Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> What do you think of ?
> free_water = 
> free_water:container =

The standard "access" values that openstreetmap uses, relevant to this
discussion are:

"yes" (this means "anyone" / "everyone" / "the general public")
"no" (this means "no for all the categories below")
"customers" (this means "only for customers" that is, for people who
have paid a fee or bought something)

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values

These values are commonly used for access to parking lots, for
example, so most people who add things to the map will know about
them.

So the values of "free_water=" should be:

free_water = yes
and
free_water = customer

This will make it easier for mappers like us to understand your new
tags and use them correctly.

free_water:container = - this seems fine?
Other options:
free_water:container = "bring_your_own" (maybe a little clearer?)
and
free_water:container = "available"? or maybe "provided"?

Thank you for discussing this here! Many people just make up their new
tags without getting advice from the rest of the community, so you are
doing a good thing. Please forgive us for any overly blunt or direct
criticism - there are many different cultures and communication styles
represented here.

(If you want, there is a whole, detailed "proposal process" that you
can follow if you want to get these tags official approved. It is not
required, but sometimes it can be helpful if you want more people to
discuss your ideas and the new tags to be displayed more prominently
on the wiki.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process for this option.)

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/14/20, European Water Project  wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant (Paul Allen)
>>
>
>>>>> Paul, thanks for your comment, I see your point
> What do you think of ?
> free_water = 
> free_water:container =
>
>2. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
>>   (Joseph Eisenberg)
>>
>> >>>> Joseph, makes sense , I removed free_water:table
> What do you think of ?
> free_water = 
> free_water:container =
>
> For the European Water Project, we would include cafes, bars, restaurants
> with
> free_water = anyone
> free_water:container =own
>
> and the other three combinations seem to sufficiently cover the other use
> cases
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:58:09 +
>> From: Paul Allen 
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
>> restaurant
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> capy1do+9qzykszzmoyfogzrkfd94sfh3nxvxno4w7kfrpj9...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What does "must_consume" mean?
>> >
>>
>> free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says.  Anybody who
>> enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it.  Or else.  So
>> we need a tag to specify the punishment if they refuse to consume the
>> free water (such as being ejected, fined, or killed).
>>
>> Not, in my opinion, a good value for the key.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/89a75c48/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 06:49:47 +0900
>> From: Joseph Eisenberg 
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
>> restaurant
>> Message-ID:
>> > co7yxdvdo+q6kusvtc-qysx...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>
>> free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places
>> that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small
>> fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc.
>>
>> The word "customers" should be included, since what you are trying to
>> specify is that "you can only get free water if you buy something
>> else", and "customers" is the standard term in Openstreetmap for this
>> idea.
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Volker Schmidt]

Let me try to describe the basic problem: we are interpreting the key
"oneway" with two different meanings:
(1) "restrictions for the flow of vehicle-only traffic" for example in the
widely used case of mixed-use foot-cycle-ways that are one-way for
bicycles.

(2) "restrictions for the flow of any type of traffic, including
pedestrians" when we talk about using oneway:foot=yes|no|-1

That cannot work unless you can neatly separate the two domains of
applicability, which we can't as we have mixed-use ways.
We are discussing in circles around that issue.

It looks as if definition (1) above is widely used whereas (2) much less so.
To me the logical conclusion is we need a separate new key for (2). Let's
define it to be the string of (meaningless) characters "oneway_foot". We
need to add that all ways with the key "highway" carry by default
"oneway_foot=no" in addition to the default "oneway=no".


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

>
>
> 1. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant (Paul Allen)
>

>>>> Paul, thanks for your comment, I see your point
What do you think of ?
free_water = 
free_water:container =

   2. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
>   (Joseph Eisenberg)
>
> >>>> Joseph, makes sense , I removed free_water:table
What do you think of ?
free_water = 
free_water:container =

For the European Water Project, we would include cafes, bars, restaurants
with
free_water = anyone
free_water:container =own

and the other three combinations seem to sufficiently cover the other use
cases

Best regards,

Stuart



> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:58:09 +
> From: Paul Allen 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID:
> <
> capy1do+9qzykszzmoyfogzrkfd94sfh3nxvxno4w7kfrpj9...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler  wrote:
>
> >
> > What does "must_consume" mean?
> >
>
> free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says.  Anybody who
> enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it.  Or else.  So
> we need a tag to specify the punishment if they refuse to consume the
> free water (such as being ejected, fined, or killed).
>
> Not, in my opinion, a good value for the key.
>
> --
> Paul
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/89a75c48/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 06:49:47 +0900
> From: Joseph Eisenberg 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID:
>  co7yxdvdo+q6kusvtc-qysx...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places
> that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small
> fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc.
>
> The word "customers" should be included, since what you are trying to
> specify is that "you can only get free water if you buy something
> else", and "customers" is the standard term in Openstreetmap for this
> idea.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[John Willis via Tagging]

Thank you for this clarification. I will try to repair the lots I have tagged. 

Javbw

> On Jan 14, 2020, at 5:02 AM, Markus  wrote:
> 
> In order that data understand your example and before we've found a
> solution for parkings for multiple vehicle classes, i would recommend
> to tag it as follows:
> 
> amenity=parking
> access=no
> bus=customers
> hgv=customers
> 
> Regards
> 
> Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Rare route=* values - route=power

[François Lacombe]

Le mar. 14 janv. 2020 à 01:33, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> > Debate is open about route=power which may be replaced by a more
> meaningful tag (power=circuit for instance)
>
> +1 to this idea of power=circuit. And then use "type=power" instead of
> "type=route" if you make a relation,


This is a point of the whole debate and, why not type=power + power=circuit.

But i'm merely against power=circuit_segment and independent relations for
branch and trunk.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal#Advanced_cases:_branching

According to experience in France, a single relation involving all lines
and substations with appropriate roles (trunk, branch, whatever) is enough
and doesn't force to create several relations.
This point have to be cleared with proposal authors prior to vote.


> or if the circuit is less than a
> few hundred nodes you could just use a linear way.
>

I don't get that point.
Circuits need to be a relation.
A single way can't do the job since you have two substations to involve at
least.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[John Willis via Tagging]

To me, there are a few requirements of “designated” parking lots: 

1)  it is signed as such: "Cars go here and HGV go there” , “cars, right” and 
“HGV, left”, directing you to different lots. Lots are labeled on signage 
telling which vehicle types to go where (cars/HGV/motorcycle/ + disabled).

2) it is designed with the vehicle in mind: Spaces are painted for the size of 
expected vehicle. The lanes are wider and turning radius of the turns are meant 
for larger vehicles in HGV lots. This is easily visible on imagery. 

3) It offers Amenities for the specific Vehicles: Very large wheel-stops for 
HGV, or parking spaces where backing out is not necessary for HGV. There might 
also be amenities for bus passengers (since the buses often have to park 
further away from the location), such as additional Toilets & vending machines 
far away from the main location, but adjacent to the bus parking area.

4) It is human enforced: When there is a large amount of traffic, people 
directing traffic enforce these rules. While they may choose to break their own 
rules to manage the spaces in an efficient way, it is not up to the driver to 
do so. People direct the cars & HGVs to the correct lots during busy days. This 
might also mean gate or cone barriers that are moved by employees when they are 
needed (common with disabled & bus lots in busy places in Japan).

5) People are advised to follow thew rules with additional signs & notices 
around the location you are visiting: there are signs saying not to park your 
car in the HGV spaces (or in the disabled spaces or the loading zones). 
Official signage (seen in restrooms and posters all over the service area) from 
the Tollway operator NEXCO regarding parking in the bus parking: 
https://www.driveplaza.com/special/mannerty/library/img/img_001_016.gif 

Of course, this is represented by the “Rude Shark” and the “Mannerty the 
manatee” in the “Heartful Highway” signage all over the tollway here. 
https://www.driveplaza.com/special/mannerty/library/index.html 

check them out, you don’t need to read Japanese to enjoy them. 

6) police enforcement / Legal enforcement: I am not aware of anyone getting 
their car towed or getting a parking ticket in anywhere in Japan *ever*, 
because there is little to no such police enforcement anywhere in Japan for 
parking rules/laws via towing/citations (unlike America). Expecting this to be 
tow-enforced / ticketed is not a reasonable threshold, because there is 
basically no tow-enforcement / ticketing for almost any parking laws anywhere 
in Japan. 

My lots meet 5 of these “requirements", but I would say if you meet the first 2 
(signed + painted for the vehicle type), it is "designated". This is the 
threshold for motorcycle parking and disabled parking as well most everywhere 
else.

Javbw.

> On Jan 6, 2020, at 2:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> 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?
> 
> 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] Rare route=* values - route=power

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Debate is open about route=power which may be replaced by a more meaningful 
> tag (power=circuit for instance)

+1 to this idea of power=circuit. And then use "type=power" instead of
"type=route" if you make a relation, or if the circuit is less than a
few hundred nodes you could just use a linear way.

-Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied to 
> pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway" already 
> has no implication for pedestrian

That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database
user assume that? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical
to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel.
It is the same as a database user designing a routing application or
renderer - you are not going to assume that a tag is meaningless
(unless it looks like it came from a bad import).

(This sort of pedantic arguement is like claiming that "I don't got no
money" means "I have money" because it is a "double negative", but in
fact double negatives are extremely common in spoken languages as a
means of emphasis, and are perfectly "standard" in many (like Spanish,
Indonesian, and many dialects of English).)

-Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/14/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:08 Uhr schrieb Jmapb :
>
>> IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new
>> backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly
>> ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme.
>
>
>
> the idea that oneway is about "driving" and not about "walking" is quite
> old, you can find it since 2007:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:oneway=55990
> "Description Oneway streets are streets where you are only allowed to drive
> in one direction."
>
> This is also what the access page says:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#One-way_restrictions
>
> I believe it is beneficial to agree on the colon as separator for combining
> individual tags, e.g.
> oneway:bicycle=no means is composed of "oneway" and "bicycle", as opposed
> to the hypothetical oneway_bicycle which would be a completely new tag
> "oneway bicycle". While it would be the same to write "bicycle:oneway", the
> general rules about tag composition order discourage this (hence it is used
> orders of magnitude less)
>
> following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied
> to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway"
> already has no implication for pedestrian, so the further restriction for
> "foot" will not change it, you may not drive your feet in the other
> direction.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Rare route=* values - route=power

[François Lacombe]

Hi

Le lun. 13 janv. 2020 à 04:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Continuity can be had by the lines sharing a node. In the same way roads
> share a node to enable routing.
>
This is not a good idea since sometimes, lines sharing a node aren't
necessarily connected
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Abzweigmast2.jpg


> I would expect a line that has n*3 cables to be tagged cables=3;3 (for
> n=2, add more ;3 for more n). This would signify that the 3 phase circuits
> are separate.
>
> Humm problem in identifying which of the 3 phases is connected to which
> when the line splits off.
>
That's the point and really difficulct to make it work without a relation.
Debate is open about route=power which may be replaced by a more meaningful
tag (power=circuit for instance)


> Who uses this route relation - as in a end use? Or is this a 'build it and
> they will come' thing?
>
It's first of all a kind of challenge to produce a whole dataset.

End use cases are the same as public transport : automatize this kind of
chart production, feed simulators, routing software...
https://www.sifoee.com/static/images/score.png
"Build it and they will come" is a bit necessarily since taking data from
GIS isn't a so common thing currently. BI and asset management are still
often separated from GIS
This has to change and osm can bring useful tools for that.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[Volker Schmidt]

Bicycle or hiking routes in OSM that are not trailblazed have one big
drawback: they confuse data end users (they are looking for the signs, and
if there are none, think they have taken the wrong turn.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 19:21 brad,  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
> facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
> ministries.
>
> Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
> visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
> loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.
>
> Joseph
>
> I think this is an overreaction.There are many routes that meet the
> wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or
> marked.I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, but
> that is only a minor annoyance.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
>> trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of
>> France.
>> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
>> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>>
>> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
>> intersection of those routes ?
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
>> I doubt that.
>>
>> This is how the Wiki define a route:
>> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
>> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
>> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
>> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>>
>> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
>> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
>> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
>> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>>
>> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>>
>> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >
>> > >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am
>> all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
>> manageable.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
>> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
>> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
>> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
>> > owned a car for 9 years.
>> >
>> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
>> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
>> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>> >
>> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
>> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
>> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>> >
>> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
>> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
>> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
>> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
>> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
>> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
>> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
>> > tell them apart.
>> >
>> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
>> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
>> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
>> > are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
>> > can't tag the distinction.
>> >
>> > Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
>> > other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
>> > data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
>> > single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path along a
>> > canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>> >
>> > - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> --
>> Florimond Berthoux
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Joseph Eisenberg]

free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places
that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small
fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc.

The word "customers" should be included, since what you are trying to
specify is that "you can only get free water if you buy something
else", and "customers" is the standard term in Openstreetmap for this
idea.

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler  wrote:

>
> What does "must_consume" mean?
>

free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says.  Anybody who
enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it.  Or else.  So
we need a tag to specify the punishment if they refuse to consume the
free water (such as being ejected, fined, or killed).

Not, in my opinion, a good value for the key.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi Stuart

> I could see : 
> free_water = 
> free_water:container =
> free_water:table= 
If something is for the general public (= anyone) the value is usually
"yes" (as at the "access" tag [0]) and then there are further
restricting values (when there's a "yes" there's mostly at least also a
"no").

What does "must_consume" mean? People visiting this place and consuming
water at that place (e.g. during a dinner in a restaurant)? If that's
the case, then I would use the value "customers" as it is already used
and known for other tags.

> How long does it typically take for the tag allocation decision process
> to be completed?  Do you have an example wiki proposal page ?  
There's a description page on the proposal process [1] describing each
step that should be done.

As an example, there's the proposal page for "amenity=public_bookcase"
[2] which had a rather fast proposal process without much discussion. As
you can see there, it took nearly one month from a first draft to the
accepted tag. As your tag idea and use-cases are quite clear, simple and
would add usable and helpful tags, your proposal probably won't take any
longer than that.

The proposal description page also specifies the recommended duration
the proposal has to stay in one state (e.g. to wait for further
discussion or to wait for people to vote). Don't mind to ask questions
on the proposal process (even though I'm not an expert in this).

Hauke

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/public_bookcase



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

>
>
> Thanks Hauke

The namespace scheme could work. It is very elegant and clean. The meaning
of customer in container is a bit confusing... as it can be a paying or non
paying customer.

I could see :
free_water = 
free_water:container =
free_water:table=

How long does it typically take for the tag allocation decision process to
be completed?  Do you have an example wiki proposal page ?

Best regards,

Stuart



>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:57:02 +0100
> From: Hauke Stieler 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Stuart,
>
> > The proposal below does not seem optimal, but if that is what is decided
> > we will write wiki instructions in this manner.
> No decisions have been made so far. Currently all these mails just
> contain ideas and discussions.
>
> I'm personally a fan of the namespace scheme, the one with the ":"
> separating parts of a tag. You'll find this e.g. on addresses:
>
> addr:street=*
> addr:city=*
> addr:housenumber=*
> ...
>
> Or also for parking situations:
>
> parking:lane=*
> parking:lane:left=*
> parking:condition=*
> ...
>
> This semantic separation of a key creates a nice structure and organizes
> this huge collection of possible tags into groups.
>
> > I still prefer free_water_refill=yes/no  free_water_table=yes/no
> Because the beginning of these two tags are the same, for me personally
> it's a reason to change them into "free_water:..." tags.
>
> Using this scheme, I can also imagine the following tags (just ideas,
> the keys and values are probably not optimal):
>
> free_water=
> free_water:container=
> free_water:table=
> (maybe more...)
>
> However, in the end, there must probably be a tag proposal (a wiki page
> describing how the final tags should look like, what they exactly mean,
> when to use them, what use-cases do they have, etc.). Everybody can vote
> for or against the proposal, therefore it's in the end on the community
> to decide what tags become "official".
>
> Hauke
>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/7ff6a580/attachment-0001.sig
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:01:56 +0100
> From: European Water Project 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin
> Koppenhoefer)
> Message-ID:
>  gek8n0usxa_vbaurryqqwvv9f6emejdu1...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> >
> >2. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin Koppenhoefer)
> >
> >>>>> Martin, Italy is amazing. Apparently there are more than 100,000
> fountains in Italy. On the 24th of April, we are planning a fountain hunt
> in Rome with the My-D.org. We should be 20 people including locals (just in
> case you live there).
> re: amenity=drinking_water
> France is complicated and the lobbies have made almost all perfectly good
> water fountains labelled "non potable". Just across the borders in
> Switzerland and Italy all the fountains are good to drink..
>
> Price can be an incentive, but unless the waste producer pays all true
> indirect externalities the cost will always be minimal for PET.
>
>
> > 3. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés,  bars, (Philip Barnes)
> >
>
> >>>>>>>Philip, Yes, like the US and France. We believe that it should be
> that way everywhere. No one should have to create single-use waste to keep
> themselves hydrated.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:50:20 +0100
> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> > cabptjtclw2ikprn1vagbtc4x9zguotol0xcoxz5mpnc6g0-...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
> > europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > While I understand your point of view, many are trying hard to change
> > > legislation and mig

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

[Markus]

Hi John

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 22:37, John Willis via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.31737/139.61884
>
> Here is a good example of the kind of situations I have in my area:
>
> - a service area with two different lots, car and HGV (bus/lorry) adjacent to 
> each other, with a satellite bathroom for the busses.
> - service area is segregated by motorway direction, and labeled as such. This 
> makes duplicates of everything.  They are usually not adjacent, but are in 
> this case.
> - dedicated separated handicap parking
> - separate “permissive” lots for people outside the toll system to park and 
> enter on foot.
> - loading zones for deliveries (untagged).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/758265853

amenity=parking
access=customers
bus=designated
hgv=designated
motorcar=no
parking=surface
ref=
surface=asphalt

As amenity=parking currently is defined as a car park, data users
would assume that this is a car park for customers (they likely don't
evaluate motorcar=no).

Even if amenity=parking weren't exclusive for cars, but for any
vehicles, your tagging doesn't mean what you likely had in mind (i.e.
a customer parking for buses and HGVs), but a designated parking
facility for buses and HGVs (not only for customers) that other
vehicles except cars (e.g. tourist buses or motorcycles) can use if
they are customers.

In order that data understand your example and before we've found a
solution for parkings for multiple vehicle classes, i would recommend
to tag it as follows:

amenity=parking
access=no
bus=customers
hgv=customers

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin Koppenhoefer)

[European Water Project]

>
>2. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>
>>>>> Martin, Italy is amazing. Apparently there are more than 100,000
fountains in Italy. On the 24th of April, we are planning a fountain hunt
in Rome with the My-D.org. We should be 20 people including locals (just in
case you live there).
re: amenity=drinking_water
France is complicated and the lobbies have made almost all perfectly good
water fountains labelled "non potable". Just across the borders in
Switzerland and Italy all the fountains are good to drink..

Price can be an incentive, but unless the waste producer pays all true
indirect externalities the cost will always be minimal for PET.


> 3. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés,  bars, (Philip Barnes)
>

>>>>>>>Philip, Yes, like the US and France. We believe that it should be
that way everywhere. No one should have to create single-use waste to keep
themselves hydrated.

>
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:50:20 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> Message-ID:
> <
> cabptjtclw2ikprn1vagbtc4x9zguotol0xcoxz5mpnc6g0-...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>
> > While I understand your point of view, many are trying hard to change
> > legislation and might see it as more than a marketing gimmick but rather
> a
> > right to be able to drink without generating single-use waste. Belgium,
> > Luxembourg,  Switzerland and Italy are not obliged to serve tap water
> with
> > a meal like in France where we live.
> >
>
>
> from a practical point of view, living in Italy, I have not yet encountered
> a place that would have refused (free) tap water. Great thing about Italy
> is that you can get free water in many places right on the street, from
> drinking fountains 24/7. amenity=drinking_water is rank 5 on Italy's
> taginfo stats, almost double the amount of petrol stations :)
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/italy/keys/amenity#values
>
> In France, drinking_water is amenity rank 23, so rightfully your government
> has found other ways to provide you with water ;-)
> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/france/keys/amenity#values
>
> Not to get me wrong, I do agree there is benefit from political action, and
> there are issues related to water. What also matters is the actual price
> you have to pay for (bottled) water. It will always be completely unrelated
> to drinking water prices, but while in Italy a bottle of water is typically
> 1 EUR (away from airports), or 2 EUR (in the restaurant, there are
> exceptions), in Germany they will typically charge you 2,50 and more for
> just a glass of water. In Switzerland, they sell water for 5 SFR a bottle
> on the motorway, and 4 EUR and more is not unseen on German motorways as
> well.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/41ea2a3c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 18:12:56 +
> From: Philip Barnes 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés,  bars,
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> In GB it is the law that licensed premises provide free drinking water.
>
> So that , means all pubs, most restaurants and some cafes.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/08db579c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> 
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi Stuart,

> The proposal below does not seem optimal, but if that is what is decided
> we will write wiki instructions in this manner. 
No decisions have been made so far. Currently all these mails just
contain ideas and discussions.

I'm personally a fan of the namespace scheme, the one with the ":"
separating parts of a tag. You'll find this e.g. on addresses:

addr:street=*
addr:city=*
addr:housenumber=*
...

Or also for parking situations:

parking:lane=*
parking:lane:left=*
parking:condition=*
...

This semantic separation of a key creates a nice structure and organizes
this huge collection of possible tags into groups.

> I still prefer free_water_refill=yes/no  free_water_table=yes/no
Because the beginning of these two tags are the same, for me personally
it's a reason to change them into "free_water:..." tags.

Using this scheme, I can also imagine the following tags (just ideas,
the keys and values are probably not optimal):

free_water=
free_water:container=
free_water:table=
(maybe more...)

However, in the end, there must probably be a tag proposal (a wiki page
describing how the final tags should look like, what they exactly mean,
when to use them, what use-cases do they have, etc.). Everybody can vote
for or against the proposal, therefore it's in the end on the community
to decide what tags become "official".

Hauke



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

Re: [Tagging] Special traffic signs - still highway=traffic_signals?

[Markus]

Hi Mateusz

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 17:06, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> There are some special traffic signals near me
>
> - usually flashing yellow, that has no meaning
> - turning red in case of an incoming
> special vehicle
>
> Special vehicle may be
>
> (1) emergency vehicle leaving fire department
> in this case it gets activated probably once or
> twice a day
>
> (2) tram on a level crossing
> - in peak about over every four minutes,
> during day about once 15 minutes
>
> How to tag this cases?
> Like any other traffic light?

There are already some secondary tags in use and documented for these
kinds of traffic signals:

  * traffic_signals=emergency (902 uses): a normal-looking traffic
signal, often in front of a fire station, that turns red only to give
emergency vehicles right-of-way. Color details may be different (e.g.
flashing yellow instead of solid green in the bottom lens). Often a
sign mounted next to the signals states 'emergency signal'.

  * traffic_signals=bus_priority/tram_priority (321/160 uses):
normally off, but whenever a bus or a tram approaches, it first blinks
yellow and then changes to red to allow or facilitate passage for the
bus or tram

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals

I'm going to adjust the documentation for the normal state of these
special case of traffic signals, as they may be off or blinking
yellow.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[brad]

On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government 
facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most 
ministries.


Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in 
a visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite 
training loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.


Joseph
I think this is an overreaction.    There are many routes that meet the 
wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or 
marked.    I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, 
but that is only a minor annoyance.





On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux 
mailto:florimond.berth...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital
of France.
« Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May
be we should remove that tag, don't you think?... »

You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post
at the intersection of those routes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
I doubt that.

This is how the Wiki define a route:
« A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel,
often predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken
repeatedly by people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic
route, a car on a numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist
on a national route. »
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
« A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage
or travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road
bicycle routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »

And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.

Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> a
écrit :
>
> >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes,
I am all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear
tagging, and manageable.
>
> +1
>
> I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
> and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
> http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could
edit. And
> I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
> owned a car for 9 years.
>
> So I would love to have more information about what streets and
roads
> are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
> training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>
> But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm
that
> a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
> properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>
> I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
> improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But
since
> there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
> hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike
layer was
> full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
> routes, some were based on the personal preference of the
mapper, and
> some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
> tell them apart.
>
> If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
> designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you
can tag
> that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
> are more for commuting or more for recreation, and in that case we
> can't tag the distinction.
>
> Fortunately, database users (like routing applications) can look at
> other Openstreetmap data, like surface=* tags on ways, and external
> data like elevation models, to determine if a route is a difficult
> single-track trail through the hills versus a flat paved path
along a
> canal, and use this to help route cyclists appropriately.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg

-- 
Florimond Berthoux

___
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] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Lauri Kytömaa]

>(a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so

That's a common misdescription. A track can't be so narrow a car wouldn't fit, 
but most built highway=path ways are wider than that.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,

[Philip Barnes]

In GB it is the law that licensed premises provide free drinking water.

So that , means all pubs, most restaurants and some cafes.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:

> While I understand your point of view, many are trying hard to change
> legislation and might see it as more than a marketing gimmick but rather a
> right to be able to drink without generating single-use waste. Belgium,
> Luxembourg,  Switzerland and Italy are not obliged to serve tap water with
> a meal like in France where we live.
>


from a practical point of view, living in Italy, I have not yet encountered
a place that would have refused (free) tap water. Great thing about Italy
is that you can get free water in many places right on the street, from
drinking fountains 24/7. amenity=drinking_water is rank 5 on Italy's
taginfo stats, almost double the amount of petrol stations :)
https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/italy/keys/amenity#values

In France, drinking_water is amenity rank 23, so rightfully your government
has found other ways to provide you with water ;-)
https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/france/keys/amenity#values

Not to get me wrong, I do agree there is benefit from political action, and
there are issues related to water. What also matters is the actual price
you have to pay for (bottled) water. It will always be completely unrelated
to drinking water prices, but while in Italy a bottle of water is typically
1 EUR (away from airports), or 2 EUR (in the restaurant, there are
exceptions), in Germany they will typically charge you 2,50 and more for
just a glass of water. In Switzerland, they sell water for 5 SFR a bottle
on the motorway, and 4 EUR and more is not unseen on German motorways as
well.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:08 Uhr schrieb Jmapb :

> IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new
> backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly
> ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme.



the idea that oneway is about "driving" and not about "walking" is quite
old, you can find it since 2007:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:oneway=55990
"Description Oneway streets are streets where you are only allowed to drive
in one direction."

This is also what the access page says:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#One-way_restrictions

I believe it is beneficial to agree on the colon as separator for combining
individual tags, e.g.
oneway:bicycle=no means is composed of "oneway" and "bicycle", as opposed
to the hypothetical oneway_bicycle which would be a completely new tag
"oneway bicycle". While it would be the same to write "bicycle:oneway", the
general rules about tag composition order discourage this (hence it is used
orders of magnitude less)

following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction applied
to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because "oneway"
already has no implication for pedestrian, so the further restriction for
"foot" will not change it, you may not drive your feet in the other
direction.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,

[European Water Project]

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your email.

While I understand your point of view, many are trying hard to change
legislation and might see it as more than a marketing gimmick but rather a
right to be able to drink without generating single-use waste. Belgium,
Luxembourg,  Switzerland and Italy are not obliged to serve tap water with
a meal like in France where we live.

We are not targeting free tap water for paying customers ... but I can see
value in this for those that care.

How about  :

1) water_bottle_refill=non_paying and water_bottle_refill=customer

or

2) water_access=non_paying and water_access=customer

Best regards,

Stuart

.


>
> > On 13. Jan 2020, at 14:07, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How about free_water_refill=yes free_water_table=yes ?
>
>
> free_water_refill at a restaurant or cafe
> to me sounds as if you must buy water and get refills for free
>
> Maybe we would want to distinguish getting water by yourself from an
> accessible tap or bottle/carafe vs. getting it from the bar staff / waiters
> after you asked for it?
>
> How would we tag a place with free drinks with your meal? I’m asking
> because free water for customers sounds more like a marketing tale than
> like something we’d tag in OpenStreetMap (it’s not “free”, it’s included).
>
>
> > What is the character count permissible for tags ?
>
>
> maybe it’s 255 ascii characters (technically), there is no agreed limit,
> as short as you can while remaining easily distinguishable and no
> abbreviations etc.
>
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:57:00 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to
> pedestrians?
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
> oneway:foot=-1 would still work
> (Like oneway=-1 is very rarely needed
> for traffic allowed only in direction
> opposite to way direction)
> 13 Jan 2020, 15:43 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> >> Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary.  What if the
> road is
> >> one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B
> whilst
> >> pedestrians go from B to A?
> >>
> >
> > You beat me to it!
> >
> > I know I've seen a footway on the verge of the roadway signed, 'WALK
> > ON LEFT, FACING TRAFFIC.' If the road was a dual-carriageway (it might
> > have been, I don't recall now), then we'd have had exactly that
> > situation.  "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward
> > for one mode and backward for another.
> >
> > --
> > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/615ea5c3/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:00:18 +0100
> From: European Water Project 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
> Message-ID:
>  my1htxmwawwss...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Hauke,
>
> It goes without saying that we will develop best practice instructions on
> wikimedia for how to tag cafes and bars which offer free water bottle
> refill for non paying customers. We will not give instructions for the
> other cases as that is not our target audience.
>
> The proposal below does not seem optimal, but if that is what is decided we
> will write wiki instructions in this manner.
>
> I still prefer free_water_refill=yes/no  free_water_table=yes/no
>
> Does anyone else prefer this nomenclature ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:26:13 +0100
> > From: Hauke Stieler 
> > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> > restaurant
> > Message-ID: <75a599bd-f69a-b1f2-8cb6-ea0abed3a...@hauke-stieler.de&g

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Jmapb]

On 1/13/2020 9:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary.  What if the road is
one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst
pedestrians go from B to A?

You beat me to it!

I know I've seen a footway on the verge of the roadway signed, 'WALK
ON LEFT, FACING TRAFFIC.' If the road was a dual-carriageway (it might
have been, I don't recall now), then we'd have had exactly that
situation.  "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward
for one mode and backward for another.


The "traditional" (by my observation) way to tag this would be:
highway=residential
oneway=yes
oneway:foot=-1

Using the forward/backward tags, it would be:
highway=residential
oneway=yes
foot:forward=no
foot:backward=yes

IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new
backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly
ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme.

...Scouting around on Overpass, I found one footway that was tagged
something like this:
highway=footway
foot:forward=designated
foot:backward=yes

I think it was something like a nature trail or historic walk where
there's a designed direction of foot traffic but it's not an actual
restriction. That's the best justification I've seen for the
foot:forward/foot:backward tags, though of course one could conjur up
some value like oneway=intended that could mean the same thing.

J


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> That argument isn't convincing
>
> In Openstreetmap the keys are arbitrary strings; "oneway:foot" is no
> more relate to oneway than "not_oneway" or "phoneway".
>


Technically you are correct, but there are discussions about it. Some
people would want to have a more formal "grammar" so that combining several
tags (or "conditions") gets standardized. It makes the creation of new tags
easier and can imply clear rules for data consumers. The structure was
documented in the conditional tagging proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Tagging
but it had already been around for some time then.

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

[Tagging] Special traffic signs - still highway=traffic_signals?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

There are some special traffic signals near me

- usually flashing yellow, that has no meaning
- turning red in case of an incoming
special vehicle

Special vehicle may be

(1) emergency vehicle leaving fire department
in this case it gets activated probably once or 
twice a day

(2) tram on a level crossing
- in peak about over every four minutes,
during day about once 15 minutes

How to tag this cases?
Like any other traffic light?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13 Jan 2020, 14:04 by europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com:

> Hello,
>
BTW, thanks for consulting with
us how to tag this feature!___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

Dear Hauke,

It goes without saying that we will develop best practice instructions on
wikimedia for how to tag cafes and bars which offer free water bottle
refill for non paying customers. We will not give instructions for the
other cases as that is not our target audience.

The proposal below does not seem optimal, but if that is what is decided we
will write wiki instructions in this manner.

I still prefer free_water_refill=yes/no  free_water_table=yes/no

Does anyone else prefer this nomenclature ?

Best regards,

Stuart



> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:26:13 +0100
> From: Hauke Stieler 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID: <75a599bd-f69a-b1f2-8cb6-ea0abed3a...@hauke-stieler.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> > This model is used for many other tags in OSM. One of the most
> > fundamental tags, access=*, uses it to show "access only for customers"
> > for example.
> > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dcustomers .
> > free_water=customers would not look out of place at all in that list.
>
> +1
> I think the wiki/documentation of the European Water Project should then
> describe this in a way that newbies also understand the different values
> of the tag.
>
> > The other dimension that has been mentioned, is "bring your own
> > container" vs. "we supply the container". Something like
> > "container=customer", "container=supplier" or "container=both" perhaps?
>
> Because a "container" could be anything (at a supermarket or kiosk it
> could also be a container for food), I suggest something like
> "free_water:container=*" to make clear that the container "availability"
> refers to the refill service.
>
> Hauke
>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/55b94bef/attachment-0001.sig
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 22:38:12 +0900
> From: Joseph Eisenberg 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID:
>  3_02l...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> > I suggest something like
> "free_water:container=*" to make clear that the container "availability"
> refers to the refill service.
>
> +1
>
>
>
> -
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

oneway:foot=-1 would still work
(Like oneway=-1 is very rarely needed 
for traffic allowed only in direction
opposite to way direction)
13 Jan 2020, 15:43 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary.  What if the road 
>> is
>> one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst
>> pedestrians go from B to A?
>>
>
> You beat me to it!
>
> I know I've seen a footway on the verge of the roadway signed, 'WALK
> ON LEFT, FACING TRAFFIC.' If the road was a dual-carriageway (it might
> have been, I don't recall now), then we'd have had exactly that
> situation.  "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward
> for one mode and backward for another.
>
> -- 
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> 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 Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jan 2020, at 14:07, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> How about free_water_refill=yes free_water_table=yes ?


free_water_refill at a restaurant or cafe
to me sounds as if you must buy water and get refills for free

Maybe we would want to distinguish getting water by yourself from an accessible 
tap or bottle/carafe vs. getting it from the bar staff / waiters after you 
asked for it?

How would we tag a place with free drinks with your meal? I’m asking because 
free water for customers sounds more like a marketing tale than like something 
we’d tag in OpenStreetMap (it’s not “free”, it’s included).


> What is the character count permissible for tags ?


maybe it’s 255 ascii characters (technically), there is no agreed limit, as 
short as you can while remaining easily distinguishable and no abbreviations 
etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Jmapb]

On 1/13/2020 9:46 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:


Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different
implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I
would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the
highway in question.

More specifically:

  - I would expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
footway.

No. There are thousands of footways with
bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways


Sure, there are many footways with allowance for an extra sort of
traffic, most commonly bicycles. If these footways are tagged
oneway=yes, I'd expect the other kinds of traffic to follow that rule
too, unless overridden with e.g. oneway:bicycle=no.



  - I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a
oneway:foot=no tag.

 No. There are thousands of pedestrain, path, cycleway with
bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways


I don't understand the "No." Nothing I wrote precludes using these ways
for both foot and bicycle traffic.

Cycleways are primarily for bicycles, so I'd expect a oneway tag on a
cycleway to primarily describe the bicycle traffic. If foot traffic is
also permitted on a oneway cycleway, I'd expect it to follow the same
oneway rule, unless explicitly overridden with a oneway:foot tag.

Pedestrian and path are a little more ambiguous, but again, I'd expect
the oneway tag to apply to whatever the predominant traffic is. And if
tagged oneway, I'd expect that oneway restriction to apply to foot
traffic unless overridden with a oneway:foot tag.

I'm not *advocating* for this to be a rule -- I'm just describing how
I'm accustomed to interpreting the existing tags. As we know, the
documentation is imperfect. If there's a better way of doing this,
great! Let's document it.

J

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Volker Schmidt]

>
> Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different
> implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I
> would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the
> highway in question.
>
> More specifically:
>
>   - I would expect a oneway=yes tag apply to foot traffic on footway.
>
No. There are thousands of footways with bicycle=yes|official|designated to
make them mixed foot-cycleways

  - I would also expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
> pedestrian, path, and cycleway -- unless explicitly nullified with a
> oneway:foot=no tag.
>
 No. There are thousands of pedestrain, path, cycleway with
bicycle=yes|official|designated to make them mixed foot-cycleways

  - I would not expect a oneway=yes tag to apply to foot traffic on
> track, service, unclassified, residential, or any larger roadway, unless
> made explicit with a oneway:foot=yes tag.
>
OK

Of course I understand that from a data consumer's point of view it's
> irritating when a tag has different meanings in different contexts --
> especially if these differences are not formally documented.
>
It also drives the mappers mad

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary.  What if the road is
> one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst
> pedestrians go from B to A?

You beat me to it!

I know I've seen a footway on the verge of the roadway signed, 'WALK
ON LEFT, FACING TRAFFIC.' If the road was a dual-carriageway (it might
have been, I don't recall now), then we'd have had exactly that
situation.  "Just reverse the way" isn't a solution when it's forward
for one mode and backward for another.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I suggest something like
"free_water:container=*" to make clear that the container "availability"
refers to the refill service.

+1

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Hauke Stieler]

Hi,

> This model is used for many other tags in OSM. One of the most
> fundamental tags, access=*, uses it to show "access only for customers"
> for example.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dcustomers .
> free_water=customers would not look out of place at all in that list.

+1
I think the wiki/documentation of the European Water Project should then
describe this in a way that newbies also understand the different values
of the tag.

> The other dimension that has been mentioned, is "bring your own
> container" vs. "we supply the container". Something like
> "container=customer", "container=supplier" or "container=both" perhaps?

Because a "container" could be anything (at a supermarket or kiosk it
could also be a container for food), I suggest something like
"free_water:container=*" to make clear that the container "availability"
refers to the refill service.

Hauke



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
> this tag is obvios.
>
> "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.
>

Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary.  What if the road
is
one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst
pedestrians go from B to A?

I was taught, many years ago, that if there was no pavement you walked
on the side of the road that faced oncoming traffic so you could see cars
on your side of the road coming towards you rather than have them come
up behind you.  This principle might be legally enforced on a road which is
one-way to both pedestrians and traffic on safety grounds.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

Hello,

1) free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers
is very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers
as free_water=yes

This model is used for many other tags in OSM. One of the most
fundamental tags, access=*, uses it to show "access only for customers"
for example. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dcustomers .
free_water=customers would not look out of place at all in that list.
>>>
It may be OSM compatible but doesn't seem optimal and our crowdsource model
may bring newbies tagging incorrectly cafes and bars.

How about free_water_refill=yes free_water_table=yes ? What is the
character count permissible for tags ?

Here are the instructions for adding new fountains in 6 languages. Written
with the help of Wikimedia, OSM France, OSM Spain and OSM Switzerland and
friends.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH/Project/European_Water_Project


2)

The other dimension that has been mentioned, is "bring your own
container" vs. "we supply the container". Something like
"container=customer", "container=supplier" or "container=both" perhaps?
>>>
 container=supplier does not allow individuals to carry at all times a
reusable water bottle. a) of course an establishment always has the right
(and the obligation) to refuse to fill a filthy water bottle. I would also
suggest individuals always unscrew the top of the bottle before handing to
the barman ... to reduce the possibility of germ contamination.

This being said, I can see the usefulness of this tag understand the
usefulness of this tag (although we will exclude container=supplier from
our application display.

Best regards,

Stuart




>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
>   (European Water Project)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:18:19 +0100
> From: European Water Project 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID:
>  tsvcgbt3xd-zkvhfd3fh0ovaqbjistxxfrgktzp9la9f...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello,
>
> 1)
> free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers  is
> very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers as
> free_water=yes
>
> 2)
> yes, amenity=cafe, amenity=bar, amenity=restaurant are just examples. I
> wanted to give context for the purpose of the discussion.  Our NGO will
> contribute to the creation of a network of cafes and restaurants willing to
> refill water bottles all over Europe.
>
> 3) carafe was a suggestion, happy to entertain any more self explicit
> suggestions.
>
> 4) yes, I have had extensive conversations with the Refill headquarters..
> Their board will not entertain an open data model.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> PS : I hope
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >6. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
> >   (Jake Edmonds)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:06:58 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Mateusz Konieczny 
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> > restaurant
> > Message-ID: 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
> >
> > >
> > > How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and
> > free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
> > >
> > >
> > +1
> >
> > And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.
> >
> > > I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including
> > pubs, bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference
> > amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative
> > illustration or example.
> > >
> > Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
> > amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.
> >
> >
> > > Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container,
> > not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many
> > other things are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So
> > free_carafe=yes may end up disappointing a few people...
> > >
> > And water is not always served 

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

That argument isn't convincing

In Openstreetmap the keys are arbitrary strings; "oneway:foot" is no
more relate to oneway than "not_oneway" or "phoneway".

I don't believe anyone will be confused by a tag like oneway:foot=yes,
but if you prefer, changing the order to foot:oneway=* makes it clear
that this is not a "subtag" of "oneway=" somehow, but rather something
about access for people on foot.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/13/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
>> this tag is obvios.
>>
>> "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.
>
>
>
> According to some contestants, the meaning isn't obvious, as there is the
> contradiction of "oneway" never applying to pedestrians and having a subtag
> which behaves as if it did?
> Similar self-contradicting tag would be
>
> highway=path AND motorcar=yes
>
> (a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so even if you add motorcar=yes, it
> will not be accessible, for physical reasons):
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
> this tag is obvios.
>
> "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.



According to some contestants, the meaning isn't obvious, as there is the
contradiction of "oneway" never applying to pedestrians and having a subtag
which behaves as if it did?
Similar self-contradicting tag would be

highway=path AND motorcar=yes

(a path is too narrow for a motorcar, so even if you add motorcar=yes, it
will not be accessible, for physical reasons):

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

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 13 January 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line
> joining Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina",
> which is what has been the case in OSM until now:

That is a straw man argument that has been floated already at the very 
beginning when a riverbank polygon was first created for that (which 
was later than when the Río de la Plata was originally mapped by the 
way - just to clarify that).

The IHO specifies an (obviously subjective and non-verifiable) set of 
limits of *oceans and seas*.  If anyone wants to use this as an 
argument that would make the Río de la Plata a marginal sea of the 
Atlantic Ocean and therefore to be placed outside the coastline.  So 
using the IHO as a source (in lieu of the verifiable geography in a 
Wikipedia-like fashion so to speak) kind of defeats the basic argument 
for the Río de la Plata to not be a maritime waterbody.

> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight
> the coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a
> coastal city.

The main reason why the current mapping is vigorously maintained by some 
local mappers is political in nature.  Argentina and Uruguay want to 
claim this area as internal waters (and the administrative boundaries 
are mapped accordingly) but not every other nation accepts this claim.  
Presenting the Río de la Plata as a non-maritime waterbody in as many 
maps and data sets as possible would support such claim.

My own solution as a data user to this has been to simply maintain a 
coastline cheatfile which marks this as a special case and moves the 
Río de la Plata polygon into the ocean polygon data.  This is 
unfortunate but way simpler than trying to fight against a widespread 
politically motivated conviction.  See also:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:maritime=yes

> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River
>_transit_placement but this is still at the proposal stage.

The IMO logical approach to placing the closing segment of the coastline 
at a river mouth according to the spirit of the OpenStreetMap project 
is to place it where for the verifiable view of humans the maritime 
domain ends and the riverine domain starts.  This is largely an 
ecological question.  Coastline and riverbanks are physical geography 
features so their position is to be defined by physically observable 
characteristics rather than politically defined limits.  Like so often 
(for example in case of the line between scrubland and woodland) this 
is often not a clearly visible sharp line but a transit.  There are 
however clearly observable limits to the extent of this transit.  The 
proposal cited tries to specify those.

Back when i drafted the proposal there was very little interest in the 
subject except by those who were opposed to it for political reasons.  
Therefore i did not pursue it further.  But anyone is welcome to take 
it up again.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-13 12:18, European Water Project wrote:

> Hello, 
> 
> 1) 
> free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers  is 
> very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers as 
> free_water=yes

This model is used for many other tags in OSM. One of the most
fundamental tags, access=*, uses it to show "access only for customers"
for example. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dcustomers .
free_water=customers would not look out of place at all in that list. 

The other dimension that has been mentioned, is "bring your own
container" vs. "we supply the container". Something like
"container=customer", "container=supplier" or "container=both" perhaps?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of
this tag is obvios.

"foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/13/20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian
>> highways"
>
>
>
> that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain
> highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I would not
> call a track a pedestrian highway. Anyway, on this list of highway types,
> oneway=yes would clearly lead to major problems if the meaning would be
> changed to apply to pedestrians.
>
> IMHO the best solution on the table is
> foot:backward=no
>
> Can you explain where you see issues with this?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways"



that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain
highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I would not
call a track a pedestrian highway. Anyway, on this list of highway types,
oneway=yes would clearly lead to major problems if the meaning would be
changed to apply to pedestrians.

IMHO the best solution on the table is
foot:backward=no

Can you explain where you see issues with this?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

Hello,

1)
free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and free_water=customers  is
very confusing and people will mis-tag free water for paying customers as
free_water=yes

2)
yes, amenity=cafe, amenity=bar, amenity=restaurant are just examples. I
wanted to give context for the purpose of the discussion.  Our NGO will
contribute to the creation of a network of cafes and restaurants willing to
refill water bottles all over Europe.

3) carafe was a suggestion, happy to entertain any more self explicit
suggestions.

4) yes, I have had extensive conversations with the Refill headquarters..
Their board will not entertain an open data model.

Best regards,

Stuart

PS : I hope





>
>6. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
>   (Jake Edmonds)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:06:58 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
> >
> > How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and
> free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
> >
> >
> +1
>
> And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.
>
> > I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including
> pubs, bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference
> amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative
> illustration or example.
> >
> Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
> amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.
>
>
> > Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container,
> not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many
> other things are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So
> free_carafe=yes may end up disappointing a few people...
> >
> And water is not always served in a carafe.
>
> And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even
> "carafe" word
> is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown).
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/ecab19bc/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:10:36 +0100
> From: Frederik Ramm 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> Message-ID: <6433c9f7-7adf-a9d0-b1c8-1d274daaa...@remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
> the Rio de la Plata, here
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
>
> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
> is now coming back.
>
> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
> has been the case in OSM until now:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
> "mouth" of the "river")
>
> and
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
>
> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city.
>
> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
> believe this is inline with guidance
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
>
> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> but this is still at the proposal stage.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:28:30 +0900
> From: Joseph Eisenberg 

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I’ve heard of places not refilling water bottles due to hygiene reasons 
(whether that is a concern or not is a separate discussion) but will give a 
glass of water to whoever asks. And on the opposite side, there are places that 
will refill bottles but won’t give a glass a water.

> On 13 Jan 2020, at 11:06, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> 13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
> How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and 
> free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
> 
> +1 
> 
> And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.
> I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including pubs, 
> bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference 
> amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative 
> illustration or example.
> Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
> amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.
> 
> Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container, not the 
> contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many other things 
> are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So free_carafe=yes may end up 
> disappointing a few people...
> And water is not always served in a carafe. 
> 
> And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even "carafe" 
> word
> is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown).
> ___
> 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] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Ok, I checked the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390

I doesn't look like the user who did the revert of the change was
intending to edit-war, but was instead responding to the appearance of
the Rio de la Plata being rendered as land on some map styles.

This always happens for the first few hours up to a couple days after
a change to the coastline, because the ocean shapefiles used to render
the marine water environment are only updated once a day at most (and
if the coastline is broken it will not update every day).

I responded to the changeset to explain this.

Keeping the river area while also moving the coastline will prevent
this visual bug from occuring.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/13/20, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or
> natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's
> the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine
> environment.
>
> The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river
> is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents.
>
> Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at
> the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area
> too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that
> their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted.
>
> I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a
> reasonable solution to be discussed.
>
> I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It
> would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as
> outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes
> or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy
> with other projects.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
>> the Rio de la Plata, here
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
>>
>> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
>> is now coming back.
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
>> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
>> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
>> has been the case in OSM until now:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
>> "mouth" of the "river")
>>
>> and
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
>>
>> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
>> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
>> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
>> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal
>> city.
>>
>> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
>> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
>> believe this is inline with guidance
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
>>
>> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
>> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
>> but this is still at the proposal stage.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or
natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's
the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine
environment.

The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river
is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents.

Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at
the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area
too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that
their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted.

I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a
reasonable solution to be discussed.

I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It
would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as
outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes
or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy
with other projects.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
> the Rio de la Plata, here
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
>
> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
> is now coming back.
>
> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
> has been the case in OSM until now:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
> "mouth" of the "river")
>
> and
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
>
> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city.
>
> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
> believe this is inline with guidance
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
>
> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> but this is still at the proposal stage.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
the Rio de la Plata, here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310

This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
is now coming back.

According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
has been the case in OSM until now:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
"mouth" of the "river")

and

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")

This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city.

One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
believe this is inline with guidance
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".

I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
but this is still at the proposal stage.

Opinions?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13 Jan 2020, 10:42 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and 
> free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers?
>
>
+1 

And free_water=no for explicit tagging of not providing a free water.

> I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including pubs, 
> bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference 
> amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative 
> illustration or example.
>
Though I am unsure whatever tagging town square with mapped
amenity=drinking_water is a good idea.


> Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container, not the 
> contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many other things 
> are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So free_carafe=yes may end up 
> disappointing a few people...
>
And water is not always served in a carafe. 

And as bonus this tag is significantly less clear in meaning (even "carafe" word
is among rare ones, more likely to be unknown).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-13 09:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging 
> : 
> 
>> Do you have a suggestion Martin?
> 
> maybe a generic 
> 
> amenity=bottle_return_machine ?

Why limit it to bottles? We don't do that with vending machines; Why do
it here? The type/class of RVM can be indicated by
reverse_vending=bottles just like we use vending=drinks. 

> could be used for all kind of machines that take bottles, and amended with 
> tags about the kind of bottles. It also seems easier to understand for 
> non-natives (while describing more specifically the purpose) than "reverse 
> vending machine".

Anyone looking at the current tagging is going to see lots of terms that
they don't understand, for reasons of language or knowledge/experience.
The device in question is called a reverse vending machine in English,
even if some people think it sounds weird. Can you suggest a synonym
that would mean more to a random non-native-speaker, without changing
the meaning to a hyponym? I note that even the wiki page for
amenity=vending_machine refers to these devices as a reverse vending
machine.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-01-13 10:18, European Water Project wrote:

> Dear All,  
> 
> I thought this subject could wait, but it is becoming pressing early than I 
> expected.  
> 
> As part of our project (and that of similar non-profits - most of which are 
> not open data but nevertheless great organisations), we want to voluntarily 
> encourage cafés, bars and restaurants to offer free tap water bottle refill 
> to anyone off the street.  Refill has had significant success in the UK and 
> surprising the feedback is that the impact of increased customer traffic far 
> outweighs any issue of cannibalization.  
> 
> If it is not already the case, could we develop a tagging standard for this 
> case. Maybe "amenity = cafe & free_water = yes" 
> 
> It would be important to develop at the same time a distinct tag for another 
> cause, which we support but will not be targeting is restaurants which offer 
> free tap water for paying customers. 
> Maybe "amenity = restuarant & free_carafe = yes"

How about free_water=yes if it is available to anybody, and
free_water=customers if it is only available to paying customers? 

I assume this could actually apply to all manner of objects, including
pubs, bus stations, town squares... If so, there is no need to reference
amenity=cafe etc in the tagging standards, other than as a non-normative
illustration or example. 

Referencing carafe is not a good plan; firstly that is the container,
not the contents and this proposal is about the contents. Secondly, many
other things are frequently served in carafes, such as wine. So
free_carafe=yes may end up disappointing a few people...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I’m in support of something. 

Did you speak to Refill about sharing data? I emailed them some time back but 
never received a response 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 13 Jan 2020, at 10:20, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear All, 
> 
> I thought this subject could wait, but it is becoming pressing early than I 
> expected. 
> 
> As part of our project (and that of similar non-profits - most of which are 
> not open data but nevertheless great organisations), we want to voluntarily 
> encourage cafés, bars and restaurants to offer free tap water bottle refill 
> to anyone off the street.  Refill has had significant success in the UK and 
> surprising the feedback is that the impact of increased customer traffic far 
> outweighs any issue of cannibalization. 
> 
> If it is not already the case, could we develop a tagging standard for this 
> case. Maybe "amenity = cafe & free_water = yes"
> 
> It would be important to develop at the same time a distinct tag for another 
> cause, which we support but will not be targeting is restaurants which offer 
> free tap water for paying customers.
> Maybe "amenity = restuarant & free_carafe = yes"  
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Stuart  
> 
> PS : 
> 
> The European Water Project progressive web app powered by OpenStreetMap, 
> Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons data can be found : 
> https://europeanwaterproject.org 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

Dear All,

I thought this subject could wait, but it is becoming pressing early than I
expected.

As part of our project (and that of similar non-profits - most of which are
not open data but nevertheless great organisations), we want to voluntarily
encourage cafés, bars and restaurants to offer free tap water bottle refill
to anyone off the street.  Refill has had significant success in the UK and
surprising the feedback is that the impact of increased customer traffic
far outweighs any issue of cannibalization.

If it is not already the case, could we develop a tagging standard for this
case. Maybe "amenity = cafe & free_water = yes"

It would be important to develop at the same time a distinct tag for
another cause, which we support but will not be targeting is restaurants
which offer free tap water for paying customers.
Maybe "amenity = restuarant & free_carafe = yes"

Many thanks,

Stuart

PS :

The European Water Project progressive web app powered by OpenStreetMap,
Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons data can be found :
https://europeanwaterproject.org
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> Do you have a suggestion Martin?



maybe a generic

amenity=bottle_return_machine ?

could be used for all kind of machines that take bottles, and amended with
tags about the kind of bottles. It also seems easier to understand for
non-natives (while describing more specifically the purpose) than "reverse
vending machine".

for:recycling=yes
for:reuse=yes

not sure if we would want to distinguish various specific kind of bottles,
or groups of, like milk, beer, water, wine, soda, ...
and networks? (for example in Germany, 180+ mineral water companies are
associated in "Deutscher Brunnen" and used to have the same kind of
reusable glass bottle (their own term for this is "pool bottle" as opposed
to "individual bottle"), reference: https://www.gdb.de/mehrweg/ now most of
the bottles are in plastic (PET).
As a sidenote, they also have a reference on the amount of uses (up to 50
for glass and 25 for plastic).

For practical reasons, I would think it is overkill to specify all kinds of
bottles that are accepted (in Germany if it is reuse, they would also
accept some other containers that aren't bottles, like reusable yoghurt
jars)
while it may be useful to know the exact location of the machine
(especially in big supermarkets and shopping malls).

Cheers
Martin
___
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]

Do you have a suggestion Martin? 

Maybe something like deposit_refund_system=yes could be applied to 
amenity=recycling, amenity=shop and amenity=vending_machine + 
vending=reverse_vending. deposit_refund_system:brands=* can specify the brands



> On 13 Jan 2020, at 07:54, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 13. Jan 2020, at 06:51, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>> 
>> To come back to tagging: so people seem to have a problem with 
>> amenity=recycle in case of reuse, but do not have a problem with 
>> amenity=vending_machine for such a machine (that does not sell anything). Or 
>> am I mistaken?
> 
> 
> I’m having issues with both 
> 
> 
> 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