[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Utility poles

2020-09-07 Thread François Lacombe 
Hi everyone,

Following this sunny summer, sometimes cycling along country roads, here
comes the need to reinforce the tagging of utility poles holding telecom
lines.

OSM already has power=pole and past proposals have shown it's not necessary
to change it.
Poles don't always support power lines and tagging is needed for other
utilities.
Existing man_made=utility_pole sounds to be the most meaningful and this
proposal is now looking for your comments about it
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_poles_proposal

See this French example taking advantage of proposed tagging to show power
and telecom utilities on the same map
http://www.gespot.fr/#12.7/46.04989/6.13389
On this particular place, it was possible to make low voltage power
distribution poles support an overhead transmission fibre optic cable:
http://www.gespot.fr/#17.84/46.066428/6.140358

I'm not sure to cover all existing situations to describe other-than-power
poles with the 4 combinations I propose to replace.
Feel free to complete the list here or on Talk page please

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 23:06, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:51, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > One has a plaque saying it is the birthplace of some important figure.
> > The plaque is a historic memorial, the house it is attached to is just a
> > house (as is the house next door).
>
> we’ll be mapping the plaque anyway


Yep.  Because in that place the plaque is the historic object, not the
house.


> (and we’ll typically not adding information like who has slept in this
> house in 1876 to the building object).
>

I didn't realize John Lennon was born that long ago.

Both houses are probably historic, testimonies of a certain time and
> context (socio economic conditions, style, technology, ...)
>

There is nothing of general historic significance about the house John
Lennon
was born in other than the fact he was born in it.  If we were to open the
tag up to everything that any historian anywhere might collate in statistics
then every house ever built would count as historic.  We need a sense
of proportion here.  And we need to remember that history is just
one Planck time before the present, but most of it goes unrecorded.

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:51, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> One has a plaque saying it is the birthplace of some important figure.
> The plaque is a historic memorial, the house it is attached to is just a
> house (as is the house next door).


we’ll be mapping the plaque anyway (and we’ll typically not adding information 
like who has slept in this house in 1876 to the building object).
Both houses are probably historic, testimonies of a certain time and context 
(socio economic conditions, style, technology, ...) 

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 22:41, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:29, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > It's a memorial or it's not.  If it's not a memorial, and there just
> because it looks
> > nice (somebody else brought up that possibility, not me) it's artwork.
>
> I don’t find a definition of art, work of art, where something like an
> anchor without a story has room. Can you point me to one?
>

It's late, and I'm having difficulty understanding what you're getting at.
So
I've had to guess.

The original poster asked about an anchor that was put in place because it
looked nice, not because it had any historical significance.  I have no idea
if there are any anchors like that, but I've seen all sorts of things (like
chimney pots) placed on the ground for display because they look nice,
so anchors are a possibility.

If it's there solely because it looks nice, the only way I can think of
mapping
it is artwork.  If it's not specially crafted to be displayed then it's not
a sculpture (I'm aware of something specially crafted to look like three
links in a ship's chain so that actually is a sculpture) or an
installation. The
closest type of artwork I can think of to describe a repurposed anchor is
"found art" (also known as "found object" and "objet trouvé").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object  Maybe somebody who
is actually an artist (I'm not) has a better term for "anchor
on display for no other purpose than that it looks nice."

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 22:37, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > To say that something is historic means that it is important or
> significant
> > in history.
>
> importance and significance are quite relative and I have the impression
> you are imagining the bar much higher than what we usually apply for
> historic.
>

I'm trying to avoid people using historic as a synonym for "old" or for
"disused."
There's more to it than that.  Or should be.

Take two, adjacent terraced houses, identical in appearance because they
were constructed at the same time by the same builder to the same plans.
One has a plaque saying it is the birthplace of some important figure.
The plaque is a historic memorial, the house it is attached to is just a
house (as is the house next door).

>   An anchor or cannon which have nothing special about them and
> > are not commemorating something of historical significance are just
> > artwork.
>
> a cannon which is still in the context where it was once used can always
> be seen as historic,


Yes.  But the original poster was talking about anchors.  Anchors that were
not attached to ships, or the historical object would be the ship itself.


> it doesn’t need to be important or of exceptional significance (e.g. by
> having a plaque attached, being dedicated to something/someone, having
> appeared in a historic text, having belonged to someone famous/powerful,
> etc.).
>

For a cannon, MAYBE.  Often not.  Like the anonymous cannons on the lawns
of US courthouses that could have come from anywhere.  Or be modern
reproductions.

"History" means that it has been recorded in writing.  That's why the time
before
writing was invented is known as "pre-history."  If there is no written
record of its
provenance and significance then it is NOT historic, just old.

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:29, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's a memorial or it's not.  If it's not a memorial, and there just because 
> it looks
> nice (somebody else brought up that possibility, not me) it's artwork. 


I don’t find a definition of art, work of art, where something like an anchor 
without a story has room. Can you point me to one?

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:23, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> To say that something is historic means that it is important or significant
> in history.


importance and significance are quite relative and I have the impression you 
are imagining the bar much higher than what we usually apply for historic. 



>   An anchor or cannon which have nothing special about them and
> are not commemorating something of historical significance are just
> artwork.


a cannon which is still in the context where it was once used can always be 
seen as historic, it doesn’t need to be important or of exceptional 
significance (e.g. by having a plaque attached, being dedicated to 
something/someone, having appeared in a historic text, having belonged to 
someone famous/powerful, etc.).


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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 22:20, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:15, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Possibly tourism=artwork
>
> I’d much rather go for historic=anchor


Why historic=anchor rather than memorial?  I can understand
historic=cannon as it's a standalone item.  Anchors are intended to
be used with a ship attached to them, so an anchor in isolation
is either a memorial or artwork.


> than for tourism=artwork
> these are rarely public art
>

It's a memorial or it's not.  If it's not a memorial, and there just
because it looks
nice (somebody else brought up that possibility, not me) it's artwork.  Use
whichever fits the circumstances best.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:54, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
> 
> (playing devils advocate here)
> but then why do `building=bungalow` and `building=semidetached_house` exist?
> 
> Bungalows can be seen from `building:levels=1`.
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=bungalow
> 


there are many more building types with just one floor.


> Semi-detached houses can be seen from geometry like you said.
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=semidetached_house


right, but history chose a different path.

If the whole building is tagged as building=terrace then its parts should not 
get again a building=* tag, rather use building:part=*

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 21:54, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> pon, 7. ruj 2020. u 22:15 Paul Allen  napisao je:
>
>> In that case it would not be historic, just a random anchor put there
>> because
>> it looks pretty.  Possibly tourism=artwork, but I'm not sure what would
>> be a suitable artwork_type.  It's not really an installation or a
>> sculpture.
>> It's really "found art" in the broader definition of the term.  Has/had
>> another purpose but has been appropriated as art.
>>
>
> Why do you think it's different from a historic=cannon?
>

Because a cannon might not be historic, either, just a piece of found art.

To say that something is historic means that it is important or significant
in history.  An anchor or cannon which have nothing special about them and
are not commemorating something of historical significance are just
artwork.

Yes, there will be overlaps.  There are always overlaps when we try
to categorize the real world.  Nevertheless, there's a big difference
between an anchor somebody bought at a scrapyard so he could
display it and the anchor that belonged to the famous ship
whatever, sunk in the battle of whatever.

The difference can usually be determined from an accompanying plaque
or sign.  If there is something about the provenance of the object, or
it says what the object commemorates, it's probably historic.

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:15, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Possibly tourism=artwork


I’d much rather go for historic=anchor than for tourism=artwork 
these are rarely public art 

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Janko Mihelić 
pon, 7. ruj 2020. u 22:15 Paul Allen  napisao je:

> In that case it would not be historic, just a random anchor put there
> because
> it looks pretty.  Possibly tourism=artwork, but I'm not sure what would
> be a suitable artwork_type.  It's not really an installation or a
> sculpture.
> It's really "found art" in the broader definition of the term.  Has/had
> another purpose but has been appropriated as art.
>

Why do you think it's different from a historic=cannon?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Oliver Simmons 
I understand that, but if a program is given a single way, it has no
understanding of surrounding geometry (e.g. alot renderers look at things
one by one)

(playing devils advocate here)
but then why do `building=bungalow` and `building=semidetached_house` exist?

Bungalows can be seen from `building:levels=1`.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=bungalow

Semi-detached houses can be seen from geometry like you said.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=semidetached_house

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020, 21:41 Andrew Hain,  wrote:

> Use building=house, you can deduce that they are terraced from the
> geometry.
> --
> Andrew
>
> --
> *From:* Oliver Simmons 
> *Sent:* 07 September 2020 15:30
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?
>
> For terraced houses `building=terrace` is used for the whole block,
> but there is no tag for each individual building when they are separate,
> the reason for this is because the terraced building could be any of the
> `building=*` values, a shop, a house e.t.c, it could even be a weird small
> church; they are not always houses.
>
> `terraced=yes/apartments` has 227 uses on tag*info*
> , but no wiki page or
> discussion as far as I know.
> Should I make a page for it?
> Or should a proposal be made (I have no idea how these work)?
>
> Please note `terrace=*` (tag*info*
> ) is for used something
> else (not sure what, but it doesn't matter anyways)
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Andrew Hain 
Use building=house, you can deduce that they are terraced from the geometry.
--
Andrew


From: Oliver Simmons 
Sent: 07 September 2020 15:30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

For terraced houses `building=terrace` is used for the whole block,
but there is no tag for each individual building when they are separate,
the reason for this is because the terraced building could be any of the 
`building=*` values, a shop, a house e.t.c, it could even be a weird small 
church; they are not always houses.

`terraced=yes/apartments` has 227 uses on 
taginfo, but no wiki page or 
discussion as far as I know.
Should I make a page for it?
Or should a proposal be made (I have no idea how these work)?

Please note `terrace=*` 
(taginfo) is for used something 
else (not sure what, but it doesn't matter anyways)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 21:05, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> pon, 7. ruj 2020. u 21:28 Paul Allen  napisao je:
>
>> Sounds like a memorial to me. So maybe historic=memorial +
>> memorial=anchor.
>>
>
> Anchors are often not a memorial, just an anchor put somewhere because it
> looks nice.
>

In that case it would not be historic, just a random anchor put there
because
it looks pretty.  Possibly tourism=artwork, but I'm not sure what would
be a suitable artwork_type.  It's not really an installation or a sculpture.
It's really "found art" in the broader definition of the term.  Has/had
another purpose but has been appropriated as art.

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

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Janko Mihelić 
pon, 7. ruj 2020. u 21:28 Paul Allen  napisao je:

> Sounds like a memorial to me. So maybe historic=memorial +
> memorial=anchor.
>

Anchors are often not a memorial, just an anchor put somewhere because it
looks nice. You can search for images of "anchors on display" [1]. I guess
this would be a better image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kotwica_SS_Pozna%C5%84.JPG

Most of them aren't even marked, they just stand there. Something like a
historic=cannon [2].

[1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=anchor+on+display=isch
[2] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcannon
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 20:01, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Historic=anchor would be an anchor from a historic ship displayed as a
> public memorial. An example:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arizona_anchor_bolin_plaza.JPG
>

Sounds like a memorial to me. So maybe historic=memorial +
memorial=anchor.

Historic and heritage stuff is rendered in greatest detail by the Historic
Place
map, so it would be an idea to check with them.

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

[Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Janko Mihelić 
Historic=anchor would be an anchor from a historic ship displayed as a
public memorial. An example:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arizona_anchor_bolin_plaza.JPG

There aren't many of these tags right now, 38 in total. I found info on
about 10 of those, and they all fitted the description above.

I intend to put this description and picture on the historic page, in the
Values table:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic#Values

 Everybody ok with this?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Oliver Simmons 
> I am confused. Do you want to map the whole thing as a single building=terrace, or each part separately as it’s own building=* area?I’m taking about mapping each part separately as a `building=*`. > Where would you use the tag terraced=yes or terraced=apartments?On each individual building in the terrace; `building=*`. From: Joseph EisenbergSent: 07 September 2020 5:38 PMTo: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsSubject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses? I am confused. Do you want to map the whole thing as a single building=terrace, or each part separately as it’s own building=* area? Where would you use the tag terraced=yes or terraced=apartments? On a building:part=* or on individually drawn building=house areas? -Joseph On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 7:33 AM Oliver Simmons  wrote:For terraced houses `building=terrace` is used for the whole block,but there is no tag for each individual building when they are separate,the reason for this is because the terraced building could be any of the `building=*` values, a shop, a house e.t.c, it could even be a weird small church; they are not always houses. `terraced=yes/apartments` has 227 uses on taginfo, but no wiki page or discussion as far as I know.Should I make a page for it?Or should a proposal be made (I have no idea how these work)? Please note `terrace=*` (taginfo) is for used something else (not sure what, but it doesn't matter anyways)___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 

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

[Tagging] sloped kerbs

2020-09-07 Thread Volker Schmidt 
How do you tag sloped kerbs/curbs like these.

(I am referring to the zebra-striped sloped concrete borders of the traffic
islands)

barrier=kerb and kerb=sloped ?

The kerb  wiki page  shows
this picture 
without saying how it should be tagged.
Admittedly a different use, but mechanically similar.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Joseph Eisenberg 
I am confused. Do you want to map the whole thing as a single
building=terrace, or each part separately as it’s own building=* area?

Where would you use the tag terraced=yes or terraced=apartments?

On a building:part=* or on individually drawn building=house areas?

-Joseph

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 7:33 AM Oliver Simmons  wrote:

> For terraced houses `building=terrace` is used for the whole block,
> but there is no tag for each individual building when they are separate,
> the reason for this is because the terraced building could be any of the
> `building=*` values, a shop, a house e.t.c, it could even be a weird small
> church; they are not always houses.
>
> `terraced=yes/apartments` has 227 uses on tag*info*
> , but no wiki page or
> discussion as far as I know.
> Should I make a page for it?
> Or should a proposal be made (I have no idea how these work)?
>
> Please note `terrace=*` (tag*info*
> ) is for used something
> else (not sure what, but it doesn't matter anyways)
>
>
> ___
>
> Tagging mailing list
>
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-07 Thread 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging 

  

  
>Monday, September 7, 2020 4:23 AM -05:00 from Tobias Zwick 
>:
> 
>The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear why 
>Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if 
>there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no.
>Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear:
>*  1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise clear that 
>you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) -> drinking_water=yes
>*  2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated -> 
>drinking_water=no
>But what about these?
>*  3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is drinkable 
>or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be polluted with toxic 
>substances, especially if it is close to an (old) mine. 
>*  4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is clear 
>from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example right now, maybe 
>because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell bottled water.
>In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should be 
>drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he becomes 
>ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this case, he 
>would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can with certainty 
>record is that there is no official information about it whatsoever. This is 
>useful because people searching for drinkable water would certainly prefer 
>water sources where it is positive that it is drinkable. 
>drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would solve this, but there 
>is also case 4.
>In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual situation 
>on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations separately when 
>necessary.
> 
>Cheers
>Tobias
>On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable,
>>we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable.
>> 
>>Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=yes)
>>that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable 
>>sign"?
>> 
>>drinking_water:signed=no ?  
>> 
>>___
>>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] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Sep 7, 2020, 16:30 by oliversi...@gmail.com:

> Or should a proposal be made (I have no idea how these work)?
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like
(but discussing them like you started here is generally a good idea)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Oliver Simmons 
For terraced houses `building=terrace` is used for the whole block,
but there is no tag for each individual building when they are separate,
the reason for this is because the terraced building could be any of the
`building=*` values, a shop, a house e.t.c, it could even be a weird small
church; they are not always houses.

`terraced=yes/apartments` has 227 uses on tag*info*
, but no wiki page or
discussion as far as I know.
Should I make a page for it?
Or should a proposal be made (I have no idea how these work)?

Please note `terrace=*` (tag*info*
) is for used something
else (not sure what, but it doesn't matter anyways)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-07 Thread European Water Project 
In France, almost all water fountains not supplied from the residential
water network  are marked as "non potable" -  indiscriminately of whether
or not the water is drinking quality.

No proper legislation exists which allows local authorities to
intermittently test fountain water quality and be protected in case of an
unlikely accident.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 11:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I also thought about case where
> water is commonly used as a drinking water
> (for example camp site in mountains),
> but there is no official testing or
> official permission or any official oversight.
>
> 7 wrz 2020, 11:22 od o...@westnordost.de:
>
> The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not clear
> why Mateusz proposed to use the drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all,
> if there is already the tag drinking_water=yes/no.
>
> Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear:
>
>- 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise
>clear that you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) ->
>drinking_water=yes
>
>
>- 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated
>-> drinking_water=no
>
> But what about these?
>
>- 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is
>drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be polluted with
>toxic substances, especially if it is close to an (old) mine.
>
>
>- 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is
>clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example right
>now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell bottled 
> water.
>
> In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should
> be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he
> becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this
> case, he would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can with
> certainty record is that there is no official information about it
> whatsoever. This is useful because people searching for drinkable water
> would certainly prefer water sources where it is positive that it is
> drinkable. drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would solve
> this, but there is also case 4.
>
> In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual
> situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations
> separately when necessary.
>
>
> Cheers
> Tobias
>
> On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
> We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable,
> we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable.
>
> Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water,
> drinking_water=yes)
> that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable
> sign"?
>
> drinking_water:signed=no ?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Kevin Kenny 
It's not US English, it's just a misspelling yielding a wrong word. The
correct word is 'potable' on this side of the pond as well.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:14 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. Sep 2020, at 13:52, Peter Neale  wrote:
> >
> > I'm not arguing against "drinking water", just against "portable water"
> (water that can be carried)
>
>
> sorry for posting in reply to you, it was meant more generally as
> responding to the warming up of a discussion about the words used in the
> main tags.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 13:52, Peter Neale  wrote:
> 
> I'm not arguing against "drinking water", just against "portable water" 
> (water that can be carried)


sorry for posting in reply to you, it was meant more generally as responding to 
the warming up of a discussion about the words used in the main tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Peter Neale via Tagging 
I'm not arguing against "drinking water", just against "portable water" (water 
that can be carried)
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 11:42, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:   

sent from a phone

On 7. Sep 2020, at 07:55, Peter Neale via Tagging  
wrote:



I dont know about the USA, but in British English, "portable" means that it can 
be carried. 
If you can drink it, it is "potable".


we‘ve had this discussion 10 years ago and the decision was for drinking_water=*
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=drink
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=potable
There’s no benefit from changing established tagging, and there were reasons 
for choosing drinking water rather than potable water.
Cheers Martin   
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2020, at 07:55, Peter Neale via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> I dont know about the USA, but in British English, "portable" means that it 
> can be carried. 
> 
> If you can drink it, it is "potable".


we‘ve had this discussion 10 years ago and the decision was for drinking_water=*

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=drinking_water

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=drink

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=potable

There’s no benefit from changing established tagging, and there were reasons 
for choosing drinking water rather than potable water.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-07 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
I also thought about case where 
water is commonly used as a drinking water
(for example camp site in mountains),
but there is no official testing or
official permission or any official oversight.
7 wrz 2020, 11:22 od o...@westnordost.de:

>
> The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was  not 
> clear why Mateusz proposed to use the  
> drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if there is already  the tag 
> drinking_water=yes/no.
>
>
> Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are  clear:
>
> 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it isotherwise clear 
> that you can (drinking fountain constructed bymuncipality) -> 
> drinking_water=yes
> 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it iscontaminated -> 
> drinking_water=no
>
> But what about these?
>
> 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether itis 
> drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might bepolluted 
> with toxic substances, especially if it is close to an(old) mine. 
> 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but itis 
> clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a goodexample 
> right now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shopwants to sell 
> bottled water.
>
> In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it  should 
> be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and  waiting if he 
> becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the  surveyor). So in this 
> case, he would need to leave drinking_water  untagged. But what he can 
> with certainty record is that there is  no official information about it 
> whatsoever. This is useful  because people searching for drinkable water 
> would certainly  prefer water sources where it is positive that it is 
> drinkable.  drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would 
> solve  this, but there is also case 4.
>
>
> In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual  
> situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two  informations 
> separately when necessary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>  Tobias
>
>
> On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny  via Tagging wrote:
>
>> We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially
>> drinkable,
>> we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as notdrinkable.
>>
>> Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water,
>> drinking_water=yes)
>> that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with"not 
>> drinkable sign"?
>>
>> drinking_water:signed=no ?
>>
>> ___Tagging mailing list>> 
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-07 Thread Tobias Zwick 
The discussion went astray a bit, partly because I think it was not 
clear why Mateusz proposed to use the 
drinking_water:legal=yes/no/unknown at all, if there is already the tag 
drinking_water=yes/no.


Let me illustrate with some examples. So, these two cases are clear:

 * 1. There is a sign that says you can drink it or it is otherwise
   clear that you can (drinking fountain constructed by muncipality) ->
   drinking_water=yes

 * 2. There is a sign that forbids it or warns that it is contaminated
   -> drinking_water=no

But what about these?

 * 3. There is no sign at all and no clear indication whether it is
   drinkable or not. Water that comes out of a mountain might be
   polluted with toxic substances, especially if it is close to an
   (old) mine.

 * 4. There is a sign that simply says "no drinking water" but it is
   clear from the circumstances that it is. Don't have a good example
   right now, maybe because of insurance, or nearby shop wants to sell
   bottled water.

In case 3, where a surveyor cannot with certainty determine if it should 
be drinking_water=yes or no (without trying it himself and waiting if he 
becomes ill or not, which can't be expected of the surveyor). So in this 
case, he would need to leave drinking_water untagged. But what he can 
with certainty record is that there is no official information about it 
whatsoever. This is useful because people searching for drinkable water 
would certainly prefer water sources where it is positive that it is 
drinkable. drinking_water=unknown or drinking_water:signed=no would 
solve this, but there is also case 4.


In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual 
situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations 
separately when necessary.



Cheers
Tobias

On 06.09.20 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable,
we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable.

Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, 
drinking_water=yes)
that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not 
drinkable sign"?


drinking_water:signed=no ?

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