Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Warin]

On 7/2/20 3:47 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Let say a hospital has collapsed.

The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag
damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.

So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully
functional hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.


Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from
fully functional things.


How about rendering a nice, big red X overlaying the outline of the 
building when it's marked as disused! :-)



Not only buildings.. paths, roads, train stations/tracks shops, etc. And 
not only disused, abandoned, razed, etc...


Rendering is not easy.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[European Water Project]

Dear Paul,

The example you use is a very good one, but not necessarily for the reason
you intended.

The fountain in the picture you show is an old style fountain with a
drinking cup who style was banned by Federal Regulation in the US in 1912
due to its unsanitary nature.

I would therefore tag this fountain as

amenity=fountain + drinking_water=no

Best Regards,

Stuart


This old drinking fountain is harder to classify:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fountain_Snow_Hill_Samuel_Gurney..jpg
Technically just a drinking fountain but it is rather decorative.  Is it
amenity=water or amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes?

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:56, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 22:39, António Madeira 
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, let's stay in the same page then. :)
>> Regarding schools, I don't know what you mean, because here, schools dont
>> have fountains, just taps and those of the bubbler type (maybe old century
>> schools have fountains in their yards or something similar).
>>
>
> Bubbler appears to be a name I'm unfamiliar with for a drinking fountain.
> One
> of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg  It's not
> ornamental or
> decorative.  It's a drinking fountain, not a fountain.
>
> This old drinking fountain is harder to classify:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fountain_Snow_Hill_Samuel_Gurney..jpg
> Technically just a drinking fountain but it is rather decorative.  Is it
> amenity=water or amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes?
>
> This was assumed from my side since the beginning. What spurred me to
>> start this thread was that the element "fountain" in Portuguese iD was
>> translated as "decoration fountain" and the wiki seemed to support that
>> distinction.
>>
>
> But that's pretty much how British English sees it: fountains are primarily
> ornamental/decorative.  They may incidentally provide drinking water or
> they
> may not.  Remember that what you call a bubbler is what we call a drinking
> fountain.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] key damage and HOT

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let say a hospital has collapsed.
>
> The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag
> damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.
>
> So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully functional
> hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.
>
>
> Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from fully
> functional things.
>

How about rendering a nice, big red X overlaying the outline of the
building when it's marked as disused! :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:27 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> On Thursday 06 February 2020, Marc Gemis wrote:


>
> > And I want to end with a quote from {1]
> >
> > "My approach to this matter has been – from the beginning of my
> > contributions to OSM-Carto – to regard the role and task of the
> > project as mapper support without active steering."
> >
> > My feeling is that in this case that principle has been broken (I am
> > not going to repeat the arguments given here by the others in this
> > thread)
>
> Your feeling is wrong, possibly due to you misunderstanding the concept
> of mapper support.  Mapper support does not mean doing what the loudest
> mappers want you to do.  There are tons of nonsensical or
> non-verifiable tags loudly promoted by mappers.  Rendering such in
> OSM-Carto would not be mapper support, it would be sabotage.  Mapper
> support in style design primarily means - as i like to phrase it -
> supporting mappers in consistent use of tags.
>
> The irony here is that - as i mentioned in another mail - OSM-Carto is
> to a significant extent responsible for encouraging mappers to use this
> ambiguous tagging and we now get criticized for trying to fix this
> counterproductive incentive.

I still do not understand why area=yes is a bad tag. So far, the only
argument I have seen is that you have problems to implement it in your
workflow. Someone Else had to problem to implement it.

Area=yes is imho usefull for features that can be closed ways and
areas, such as hedges and a few other  barrier tags that were
mentioned in this thread. It makes no sense for
landcover/landuse/natural/leisure/amenity, which, AFAIK, cannot be
closed ways, but are always areas when represented by a closed
polygon.

So when area=yes is used in combination with barrier I expect the
polygon to be filled. The other people tat to the time to respond to
your question on what does the following mean to you, had the same
opinion.

So when barrier=hedge, landuse/amenity/leisure/natural/landcover and
area=yes are placed on the same closed way or multipolygon, the only
interpretation is that the hedge fills the area. This is probably
wrong, but it should still be rendered as such.

Even if there are a few 10k-100k of such instances, they can easily be
fixed with a Maproulette challenge..
This has been done before when the landuse=farm stopped rendering or
during the multi-polygon cleanup. Although the numbers might be of a
different order.

If OS carto-team would have chosen this route, the fix would have been
straightforward, though time-consuming. WIth your solution, people are
forced to come up with new tagging proposals for each of the barrier
types, go through the approval process and then start the retagging.

I have little hope that you will revert the change and take a
different approach. Given earlier discussions on landcover, I feel
that people trying to properly map green areas are left in the cold.
The approach seems to be take: one of the features that colours green,
then you are fine, do not bother about the details.

regards

m

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Warin]

On 7/2/20 10:45 am, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey > wrote:



I disagree with the whole premise. To me both
building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes means exactly the
same thing and should be interpreted the same way.


But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a 
ruined

building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
assumption.

The choice of one tag over another above is base on one thing: does it 
render the way wanted.


Is the desired solution to have life cycle prefixes ignored by renders 
so a ruined thing is rendered the same as non ruined things?



Let say a hospital has collapsed.

The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag 
damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.


So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully functional 
hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.


You cannot now say that it should be tagged another way because it is a 
hospital, why would the rules change from one object to another?



Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from fully 
functional things.


Personally I don't mind that some things are not rendered by the 
standard map, there is a lot on it now. Keeping everyone happy is not 
possible.



And, by the way... I do know it does not render. And I don't care if it 
renders or not... I tag what I see as truth.




You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and
one to hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I
don't think has any place in OSM.


Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes + 
disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has 
additional
information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can 
and WILL

decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.



The tagging should not decide what is rendered. It is the render that 
decides what is rendered.



amenity=place_of_worship says there is an active place of worship here.

disused:amenity=place_of_worship says there is a non active place of 
worship here.


Where is the loss of information? None in the tagging. If you want the 
render to show a disused place of worship the same as an active place of 
worship then you could lie and usee the tag amenity=place_of_worship, 
thus sending anyone looking for an active place of worship to a disused 
place of worship.



As for using 2 features on the one OSM object, well to be pedantic then;

building=* should be on the building outline.

palces_of_worship should be on the area of the property if you have that 
information, otherwise on a node.






If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you
can't assume that will always be the case for all maps.


Some would regard it as a bug.  From comments made by the OSM standard
carto people here, I suspect they see it as a feature.



There are many thing not rendered by the OSM standard carto map. I still 
correctly tag them because it is what is there. Some people chose to tag 
their home as an embassy because they like the way it shows up on the 
map, it is called tagging for the render.


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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:28, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> General, all values of “building=“ have an intact roof.
>
> If the roof of a structure has collapsed, it would be misleading to use
> the key “building=“
>

Sorry, but a bit of an awkward definition, that one!

The entire roof has collapsed, 50%, the back corner still has a roof over
it?

Does a tarpaulin over the missing roof return it to being a building?

Is Notre Dame cathedral still a "building"?

& with regard to "ruins" - is there something visible on the ground? If
there is, even just a pile of rubble, it should be on the map, so that
someone walking past can look at the map & say "Aha, this pile of rubble
used to be Whatever".

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It is best to use ruins:building= because a ruin is not a building in the
usual sense or in how the tag “building” is used in Openstreetmap.

General, all values of “building=“ have an intact roof.

If the roof of a structure has collapsed, it would be misleading to use the
key “building=“

-Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:12 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:47, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
>>> ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
>>> the same way.
>>>
>>
>> But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a
>> ruined
>> building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
>> blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
>> assumption.
>>
>
> To be honest I don't really mind if it renders on the default renderer or
> not, I care what the data says. People can and do make their own maps, if I
> want a map to show ruined buildings to capture all the data at the moment
> you need to check for both those tags.
>
>
>>
>> You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and one to
>>> hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't think has
>>> any place in OSM.
>>>
>>
>> Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes +
>> disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
>> render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has
>> additional
>> information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can and
>> WILL
>> decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
>> presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
>> entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
>> tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.
>>
>
> Both mean there is an intact building there, in one case it's a place of
> worship that's closed down/not operating but still has some evidence on the
> ground that it's a place of worship. The other case, it says nothing about
> place_of_worship.
>
> Okay so I'll ask you a question then, on the ground what's the difference
> between building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes.
>
> In what on the ground situation would you have one render but the other
> one not render?
> ___
> 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] key damage and HOT

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:47, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
>> ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
>> the same way.
>>
>
> But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a ruined
> building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
> blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
> assumption.
>

To be honest I don't really mind if it renders on the default renderer or
not, I care what the data says. People can and do make their own maps, if I
want a map to show ruined buildings to capture all the data at the moment
you need to check for both those tags.


>
> You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and one to
>> hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't think has
>> any place in OSM.
>>
>
> Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes +
> disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
> render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has
> additional
> information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can and
> WILL
> decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
> presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
> entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
> tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.
>

Both mean there is an intact building there, in one case it's a place of
worship that's closed down/not operating but still has some evidence on the
ground that it's a place of worship. The other case, it says nothing about
place_of_worship.

Okay so I'll ask you a question then, on the ground what's the difference
between building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes.

In what on the ground situation would you have one render but the other one
not render?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Warin]

On 7/2/20 4:22 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 16:50, European Water Project 
 ha scritto:


drinking_water =  as a sub-tag seems more logical.

Assuming we open the pandora's box of removing amenity=drinking_water 
which is used on 207,000 nodes and ways. 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water


What would be the best way to proceed to re-tag ?



frankly, it seems quite unlikely that massive retagging and in 
particular deprecation will happen for amenity=drinking_water.


Many objects with this tag don’t have other tags: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water#combinations


and they are different kinds of objects that have it.


? What other kinds of object have it?

OSM has tags for taps, drinking fountains and water objects...

I'd think that covers them?


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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
> I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
> ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
> the same way.
>

But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a ruined
building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
assumption.

You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and one to
> hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't think has
> any place in OSM.
>

Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes +
disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has
additional
information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can and WILL
decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.

>
> If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you can't
> assume that will always be the case for all maps.
>

Some would regard it as a bug.  From comments made by the OSM standard
carto people here, I suspect they see it as a feature.

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 01:21, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 13:40, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> ruins:building=yes is not just tagging for other mappers, it's
>> accurately describing the feature on the ground, a ruined building. It's
>> not quite a building=yes, but not really nothing left on the ground, so
>> it's just part of the lifecycle.
>>
>
> Are you sure about that not being "just tagging for other mappers"?   Have
> you
> seen how ruins:building=yes renders?  Here's one I found using
> overpass-turbo:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701307813  Close the pane showing the
> tags and the nodes.  What happens to the building then?  It vanishes.
> Because
> ruins:building=yes DOES NOT RENDER.  So only mappers will ever know it's
> there.  Ordinary users, looking at the map, won't see it.  But the ruins
> are
> visible to anyone passing by.
>

> If you want a ruined building to render, because the ruins are a visible
> landmark,
> then you should use building=yes + ruins=yes.  Here's an abandoned church
>
that's in ruins: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/637904260
> The abandoned:amenity=place_of_worship prevents the religious icon
> from rendering; the ruins=yes do not prevent the building=yes from
> rendering.
> Is this sensible tagging?  See https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1923975
> and https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/CGN/Llechryd/HolyCross
>
> And that's why we need tags like ruins=yes as well as lifecycle prefixes.
> Because
> lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the tag they prefix, and that's
> sometimes
> exactly the right thing to do and sometimes exactly the wrong thing to do.
>

I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
the same way. You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map
and one to hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't
think has any place in OSM.

If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you can't
assume that will always be the case for all maps.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 22:39, António Madeira  wrote:

> Ok, let's stay in the same page then. :)
> Regarding schools, I don't know what you mean, because here, schools dont
> have fountains, just taps and those of the bubbler type (maybe old century
> schools have fountains in their yards or something similar).
>

Bubbler appears to be a name I'm unfamiliar with for a drinking fountain.
One
of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg  It's not
ornamental or
decorative.  It's a drinking fountain, not a fountain.

This old drinking fountain is harder to classify:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fountain_Snow_Hill_Samuel_Gurney..jpg
Technically just a drinking fountain but it is rather decorative.  Is it
amenity=water or amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes?

This was assumed from my side since the beginning. What spurred me to start
> this thread was that the element "fountain" in Portuguese iD was translated
> as "decoration fountain" and the wiki seemed to support that distinction.
>

But that's pretty much how British English sees it: fountains are primarily
ornamental/decorative.  They may incidentally provide drinking water or they
may not.  Remember that what you call a bubbler is what we call a drinking
fountain.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 7:41 AM António Madeira via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Regarding schools, I don't know what you mean, because here, schools dont
> have fountains, just taps and those of the bubbler type (maybe old century
> schools have fountains in their yards or something similar).
>


Re “those of the bubbler type” - we call these “drinking fountains”, and
most amenity=drinking_water in the USA or Britain will be of these type. We
would not tag these as amenity=fountain, because a “fountain” is a
decorative water feature where water shoots up into the air.

While the word “fountain” is related to “fuente” and similar words derived
from Latin, it does NOT mean “water source” or “spring” because we have a
different word for springs and wells.

In English a fountain has a decorative key of water, so they are not
designed to provide water for drinking or household use.

In fact, before this discussion, I was not aware that there were still
Roman-style drinking fountains in operation in Southern Europe. They are
not present in Southeast Asia, Latin America or North America.

Since Portugal and other Mediterranean countries are using amenity=fountain
for such features, it is fine to document this secondary meaning, even
though it is not expected by English speakers from Britain or North America.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Ok, let's stay in the same page then. :)
Regarding schools, I don't know what you mean, because here, schools
dont have fountains, just taps and those of the bubbler type (maybe old
century schools have fountains in their yards or something similar).

Às 18:20 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

Which is the case in Britain for ornamental/decorative fountains. 
Regardless
of whether or not they supply drinking water, they're fountains.  But
utilitarian
drinking fountains, of the kind found in schools, are not "fountains"
in normal
British English usage.


This was assumed from my side since the beginning. What spurred me to
start this thread was that the element "fountain" in Portuguese iD was
translated as "decoration fountain" and the wiki seemed to support that
distinction.
So, as it is now, there are no decoration fountains, only fountains that
need drinking_water=yes if they provide potable water, which seems a
more encompassing and more close to reality solution.



What I was objecting to was the idea that in some countries
amenity=fountain
is assumed to supply drinking water by default.  It needs an explicit
drinking_water=yes.

--
Paul



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 20:54, António Madeira  wrote:

> I did read the description closely, and what I said still applies: in
> Portugal it is a fountain in the way it is described in Britain, an
> amenity=fountain with no drinking water.
>

I think we may be talking past each other again.

That's what I'm trying to explain from the beginning: it doesn't matter if
> it has drinking water or not, it will always be a fountain.
>

Which is the case in Britain for ornamental/decorative fountains.
Regardless
of whether or not they supply drinking water, they're fountains.  But
utilitarian
drinking fountains, of the kind found in schools, are not "fountains" in
normal
British English usage.


> But in the cases (the majority of them) that they have, we should be
> allowed to apply the drinking_water=yes, regardless if in Britain that's
> not the case.
>

It is the case in Britain that if an ornamental fountain supplies drinking
water
then the tag drinking_water=yes should be applied.  I don't think anyone
said
otherwise, or that you shouldn't apply drinking_water=yes to fountains in
Portugal.  The only thing that may be different is that Britain may not have
as many ornamental fountains that supply drinking water as Portugal does.

This way, everyone is happy: you still call it fountain in Britain, and I
> still call it fountain in Spain, Italy, France, Portugal or wherever, with
> the difference that the chance of them having potable water is higher.
>

It doesn't matter which country the fountain is in.  If it supplies potable
water then
add drinking_water=yes and if it doesn't supply potable water then don't
add drinking_water=yes (perhaps even add drinking_water=no if most
ornamental fountains in the area supply drinking water.

What I was objecting to was the idea that in some countries amenity=fountain
is assumed to supply drinking water by default.  It needs an explicit
drinking_water=yes.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

This also is important. There are fountains (not many) which have an
official document in situ to inform that the water was tested, with the
analysis results and date.
This could go into another key, which would compose even better the
fountain tag. I had never noticed that legal=yes/legal=no keys but I
think it would be a good addition to the fountain wiki, at least on the
countries where they apply.

Às 16:02 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

You may also need to make use of drinking_water:legal=no on some
fountains.  I wouldn't use it myself because it implies the water is
drinkable but not certified as drinkable and I'd be worried about the
legal consequences of making such a claim.



I think this is a good summary on the issue that could be applied to
other tags. I believe OSM would have much to gain if this was the case.

Às 17:03 de 06/02/2020, Diego Cruz escreveu:

I don't think it's that hard to concede that a fountain, ornamental in
nature, may be used for drinking too in other countries by adding a
simple subtag. We should be a little more respectful of cultural
differences here, since this project intends to map the whole world
and a single language is just but a poor tool to describe everything
we can find in it.

I'm not trying to target English for this inability to describe
things. All languages suffer from that, especially things that are
foreign to one's own culture. We are just using British English as a
convention, not because it is more adequate, so please let us at least
deviate a little to accommodate differences.



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I did read the description closely, and what I said still applies: in
Portugal it is a fountain in the way it is described in Britain, an
amenity=fountain with no drinking water.
That's what I'm trying to explain from the beginning: it doesn't matter
if it has drinking water or not, it will always be a fountain. But in
the cases (the majority of them) that they have, we should be allowed to
apply the drinking_water=yes, regardless if in Britain that's not the case.
This way, everyone is happy: you still call it fountain in Britain, and
I still call it fountain in Spain, Italy, France, Portugal or wherever,
with the difference that the chance of them having potable water is higher.


Às 16:02 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:10, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:


If you come to Portugal and want to find drinkin water, you should
know that most fountains have drinking water, like I need to know
the opposite when I go to the UK.


But OSM maps can be viewed from anywhere in the world by people planning
trips.  It's better that tags mean the same thing everywhere. 
Otherwise you
have to check what each country means by each tag.

Yes, that example in Portugal that's a fountain (a
decorative/historic)


If you had read the description closely, you'd have been able to work
out that
it was originally a decorative drinking fountain. Current legislation
means that
the water is no longer considered potable so it is now just a
decorative fountain.

If it says not do drink water from it, we simply use
amenity=fountain. Like you.

Only if it has potable water we could add drinking_water=yes.


That's all I was ever saying: amenity=fountain doesn't imply the water is
drinkable because the tag values are in British English. If it also
supplies
drinking water then add drinking_water=yes.  If there is no drinking_water
tag then the default is that it is not drinkable.  That way we have a
standard
way of tagging things.

You may also need to make use of drinking_water:legal=no on some
fountains.  I wouldn't use it myself because it implies the water is
drinkable but not certified as drinkable and I'd be worried about the
legal consequences of making such a claim.

--
Paul



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 20:03, Paul Allen  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> It's better that tags mean the same thing everywhere.  Otherwise you
> have to check what each country means by each tag.


countries are different and so the expectations you have for certain kind of 
things have to adapt. Also with the best map you would still need to have some 
knowledge how locally things work. Need to buy tobacco or milk on Sundays in 
Germany? Go to any petrol station. Would this work in Britain? No idea, in 
Italy likely not (on the motorway and some bigger roads it would). In some 
countries, if you want to take a local bus you’ll have to buy your ticket in 
advance, they’re not sold in the bus, in other countries they are. Or 
restaurants. Some countries allow smoking in restaurants, others don’t. Shall 
we have British defaults for all kinds of things (every mapper would have to go 
for some weeks to Britain on educational holidays)? How would we tag things for 
which the British culture hasn’t a concept?

Yes, we’re using British language terms as codewords for our tags, but this 
doesn’t mean these tags imply British culture and acquaintances for all the 
things that are tagged with them. 

If you came to Italy, France, Germany or Portugal looking for baked beans for 
breakfast in an amenity=cafe, you’d have a hard time finding one which offers 
them ;-)

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Diego Cruz]

While it is true that tags here are based on British English, it is also
true that there are mappers from all over the world that are dissatisfied
because of the narrowness offered by the English language when describing
certain things.

There was recently a discussion among Spanish mappers on how to map
different devotional objects you can find on the street, such as crosses,
little images of saints, etc. They have distinct names and they belong to
totally different categories according to Spanish culture, but they were
all merged into the ambiguous English term "wayside_shrine", even though
it's too simple and unspecific and we have to use other complementary tags
to highlight differences.

I don't think it's that hard to concede that a fountain, ornamental in
nature, may be used for drinking too in other countries by adding a simple
subtag. We should be a little more respectful of cultural differences here,
since this project intends to map the whole world and a single language is
just but a poor tool to describe everything we can find in it.

I'm not trying to target English for this inability to describe things. All
languages suffer from that, especially things that are foreign to one's own
culture. We are just using British English as a convention, not because it
is more adequate, so please let us at least deviate a little to accommodate
differences.

Best regards

El jue., 6 feb. 2020 20:04, Paul Allen  escribió:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:10, António Madeira 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you come to Portugal and want to find drinkin water, you should know
>> that most fountains have drinking water, like I need to know the opposite
>> when I go to the UK.
>>
>
> But OSM maps can be viewed from anywhere in the world by people planning
> trips.  It's better that tags mean the same thing everywhere.  Otherwise
> you
> have to check what each country means by each tag.
>
> Yes, that example in Portugal that's a fountain (a decorative/historic)
>>
>
> If you had read the description closely, you'd have been able to work out
> that
> it was originally a decorative drinking fountain.  Current legislation
> means that
> the water is no longer considered potable so it is now just a decorative
> fountain.
>
> If it says not do drink water from it, we simply use amenity=fountain.
>> Like you.
>>
> Only if it has potable water we could add drinking_water=yes.
>>
>
> That's all I was ever saying: amenity=fountain doesn't imply the water is
> drinkable because the tag values are in British English.  If it also
> supplies
> drinking water then add drinking_water=yes.  If there is no drinking_water
> tag then the default is that it is not drinkable.  That way we have a
> standard
> way of tagging things.
>
> You may also need to make use of drinking_water:legal=no on some
> fountains.  I wouldn't use it myself because it implies the water is
> drinkable but not certified as drinkable and I'd be worried about the
> legal consequences of making such a claim.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Relation for multi-part artworks

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 12:20, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> I hope to find consensus for how to tag artworks with multiple parts,
> as a relation.

> We could use relation_type:set (which I used for the Moonstones) or
> define a new relation_type:artwork

To further complicate matters I have had an off-list email, suggesting
the use of:

   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Cluster

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:12:17 +
Paul Allen  wrote:
 
> Lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the feature.  They are
> equivalent to deleting the feature tag and adding a note to the
> effect that the object is a disused .  Except that the word
> "disused" might not appear in the note and a synonym or
> circumlocution might be used instead.  Having
> disused:amenity=hospital allows database queries to pick out
> hospitals (used or disused), disused hospitals, or functioning
> hospitals.  Removing the amenity=hospital tag completely prevents the
> object appearing in queries for hospitals, or for disused hospitals.

Lifecycle prefixes don't prevent rendering, they prevent rendering *by
renderers that don't understand them*.  OsmAnd, for example,
understands the "abandoned:" prefix on roads just fine.  Knowing
that the trail fork you've come to is an abandoned logging road rather
than a hiking trail that hasn't yet had its spring cleaning is quite
useful.

(It might also understand "abandoned:" on other things, but I haven't
yet had a reason to use it.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:10, António Madeira  wrote:

>
> If you come to Portugal and want to find drinkin water, you should know
> that most fountains have drinking water, like I need to know the opposite
> when I go to the UK.
>

But OSM maps can be viewed from anywhere in the world by people planning
trips.  It's better that tags mean the same thing everywhere.  Otherwise you
have to check what each country means by each tag.

Yes, that example in Portugal that's a fountain (a decorative/historic)
>

If you had read the description closely, you'd have been able to work out
that
it was originally a decorative drinking fountain.  Current legislation
means that
the water is no longer considered potable so it is now just a decorative
fountain.

If it says not do drink water from it, we simply use amenity=fountain. Like
> you.
>
Only if it has potable water we could add drinking_water=yes.
>

That's all I was ever saying: amenity=fountain doesn't imply the water is
drinkable because the tag values are in British English.  If it also
supplies
drinking water then add drinking_water=yes.  If there is no drinking_water
tag then the default is that it is not drinkable.  That way we have a
standard
way of tagging things.

You may also need to make use of drinking_water:legal=no on some
fountains.  I wouldn't use it myself because it implies the water is
drinkable but not certified as drinkable and I'd be worried about the
legal consequences of making such a claim.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:10, António Madeira  wrote:

>
> If you come to Portugal and want to find drinkin water, you should know
> that most fountains have drinking water, like I need to know the opposite
> when I go to the UK.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:53, Peter Neale  wrote:

> Oh, so, the Wiki doesn't use standard British English then.?   Hmmm.
>

It uses standard, British informal English, rather than the technical
British
English used to describe voting procedures.


> Your final comment reminds me of my IT Course.  "Definition of Recursion:
> See Recursion". ;-)
>

It was intended to.  I was going to leave it as "Whether that should be the
case going forward is something we could vote on." but worried that not many
people would spot the recursive aspect.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Just to complement.
If you come to Portugal and want to find drinkin water, you should know
that most fountains have drinking water, like I need to know the
opposite when I go to the UK.
Also, if you come here, you need to know that we drive on the opposite
side of the road. That doesn't mean that highway has a different meaning
than in the UK. It's just used in a onother way.

Yes, that example in Portugal that's a fountain (a decorative/historic)

If it says not do drink water from it, we simply use amenity=fountain.
Like you.
Only if it has potable water we could add drinking_water=yes.




Às 14:51 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:


BTW,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrasting_messages_on_Harford_Fountain,_Harford_Square,_Lampeter_-_geograph.org.uk_-_6178011.jpg

--
Paul



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

That's what drinking_water=yes is used for, right?

In Britain, you don't use drinking_water=yes, in Portugal (or whatever
country it may be) we use amenity=fountain (which is always
decorative/ornamental/historic, so it fits your conception of fountain)
AND drinking_water=yes.
For me, it's simple. I don't see any issue with that.


Às 14:51 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:


A person outside Europe will still find what she/he wants by
searching the tag fountain, either with OR without drinking_water.


How?  I go to your country looking for drinking water and all I see on
the map
are ornamental fountains because that's what "fountain" means to me. 
You come
to the UK looking for drinking water and drink from an ornamental
fountain that
doesn't doesn't supply drinkable water because that's what "fountain"
means to
you.  This way madness lies.

BTW,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrasting_messages_on_Harford_Fountain,_Harford_Square,_Lampeter_-_geograph.org.uk_-_6178011.jpg

--
Paul



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

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

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

Oh, so, the Wiki doesn't use standard British English then.?   Hmmm.  
Your final comment reminds me of my IT Course.  "Definition of Recursion: See 
Recursion". ;-)
Regards,Peter

   >On Thursday, 6 February 2020, 17:39:35 GMT, Paul Allen  
wrote:  
 
 >On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:09, Peter Neale via Tagging 
 > wrote:


"abstain  /əbˈsteɪn/verb[...]
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries"
So an abstention is NOT a vote

>I thought I gave a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention>but I must 
>have forgotten.  I'll include the relevant parts here.

> Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote 
> either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, 
> is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot.[1] Abstention must be 
> contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made 
> invalid by marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all. A "blank (or 
> white) voter" has voted, although their vote may be considered a spoilt vote, 

>So what we have in the approval process, despite being called an 
>abstention,>is NOT an abstention.  It's a blank vote, aka white vote, because 
>a ballot has>been cast.  The wiki confuses the terms "ballot" and "vote" in 
>places, as well>as misusing the term "abstention."

>Also, 
>Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when 
>members abstain, they are in effect attending only to contribute to a quorum. 
>White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the 
>legislation. 
>The "legislation" (in this case past consensus of how things operate) was 
>that>blank/white votes ARE counted in the total of votes.  Whether that should 
>be the>case going forward is something we could vote on.  After we've voted on 
>the>rules for voting.  After we've voted on the rules for voting on the rules 
>for>voting.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:38, António Madeira  wrote:

> It's not arbitrary and you're missing the point by circling around a non
> issue.
>

We seem to be talking past each other.

I'm not saying to change the meaning of fountain, which can have some
> subtle differences between countries,
>

Would we be having this discussion if the British English word for an
ornamental
fountain were "mxyzptlk" and your language's word for a drinking fountain
were
"kltpzyxm"?  No.  Not even if EVERY fountain in the UK were ornamental and
didn't provide drinking water and EVERY fountain in your country was ugly
but
provided drinking water.


> I'm saying to let it open to retain its British meaning and add the
> possibility to have different uses depending on the country.
>

That way madness lies. It means that tourists in foreign countries have no
idea
what they're going to get if they see a fountain on a map.  It means
mappers in
foreign countries may tag fountains according to their idea of what a
fountain is,
not what that country thinks a fountain is.


> A person outside Europe will still find what she/he wants by searching the
> tag fountain, either with OR without drinking_water.
>

How?  I go to your country looking for drinking water and all I see on the
map
are ornamental fountains because that's what "fountain" means to me.  You
come
to the UK looking for drinking water and drink from an ornamental fountain
that
doesn't doesn't supply drinkable water because that's what "fountain" means
to
you.  This way madness lies.

BTW,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contrasting_messages_on_Harford_Fountain,_Harford_Square,_Lampeter_-_geograph.org.uk_-_6178011.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 125, Issue 38

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:09, Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> "abstain  /əbˈsteɪn/
> verb
> [...]
> Powered by Oxford Dictionaries"
>
> So an abstention is NOT a vote
>

I thought I gave a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
but I must have forgotten.  I'll include the relevant parts here.

*Abstention* is a term in election 
procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on
election day) or, in parliamentary procedure
, is present during
the vote, but does not cast a ballot.[1]
 Abstention must be
contrasted with "blank vote ", in
which a voter casts a ballot willfully made invalid by marking it wrongly
or by not marking anything at all. A "blank (or white) voter" has voted,
although their vote may be considered a spoilt vote
,

So what we have in the approval process, despite being called an abstention,
is NOT an abstention.  It's a blank vote, aka white vote, because a ballot
has
been cast.  The wiki confuses the terms "ballot" and "vote" in places, as
well
as misusing the term "abstention."

Also,
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively;
when members abstain, they are in effect attending only to contribute to a
quorum . White votes, however, may be
counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation.

The "legislation" (in this case past consensus of how things operate) was
that
blank/white votes ARE counted in the total of votes.  Whether that should
be the
case going forward is something we could vote on.  After we've voted on the
rules for voting.  After we've voted on the rules for voting on the rules
for
voting.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

It's not arbitrary and you're missing the point by circling around a non
issue.
I'm not saying to change the meaning of fountain, which can have some
subtle differences between countries, I'm saying to let it open to
retain its British meaning and add the possibility to have different
uses depending on the country. A person outside Europe will still find
what she/he wants by searching the tag fountain, either with OR without
drinking_water.


Às 14:24 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 16:48, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:

Paul, I'm not calling it anything. We all know that OSM uses
British English for tagging. What I'm saying is that it's better
to widen the scope of the tag, than restrict it to a

certain reality.
A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies
drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European
countries, it does imply, so it's just fair and logical that the
wiki reflects that.


You've just admitted OSM uses British English yet you still want to
expand the
meaning of fountain to have a meaning that is not British English. 
Yes, many
European countries ascribe a different meaning to "fountain."  But
many outside
Europe don't have the word "fountain" in their language. So, knowing that
OSM uses British English, they find out what "fountain" means in
British English
(or already know).  And would then be puzzled if OSM were using it
differently,
because OSM is supposed to use British English, not British English plus
arbitrary additional meanings from elsewhere.

--
Paul



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[ael]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 05:24:53PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 16:48, António Madeira  wrote:
> certain reality.
> > A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies
> > drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European countries, it

But the point is that in current British usage, the vast majority of
fountains are "drinking_water=no". The natural meaning is a decorative 
feature in most contexts.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 17:48, António Madeira 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies 
> drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European countries, it 
> does imply, so it's just fair and logical that the wiki reflects that.


IMHO amenity=fountain shouldn’t imply non-drinking water (although that’s what 
locally may apply), it shouldn’t have any implications on drinkability (that’s 
what was in the wiki, and it is now affirmed in a more neutral way).

If in your area a fountain is expected to provide drinkable water, the current 
tagging is not a problem, you could simply assume the water of every 
amenity=fountain with no drinking_water=no as likely drinkable (in your area).

On a global level, it isn’t safe to assume that the water of an ornamental 
fountain is drinkable, and the wiki should account for this.

Generally, to be safer it’s mostly better to use additional descriptive tags 
rather than assuming that a single tag will convey a lot of specific 
implications that “everybody” knows about.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 16:48, António Madeira  wrote:

> Paul, I'm not calling it anything. We all know that OSM uses British
> English for tagging. What I'm saying is that it's better to widen the scope
> of the tag, than restrict it to a
>
certain reality.
> A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies
> drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European countries, it
> does imply, so it's just fair and logical that the wiki reflects that.
>

You've just admitted OSM uses British English yet you still want to expand
the
meaning of fountain to have a meaning that is not British English.  Yes,
many
European countries ascribe a different meaning to "fountain."  But many
outside
Europe don't have the word "fountain" in their language.  So, knowing that
OSM uses British English, they find out what "fountain" means in British
English
(or already know).  And would then be puzzled if OSM were using it
differently,
because OSM is supposed to use British English, not British English plus
arbitrary additional meanings from elsewhere.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 16:50, European Water Project 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> drinking_water =  as a sub-tag seems more logical.
> 
> Assuming we open the pandora's box of removing amenity=drinking_water which 
> is used on 207,000 nodes and ways. 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water
> 
> What would be the best way to proceed to re-tag ?


frankly, it seems quite unlikely that massive retagging and in particular 
deprecation will happen for amenity=drinking_water.

Many objects with this tag don’t have other tags: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water#combinations

and they are different kinds of objects that have it. I’d rather see 
drinking_water=yes and amenity=drinking_water as synonymous and move on.

Add additional tags if you are interested in the details.
For any kind of fountain there’s for example the fountain subtag.

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 06.02.2020 o 17:25, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> Rendering such in OSM-Carto would not be mapper support, it would be
> sabotage. 

As much as I disagree with you on what should be rendered or not (and
why), I understand how sure you are of you about your opinions. But the
thing that bothered me the most is using such word for what some other
people think is right.

There is an easy test one can apply when in doubt - how would you feel
if you heard this about your actions instead? Would it feel like neutral
and respectful to you? I don't feel like that.

There's also another, utilitarian consideration - do you expect it would
make someone with different point of view more willing to talk and find
a common ground or rather discouraged to do so? For me it's surely the
latter.


-- 
"Rzeczy się psują – zęby, spłuczki, kompy, związki, pralki" [Bisz]


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 125, Issue 38

[Peter Neale via Tagging]

>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:59:59 -0500

>From: Jmapb 
>To: Paul Allen , "Tag discussion, strategy and
>    related tools" 
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box
>Message-ID: <1f291f4c-ccbf-34eb-99de-d1fa69570...@gmx.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

>On 2/6/2020 10:47 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
>> And if they wanted to comment but not vote they'd add their comment to the
>> talk page instead.  Right?

>Absolutely! If that's what the instructions said. But they clearly say
>that if you do want to comment, but you don't want to vote, then choose
>"abstain."

>J

"abstain  /əbˈsteɪn/verb
1.   restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something:"she intends to abstain 
from sex before marriage"
2.  formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or 
motion:"forty-one voted with the Opposition, and some sixty more 
abstained"synonymsnot vote, decline/refuse to vote, informal:sit on the 
fenceantonymsvote
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries"
So an abstention is NOT a vote
Peter





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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Paul, I'm not calling it anything. We all know that OSM uses British
English for tagging. What I'm saying is that it's better to widen the
scope of the tag, than restrict it to a certain reality.
A fountain is a fountain, if in England it doesn't implies
drinking_water=yes, that's fine. In the majority of European countries,
it does imply, so it's just fair and logical that the wiki reflects that.


Às 13:00 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:



On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:27, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:


If, in Britain, a fountain is normally a ornamental fountain, that
shouldn't restrict the possibility of widening its meaning to
encompass the reality in other countries,


OSM tag names and values use British English where possible.  There's
a reason
for that: mappers from around the world are exposed to tag names and
values and
they have to know how to interpret them.  This is difficult enough
when they are
in British English, but it becomes impossible if mappers have to guess
that
words that are recognizably English are being used with meanings in
randomly-chosen languages.  It's bad enough having to look up the British
English meaning, it's even harder to guess which language should be used
to interpret the tag.  Are we using the French interpretation of
"fountain" or
the Italian interpretation or...?

Call it cultural imperialism if you wish, but OSM uses British English for
tagging.

--
Paul



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Florimond Berthoux]

man_made=water_tap
drinking_water=yes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap

Though amenity=drinking_water is good enough as a generic tag that is
useful when you don’t want to spend time in the wiki to find the precise
set of tags.

Le jeu. 6 févr. 2020 à 17:04, Paul Allen  a écrit :

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:50, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also agree that removing amenity=drinking_water as a tag makes sense.
>> The physical attributes of a node/way still exists - irrespective of
>> whether the water is drinking quality. For example,  a spring which has
>> water polluted after a big storm, stays a spring.
>>
>
> How are you going to handle an amenity=drinking_water that is a tap?  It's
> not
> a fountain (ornamental or otherwise).  It's not a spring.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

The wiki page for drinking fountain suggests they may be supplied by free 
flowing water or by a tap. 

What cases are you referring to? 

Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 6 Feb 2020, at 17:04, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:50, European Water Project 
>>  wrote:
>> 
> 
>> I also agree that removing amenity=drinking_water as a tag makes sense. The 
>> physical attributes of a node/way still exists - irrespective of whether the 
>> water is drinking quality. For example,  a spring which has water polluted 
>> after a big storm, stays a spring. 
> 
> How are you going to handle an amenity=drinking_water that is a tap?  It's not
> a fountain (ornamental or otherwise).  It's not a spring.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> 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 an utilitarian fountain?

[European Water Project]

Hi Paul,

Good point. I don't know ... maybe there will be some cases where there is
no improved alternative to amenity=drinking_water.

I will rephrase the above ... "I can see that removing
amenity=drinking_water as a tag in many cases makes sense "

Best regards,

Stuart

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:04, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:50, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also agree that removing amenity=drinking_water as a tag makes sense.
>> The physical attributes of a node/way still exists - irrespective of
>> whether the water is drinking quality. For example,  a spring which has
>> water polluted after a big storm, stays a spring.
>>
>
> How are you going to handle an amenity=drinking_water that is a tap?  It's
> not
> a fountain (ornamental or otherwise).  It's not a spring.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 06 February 2020, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > And please keep in mind that - as i mentioned - barrier=hedge is
> > not the dominant tag for mapping hedges with polygons in the first
> > place - as i have shown with various links earlier.
>
> I only clicked on a few of your examples and had to figure out which
> areas you meant. But they were outside of urban areas.

Yes, the vast majority of hedges that are currently mapped in OSM with 
polygons are in rural areas.

> As Paul Allen pointed out earlier none of your alternatives (forest,
> scrub) are a good match for those.

If you say so.  That is not a discussion i currently have an opinion on.  
Wooden plants in an urban environment for decorative purpose or as 
barriers for pedestrians come in a wide range of forms, especially if 
you consider different parts of earth in different climate zones.  I 
would not consider existing tags to be wrong for most of them but as 
already said a more specific verifiable characterization would 
certainly not hurt.

> And I want to end with a quote from {1]
>
> "My approach to this matter has been – from the beginning of my
> contributions to OSM-Carto – to regard the role and task of the
> project as mapper support without active steering."
>
> My feeling is that in this case that principle has been broken (I am
> not going to repeat the arguments given here by the others in this
> thread)

Your feeling is wrong, possibly due to you misunderstanding the concept 
of mapper support.  Mapper support does not mean doing what the loudest 
mappers want you to do.  There are tons of nonsensical or 
non-verifiable tags loudly promoted by mappers.  Rendering such in 
OSM-Carto would not be mapper support, it would be sabotage.  Mapper 
support in style design primarily means - as i like to phrase it - 
supporting mappers in consistent use of tags.

The irony here is that - as i mentioned in another mail - OSM-Carto is 
to a significant extent responsible for encouraging mappers to use this 
ambiguous tagging and we now get criticized for trying to fix this 
counterproductive incentive.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:50, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

I also agree that removing amenity=drinking_water as a tag makes sense. The
> physical attributes of a node/way still exists - irrespective of whether
> the water is drinking quality. For example,  a spring which has water
> polluted after a big storm, stays a spring.
>

How are you going to handle an amenity=drinking_water that is a tap?  It's
not
a fountain (ornamental or otherwise).  It's not a spring.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:27, António Madeira  wrote:

>
> If, in Britain, a fountain is normally a ornamental fountain, that
> shouldn't restrict the possibility of widening its meaning to encompass the
> reality in other countries,
>

OSM tag names and values use British English where possible.  There's a
reason
for that: mappers from around the world are exposed to tag names and values
and
they have to know how to interpret them.  This is difficult enough when
they are
in British English, but it becomes impossible if mappers have to guess that
words that are recognizably English are being used with meanings in
randomly-chosen languages.  It's bad enough having to look up the British
English meaning, it's even harder to guess which language should be used
to interpret the tag.  Are we using the French interpretation of "fountain"
or
the Italian interpretation or...?

Call it cultural imperialism if you wish, but OSM uses British English for
tagging.

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

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

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 2/6/2020 10:47 AM, Paul Allen wrote:

And if they wanted to comment but not vote they'd add their comment to the
talk page instead.  Right?


Absolutely! If that's what the instructions said. But they clearly say
that if you do want to comment, but you don't want to vote, then choose
"abstain."

J


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[European Water Project]

Dear All,

I also agree that removing amenity=drinking_water as a tag makes sense. The
physical attributes of a node/way still exists - irrespective of whether
the water is drinking quality. For example,  a spring which has water
polluted after a big storm, stays a spring.

drinking_water =  as a sub-tag seems more logical.

Assuming we open the pandora's box of removing amenity=drinking_water which
is used on 207,000 nodes and ways.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water

What would be the best way to proceed to re-tag ?

Best regards,

Stuart

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 16:29, António Madeira via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I'm not going into etymologic discussions, but fountain, be it in British
> English or any other language with Latin origins is a source of drinkable
> water (a spring). Maybe, just guessing, there were fountains in Britain and
> they're not used anymore or were simply abandoned because they were not
> needed in the modern age, thus the evolution of the word to simply mean
> "ornamental fountain", but that's not the case in Mediterranean and Eastern
> countries.
> That was the main purpose of this thread, to discuss the "restrictions"
> that the wiki imposed on that main feature.
>
> If, in Britain, a fountain is normally a ornamental fountain, that
> shouldn't restrict the possibility of widening its meaning to encompass the
> reality in other countries, where fountains are, in fact, a potable source
> of water and an ornamental fountain (which doesn't allow to drink water due
> to the absence of a tap or a pipe) is just an extension of that or a
> subtype.
> I think that was fairly accomplished with the recent changes in the wiki
> and the use of drinking_water=yes on such features.
> Drinking fountain could be a good alternative, but it seems reserved to "a
> man-made device providing a small jet of water for drinking", which doesn't
> include at all the type of fountain I started this thread with.
>
> I just commented that I agreed that amenity=drinking_water should be
> abandoned, because you can use drinking_water=yes on all existing features
> that provide water (fountains, springs, wells, taps, drinking fountains,
> etc.)
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Às 11:40 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:15, António Madeira via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> A fountain should be first and foremost a place where there's water
>> served to the public.
>>
>
> That may be the meaning of the word in some languages, but OSM uses British
> English.  In British English the word "fountain," by itself, usually means
> an
> ornamental fountain.  In British English, a fountain which supplies
> drinking water is
> known as a "drinking fountain."
>
> The concept of "sculptural and/or decorational" should be just a component
>> of the fountain, depending on the country/culture.
>>
>
> Nope.  The concept should be that "fountain" in OSM reflects its meaning
> in British
> English and not its meaning in another language.
>
> Decorational fountains without the use of drinking water are just a
>> subtype of fountain, because the main use/purpose of the vast majority is
>> to serve water.
>>
>
> This is just plain wrong.  There can be ornamental fountains which do not
> supply
> drinking water (because there are issues which mean it's not potable).
> There
> can be utilitarian, ugly drinking fountains such as those in schools.  And
> there
> can be ornamental fountains that also supply drinking water.  And all come
> under
> the generic term "fountain" in British English.  That's why there is a
> subtag
> drinking_water=yes which can be applied to an amenity=fountain (which means
> a decorative fountain) that also supplies drinking water.  If it's an ugly
> fountain there is amenity=drinking_water.
>
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:19, Jmapb via Tagging 
wrote:

> The current description of "approved" on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process is:
>
> > A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or at
> least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval
>
Reading that, and that alone, abstentions count.  10 people vote yes, 5
people
vote no, and 5 people vote to abstain.  Therefore, of all the votes cast,
only
50% approve.  There are hundreds of people who could have voted, but of
those that bothered to vote, 5 abstained.  And that's the point: they
bothered to
vote in a way that was NOT "approve."  They aren't in the silent hundreds
who do not participate, they participate and they do NOT approve (which is
not the same thing as disapproval).

> The current description of "abstain" on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposal_Page is:
> > If you don't want to vote but have comments
>
That contradicts the implications of the "74%" sentence.  And both
contradict
the technical meaning of abstention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
because an abstention means that no vote is cast. In the tagging vote, what
is
referred to as an abstention is technically a spoilt vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote
In some jurisdictions, spoilt votes ARE counted, and it appears that in the
past
tagging votes have treated spoilt votes as if they count.

> Someone who chooses "abstain" according to this template presumably
> believes they are merely commenting, *not* voting. If they wanted their
> vote to count as the equivalent to "no," they'd vote "no"... right?
>
And if they wanted to comment but not vote they'd add their comment to the
talk page instead.  Right?

> Maybe the "abstain" option should be removed altogether. But in the
> meantime it seems irregular to tally votes according to different rules
> than those that were documented when the vote occurred.
>
Those rules are somewhat open to interpretation.  It would be good to
clarify
them, if we can agree on what they actually mean and/or what they ought
to mean (I have some doubts that we can).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

I'm not going into etymologic discussions, but fountain, be it in
British English or any other language with Latin origins is a source of
drinkable water (a spring). Maybe, just guessing, there were fountains
in Britain and they're not used anymore or were simply abandoned because
they were not needed in the modern age, thus the evolution of the word
to simply mean "ornamental fountain", but that's not the case in
Mediterranean and Eastern countries.
That was the main purpose of this thread, to discuss the "restrictions"
that the wiki imposed on that main feature.

If, in Britain, a fountain is normally a ornamental fountain, that
shouldn't restrict the possibility of widening its meaning to encompass
the reality in other countries, where fountains are, in fact, a potable
source of water and an ornamental fountain (which doesn't allow to drink
water due to the absence of a tap or a pipe) is just an extension of
that or a subtype.
I think that was fairly accomplished with the recent changes in the wiki
and the use of drinking_water=yes on such features.
Drinking fountain could be a good alternative, but it seems reserved to
"a man-made device providing a small jet of water for drinking", which
doesn't include at all the type of fountain I started this thread with.

I just commented that I agreed that amenity=drinking_water should be
abandoned, because you can use drinking_water=yes on all existing
features that provide water (fountains, springs, wells, taps, drinking
fountains, etc.)

Regards.


Às 11:40 de 06/02/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:15, António Madeira via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

A fountain should be first and foremost a place where there's
water served to the public.


That may be the meaning of the word in some languages, but OSM uses
British
English.  In British English the word "fountain," by itself, usually
means an
ornamental fountain.  In British English, a fountain which supplies
drinking water is
known as a "drinking fountain."

The concept of "sculptural and/or decorational" should be just a
component of the fountain, depending on the country/culture.


Nope.  The concept should be that "fountain" in OSM reflects its
meaning in British
English and not its meaning in another language.

Decorational fountains without the use of drinking water are just
a subtype of fountain, because the main use/purpose of the vast
majority is to serve water.


This is just plain wrong.  There can be ornamental fountains which do
not supply
drinking water (because there are issues which mean it's not
potable).  There
can be utilitarian, ugly drinking fountains such as those in schools. 
And there
can be ornamental fountains that also supply drinking water.  And all
come under
the generic term "fountain" in British English.  That's why there is a
subtag
drinking_water=yes which can be applied to an amenity=fountain (which
means
a decorative fountain) that also supplies drinking water.  If it's an ugly
fountain there is amenity=drinking_water.



--
Paul




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

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

[Jmapb via Tagging]

[Sorry for the repost, corrected wiki link below...]

On 2/6/2020 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment
(vote yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to
the situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a
no-vote.
Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and
maybe also voted upon).

That *is* how it's currently documented -- and if abstain is intended to
be counted equivalent to no, then the proposal documentation should
change to reflect this.

The current description of "approved" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process is:
> A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or
at least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval

The current description of "abstain" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposed_feature_voting is:
> If you don't want to vote but have comments

Someone who chooses "abstain" according to this template presumably
believes they are merely commenting, *not* voting. If they wanted their
vote to count as the equivalent to "no," they'd vote "no"... right?

Maybe the "abstain" option should be removed altogether. But in the
meantime it seems irregular to tally votes according to different rules
than those that were documented when the vote occurred.

Jason

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

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

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 2/6/2020 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment
(vote yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to
the situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a
no-vote.
Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and
maybe also voted upon).

That *is* how it's currently documented -- and if abstain is intended to
be counted equivalent to no, then the proposal documentation should
change to reflect this.

The current description of "approved" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process is:
> A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or
at least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval

The current description of "abstain" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposal_Page is:
> If you don't want to vote but have comments

Someone who chooses "abstain" according to this template presumably
believes they are merely commenting, *not* voting. If they wanted their
vote to count as the equivalent to "no," they'd vote "no"... right?

Maybe the "abstain" option should be removed altogether. But in the
meantime it seems irregular to tally votes according to different rules
than those that were documented when the vote occurred.

Jason

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:15, António Madeira via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> A fountain should be first and foremost a place where there's water served
> to the public.
>

That may be the meaning of the word in some languages, but OSM uses British
English.  In British English the word "fountain," by itself, usually means
an
ornamental fountain.  In British English, a fountain which supplies
drinking water is
known as a "drinking fountain."

The concept of "sculptural and/or decorational" should be just a component
> of the fountain, depending on the country/culture.
>

Nope.  The concept should be that "fountain" in OSM reflects its meaning in
British
English and not its meaning in another language.

Decorational fountains without the use of drinking water are just a subtype
> of fountain, because the main use/purpose of the vast majority is to serve
> water.
>

This is just plain wrong.  There can be ornamental fountains which do not
supply
drinking water (because there are issues which mean it's not potable).
There
can be utilitarian, ugly drinking fountains such as those in schools.  And
there
can be ornamental fountains that also supply drinking water.  And all come
under
the generic term "fountain" in British English.  That's why there is a
subtag
drinking_water=yes which can be applied to an amenity=fountain (which means
a decorative fountain) that also supplies drinking water.  If it's an ugly
fountain there is amenity=drinking_water.

It might be better  to have tourism=artwork + artwork_type=fountain for
ornamental fountains (with optional drinking_water=yes if they also supply
drinking water) and man_made=fountain + drinking_water=yes for ugly drinking
fountains But that would involve a lot of retagging so probably won't
happen.

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 13:40, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> ruins:building=yes is not just tagging for other mappers, it's
> accurately describing the feature on the ground, a ruined building. It's
> not quite a building=yes, but not really nothing left on the ground, so
> it's just part of the lifecycle.
>

Are you sure about that not being "just tagging for other mappers"?   Have
you
seen how ruins:building=yes renders?  Here's one I found using
overpass-turbo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701307813  Close the pane showing the
tags and the nodes.  What happens to the building then?  It vanishes.
Because
ruins:building=yes DOES NOT RENDER.  So only mappers will ever know it's
there.  Ordinary users, looking at the map, won't see it.  But the ruins are
visible to anyone passing by.

If you want a ruined building to render, because the ruins are a visible
landmark,
then you should use building=yes + ruins=yes.  Here's an abandoned church
that's in ruins: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/637904260
The abandoned:amenity=place_of_worship prevents the religious icon
from rendering; the ruins=yes do not prevent the building=yes from
rendering.
Is this sensible tagging?  See https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1923975
and https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/CGN/Llechryd/HolyCross

And that's why we need tags like ruins=yes as well as lifecycle prefixes.
Because
lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the tag they prefix, and that's
sometimes
exactly the right thing to do and sometimes exactly the wrong thing to do.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

A fountain should be first and foremost a place where there's water
served to the public. The concept of "sculptural and/or decorational"
should be just a component of the fountain, depending on the
country/culture. As its historical/heritage value.
In Portugal, where there are thousands of fountains, this is the norm.
Decorational fountains without the use of drinking water are just a
subtype of fountain, because the main use/purpose of the vast majority
is to serve water.
So, if we see fountains in this prism, I believe they are clearly a
necessity. In cities they lost some of their importance, but in villages
and rural areas (80% of the territory) they're still one of the main
features, without which many of them wouldn't have a consistent source
of potable water.


Às 07:05 de 06/02/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 10:55 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni
mailto:cascaf...@gmail.com>>:


Since fountain is intended as "sculptural and/or decorational", IMHO
amenity=fountain is not consistent. AFAIK object belonging to
"amenity" are in someway necessities. So one day, I hope to see
fountain value removed from amenity tag.




I would like to reject the idea that something that is decorational
and cultural is not a "necessity" (along these lines, where do you see
place of worship?). Fountains, seem to fit reasonably well into the
amenity concept. Much more than prisons, grave_yards, hunting stands,
grit bins, private toilets (sic), and many more things to be found in
amenity with some usage:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity#values

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] key damage and HOT

[Andrew Harvey]

ruins:building=yes is not just tagging for other mappers, it's
accurately describing the feature on the ground, a ruined building. It's
not quite a building=yes, but not really nothing left on the ground, so
it's just part of the lifecycle.

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:23, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the present use of the key damage=*, which has no
>> documentation, would better fit into the life cycle system.
>>
>
> If we need it to map damage all (I think we do) then we need both ways of
> doing
> it, for the same reasons discussed some weeks ago regarding disused=* and
> the disused: lifecycle.
>
> We need both because they have different effects.  They have different
> effects because we need those different effects.  I'll use "disused"
> rather than "damaged" below to make the point clearer.
>
> Lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the feature.  They are equivalent
> to
> deleting the feature tag and adding a note to the effect that the object is
> a disused .  Except that the word "disused" might not appear
> in the note and a synonym or circumlocution might be used instead.  Having
> disused:amenity=hospital allows database queries to pick out hospitals
> (used or disused), disused hospitals, or functioning hospitals.  Removing
> the amenity=hospital tag completely prevents the object appearing in
> queries for hospitals, or for disused hospitals.
>
> Having disused=* doesn't prevent rendering.  A disused water tower looks
> like a functional water tower and is (usually) a landmark used for
> navigation.  Again, database queries can pick out water towers, disused
> water towers and functioning water towers.
>
> Is having two ways of doing it tagging for the renderer?  No more than
> having
> amenity=hospital or removing amenity=hospital.  One renders the object
> as a hospital and the other does not: the mapper chooses based upon what
> the object is.  Objecting to a mapper being able to decide whether it
> is rendered as a hospital or not means objecting to being able to tag
> a POI in any meaningful way.
>
> Isn't it recording history and OSM doesn't do that?  It serves two
> purposes:
>
> 1) QA.  A formalized way of telling other mappers that no matter what the
> POI looks like in aerial imagery, street-level imagery or a drive-by, the
> object
> isn't what it appears to be.  A note could do that, but is opaque to
> database
> queries ("former hospital," "was a hospital," "no longer a hospital," etc.)
>
> 2) A formalized way of telling data consumers who query the POI that it
> isn't what it appears to be.  Don't hang around that church you spotted and
> wait for it to open up so you can have a look around, it's disused.
>
> Will all renderers honour those interpretations?  Probably most will.  It's
> easy to not render tags with lifecycle prefixes by simply ignoring them
> as being unknown.  It's easy to render tags with disused=* by ignoring
> "unknown" tags.  A renderer would need extra code and have to be
> somewhat perverse (IMO) to render tags with lifecycle prefixes or
> not render POIs with disused=*.  We can probably rely upon these
> behaviours for most renderers.
>
> There are two ways of doing it, and ithat's a good thing.
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Relation for multi-part artworks

[Jez Nicholson]

I would quite happily call a collection of statues near to each other an
"artistic site", similar to a wind farm being a collection of turbines

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:49 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 12:41, marc marc  wrote:
> >
> > Le 06.02.20 à 13:20, Andy Mabbett a écrit :
> > > We could use relation_type:set
> >
> > why not using relation type=site that already exist ?
>
> Because they are not a "site".
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Relation for multi-part artworks

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 12:41, marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 06.02.20 à 13:20, Andy Mabbett a écrit :
> > We could use relation_type:set
>
> why not using relation type=site that already exist ?

Because they are not a "site".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Relation for multi-part artworks

[marc marc]

Le 06.02.20 à 13:20, Andy Mabbett a écrit :
> We could use relation_type:set

why not using relation type=site that already exist ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Relation for multi-part artworks

[Andy Mabbett]

I hope to find consensus for how to tag artworks with multiple parts,
as a relation. Here are some examples:

Nine 'Moonstones', including:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501118658
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501118659
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501118660
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2501127353

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Society_Moonstones

Set of three murals at Handsworth, Birmingham:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7112445731
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7112445732
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7112445733

Set of statues in Porto:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2996821310

   
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People_looking_the_sky_%28Faro_district%29.JPG

We could use relation_type:set (which I used for the Moonstones) or
define a new relation_type:artwork

Thoughts?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

[Peter Elderson]

Joseph Eisenberg :

> The Netherlands has been claimed as a place where barrier=hedge areas
> are used properly and are necessary. I have already downloaded one
> whole provicne, Zeeland, which has quite complete landcover and
> landuse mapping due to an import. In Zeeland there are 149 uses of
> `barrier=hedge` on a closed way without `area=yes` or landuse=,
> natural= or leisure=, and only 12 closed ways with `barrier=hedge` +
> `area=yes`.
>

Zeeland, of all places... Most of Zeeland is water, dykes and polders.

Try Noord-Brabant, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[ael]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:22:13AM +, marc marc wrote:
> i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the

Eh, except that OSM is supposed to use British English, and "diaper"
should be nappy.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

[ael]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:49:23PM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 2/5/20 17:15, Lionel Giard wrote:
> > In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main
> > tag was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in
> > most examples when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to
> > map them separately (one way for the barrier and one way for the other
> > main tag, even if they are exactly sharing the same node). This is in
> > order to keep the one feature to one object and keep things manageable
> > and without ambiguity. Thus to me, all the examples of "barrier=*" (+
> > "area=yes" +) "leisure=playground" are a tagging error, that should be
> > two separate objects.
> 
> JOSM's validator will flag ways that share the same nodes as a warning,
> or at least it used to. I think it's just more rubbish in the database
> to have one way for the fence and another for an area when they share
> the same nodes.

-1

Sorry, but the trouble I have with editing places where nodes are shared
is ridiculous. Often I have updated information, usually accurate gps,
on one element, but not the others with shared nodes. It is painful,
time-consuming and tedious to have to separate the ways. Often I just
don't bother and risk degrading previous information. But if people will
share nodes, then it's too bad.


The overhead in the database of sometimes duplicate nodes is tiny.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 6 feb 2020, alle ore 11:37, Volker Schmidt  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Sorry, Martin, but what do you do, if you have a big multi-storey building 
> and all you have is the door bell on the street level? Not map it?


that’s indeed a problem with multipolygons ;)
But you wouldn’t call something a „site“ either that is, hm, many sites, would 
you?



> The Tuebingen example illustrates the problem. The relation has two nodes in 
> a multipolygon as outer? That is not kosher either.


Yes, the Tübingen example is far from perfect, it was just an illustration for 
a university with many locations, but there are many details that are not 
kosher (e.g. the streets are not part of the campus, at least the unrestricted, 
public ones, also the nurse residences could be questioned, while the library 
arguably consists also of the grounds, not just the building, etc.)

Do we need another kind of relation? If we want an object for the university, 
maybe yes. Adding just a tag like university= 
on all the parts would maybe do the trick as well? It wouldn’t allow for adding 
details about the university though (e.g. start_date, alt_name, 
wikipedia/wikidata, website, operator, etc.).

Either we could say, a university in or around the same town, seen on a global 
level, is still a “site”, although on the local level it would be seen as 
several sites.
Or we’d make a more generic kind of new relation for things that belong 
together under a certain point of view (together they form an institution, for 
example public city offices also belong to the same institution and are often 
distributed over the city, or on a national level ministries and agencies, 
there we’re doing it with admin level. For pt routes, there are specific route 
master and network relations.
Time for an university relation? Or more generically a “type=institution” 
relation?

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 01:11 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.
>
> (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along
> with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
> "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)
>
> But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing
> reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or
> even 50%?
>


Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment (vote
yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to the
situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a no-vote.
Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and maybe
also voted upon).



> Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
>


+1, although not a requirement, it should ideally be like this. Sometimes
the "nay-sayers" do not have real arguments (something like "the amenity
tag is overcrowded" is not an argument, IMHO), so its hard to reply with
something to convince them.



> One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with
> positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying
> anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest this is
> the usual way to do it.
>


You can (and some do) agree with a comment, I would not require this, at
the time of voting, there already have been lots of discussions and shared
arguments, usually, so a confirmation of the result should be sufficient.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

[Volker Schmidt]

Sorry, Martin, but what do you do, if you have a big multi-storey building
and all you have is the door bell on the street level? Not map it?
The Tuebingen example illustrates the problem. The relation has two nodes
in a multipolygon as outer? That is not kosher either.
Volker

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 11:21, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 11:01 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt <
> vosc...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Padua, Italy, where I live, has a big university spread all over the
>> place. This includes smaller sections being in apartments in buildings that
>> are mainly used residentially.
>>
>
>
> yes, I am also well familiar with universities spread over many different
> buildings (or sometimes just a floor of a building although I have not yet
> seen an apartment used (for what? Office? lecture room? Probably not as a
> lecture hall, would not be suitable)).
>
> Common way to map this (unfortunately) is amenity=university on all parts,
> e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25074981
>
> Here's an example of a (not yet complete and in some parts overcomplete)
> multipolygon for the Universität Tübingen:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8639592
> (curiously, there are also node members ;-) ).
>
>
>
>> With other words "pieces" of the University come in all sizes and shapes,
>> from what would be a typical campus to single apartments, where the
>> "location" is the building entrance where the university institution is
>> only one of many door bells.
>> And I know that this is true of other universities and research
>> establishments.
>> This situation made me think of (mis-)using the site relation for tagging.
>>
>>
>
> yes, but if we keep the small places like the apartment as nodes, it will
> not be possible to see that they are small, because a node can be any kind
> of size.
>
>
> 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] amenity=faculty?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 11:01 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Padua, Italy, where I live, has a big university spread all over the
> place. This includes smaller sections being in apartments in buildings that
> are mainly used residentially.
>


yes, I am also well familiar with universities spread over many different
buildings (or sometimes just a floor of a building although I have not yet
seen an apartment used (for what? Office? lecture room? Probably not as a
lecture hall, would not be suitable)).

Common way to map this (unfortunately) is amenity=university on all parts,
e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25074981

Here's an example of a (not yet complete and in some parts overcomplete)
multipolygon for the Universität Tübingen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8639592
(curiously, there are also node members ;-) ).



> With other words "pieces" of the University come in all sizes and shapes,
> from what would be a typical campus to single apartments, where the
> "location" is the building entrance where the university institution is
> only one of many door bells.
> And I know that this is true of other universities and research
> establishments.
> This situation made me think of (mis-)using the site relation for tagging.
>
>

yes, but if we keep the small places like the apartment as nodes, it will
not be possible to see that they are small, because a node can be any kind
of size.


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 10:01, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Padua, Italy, where I live, has a big university spread all over the
> place. This includes smaller sections being in apartments in buildings that
> are mainly used residentially.
>

This is the case with the University of Edinburgh.  Well, it was 20 years
ago.  It
probably still is the case.  It's definitely scattered all over Edinburgh:
https://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps  Many of those are dedicated buildings but
some
may still be a room or two in a building that has other tenants/uses.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 10:55 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni <
cascaf...@gmail.com>:

>
> Since fountain is intended as "sculptural and/or decorational", IMHO
> amenity=fountain is not consistent. AFAIK object belonging to
> "amenity" are in someway necessities. So one day, I hope to see
> fountain value removed from amenity tag.




I would like to reject the idea that something that is decorational and
cultural is not a "necessity" (along these lines, where do you see place of
worship?). Fountains, seem to fit reasonably well into the amenity concept.
Much more than prisons, grave_yards, hunting stands, grit bins, private
toilets (sic), and many more things to be found in amenity with some usage:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity#values

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

[Volker Schmidt]

Padua, Italy, where I live, has a big university spread all over the place.
This includes smaller sections being in apartments in buildings that are
mainly used residentially.
With other words "pieces" of the University come in all sizes and shapes,
from what would be a typical campus to single apartments, where the
"location" is the building entrance where the university institution is
only one of many door bells.
And I know that this is true of other universities and research
establishments.
This situation made me think of (mis-)using the site relation for tagging.

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 10:16, Lionel Giard  wrote:

> One problem with multipolygon relation is that by definition you can't put 
> *node
> *it those and you can't put *contiguous buildings* either. How do you
> group "node + polygons + multipolygon" (some buildings are a multipolygon
> already where the hole is not part of the university ^_^) with other thing
> than a site relation ? If you have any suggestion feel free to share as i
> never find anything else (and we already discussed it in the past on this
> mailing list, always to say "okay it is the best fit for the time being").
> :-)
>
> You can't put big polygon around these things either, as many of these
> "city university" don't own the ground around the building (they are really
> in the middle of the city spread across it) and as you said, many parts are
> only an "office" in a building shared with other companies or services (so
> only nodes in OSM).
>
> Le jeu. 6 févr. 2020 à 02:58, Joseph Eisenberg 
> a écrit :
>
>> > ... put the tag "amenity=university" and all the information only 1
>> time for the whole university
>>
>> > I would generally just use a multipolygon relation for this
>>
>> +1 for the common multipolygon relation, not type=site.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 10:16 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard <
lionel.gi...@gmail.com>:

> One problem with multipolygon relation is that by definition you can't put 
> *node
> *it those and you can't put *contiguous buildings* either. How do you
> group "node + polygons + multipolygon" (some buildings are a multipolygon
> already where the hole is not part of the university ^_^) with other thing
> than a site relation ?
>


It would likely be wrong to cut the hole of a building out from a faculty.
You would not add the multipolygon relation to the faculty (if there really
is just a building a no grounds around it to add), but the outer way(s)
that form the building.
For buildings and grounds and even for building parts that are currently
mapped as nodes, it doesn't seem disproportionate to ask for mapping as a
polygon before they can added to a faculty or department, or do you have
any examples for things that shall make up a university subpart which are
better represented as nodes?

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Il giorno mer 5 feb 2020 alle ore 23:07 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 ha scritto:

> And amenity=drinking_water may be combined with them (except of unfortunate 
> case of fountain).

Since fountain is intended as "sculptural and/or decorational", IMHO
amenity=fountain is not consistent. AFAIK object belonging to
"amenity" are in someway necessities. So one day, I hope to see
fountain value removed from amenity tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

[Lionel Giard]

One problem with multipolygon relation is that by definition you can't
put *node
*it those and you can't put *contiguous buildings* either. How do you group
"node + polygons + multipolygon" (some buildings are a multipolygon already
where the hole is not part of the university ^_^) with other thing than a
site relation ? If you have any suggestion feel free to share as i never
find anything else (and we already discussed it in the past on this mailing
list, always to say "okay it is the best fit for the time being"). :-)

You can't put big polygon around these things either, as many of these
"city university" don't own the ground around the building (they are really
in the middle of the city spread across it) and as you said, many parts are
only an "office" in a building shared with other companies or services (so
only nodes in OSM).

Le jeu. 6 févr. 2020 à 02:58, Joseph Eisenberg 
a écrit :

> > ... put the tag "amenity=university" and all the information only 1 time
> for the whole university
>
> > I would generally just use a multipolygon relation for this
>
> +1 for the common multipolygon relation, not type=site.
>
> ___
> 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] key damage and HOT

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that the present use of the key damage=*, which has no
> documentation, would better fit into the life cycle system.
>

If we need it to map damage all (I think we do) then we need both ways of
doing
it, for the same reasons discussed some weeks ago regarding disused=* and
the disused: lifecycle.

We need both because they have different effects.  They have different
effects because we need those different effects.  I'll use "disused"
rather than "damaged" below to make the point clearer.

Lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the feature.  They are equivalent to
deleting the feature tag and adding a note to the effect that the object is
a disused .  Except that the word "disused" might not appear
in the note and a synonym or circumlocution might be used instead.  Having
disused:amenity=hospital allows database queries to pick out hospitals
(used or disused), disused hospitals, or functioning hospitals.  Removing
the amenity=hospital tag completely prevents the object appearing in
queries for hospitals, or for disused hospitals.

Having disused=* doesn't prevent rendering.  A disused water tower looks
like a functional water tower and is (usually) a landmark used for
navigation.  Again, database queries can pick out water towers, disused
water towers and functioning water towers.

Is having two ways of doing it tagging for the renderer?  No more than
having
amenity=hospital or removing amenity=hospital.  One renders the object
as a hospital and the other does not: the mapper chooses based upon what
the object is.  Objecting to a mapper being able to decide whether it
is rendered as a hospital or not means objecting to being able to tag
a POI in any meaningful way.

Isn't it recording history and OSM doesn't do that?  It serves two purposes:

1) QA.  A formalized way of telling other mappers that no matter what the
POI looks like in aerial imagery, street-level imagery or a drive-by, the
object
isn't what it appears to be.  A note could do that, but is opaque to
database
queries ("former hospital," "was a hospital," "no longer a hospital," etc.)

2) A formalized way of telling data consumers who query the POI that it
isn't what it appears to be.  Don't hang around that church you spotted and
wait for it to open up so you can have a look around, it's disused.

Will all renderers honour those interpretations?  Probably most will.  It's
easy to not render tags with lifecycle prefixes by simply ignoring them
as being unknown.  It's easy to render tags with disused=* by ignoring
"unknown" tags.  A renderer would need extra code and have to be
somewhat perverse (IMO) to render tags with lifecycle prefixes or
not render POIs with disused=*.  We can probably rely upon these
behaviours for most renderers.

There are two ways of doing it, and ithat's a good thing.
-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus Peloso]

Hello Joseph Eisenberg

Thanks for your input and your intention to keep this wiki clear.

I did not count "abstain" as part of the vote total and I don't see any good 
reason for doing that.

The discussion about the name, was early in the voting. After that the people 
still voted "yes".

There are good reasons to use "give box" because it is a well-known and 
existing concept in several European countries.

But maybe some people want a different Name:

I had extended the voting period until 8 February. Feel free to change your 
mind and vote "no" if you want another name.

Please give a clear statement. I will only count "yes" and "no" as part of the 
total.
It is also helpful if you vote "yes" and give a clear comment about the name.

Currently my second choice would be "free box".

Best regards,
Markus Peloso
Von: Joseph Eisenberg
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2020 15:00
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
the 74% cut-off.

I don't think this should be considered "approved". There were several
comments that "free box" or something else that is more common in
British English should be considered instead.

More important than the number of votes is whether signficant problems
and objections have been addressed. In this case, the concern is that
"give box" is quite rare in Britain and other native English-speaking
countries, and is not unambiguous.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 2/5/20, Markus Peloso  wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgive_box
>
> A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
> the sense of free sharing and reuse.
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for voting and for the inputs. Based on the result «13 votes for, 1
> vote against and 5 abstentions» I set the status to approved :D.
>
> Best regards,
> Markus
>
> Von: Markus Peloso
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 09:42
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related
> tools
> Betreff: Feature Proposal - Voting - 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
>
> 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