Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16 Jan 2020, 23:36 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 17/1/20 2:48 am, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny  <>> 
>> matkoni...@tutanota.com>> >  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by >>> 61sundow...@gmail.com>>> :
>>>

 If the 'standard map' starts rendering 'disused=yes'  the 
 same way as 'disused:*=*' (presently not rendered)  then 
 what? 


>>> Then standard map style will be fixed to
>>> remove this bug.
>>>
>>
>> I took Warin's question to mean what would happen ifstandard 
>> carto
>> deliberately chose to handle disused=yes the same way as
>> disused:*=*.  Therefore not a bug to be fixed, but anintentional
>> permanent change to behaviour.
>>
>> If that happened, I would stop marking physical objectsas 
>> disused. 
>>
>
>
>
>
> And that is a problem. A reduction in information caused by a  render 
> failing to render information. 
>
>
Note that problem is 100% theorethical and it is not happening.

And as far as I can influence it - that will not happen.

>
> If the render were to render disused:* then I think all would be  happy?
>
>
No.

For disused:building=*
(1) it duplicates (attempts to replace) an existing tagging scheme
(2) for building tagging it is not an improvement in any way
(3) using it breaks basically all data consumers
(4) AFAIK there is no clear agreement that it is a good idea
For disused:* it is frankly horrible idea.

Rendering disused shops, churches and other disused:amenity, disused:leisure
like actually active ones sounds like a terrible mistake.

And anyway rendering discussions are offtopic here (I will try to stop myself 
from further
comments specifically about rendering).


>
> PS the reason I prefer disused:* is that the scheme is well  documented, 
> logical extensions and appeals to me. 
>
>
I dislike disused:building because it is not logical, not backward compatible, 
using it breaks all current actually used data consumers, adds no useful info,
attempted to replace existing tagging by wikifiddling without proposal,
used less often than the standard solution.

And is not appealing to me because I am an obnoxious conservative anarchist
who dislikes changing things without a good reason.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Looking at it again:

"A shop in a city mall is a member of "Global Blue" as only option for refund 
assistance. 
This would be tagged with duty_free:refund:global_blue=yes. 
The more general duty_free:refund=yes (or even duty_free=yes) should not be 
used here 
as we have more detailed knowledge about this shop."

I think that adding also duty_free=yes is 100% correct here.
In OSM it is a normal situation to have some generai tag and more
specific ones.

Tagging only the most specific ones would force anyone interested in more 
general
info to look for super detailed tags.

For example: amenity=bicycle_parking

Adding bicycle_parking=wall_loops (for a wheelbender) 
or bicycle_parking=stands (for a proper one) is not combined with
deleting amenity=bicycle_parking tag.


16 Jan 2020, 23:15 by m...@hauke-stieler.de:

> Thanks for the hint, I added it to the wiki entry :)
>
> On 16.01.20 23:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> I would consider explicit mention that typical shop should not be tagged
>> with
>> duty_free=no (only in cases where shop used to be or can be expected to
>> be duty free,
>> for example in an airport it potentially makes sense to use that tag)
>>
>>
>> 16 Jan 2020, 21:28 by m...@hauke-stieler.de:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  just a reminder, that the proposal "tax_free_shopping" [0] is still in
>>  the state "proposed". However, I'd like to start voting soon, so please
>>  take a look at the proposal and let me know if something needs to be
>>  changed.
>>
>>  Hauke
>>
>>  [0]
>>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tax_free_shopping
>>
>>  On 04.01.20 19:47, Hauke Stieler wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  you may noticed the discussion "Tag for 'tax free shopping'" on this
>>  mailing list. This is the proposal for the new "duty_free" tag.
>>
>>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tax_free_shopping
>>
>>  Basically the new tag has three values:
>>
>>  * yes:
>>  This shop does not collect taxes at all. This usually happens at
>>  airports in "duty-free stores".
>>
>>  * refund:
>>  For shops outside an airport. Foreign travelers shopping in a
>>  shop with
>>  duty_free=refund can get an additional receipt which can be -- e.g.
>>  later at the airport -- exchanged so that the traveler gets the
>>  taxes back.
>>
>>  * no:
>>  All customers of a shop with duty_free=no have to pay normal taxes.
>>
>>  Feel free to comment :)
>>
>>  Hauke
>>
>>
>>  ___
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Lionel Giard]

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't use
capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But why is
this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a parking_space
for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is not always legal
access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. I don't think there
are many places regulating parking on parents' parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
"capacity=*". ^_^

I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging (when
useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?

Kind Regards,
Lionel
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Hi Lionel,

from what I've understood, the parking_space tag is meant to identify 
exactly one parking space, so the capacity whould be always 1...


In the specific case of parking spaces for disables persons, 
unfortunately there are many way of tagging it... In this issue related 
to the visibility in the OSMand app there are probably almost all of 
them. https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/6805


I'm currently using the one that seems to me the simplest one: 
amenity=parking_space + disabled=designated


m2c

Ale

On 17/01/20 09:36, Lionel Giard wrote:

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't 
use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But 
why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a 
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a 
parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is 
not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. 
I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents' 
parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of 
"capacity=*". ^_^


I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging 
(when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?


Kind Regards,
Lionel

___
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] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[marc marc]

Le 17.01.20 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
> What do you think about this?

keep simple.
if a parking space is only for disabled ppl with access restriction,
why not using capacity=* on it ?
it's not wrong but useless to use namespace capacity:disable=*
in this case.
especially since capacity:disabled=1 doesn't say it's reserved for the
disabled, it just says there's a place for them (you can use an object
parking_space for an entire row)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[PanierAvide]

Hello Lionel,

I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of 
amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use 
case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for 
capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or 
parking_space.


Best regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't 
use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But 
why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a 
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a 
parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is 
not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. 
I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents' 
parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of 
"capacity=*". ^_^


I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging 
(when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?


Kind Regards,
Lionel

___
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] Disused/abandoned bunkers (was Re: building=disused)

[Marc Gemis]

What about disused bunkers? I would expect them to follow the same
rules as "buildings" and other physical objects

The wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker
says you can combine military=bunker with building=bunker. This makes
sense to me.

but also adds

abandoned:building=* - when it is abandoned
ruins:building=* - when it is in ruins (destroyed)

however, it does not mention "disused'

Should we use

disused:military=bunker
+ building=bunker

or

abandoned:military=bunker
+ building=bunker

instead for abandoned/disused bunkers, as the bunker is still there as
object, but no longer used for military purposes. This would be more
in line with what people wrote about the other physical objects.

Not sure about the ruins:building, maybe that is OK.


regards

m

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[François Lacombe]

Hi Stuart

Thank you for this document.
It's a valuable effort and great to see you involve in a formal proposal
process following discussions on local mailing list.

i've posted a suggestion on the Talk page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Free_Water

Best regards

François

Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 07:39, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> Over the past days we have debated the merits of adding a new feature
> free_water and a sub-feature free_water:container, applicable in the
> context of cafes, bars, night-clubs, and restaurants which are willing to
> give out free water for bottle refill to anybody.
>
> In the attached proposal - which of course rests a draft open to
> amendments during the RFC period - I have attempted to properly take into
> account the main theme comments which seemed both logical and represent the
> majority opinion.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Free_Water
>
> Thank you for your consideration,
>
> Stuart
> ___
> 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] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Joseph Eisenberg]

According to the wiki documentations, amenity=parking_space was
intended to be used inside of a larger amenity=parking feature.

So if there larger amenity=parking has capacity:disabled=4, you would
expect to find 4 amenity=parking_space features inside of it which are
available for disabled people.

If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to
double-counting.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/17/20, PanierAvide  wrote:
> Hello Lionel,
>
> I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
> amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use
> case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for
> capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or
> parking_space.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adrien P.
>
> Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't
>> use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But
>> why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
>> parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a
>> parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is
>> not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g.
>> I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents'
>> parking spaces in the law).
>> It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
>> "capacity=*". ^_^
>>
>> I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging
>> (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Lionel
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Disused/abandoned bunkers (was Re: building=disused)

[marc marc]

Le 17.01.20 à 09:58, Marc Gemis a écrit :
> abandoned:military=bunker
> + building=bunker

that look fine for me.

> Not sure about the ruins:building

I have never yet seen a building=bunker in ruins because of the mass
of concrete used, but if structurally one of them is a ruin and not
a bunker anymore, it would seem correct to me

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

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Lionel Giard]

Alesandro,

The thing is that disabled=designated is an access (so regulated by law),
and would depend because each country's law vary (not every country enforce
restriction for disabled parking or other type of vehicle...). Thus, it may
be wrong to tag an access when it doesn't exist. While a tag that's only an
attribute describing what type of parking exist, is unambiguous. It may be
parking_space=* or access:*=* , both are "good" for that as they are
unambiguous in their meaning. The only advantage of the second is that it
is already used for amenity=parking and seems coherent to use for the
parking_space in my opinion (even if it is only 1 place). The wiki page
already mention all the different type because there are many other than
disabled (like parent, women, electric charging,...) :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity

marc,

The capacity:*=* tag should not be used alone (as described for any
parking), it is an addition to the capacity=* tag. For example, a place
marked as "capacity=1" and "capacity:disabled=1" means that the 1 capacity
is disabled. A better example is for an amenity=parking, you have a parking
with "capacity=12" and "capacity:disabled=3" it means 3 of the 12 parking
space are disabled.
Theoretically, all parking_space should be capacity=1 (and if necessary
capacity:*=*) but the advantage (as mentioned above) is that it would use
the same tagging than for amenity=parking. Thus we wouldn't use two
different scheme for the same thing.


Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 09:52, PanierAvide  a
écrit :

> Hello Lionel,
>
> I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
> amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use case
> is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for capacity:disabled=*
> and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or parking_space.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adrien P.
>
> Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't use
> capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But why is
> this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
> parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a parking_space
> for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is not always legal
> access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g. I don't think there
> are many places regulating parking on parents' parking spaces in the law).
> It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
> "capacity=*". ^_^
>
> I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging
> (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Lionel
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[PanierAvide]

Well this specific case is quite easy to detect : if a parking space is 
contained in a wider parking, you subtract the amount of places in 
parking space from larger parking. And it would be easier to handle if 
capacity tags are using same naming on both instead of being different 
and needing to check access tags.


Regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 10:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :

According to the wiki documentations, amenity=parking_space was
intended to be used inside of a larger amenity=parking feature.

So if there larger amenity=parking has capacity:disabled=4, you would
expect to find 4 amenity=parking_space features inside of it which are
available for disabled people.

If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to
double-counting.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/17/20, PanierAvide  wrote:

Hello Lionel,

I totally agree with that, I never understood this special treatment of
amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=* with that. My use
case is for disabled people parking spaces : just look for
capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever it is a parking or
parking_space.

Best regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we shouldn't
use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the access tag. But
why is this the case? It seems logical to use capacity:disabled=* on a
parking_space for disabled people or capacity:charging=* on a
parking_space for electric vehicles that are charging. And there is
not always legal access linked to these "special" parking spaces (e.g.
I don't think there are many places regulating parking on parents'
parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
"capacity=*". ^_^

I therefore propose to change this description to favour this tagging
(when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you think about this?

Kind Regards,
Lionel

___
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] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

>
>  2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
>


Hi François,


I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose something
that is understandable to a newbie.

If we chose charge:water

=free

 we would need to differentiate when the water is free to anyone (yes in
OSM speak) or just paying customers (customers in OSM speak).

We could use :
charge:water

=https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1>
/fee>
access = 
container = 

In the above, European Water Project would only include cafés, bars, etc.
with
charge:water

=free

access = yes
container = bring_own

but the other permutations could be useful to others

Best regards,

Stuart

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:05:08 +0100
> From: François Lacombe 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
> Message-ID:
>  isepvro5ogydew2tbdo...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Stuart
>
> Thank you for this document.
> It's a valuable effort and great to see you involve in a formal proposal
> process following discussions on local mailing list.
>
> i've posted a suggestion on the Talk page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Free_Water
>
> Best regards
>
> François
>
> Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 07:39, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Over the past days we have debated the merits of adding a new feature
> > free_water and a sub-feature free_water:container, applicable in the
> > context of cafes, bars, night-clubs, and restaurants which are willing to
> > give out free water for bottle refill to anybody.
> >
> > In the attached proposal - which of course rests a draft open to
> > amendments during the RFC period - I have attempted to properly take into
> > account the main theme comments which seemed both logical and represent
> the
> > majority opinion.
> >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Free_Water
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration,
> >
> > Stuart
> > ___
>
> -
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Hauke Stieler]

I understand your point and it sound logically to me. Your idea of also
specifying more general tags doesn't change that much in the tags, just
their meaning.

As this is the more OSM-like way (as you said), I'll edit the wiki page
accordingly.

Thanks for the hint :)

On 17.01.20 09:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Looking at it again:
> 
> "A shop in a city mall is a member of "Global Blue" as only option for
> refund assistance.
> This would be tagged with duty_free:refund:global_blue=yes.
> The more general duty_free:refund=yes (or even duty_free=yes) should not
> be used here
> as we have more detailed knowledge about this shop."
> 
> I think that adding also duty_free=yes is 100% correct here.
> In OSM it is a normal situation to have some generai tag and more
> specific ones.
> 
> Tagging only the most specific ones would force anyone interested in
> more general
> info to look for super detailed tags.
> 
> For example: amenity=bicycle_parking
> 
> Adding bicycle_parking=wall_loops (for a wheelbender)
> or bicycle_parking=stands (for a proper one) is not combined with
> deleting amenity=bicycle_parking tag.



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

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

[marc marc]

Le 17.01.20 à 01:32, Hauke Stieler a écrit :
>> I see 3 levels :
>> the customer doesn't pay the tax duty_free=yes
>> the customer pay the tax but the shop help for a refund
>> the customer pay the tax and the shop doesn't help a refund duty_free=no
> 
> Exactly, this is the basic idea for the scheme (added these points to
> the wiki page). There might be some special cases, but they're probably
> very rare.

if so, the level between =no and =yes is imho better tagged
with duty_free=limited like it exist for wheelchair.
it would avoid having incompatible combinations between 2 tags (like
duty_free=yes duty_free:refund=yes... you can't get help for a refund if
you didn't pay the tax at all)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Hauke Stieler]

There was an Email from Mateusz Konieczny a bit earlier making a very
good point:

There is the general "duty_free=*" and more specific
"duty_free:refund=*" tag, but also very specific "duty_free:refund:*=*"
tags. In OSM we usually add also the more general tags like this:

emergency=fire_hydrant
fire_hydrant:position=sidewalk
...

And I think this makes also sense for the duty_free-tag when we say
"duty_free=yes" means: A traveler doesn't have to pay taxes, either by
paying less or by getting them back.

When you additionally add "duty_free:refund=yes" (and additionally maybe
more specific ones), there wouldn't be a need for a "limited" value.
This combination would say: A traveler doesn't have to pay taxes here
because the shop offers support in getting them back.

A shop at an airport where travelers generally pay no taxes would be
tagged with "duty_free=yes" and optionally with "duty_free:refund=no".

I hope this also makes sense to you.

On 17.01.20 12:27, marc marc wrote:
> Le 17.01.20 à 01:32, Hauke Stieler a écrit :
>>> I see 3 levels :
>>> the customer doesn't pay the tax duty_free=yes
>>> the customer pay the tax but the shop help for a refund
>>> the customer pay the tax and the shop doesn't help a refund duty_free=no
>>
>> Exactly, this is the basic idea for the scheme (added these points to
>> the wiki page). There might be some special cases, but they're probably
>> very rare.
> 
> if so, the level between =no and =yes is imho better tagged
> with duty_free=limited like it exist for wheelchair.
> it would avoid having incompatible combinations between 2 tags (like
> duty_free=yes duty_free:refund=yes... you can't get help for a refund if
> you didn't pay the tax at all)
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



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

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

[marc marc]

Le 17.01.20 à 12:48, Hauke Stieler a écrit :
> A shop at an airport where travelers generally pay no taxes would be
> tagged with "duty_free=yes" and optionally with "duty_free:refund=no".
> 
> I hope this also makes sense to you.

no, sorry.
I don't see the advantage of using 2 keys when only one is enough to
describe the situation about taxes (don't pay, pay and get help for the
refund, pay without help for the refund).

by anolgy with the wheelchair key, it's as if we had created
wheelchair:assisted=yes/no or wheelchair:limited=yes/no instead
of wheelchair=limited

if you dislike duty_free=limited, maybe duty_free=refund
is more understandable
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[marc marc]

Le 17.01.20 à 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>>>  I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme.
>>>
>> Is it actually popular?
> 
> The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is
> http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues
> 
> According to taginfo, there are a total of 11,158 occurence of
> disused:man_made and disused:building http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/POy
> vs
> 27,446 uses of man_made=* and building=* with disused=yes:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/POz
> 
> So the "disused=yes" form is 2.5 times more popular for these
> features.

the issue with disused=yes on building is http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PPd
1166 building + amnenity + disused=yes (same issue with shop)
what's the meaning ?
the amenity is disused and it's better to fix amenity=* with
disused:amnenity=* ?
the building was disused and after a new amenity was added and the
mapper forget (or don't known) to remove disused=yes ?

Replacing disused=yes with building:use=no/vacant or disused:amnenity=*
depending on the context would at least make it possible to know the tag
concerned by the disused information
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Philip Barnes]

On Friday, 17 January 2020, Hauke Stieler wrote:

> 
> A shop at an airport where travelers generally pay no taxes would be
> tagged with "duty_free=yes" and optionally with "duty_free:refund=no".
> 
Not totally accurate, in my experience.

At airport duty free shops you have to show your boarding pass so the staff can 
determine if you are eligible for duty free depending on your destination.
 
Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Hauke Stieler]

> if you dislike duty_free=limited, maybe duty_free=refund
> is more understandable

I had the idea of "duty_free=" before, but it changed to
the current scheme with "duty_free:refund=*" during the discussion.

However, I can definitely imagine going back to
"duty_free=" with the additional tags
"duty_free:refund:*=*" like this:

duty_free=refund
duty_free:refund:global_blue=yes
duty_free:refund:gb_free_taxes=no
...

This also makes sense as there are four combinations of "duty_free=" and
"duty_free:refund=" where one combination doesn't make sense
(duty_free=no with duty_free:refund=yes).

I'll wait a bit for further discussion about this and then may change
the wiki.

Hauke



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

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

[Hauke Stieler]

Sorry for the possible confusion:

All the things you said sound still fine and logic to me, but the user
"marc_marc_irc" made a good point: We only need three values for
"duty_free=*": yes, no and refund.

What do you think of a scheme where we say:

* duty_free=yes
Travelers exporting things don't pay taxes at all. Domestic customers
are probably allowed to buy things here but have to pay normal taxes.

* duty_free=no
Everybody pays taxes and the shop does not assist the customers to get a
refund. However going to the customs and managing everything yourself is
still possible of course.

* duty_free=refund
Everybody pays taxes but the shop offers further assistance so that
customers exporting products get their taxes back.

Further details about the companies would still be specified using the
current tags with "duty_free:refund:*=*":

duty_free:refund:global_blue=*
duty_free:refund:gb_free_taxes=*
...


Hauke



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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17 Jan 2020, 13:19 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:

> Le 17.01.20 à 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>
 I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme.

>>> Is it actually popular?
>>>
>>
>> The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is
>> http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues
>>
>> According to taginfo, there are a total of 11,158 occurence of
>> disused:man_made and disused:building http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/POy
>> vs
>> 27,446 uses of man_made=* and building=* with disused=yes:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/POz
>>
>> So the "disused=yes" form is 2.5 times more popular for these
>> features.
>>
>
> the issue with disused=yes on building is http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/PPd
> 1166 building + amnenity + disused=yes (same issue with shop)
> what's the meaning ?
> the amenity is disused and it's better to fix amenity=* with
> disused:amnenity=* ?
> the building was disused and after a new amenity was added and the
> mapper forget (or don't known) to remove disused=yes ?
>
> Replacing disused=yes with building:use=no/vacant or disused:amnenity=*
> depending on the context would at least make it possible to know the tag
> concerned by the disused information
>
Or tag two separate objects as two separate objects.

The same problem is with other tags such as name.

See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3487
and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2999 
for example of problems caused by such tagging.

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

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Hi Lionel,

On 17/01/20 10:52, Lionel Giard wrote:

Alesandro,

The thing is that disabled=designated is an access (so regulated by 
law), and would depend because each country's law vary (not every 
country enforce restriction for disabled parking or other type of 
vehicle...). Thus, it may be wrong to tag an access when it doesn't exist.


If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and 
only accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy), I think the tag 
disabled=designated express exactly that, and should be used.


If a parking space is not limited to disabled persons, what is the 
purpose to add a capacity:disabled=1? Maybe I'm missing your point... 
Could you please share and example where a parking space should have a 
capacity:disabled=1 but is not access-regulated?


Ale

While a tag that's only an attribute describing what type of parking 
exist, is unambiguous. It may be parking_space=* or access:*=* , both 
are "good" for that as they are unambiguous in their meaning. The only 
advantage of the second is that it is already used for amenity=parking 
and seems coherent to use for the parking_space in my opinion (even if 
it is only 1 place). The wiki page already mention all the different 
type because there are many other than disabled (like parent, women, 
electric charging,...) : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity


marc,

The capacity:*=* tag should not be used alone (as described for any 
parking), it is an addition to the capacity=* tag. For example, a 
place marked as "capacity=1" and "capacity:disabled=1" means that the 
1 capacity is disabled. A better example is for an amenity=parking, 
you have a parking with "capacity=12" and "capacity:disabled=3" it 
means 3 of the 12 parking space are disabled.
Theoretically, all parking_space should be capacity=1 (and if 
necessary capacity:*=*) but the advantage (as mentioned above) is that 
it would use the same tagging than for amenity=parking. Thus we 
wouldn't use two different scheme for the same thing.



Le ven. 17 janv. 2020 à 09:52, PanierAvide > a écrit :


Hello Lionel,

I totally agree with that, I never understood this special
treatment of amenity=parking_space, and so I'm using capacity:*=*
with that. My use case is for disabled people parking spaces :
just look for capacity:disabled=* and you're good to go, whatever
it is a parking or parking_space.

Best regards,

Adrien P.

Le 17/01/2020 à 09:36, Lionel Giard a écrit :

Hello everyone,

I saw that on the parking_space wiki page it says that we
shouldn't use capacity:*=* on parking_space, and instead use the
access tag. But why is this the case? It seems logical to use
capacity:disabled=* on a parking_space for disabled people or
capacity:charging=* on a parking_space for electric vehicles that
are charging. And there is not always legal access linked to
these "special" parking spaces (e.g. I don't think there are many
places regulating parking on parents' parking spaces in the law).
It seems strange to forbid this, while promoting the tagging of
"capacity=*". ^_^

I therefore propose to change this description to favour this
tagging (when useful) instead of prohibiting it. What do you
think about this?

Kind Regards,
Lionel

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Alessandro Sarretta]

Hi,

On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:


 2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)


I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more 
generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose 
something that is understandable to a newbie.


If we chose charge:water 
=free 
we 
would need to differentiate when the water is free to anyone (yes in 
OSM speak) or just paying customers (customers in OSM speak).


We could use :
charge:water 
=/fee>

access = 
container = 

In the above, European Water Project would only include cafés, bars, 
etc. with
charge:water 
=free 


access = yes
container = bring_own


If you use the tag /access/ alone, it could refer to the "main" feature 
(the bar or restaurant...).


And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use 
/tap_water/, that should clearly state that is not bottle water :-)


So it could be:

 * tap_water=yes/no/customers
 * tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
 * tap_water:container=*

This way it seems to me you should be able to cover all the 
possibilities clearly.


m2c

Ale

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

3. Re: RFC free_water (Alessandro Sarretta)

>>>> Francois, Florimond, Alessandro,

First, thanks to all of you for taking so much time to reflect on this
subject which is core to our project.

I see three concepts that need to be described.

1. Is there free water available ?
2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
available
3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.

Here are some alternatives which seem to be getting traction for each of
the three concepts. I have removed free_water as it doesn't seem to be
getting consensus.

After feedback, I will update the draft proposal.

For 1.
charge:water=
drinking_water:fee=yes/no
tap_water:free=yes/no/customers


For 2.
access:water = 
tap_water=yes/no/customers
drinking_water:access=yes/no/customers

For 3.
container:water = 
tap_water:container=*

Best regards,

Stuart


>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:25:28 +0100
> From: Alessandro Sarretta 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
> Message-ID: <9665c5e1-9a9b-e388-bff6-56366974b...@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi,
>
> On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:
> >
> >  2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
> >
> >
> > I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
> > generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose
> > something that is understandable to a newbie.
> >
> > If we chose charge:water
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1>=free
>
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1>we
>
> > would need to differentiate when the water is free to anyone (yes in
> > OSM speak) or just paying customers (customers in OSM speak).
> >
> > We could use :
> > charge:water
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1>=
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1
> >/fee>
> > access = 
> > container = 
> >
> > In the above, European Water Project would only include cafés, bars,
> > etc. with
> > charge:water
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1>=free
>
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1
> >
> > access = yes
> > container = bring_own
>
> If you use the tag /access/ alone, it could refer to the "main" feature
> (the bar or restaurant...).
>
> And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use
> /tap_water/, that should clearly state that is not bottle water :-)
>
> So it could be:
>
>   * tap_water=yes/no/customers
>   * tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
>   * tap_water:container=*
>
> This way it seems to me you should be able to cover all the
> possibilities clearly.
>
> m2c
>
> Ale
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200117/b7f56b29/attachment.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 120
> *
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 20:49, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1. Is there free water available ?
> 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
> available
> 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
>

Do you know of any scheme where you are provided with a free container
along with your free water?  I would suggest that if there is a charge for
supplying a container then the water is effectively not free.

Even if the container were free, the whole point of these schemes is
to provide alternatives to people buying water in disposable containers
and encourage container re-use.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Paul Johnson]

I'm not sure what European Water Project is doing to break threading, but
could you kindly not do that?  Most likely this is caused by replying to an
undigested digest, in which you really should be going with individual
delivery or using procmail to split the digest into individual messages
before replying.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:48 PM European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 3. Re: RFC free_water (Alessandro Sarretta)
>
> >>>> Francois, Florimond, Alessandro,
>
> First, thanks to all of you for taking so much time to reflect on this
> subject which is core to our project.
>
> I see three concepts that need to be described.
>
> 1. Is there free water available ?
> 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
> available
> 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
>
> Here are some alternatives which seem to be getting traction for each of
> the three concepts. I have removed free_water as it doesn't seem to be
> getting consensus.
>
> After feedback, I will update the draft proposal.
>
> For 1.
> charge:water=
> drinking_water:fee=yes/no
> tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
>
>
> For 2.
> access:water = 
> tap_water=yes/no/customers
> drinking_water:access=yes/no/customers
>
> For 3.
> container:water = 
> tap_water:container=*
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
>
>>
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:25:28 +0100
>> From: Alessandro Sarretta 
>> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
>> Message-ID: <9665c5e1-9a9b-e388-bff6-56366974b...@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:
>> >
>> >  2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
>> >
>> >
>> > I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
>> > generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose
>> > something that is understandable to a newbie.
>> >
>> > If we chose charge:water
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1>=free
>>
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1>we
>>
>> > would need to differentiate when the water is free to anyone (yes in
>> > OSM speak) or just paying customers (customers in OSM speak).
>> >
>> > We could use :
>> > charge:water
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1>=>
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1
>> >/fee>
>> > access = 
>> > container = 
>> >
>> > In the above, European Water Project would only include cafés, bars,
>> > etc. with
>> > charge:water
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1>=free
>>
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1
>> >
>> > access = yes
>> > container = bring_own
>>
>> If you use the tag /access/ alone, it could refer to the "main" feature
>> (the bar or restaurant...).
>>
>> And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use
>> /tap_water/, that should clearly state that is not bottle water :-)
>>
>> So it could be:
>>
>>   * tap_water=yes/no/customers
>>   * tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
>>   * tap_water:container=*
>>
>> This way it seems to me you should be able to cover all the
>> possibilities clearly.
>>
>> m2c
>>
>> Ale
>>
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200117/b7f56b29/attachment.htm
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 120
>> *
>>
> ___
> 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] 2. Re: RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

>2. Re: RFC free_water (Paul Allen)
>
>>>>>Paul, one could imagine offering water in a glass? Or a carafe if for
customers  yes, we are combatting all single-use waste related to
bottled water.


 3. Re: RFC free_water (Paul Johnson)
>

>>>> Paul, an attempt to address multiple similarly themed comments  at
once.

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 21:06:28 +
> From: Paul Allen 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
> Message-ID:
>  1rfrdtju3vblyv4o0gnq2bwi...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 20:49, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Is there free water available ?
> > 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
> > available
> > 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
> >
>
> Do you know of any scheme where you are provided with a free container
> along with your free water?  I would suggest that if there is a charge for
> supplying a container then the water is effectively not free.
>
> Even if the container were free, the whole point of these schemes is
> to provide alternatives to people buying water in disposable containers
> and encourage container re-use.
>
> --
> Paul
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200117/3a6a8fb5/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:29:57 -0600
> From: Paul Johnson 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
> Message-ID:
>  l3m...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I'm not sure what European Water Project is doing to break threading, but
> could you kindly not do that?  Most likely this is caused by replying to an
> undigested digest, in which you really should be going with individual
> delivery or using procmail to split the digest into individual messages
> before replying.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:48 PM European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3. Re: RFC free_water (Alessandro Sarretta)
> >
> > >>>> Francois, Florimond, Alessandro,
> >
> > First, thanks to all of you for taking so much time to reflect on this
> > subject which is core to our project.
> >
> > I see three concepts that need to be described.
> >
> > 1. Is there free water available ?
> > 2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free water
> > available
> > 3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.
> >
> > Here are some alternatives which seem to be getting traction for each of
> > the three concepts. I have removed free_water as it doesn't seem to be
> > getting consensus.
> >
> > After feedback, I will update the draft proposal.
> >
> > For 1.
> > charge:water=
> > drinking_water:fee=yes/no
> > tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
> >
> >
> > For 2.
> > access:water = 
> > tap_water=yes/no/customers
> > drinking_water:access=yes/no/customers
> >
> > For 3.
> > container:water = 
> > tap_water:container=*
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Message: 3
> >> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:25:28 +0100
> >> From: Alessandro Sarretta 
> >> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
> >> Message-ID: <9665c5e1-9a9b-e388-bff6-56366974b...@gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
> >> > generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose
> >> > something that is understandable to a newbie.
> >> >
> >> > If we chose charge:water
> >> > <
> >>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1
> >=free
> >>
> >> > <
> >&g

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> tap_water=

That will not work here in Indonesia. You do not drink the tap water here,
or in most countries in Asia.

-Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 4:27 AM Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:
>
>  2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
>>
>
> I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
> generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose something
> that is understandable to a newbie.
>
> If we chose charge:water
> 
> =free
> 
>  we would need to differentiate when the water is free to anyone (yes in
> OSM speak) or just paying customers (customers in OSM speak).
>
> We could use :
> charge:water
> 
> = 
> /fee>
> access = 
> container = 
>
> In the above, European Water Project would only include cafés, bars, etc.
> with
> charge:water
> 
> =free
> 
> access = yes
> container = bring_own
>
> If you use the tag *access* alone, it could refer to the "main" feature
> (the bar or restaurant...).
>
> And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use *tap_water*,
> that should clearly state that is not bottle water :-)
>
> So it could be:
>
>- tap_water=yes/no/customers
>- tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
>- tap_water:container=*
>
> This way it seems to me you should be able to cover all the possibilities
> clearly.
>
> m2c
>
> Ale
> ___
> 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] 2. Re: RFC free_water

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 22:19, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>>2. Re: RFC free_water (Paul Allen)
>>
> >Paul, one could imagine offering water in a glass? Or a carafe if for
> customers  yes, we are combatting all single-use waste related to
> bottled water.
>

I can imagine a cafe offering free water in a glass to non-customers.
Except for
the problem that the person would have to consume it inside the cafe, taking
up space where a paying customer could sit.  Except for the fact the cafe
would
than have the (admittedly small) cost of cleaning the glass afterwards.  I
can
see it happening in rare cases such as somebody goes in because they're
feeling faint.  I can't see it being offered as a general service.

To be honest, I can't see any cafe in the UK offering more than this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”

[Jyri-Petteri Paloposki]

On 23.9.2019 9.49, Warin wrote:
"Thirty en-suite bedrooms ranging from standard and family rooms to 
individually styled Executive Rooms. All bedrooms are equipped with tea 
and coffee-making facilities, telephones and colour televisions.


Dormitory accommodation and camping facilities are also available by 
arrangement. Exclusive use of the hotel, its grounds and facilities can 
be arranged subject to availability.


Camping is available which must be booked in advance. The charge is £6 
per person per night which includes use of the indoor heated swimming 
pool and showers.


It seems I forgot about this discussion, sorry! Anyway, I meant that the 
course centers I'm referring to are more low end – no reception, no 
staff (except possibly a cook, though only in the larger ones). The one 
you linked seemed more high-end with en-suite rooms, reception and other 
facilities.


Best regards,
--
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”

[Jyri-Petteri Paloposki]

On 21.9.2019 12.52, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I'd see that very suitable. You can define the subtype by tagging 
community_centre=*, and I would not see a requirement that the facility 
needs to be open to everybody, it can be for a specific user group, 
which can be tagged with community_centre:for=* .


This is the one that seems most suitable from the current tags, but I'm 
still a bit stuck on the idea that a community centre should also have 
some communal functions. These course centres I'm referring to don't 
really belong to the community, but basically just provide space for 
rent for users, which are usually non-profit because of the low-end 
facilities.


When I look at the definition of a community centre in Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_centre#Uses_and_activities), 
the only one that matches IMO is the one about renting a space. Is it 
thus really a community centre?


Best regards,
--
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Jan 2020, at 20:27, Alessandro Sarretta 
>  wrote:
> 
> And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use tap_water, that 
> should clearly state that is not bottle water :-)
> 
> So it could be:
> 
> tap_water=yes/no/customers
> tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
> tap_water:container=*
> This way it seems to me you should be able to cover all the possibilities 
> clearly.
> 


as we’re talking about the specifics of the water, it is not uncommon to have 
bars, restaurants and cafes sell filtered tap water (by them, not the bottled 
version that some multinational corps sell as table water), chilled and 
sparkling if you wish so. Some of them explicitly do not sell other water, some 
offer both kind.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

>
>
>2. Re: RFC free_water (Joseph Eisenberg)
>
>>> Joseph, I have just turned off the digest feature ... so hopefully this
will be the last of this wacky system which has been driving me crazy.

I have just added a top section to  the discussion page for :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Free_Water

I propose that everyone contribute in this section without verbage or
rationale an elegant and complete solution which solves the below.
1. Is there free drinking water available ?
2. For whom is it free ? if it is the case that there is free
water available
3. If it is free for everyone, can you bring your own container ?.  (bottle)

My current preferred solution which is now on the top of the discussion
page is :
drinking_water:free = 
drinking_water:free:container = 

After making a proposal, it would seem to make sense to explain why they
believe their set of tags is the best.

I hope this can help expedite the process.

Best regards,

Stuart


>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 07:31:13 +0900
> From: Joseph Eisenberg 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water
> Message-ID:
>  ws4ihxuk...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> > tap_water=
>
> That will not work here in Indonesia. You do not drink the tap water here,
> or in most countries in Asia.
>
> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 4:27 AM Alessandro Sarretta <
> alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > On 17/01/20 12:08, European Water Project wrote:
> >
> >  2. Re: RFC free_water (François Lacombe)
> >>
> >
> > I see your point and agree it would be preferable to develop a more
> > generalize nomenclature, but also think it is important to choose
> something
> > that is understandable to a newbie.
> >
> > If we chose charge:water
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1
> >
> > =free
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1
> >
> >  we would need to differentiate when the water is free to anyone (yes in
> > OSM speak) or just paying customers (customers in OSM speak).
> >
> > We could use :
> > charge:water
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1
> >
> > = > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1
> >
> > /fee>
> > access = 
> > container = 
> >
> > In the above, European Water Project would only include cafés, bars, etc.
> > with
> > charge:water
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:charge:water&action=edit&redlink=1
> >
> > =free
> > <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:charge:water%3Dfree&action=edit&redlink=1
> >
> > access = yes
> > container = bring_own
> >
> > If you use the tag *access* alone, it could refer to the "main" feature
> > (the bar or restaurant...).
> >
> > And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use *tap_water*,
> > that should clearly state that is not bottle water :-)
> >
> > So it could be:
> >
> >- tap_water=yes/no/customers
> >- tap_water:free=yes/no/customers
> >- tap_water:container=*
> >
> > This way it seems to me you should be able to cover all the possibilities
> > clearly.
> >
> > m2c
> >
> > Ale
> > ___
> > 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/20200118/a8736e1c/attachment.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 122
> *
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging