Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 17.01.20 07:37, European Water Project wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Free_Water

My opinion on this is:

1. It is not something that should be mapped in OSM at all; this is a
volatile property like mapping menu items for a restaurant or product
offers for a supermarket and may change at any time.

2. Even if we wanted to map this property, insofar as a whole chain has
been signed up ("all XYZ outlets in ABC country offer free water"), it
is wasteful to add the tag to every single outlet and it should just be
recorded centrally (i.e. an app displaying free water options should
simply highlight all outlets with operator=X or brand=X).

3. When we're talking about non-chain restaurants, the decision whether
a random traveller will be offered a free refill for their water bottle
can very well depend on the day of week, how politely the traveller
asks, or how busy the place is - just because you've been given free
water doesn't mean you should claim everybody gets it every time.

4. Even if all of the above were ignored, I think "free=yes" is too
limited, and would concur with those who have suggested a "fee=no"
approach, because if you are charged a dollar for your refill you can
simply put "fee=$1".

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] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

Dear Florimond,

In my opinion English is a language of affirmations and conditional
affirmations more than a language of negations with caveats.I fully
acknowledge and respect your differing opinion.

I will give other  examples of how :free could be used affirmatively :

Free wifi at a bar could be
bar:wifi:free =

describing bar:wifi:fee = no  is not KISS

Free battery recharge for Tesla owners for example would be better
described as an affirmation than no fee for everyone but Tesla owners.

I have modified the proposal to be :
drinking_water:free = 
drinking_water:bottle = 

Best regards,

Stuart

PS : Giving free bottle water is not so rare and I hope becomes common
place like toilet access for anyone which has become legally mandatory in
many US municipalities. Refill UK has already signed up 1,000s of cafés in
the UK. Sarah Elrich with free tap water in Belgian restaurants has been
quite successful in signing up restaurant chains across Belgium.



On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 21:58, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well,
> if the ice cream parlour sells only bottle water it should be tagged
> drinking_water:fee=yes
> if the ice cream parlour gives free tap water and sell bottle water it
> should be tagged drinking_water:fee=no
> Giving free bottle water is rare, the only common case I see is hotel for
> their customers, so most people with drinking_water:fee=yes would not
> expect free bottle water.
> I think fee should have the value for the lowest fee of a service.
>
> Fee apply to a service if I believe the Cambridge dictionary
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fee
> «an amount of money paid for a particular piece of work or for a
> particular right or service»
> I consider bottle water more like a product than a service, where as
> drinking water is more like a service.
>
>
> Le mar. 21 janv. 2020 à 11:21, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > haha ..  https://moneyinc.com/10-expensive-bottled-waters-world/
> >
> > Acqua di Cristallo Tributo a Modigliani
> >
> > A $60,000 750 ml bottle of world no comment.
> >
> > There are plenty of restaurants and cafés which don't sell water to
> non-customers.
> >
> > I just don't believe there is an equivalency between
> >
> > - free and NOT (fee) ; and
> > - NOT (free) and fee.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:06, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> sent from a phone
> >>
> >> > On 21. Jan 2020, at 10:22, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If a cafe is tagged "drinking_water:fee=yes", it could lead people
> erroneously to believe that the tagged cafe sells water ?
> >>
> >>
> >> I’ve yet to see a cafe that doesn’t sell water.
> >>
> >> Btw, I guess you are less interested in tagging luxury water? I’ve once
> seen a tourist aiming shop in Berlin that sold japanese (IIRR) bottled
> water for something like 5 Euros half a liter (takeaway, not a cafe).
> >>
> >> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

[John Willis via Tagging]

> On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> if the sheets are the topmost thing before the air of the atmosphere, surface 
> would be fine


as an FYI, I am only interested in mapping any of these types of things if they 
are clearly visible all the time and installed permanently (present year to 
year), as they are a visible. somethign that would go in the surface= tag. 

Most farming plastic (like the ones used to grow vegetables) is not mappable, 
as it is only present 3 months of the year and is constantly changing location 
in a farm field year to year. 

Similarly, if a soil stabilizer / sheeting / plastic  is permanently visible on 
the surface it should be mapped as a surface, but if it is buried and not 
visible - like most landscaping paper buried in the ground -  then it should 
rightly be ignored. 

if someone wants to come up with an embankment:stabilized=mesh (or whatever) 
tag for known stabilized slopes, thats fine with me, but I am not pursuing 
that. 

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Florimond Berthoux]

Well,
if the ice cream parlour sells only bottle water it should be tagged
drinking_water:fee=yes
if the ice cream parlour gives free tap water and sell bottle water it
should be tagged drinking_water:fee=no
Giving free bottle water is rare, the only common case I see is hotel for
their customers, so most people with drinking_water:fee=yes would not
expect free bottle water.
I think fee should have the value for the lowest fee of a service.

Fee apply to a service if I believe the Cambridge dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fee
«an amount of money paid for a particular piece of work or for a particular
right or service»
I consider bottle water more like a product than a service, where as
drinking water is more like a service.


Le mar. 21 janv. 2020 à 11:21, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> haha ..  https://moneyinc.com/10-expensive-bottled-waters-world/
>
> Acqua di Cristallo Tributo a Modigliani
>
> A $60,000 750 ml bottle of world no comment.
>
> There are plenty of restaurants and cafés which don't sell water to
non-customers.
>
> I just don't believe there is an equivalency between
>
> - free and NOT (fee) ; and
> - NOT (free) and fee.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:06, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 21. Jan 2020, at 10:22, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > If a cafe is tagged "drinking_water:fee=yes", it could lead people
erroneously to believe that the tagged cafe sells water ?
>>
>>
>> I’ve yet to see a cafe that doesn’t sell water.
>>
>> Btw, I guess you are less interested in tagging luxury water? I’ve once
seen a tourist aiming shop in Berlin that sold japanese (IIRR) bottled
water for something like 5 Euros half a liter (takeaway, not a cafe).
>>
>> 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



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

Re: [Tagging] EV charging stations questions and proposals

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny 
a écrit :

> Thanks for reviewing tagging and tagging docs as part of that!
>

You're welcome

>
> So charging station for bicycles and charging station for cars is supposed
> to be have the same top tag?
>

Yes I think so

> According to official terminology, a station sounds to be a device in a
> pool which refers to the place where you find several devices to charge
> your EV. amenity=charging_station then should refers to individual devices
> and not to whole facilities.
> Can someone confirm this point please?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Is_this_a_device_or_a_place_.3F
>
> I really hope that it is for a place.
> If it is equivalent of tagging every pump separately then we need a new
> tag
> for the entire equivalent of amenity=fuel
>

Both could be desirable, for different use cases.
This is what I asked on amenity=fuel Talk:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dfuel#Tagging_individual_pumps

Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 17:26, Lionel Giard  a
écrit :

> For motorcar vs car, it seems logical to update it to motorcar as it is
> the recommended way of tagging car access, as it is probably just an old
> wiki information on the amenity=charging_station.
>

Agreed on this point.
Would be great to read people that knows


> i don't think these place are a "station".
>

So am I and it would be ok to have an additional tag for devices and
choosing the right terminology to adopt for that

We have to be careful because in some standards :
The place including several devices = A pool
The device with several sockets = A station
A socket = An equipment (EVSE)

Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 14:05, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
> I am not completely sure, but maybe "car" was chosen purposefully because
> this is not the same as a legal access restriction?
>
Maybe
This is not really meaningful nevertheless, not containing any references
to "legal issues" in name.
That could be improved

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Jmapb]

On 1/21/2020 3:42 AM, Markus Peloso wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of
items in the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.

*I request for voting now.*

Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the
name. Then please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on
the result I will made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested
names are:

• amenity=free_box

    • amenity=free_goods

    • amenity=give_take_box

    • shop=freeshop

Best regards,

Markus


Thanks Markus -- I added a photo of a "Free art" box for the gallery. 
If anyone has a photo of a hiker box (something like this:
https://photos.thetrek.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/12101802/EEB4E5C5-EAFA-4059-A0AA-3AF6DD324552-700x525.jpeg
) I think it would make a good addition.

Jason

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

Hi Martin,

haha ..  https://moneyinc.com/10-expensive-bottled-waters-world/
Acqua di Cristallo Tributo a Modigliani

A $60,000 750 ml bottle of world no comment.

There are plenty of restaurants and cafés which don't sell water to
non-customers.

I just don't believe there is an equivalency between

- free and NOT (fee) ; and
- NOT (free) and fee.

Best regards,

Stuart

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:06, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 21. Jan 2020, at 10:22, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If a cafe is tagged "drinking_water:fee=yes", it could lead people
> erroneously to believe that the tagged cafe sells water ?
>
>
> I’ve yet to see a cafe that doesn’t sell water.
>
> Btw, I guess you are less interested in tagging luxury water? I’ve once
> seen a tourist aiming shop in Berlin that sold japanese (IIRR) bottled
> water for something like 5 Euros half a liter (takeaway, not a cafe).
>
> 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] RFC free_water

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Jan 2020, at 10:22, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> If a cafe is tagged "drinking_water:fee=yes", it could lead people 
> erroneously to believe that the tagged cafe sells water ?  


I’ve yet to see a cafe that doesn’t sell water.

Btw, I guess you are less interested in tagging luxury water? I’ve once seen a 
tourist aiming shop in Berlin that sold japanese (IIRR) bottled water for 
something like 5 Euros half a liter (takeaway, not a cafe).

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[European Water Project]

Hi Florimond,

I can see your logic, even if I still prefer  drinking_water:free. One more
issue I see with drinking_water:fee.

If a cafe is tagged "drinking_water:fee=yes", it could lead people
erroneously to believe that the tagged cafe sells water ?

It could be that the café or ice cream parlour doesn't sell bottle in
single-use PET bottles or have drinking quality water tap water.

Best regards,

Stuart

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 09:59, Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 16:16, European Water Project
>  a écrit :
> >
> > Dear Florimond,
> >
> > What seems preferable about  drinking_water:free=  is
> that it is a tag that offers a complete response .
> >
> > drinking_water:fee, necessitates a follow up qualification. If no, then
> for whom if not for everyone ? If yes, then how much and is it the same fee
> for customers and non-customers alike?
>
> No, for me these tags are equal
> drinking_water:free=no <=> drinking_water:fee=yes
> drinking_water:free=yes <=> drinking_water:fee=no
> drinking_water:free=customers <=> drinking_water:fee=free_for_customers
>
> --
> 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

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

[Florimond Berthoux]

Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 16:16, European Water Project
 a écrit :
>
> Dear Florimond,
>
> What seems preferable about  drinking_water:free=  is that 
> it is a tag that offers a complete response .
>
> drinking_water:fee, necessitates a follow up qualification. If no, then for 
> whom if not for everyone ? If yes, then how much and is it the same fee for 
> customers and non-customers alike?

No, for me these tags are equal
drinking_water:free=no <=> drinking_water:fee=yes
drinking_water:free=yes <=> drinking_water:fee=no
drinking_water:free=customers <=> drinking_water:fee=free_for_customers

-- 
Florimond Berthoux

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Markus Peloso]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag.

I request for voting now.

Feel free to give also a negative answer if you only don’t like the name. Then 
please write in the comments what name you prefer. Based on the result I will 
made a second vote with a new name. Other suggested names are:
• amenity=free_box
• amenity=free_goods
• amenity=give_take_box
• shop=freeshop

Best regards,
Markus

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 21:26
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in 
the sense of free sharing.

Hi

Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to 
understand what this tag is all about. I have removed all references and notes 
to give away shops, because those are not helpful for a clear specification of 
this tag.

Thanks for the hint with the hiker boxes and the other type of boxes. Good to 
see that there are similar projects all over the world. I have included a 
section with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing 
tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific then 
the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it. IMO 
someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag.

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Januar 2020 13:04
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: AW: Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box

A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the 
sense of free sharing.

Many thanks for your helpful Feedback and your support. :D

I have updated the proposed.

I like the idea of using the shop=charity icon. Maybe the icon could be a 
combination of the shop=charity icon and the shop=gift icon.

I change the tag name to give_box. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box
Because the name Givebox is used by a website that provides fundraising tools.

The naming was the difficult part. Why am I for give_box:

+ Give box is already a known concept in Europa with a big community.
+ I think "gift box" would be a very good name to describes the idea of this 
facility. As a self organized solidarity space of free giving/donating and free 
taking/reusing. The name "Give box" is similar.
+ Give box is not overused for other things found in the internet, eg. internet 
modems.

"reuse" is to generic, eg. someone can tag a fridge with amenity=reuse and 
reuse=fridge, to document a place to share food. But I think this kind of 
facility deserves its own tag.
I think the tag "reuse" is currently only used because there is no other tag 
for this kind of facility.

Give boxes are some kind of public storage room/space in the sense of giving 
and reuse. I think the "free store" (German "Umsonstladen") in Germany is more 
a give box as a store. As I read, even the shelf's in the "free store" 
("Umsonstladen") are brought by the community, that's more something like a 
public storage room. In a store I would except employees who eg. place the 
items on the shelves. That's way a give box is not a shop=charity or 
shop=second_hand. The idea and organization behind a "free store" (German 
"Umsonstladen") and "Give box" are the same, they differ only in the storage 
space size. A shack can also be named as a store. This makes a clear 
distinction difficult. As abstraction for OSM, I think we can use the same tag.

free_box would be my second choice. I would like to solve it democratically. In 
two weeks I would like to vote on give_box. If you prefer free_box then vote 
against it and write it in the comment of the vote. Then I change it and do a 
second vote for free_box.

Von: Markus Peloso
Gesendet: Montag, 6. Januar 2020 23:41
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Givebox

A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the 
sense of free sharing.

Hi

Based on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reuse and 
the  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_bookcase tag I 
describe a tag for facilities similar to public bookcases but with all kinds of 
(none food) goods.





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