff with limited access. So my GPS
had very inaccurate data and the site is not visible on aerial
imagery. Best of luck in your mapping.

   Yeah, I'm a climber, and it's quite amazing to see how difficult some
of the climbing to the cliff dwellings is. Some people think it was for
defense, I think it was to keep the rats and other animals out of the
stored food. It's a hard, dry  country to live in...

- rob -



___
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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-05 21:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone 
> 
>> On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not be 
> used. 
> 
> They are frequently called "reverse vending" machines - instead of the 
> customer trading money for goods, they trade goods for money. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine

clearly „reverse vending machine" is a completely different term/concept
than „vending machine", although it plays with the idea of using the
same words and change the meaning by adding „reverse" to it 

It is also a clearly related concept. I hereby propose: 
   amenity=reverse_vending_machine 
   reverse_vending=bottle_return 
Problem solved.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
>> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not be 
>> used.
> 
> 
> They are frequently called "reverse vending" machines - instead of the 
> customer trading money for goods, they trade goods for money.
>  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine


clearly „reverse vending machine“ is a completely different term/concept than 
„vending machine“, although it plays with the idea of using the same words and 
change the meaning by adding „reverse“ to it


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 20:18, Florimond Berthoux  
> wrote:
> 
>> is “designated” implying that other vehicles cannot (legally or physically?) 
>> use the parking, or that there are specific measures so that the designated 
>> vehicles fit perfectly into the fixtures?
> 
> No, that would depend on the other access keys, I think the wiki is
> clear https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> "The value designated is not meant to imply that OpenStreetMap
> access=* permissions have been automatically "designated" only to that
> transport mode!"


can you explain the difference of cargo_bike=yes and cargo_bike=designated? Can 
these occur together with bicycle=no? Are there cases of the other way round 
(bicycle=yes with cargo_bike=no)?

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Markus]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 17:29, Florimond Berthoux
 wrote:
>
> Using access tags is the good way to go, so we can use
> [vehicle]=yes/no/designated.
> Designated is to explicitly say that the place is specifically made for them.

How would you tag a designated car park for customers only? designated
seems to be orthogonal to yes/no/private/customers/visitors

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Markus]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 22:12, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>
> In particular I would like some tagging scheme that allows you to identify a 
> parking facility, and within that same facility (which carries the name) the 
> parking sub-facilities for cars,  buses, HGVs, motorcycles, ...That would 
> make more sense.

I agree that the current tagging scheme doesn't work well with
mixed-type parking facilities.

However, a new tagging scheme would likely mean that we need a new tag
for parking facilities as i don't think that an automated edit (e.g.
changing access=* to motorcar=*) on over 3 million amenity=parking
would be accepted.

As for the areas within a parking facility, we could use something
similar to building:part: for example amenity=parking_facility:part if
the parking facility is tagged amenity=parking_facility.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/5/20 11:55 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If 
> “Indian Ruin” is used for a value at all it should be in the 
> description tag. Probably the more politically correct nowadays
> might be “Native American ruins”.

  That was my thought, "Indian Ruin" is overly generic, and should just
be deleted as file bloat.

> Most of the larger sites have official names. “Montezuma Castle 
> National Monument”, “Casa Grande Ruins National Monument”, “Tuzigoot 
> National Monument”, “Tonto National Monument”, “Walnut Canyon 
> National Monument”, “Palatki Heritage Site” and “Canyon de Chelly 
> National Monument” in Arizona spring to mind. Within those sites the 
> there may be individual buildings/groups of buildings that have
> names as well but those often seem to be descriptive (“Big House” or
> “South Buildings”).

  Correct, but that's when 'name=' should be used. And the name may also
be subject to interpretation based on who you ask. Many official names
have little to do with what the locals call it. OSM can support both.

> peoples (different native American tribes moving in, Spanish or 
> Anglo). So I think the official names, probably found in the GNIS 
> database is the best you are going to do.

  Yep, it's now the Ute reservation. I'm not going to add any names at
this point, just curious about cleaning up some existing data. Mapping
the ruins isn't the purpose of this trip, I just was wondering when
looking at the data, and had the motivation to be a data janitor since I
probably will try to ski/hike to some of these ruins.

> Regarding historic:civilization tag using “Ancestral Pueblo people” 
> vs “Anazazi”, I think I’d go with “Ancestral Pueblo” as I think that 
> is, from current thinking, historically accurate. I believe that 
> “Anazazi” is Navajo for something like “ancient enemy” but could be 
 I
  I'm going to ask in person what's the correct name as the locals think
of it. "Pueblo People" is a catchall for multiple peoples that have
lived there over the centuries and probably the least accidentally
insulting. There's always the old joke about some person who gets a
"ceremonial" native name, and later finds out it means something like
'stupid dog s$%t'...

> Regarding mapping of the individual buildings, my single feeble 
> attempt at one site was foiled by the fact that it was, as is 
> typical, in an overhang under a cliff with limited access. So my GPS 
> had very inaccurate data and the site is not visible on aerial 
> imagery. Best of luck in your mapping.
  Yeah, I'm a climber, and it's quite amazing to see how difficult some
of the climbing to the cliff dwellings is. Some people think it was for
defense, I think it was to keep the rats and other animals out of the
stored food. It's a hard, dry  country to live in...

- rob -



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Florimond Berthoux]

Le dim. 5 janv. 2020 à 18:41, Martin Koppenhoefer
 a écrit :
>
> is “designated” implying that other vehicles cannot (legally or physically?) 
> use the parking, or that there are specific measures so that the designated 
> vehicles fit perfectly into the fixtures?

No, that would depend on the other access keys, I think the wiki is
clear https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
"The value designated is not meant to imply that OpenStreetMap
access=* permissions have been automatically "designated" only to that
transport mode!"

-- 
Florimond Berthoux

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 19:55, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> One trouble with names it that the people who lived in those areas moved out 
> long before the advent of written documentation so we don’t know what they 
> called the places. All the names are from later peoples (different native 
> American tribes moving in, Spanish or Anglo).


it’s not really an issue for us, because we use the current common name in the 
name tag, names from 1300AD  would probably go into old_name if they were still 
known ;-)


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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/5/20 11:45 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

> In the US it can go either way. I've seen a shopping center where
> multiple buildings had the same address (number and street) but
> different ranges of suite/unit numbers.

  I can see both being appropriate. We have multiple old resorts with
one address, and several dozen cabins. Each cabin though is a building
way. When I got the official cabin names from the homeowners
association, I added that as nodes. I'd just like to do what's
appropriate. Mostly though I was wondering about a standalone rural
building. OsmAnd will dis[play the address either way, so it's a matter
of the metadata syntax.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Tobias Knerr]

On 05.01.20 19:22, Rob Savoye wrote:
>   I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?

If there is a 1:1 relationship between buildings and addresses, the
building way is the most sensible location for addr tags.

My subjective experience with unconnected address nodes is that I often
end up confused about which building outline(s) they were originally
meant to belong to.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

[Tod Fitch]

The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If “Indian Ruin” 
is used for a value at all it should be in the description tag. Probably the 
more politically correct nowadays might be “Native American ruins”.

Most of the larger sites have official names. “Montezuma Castle National 
Monument”, “Casa Grande Ruins National Monument”, “Tuzigoot National Monument”, 
“Tonto National Monument”, “Walnut Canyon National Monument”, “Palatki Heritage 
Site” and “Canyon de Chelly National Monument” in Arizona spring to mind. 
Within those sites the there may be individual buildings/groups of buildings 
that have names as well but those often seem to be descriptive (“Big House” or 
“South Buildings”).

I am not as familiar with sites outside of Arizona but suspect the same is true 
of those in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, etc.

One trouble with names it that the people who lived in those areas moved out 
long before the advent of written documentation so we don’t know what they 
called the places. All the names are from later peoples (different native 
American tribes moving in, Spanish or Anglo). So I think the official names, 
probably found in the GNIS database is the best you are going to do.

Regarding historic:civilization tag using “Ancestral Pueblo people” vs 
“Anazazi”, I think I’d go with “Ancestral Pueblo” as I think that is, from 
current thinking, historically accurate. I believe that “Anazazi” is Navajo for 
something like “ancient enemy” but could be wrong on that. I guess I should 
have kept up contact with the fellow from the Hopi reservation that I went to 
high school with to be a bit more familiar with this history/background. :)

Regarding mapping of the individual buildings, my single feeble attempt at one 
site was foiled by the fact that it was, as is typical, in an overhang under a 
cliff with limited access. So my GPS had very inaccurate data and the site is 
not visible on aerial imagery. Best of luck in your mapping.

Cheers,
Tod

> On Jan 5, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> 
> On 1/5/20 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
>> from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with
>> historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve
>> myself used historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed
>> most of them to archaeological site.
>> I also suggest to add historic:civilization to give more
>> context: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic:civilization#values
> 
>  historic:civilization='Ancestral Pueblo people' or 'Anasazi' ? Yeah,
> last known inhabitants was 1300AD.
> 
>> And site_type of course: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type
> 
>  I think archeologists still are arguing over the site type. :-) Nobody
> really knows whether they were forts, food, storage, lodging, or all of
> the above.
> (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/riddles-of-the-anasazi-85274508/)
> 
>> I’d see historic=ruins as a very generic fallback when you have no clue
>> what you are looking at, but which should ideally be retagged if you do
>> have an idea what it is.
> 
>  I'll fix the tag. When I get down that way, I plan to collect more
> information from the locals. Most of it is reservation land and poorly
> mapped. It's about a remote a place you can get to in the continental US.
> 
>  Oh, most of these have 'name="Indian Ruin", not sure if that's
> necessary as it's redundant.
> 
>   - rob -
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 19:24, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> 
>  I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?


it depends where the number/address is assigned to, and may vary, e.g. in 
Germany it depends on the municipality, and sometimes numbers are assigned to 
sites, sometimes to buildings, and additionally they may be assigned to 
entrances, staircases etc. „as required“ (citation from Berlin law about 
housenumbers).
In Italy the numbers are assigned to entrances and gates. 
When you have good arguments for adding addresses to an area, it is preferable 
because it allows for inheritance to the enclosed/contained objects, otherwise 
you would have to repeat the addresses on all the objects inside (or use 
relations which is generally considered worse for this case).

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 1/5/20 12:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> This depends on the country.
> It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
> It is not typical to do so in The Netherlands.
> In Italy, the address belongs to a door, not to a building.

In the US it can go either way. I've seen a shopping center where
multiple buildings had the same address (number and street) but
different ranges of suite/unit numbers.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

[Marc Gemis]

This depends on the country.
It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
It is not typical to do so in The Netherlands.
In Italy, the address belongs to a door, not to a building.

regards

m.

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:24 PM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>   I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
> 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?
>
> - rob -
> --
> https://www.senecass.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] addresses on buildings

[Rob Savoye]

  I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?

- rob -
-- 
https://www.senecass.com

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

[Rob Savoye]

On 1/5/20 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with
> historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve
> myself used historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed
> most of them to archaeological site.
> I also suggest to add historic:civilization to give more
> context: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic:civilization#values

  historic:civilization='Ancestral Pueblo people' or 'Anasazi' ? Yeah,
last known inhabitants was 1300AD.

> And site_type of course: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type

  I think archeologists still are arguing over the site type. :-) Nobody
really knows whether they were forts, food, storage, lodging, or all of
the above.
(https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/riddles-of-the-anasazi-85274508/)

> I’d see historic=ruins as a very generic fallback when you have no clue
> what you are looking at, but which should ideally be retagged if you do
> have an idea what it is.

  I'll fix the tag. When I get down that way, I plan to collect more
information from the locals. Most of it is reservation land and poorly
mapped. It's about a remote a place you can get to in the continental US.

  Oh, most of these have 'name="Indian Ruin", not sure if that's
necessary as it's redundant.

- rob -

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 17:06, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> 
> 
>  Digging around the internet, I see a variety of ways to tag sites like
> this, and a few old unapproved proposals. Since these structures are
> thousands of years old, shouldn't they be 'historic=archaeological_site'
> instead ? Or 'historic=cliff_dwelling, ruins=yes' ?


from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with 
historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve myself used 
historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed most of them to 
archaeological site.
I also suggest to add historic:civilization to give more context: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic:civilization#values

And site_type of course: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type

I’d see historic=ruins as a very generic fallback when you have no clue what 
you are looking at, but which should ideally be retagged if you do have an idea 
what it is.

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

is “designated” implying that other vehicles cannot (legally or physically?) 
use the parking, or that there are specific measures so that the designated 
vehicles fit perfectly into the fixtures?

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

Real case in Paris, we have : bicycle parking, motorcycle parking,
bicycle-motorcycle parking mixed, free floating (dock less)
scooter-bicycle parking, and cargo bike parking.
How can I map that with only motorcycle_parking and bicycle_parking
tags ??? I can't properly.
Using access tags is the good way to go, so we can use
[vehicle]=yes/no/designated.
Designated is to explicitly say that the place is specifically made for them.

In the point of view of a data consumer, adding tags just for each
(sub) use case is a maintenance nightmare, and most will not update
there software for each case.
If you render a map for instance, the first step would be to render
every parking area the same way, then may be you'd go into detail and
render each type of them.

Le sam. 4 janv. 2020 à 22:12, Volker Schmidt  a écrit :
>
> I have just detected the wiki page "amenity=tourist_bus_parking"
> It has so far only 16 uses (including one by myself a few minutes ago)
> I am not happy with this new tag. Agreed, we have the tags 
> amenity=bicycle_parking and amenity=motorcycle_parking, but they have been 
> with OSM for years, whereas the tourist_bus parking is new (from Feb 2019) 
> and has so far very few uses.
>
> My feeling is that we should not add more humanities along that line, like 
> RV_parking, hgv_parking, snowmobile_parking, cargo_bike_parking and so on, 
> but try to think,of something better.
> In particular I would like some tagging scheme that allows you to identify a 
> parking facility, and within that same facility (which carries the name) the 
> parking sub-facilities for cars,  buses, HGVs, motorcycles, ...That would 
> make more sense.The parking I have just inserted has two separate areas and 
> separate entrances for cars and tourist buses, but it has only one name. 
> Another frequent situation are motorway stations where parking is usually 
> split into cars, busses, and HGVs.
> Hopefully it's just my ignorance and someone else has already implemented the 
> prefect tagging scheme somewhere.
>
> Volker
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Florimond Berthoux

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

[Tagging] tagging historic ruins

[Rob Savoye]

  I noticed today while planning a camping/mapping trip to southwest
Colorado many nodes all tagged with 'historic=ruins', and that's about
all. Most of these are stone buildings, some cliff dwellings in various
states of decay. I was wondering if they should also be tagged as
'building=yes' or anything else, or does that just add unnecessary bloat ?

  Digging around the internet, I see a variety of ways to tag sites like
this, and a few old unapproved proposals. Since these structures are
thousands of years old, shouldn't they be 'historic=archaeological_site'
instead ? Or 'historic=cliff_dwelling, ruins=yes' ?

 I'll be there in few weeks and plan to collect & validate more metadata
for that area, but was curious about the proper tagging for these sites.

- rob -
-- 
https://www.senecass.com

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-05 16:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
> I would characterize them completely differently, nothing is sold, and you 
> don't get a discount coupon but rather a receipt to get back your deposit. 
> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not be 
> used.

They are frequently called "reverse vending" machines - instead of the
customer trading money for goods, they trade goods for money. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Fernando Trebien]

I know this discussion is US specific, but we've struggled with
similar issues in Brazil as well, for very similar reasons. It seems
we've made some progress in the southern region when we chose to judge
importance according to a somewhat simple method (it started as: trunk
= best routes between place=city, primary = best routes between place
= town; then we refined the population targets for each level), with
the cost of requiring some discussion for uncommon corner cases (such
as when the best route between a pair of large cities actually takes
unexpectedly undeveloped roads). Some requirements based on structure
are still in place (primaries must be paved, motorways must be
divided, but trunks don't have to be divided). We've also assumed that
routing quality can only be achieved after mapping speed limits and
surfaces and cannot depend entirely on classification. It is still an
experimental approach, but it seems like mappers and users are much
more satisfied now. For verifiability, after a consensus was reached,
we documented everything in the wiki. It's a lot of work, but maybe
something like this would work in the US as well.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 3:39 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 17:09, yo paseopor  wrote:
>
>> You lost my point of view:(WHICH)  the best (or worst) conditions for a road 
>> you can find in a country. In some countries will be seem like a motorway, 
>> in other countries or zones will be a sand track. And the other focus: WHO 
>> can know these conditions (local communitters, people who lived in the 
>> country, etc.) .This is an issue OSM will have to front some day. And some 
>> day we will have an agreement about it.
>
>
> We're actually conflating several issues:
>
> 1) Road construction (paved/unpaved).
>
> 2) Number of lanes.
>
> 3) Central barrier yes/no.
>
> 4) Entry/exit types (simple junctions/roundabouts versus motorway on/off 
> ramps).
>
> 5) Legislation (kinds of traffic, stopping, etc).
>
> 6) Routeing preference:
>
>   a) Speed
>   b) Distance
>
> In some countries, like the UK, these factors are all generally 
> well-correlated.  To
> a degree.  Good routes between important destinations tend to get good roads. 
> Other
> places, good routes between important destinations get bad roads, but they're 
> still
> the best roads around.
>
> I think we need to start splitting up these attributes into different tags 
> and leave it
> to editors to offer the appropriate combinations for a given country.  Then 
> carto can
> handle different coutries differently.  Preferable two renderings, one aimed 
> at
> construction (motorway down to dirt track) and the other aimed at "good route,
> shame about the surface."
>
> I now have a quote from Calvin and Hobbes going through my head: "And while
> I'm dreaming, I'd like a little pony."  It's probably insoluble but if it is 
> soluble
> it will take us decades to agree on a solution.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 13:39, Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Some bottle return vending machines are placed inside supermarket stores and 
> give the user a discount coupon to redeem in-store when paying for their 
> shopping. The supermarket chain may not own, empty or maintain the machine 
> but it appears operator=* is already being used for this case. Should we 
> continue and add it to additional tags?


I would characterize them completely differently, nothing is sold, and you 
don’t get a discount coupon but rather a receipt to get back your deposit. The 
term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not be used.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi all,

there was already some feedback (here and on the discussion page) thanks
for that :)

Considering the feedback, I edited the wiki page, adjusted the tagging
scheme and added some examples for tagging situations.

Hauke

On 04.01.20 19:47, Hauke Stieler wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> you may noticed the discussion "Tag for 'tax free shopping'" on this
> mailing list. This is the proposal for the new "duty_free" tag.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tax_free_shopping
> 
> Basically the new tag has three values:
> 
> * yes:
> This shop does not collect taxes at all. This usually happens at
> airports in "duty-free stores".
> 
> * refund:
> For shops outside an airport. Foreign travelers shopping in a shop with
> duty_free=refund can get an additional receipt which can be -- e.g.
> later at the airport -- exchanged so that the traveler gets the taxes back.
> 
> * no:
> All customers of a shop with duty_free=no have to pay normal taxes.
> 
> Feel free to comment :)
> 
> Hauke
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - brand:

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Hi Colin. I’m in Slovakia current and I believe the system is similar, if the 
shop sells a brand then they accept those bottles. 

I believe it’s useful information to be mapped. 

It is possible to find the machine that accepts the widest range of brands. 

One may not remember, or know, where a particular bottle was purchased. 

I agree, it will be almost impossible to find a scheme to fit every country, 
but at least some details on the wiki page would be useful :) 


Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 5 Jan 2020, at 14:33, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> 
> Jake, could I ask you to state what country/state you are referring to? These 
> practices are likely to be different across the world. For example, some 
> countries (such as the Netherlands where I am now) have a pseudo-mandatory 
> system where the retailers pretty much have an obligation to facilitate the 
> deposit schemes, but that usually only covers products they sell themselves. 
> So there would be no real need for "brand" or "operator" in NL. Other 
> countries will probably have different systems - maybe they do not charge an 
> extra deposit on the bottles, but still offer a (small) discount when they 
> are returned. Finding a tagging scheme to fit the whole world requires 
> extensive analysis of as many different perspectives as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>> On 2020-01-05 13:15, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
>> 
>> Some bottle return vending machines only accept bottles of a particular 
>> beverage brand. 
>> 
>> Of the existing 137 bottle return nodes, none specify if there are any 
>> restrictions of which brands of bottles can be returned. 
>> 
>> I would like to propose using brand= but wanted to check if there were any 
>> other suggestions before I add it to the wiki.
>> ___
>> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - brand:

[Colin Smale]

Jake, could I ask you to state what country/state you are referring to?
These practices are likely to be different across the world. For
example, some countries (such as the Netherlands where I am now) have a
pseudo-mandatory system where the retailers pretty much have an
obligation to facilitate the deposit schemes, but that usually only
covers products they sell themselves. So there would be no real need for
"brand" or "operator" in NL. Other countries will probably have
different systems - maybe they do not charge an extra deposit on the
bottles, but still offer a (small) discount when they are returned.
Finding a tagging scheme to fit the whole world requires extensive
analysis of as many different perspectives as possible.

On 2020-01-05 13:15, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:

> Some bottle return vending machines only accept bottles of a particular 
> beverage brand. 
> 
> Of the existing 137 bottle return nodes, none specify if there are any 
> restrictions of which brands of bottles can be returned. 
> 
> I would like to propose using brand= but wanted to check if there were any 
> other suggestions before I add it to the wiki.
> ___
> 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] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Some bottle return vending machines are placed inside supermarket stores and 
give the user a discount coupon to redeem in-store when paying for their 
shopping. The supermarket chain may not own, empty or maintain the machine but 
it appears operator=* is already being used for this case. Should we continue 
and add it to additional tags?   ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - brand:

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

Some bottle return vending machines only accept bottles of a particular 
beverage brand. 

Of the existing 137 bottle return nodes, none specify if there are any 
restrictions of which brands of bottles can be returned. 

I would like to propose using brand= but wanted to check if there were any 
other suggestions before I add it to the wiki.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging