Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre
I've seen that on the taginfo website, but I don't think there's need for another amenity, with such good scheme already in hand. The office=government has these explicit subtags in the wiki: government=ministry government=prosecutor government=tax government=register_office government=data_protection I think it's just a matter of thinking about the correct value here. Às 20:30 de 09/10/2020, Jeremy Harris escreveu: On 10/10/2020 00:09, António Madeira via Tagging wrote: I was searching for a way of tagging a government job centre and I found there's no suitable way of doing this. There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit here, cause it seems to correspond to private companies who work with this kind of services. I thought about using the office=government scheme, with the subtag government=job_centre. You think this is ok or is there a better way? My local one has amenity=job_centre - for which there is no doc... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre
You can not duplicate tags on the same feature... Às 20:29 de 09/10/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu: On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 at 09:12, António Madeira via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit here, cause it seems to correspond to private companies who work with this kind of services. I thought about using the office=government scheme, How about simply double it up to office=government + office=employment_agency ? The name of "Federal Employment Service" or whatever should then be enough to dispel any doubts! Thanks Graeme ___ 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] railway=station areas
sent from a phone > On 10. Oct 2020, at 00:35, Dave F > > I believe most of this discussion is moot as the *vast* majority of > railway=stations are mapped as nodes: > NodeWay Relation > IT 2878400 15 > DE 438839 45 > FR 2553646 14 > JP 90635 11 > US 4140174 8 still it seems you found it important enough to engage in an edit war on the wiki and tell me I would have to discuss in order to keep the definition, not you who wants to change it. > I also amended the area indicating what roughly constitutes a 'railway > station' according to the wiki. according to the wiki, a railway station is a railway station, your edit made a part of a railway station the area for railway=station > Tagging objects should be based on the understanding of what the general > consumer of OSM accept it to be, not just a small group of "rail enthusiasts" > from Germany. tagging concepts should accommodate both, the general mappers and the experts. Data consumers will have to find a way to make their own sense of the map data, naturally the mappers will try to help them, but it is not the consumers who rule tagging, it’s the mappers. > @ > If you went up to a commuter waiting on the platform & asked 'what > constitutes a railway station' they would give close to the description above. just try it. Go to a train station and ask the commuters if they believe that the train on the sidetrack without a platform (waiting to be serviced or restructured or to depart later etc.) is out of the train station or inside. Or the technical station buildings where passengers aren’t admitted. Do you believe these tracks are outside the station, or do you believe they aren’t but others might think they are, so the best would be to make the OpenStreetMap station as small as we think that they think it is, so nobody is unnecessarily confused? > I *very* much doubt they'd also turn, point & say 'Oh, & also that one > signal. about about 1 km down the track'. I admit I don’t know about signals, but for switches it seems pretty easy: there are tracks coming from somewhere, and at some point, where I would suspect begins the station, these tracks bifurcate and become more. > Landuse=railway should be used for railway areas that far away from the > station. +1, could be used, I’d even say, from far away until very very close, up to the limit of the station area. > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > This was also discussed in the wiki: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dstation#Station_an_area_.3F > > That makes no mention of a station's extent. “ You should not map the building as railway=station, because railway=station as an area is seen as the area of the railway station (how obvious ;-) ), which is often from the entrance signal or at least from the first switch/point (AE/BE...) of each direction. --rayquaza (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC) > > > And it is what we do around here locally. > > As I've shown, that's not the case, & anyway, OSM is global, not local. you have not shown what kind of areas are mapped in OpenStreetMap, what you have shown is that there are more nodes than ways. > > It is also what the definition of railway=stations says, the tag defines "A > > railway station". > > See above at @. that’s a citation from wikipedia, and very selective as well, and it doesn’t say what isn’t in or out the station, it says what is the typical minimum you can find at a station Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas
There are times and places when / where "keeping plural tagging schemes" is a smarter method to interpret OSM's data. (Many, in fact). Saying "this how we should map" (being 'prescriptive') is not the same as wishful thinking. Being 'descriptive' and saying "this is how we do map" (as we quote taginfo) is (rather) simply looking at existing data in a particular way. We're smart. We're people. Let's stay smart and be smart. Tagging evolves, tagging has legacies. We must live with this seeming dichotomy and manage it simultaneously. Mechanical consumers of OSM's data do get smarter, too. (Though I don't think the machine learning is anywhere near sentient!) These (railway stations) are nodes, these are polygons. These have many methods of interpreting them, so interpret them. We might (I think we do) improve them as they evolve. There are good methods for these to evolve, here's the good news: this happens, as co-operation and consensus work. Ask yourself: how many simultaneous (on the planet) "methods" must I imagine these things in the real world today (highways, railways, bike routes, PT routes, boundaries...) in OSM? Two? Four? Six? Eight? It's more than one, for sure, and that's OK. That's OSM. We have newer data and methods and older data and methods simultaneously, it does get better. There are seldom magic bullets, it often takes work for these things to evolve. Yet, they do. Work it out, we can. SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas
On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 at 09:35, Dave F wrote: > Apologies for breaking the thread, but I was unable to connect to > Tagging & missed the initial message in my email client. > > I'm the user in disagreement. (Although reading the current > railway=station wiki page I'm not convinced there's an genuine > alternative belief). > > I believe most of this discussion is moot as the *vast* majority of > railway=stations are mapped as nodes: > NodeWay Relation > IT 2878400 15 > DE 438839 45 > FR 2553646 14 > JP 90635 11 > US 4140174 8 > I don't think that makes the point moot since nodes are just a quick first pass way to map a station, eventually they should all be upgraded to areas. The same way you can map a building as a node as a first pass, a footprint area is always better. I edited a copy of the diagram (A-simple-station.svg) of a station > layout, primarily to remove any references to PTv2 tags, a completely > independent, duplicating tagging schema, irrelevant to anything to do > with the railway=station tag. I also amended the area indicating what > roughly constitutes a 'railway station' according to the wiki. This is > the only page I uploaded the image to. (It's not complete - the creation > of the PNG image removes the angled text I used) > > It appears that in 2015 a user took it upon himself to wholesale rewrite > the wiki page, based on discussions in OpenRailwayMap IRC, a small > clique group that keeps no record of any conclusions. If anyone knows if > discussions took place on a major, wider reaching forum, please indicate > them. > > Tagging objects should be based on the understanding of what the general > consumer of OSM accept it to be, not just a small group of "rail > enthusiasts" from Germany. > OSM should as much as possible try to remain agnostic towards a specific audience or use, we should strive to both be accurate and usable for both train drivers and public transport passengers. This is not just a matter for rail enthusiasts from Germany. > >the railway is from the rail network/infrastructure point of view and > public > transit from the passenger point of view. > > This seems to be a common misunderstanding by those advocating PTv2. > I'm not advocating PTv2, for a long time it just seemed like duplication of tags and a waste but if the ability to separate out the rail infrastructure from passenger viewpoint can be done with the tagging schema then that's maybe one advantage. > Railway=station is the original tag for all stations, including > passenger. Introducing a disparate schema at a later date, does not > change the meaning of the original tag. > > > In practice many are mapped as the same area, but that's usually only > because unless you're a train operator it can be hard to actually survey > where the station starts and ends from the train network point of view. > > No, it's because the public area is what most people consider to be a > 'station'. (& most are mapped as nodes) > Maybe a solution is to keep railway=station and public_transport=station both defined as the passenger view, but use a new tag for rail infrastructure so you can still correctly map the station for train drivers. The downside is that's an extra tagging schema to make things even more complicated. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre
On 10/10/2020 00:09, António Madeira via Tagging wrote: > I was searching for a way of tagging a government job centre and I found > there's no suitable way of doing this. > There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit here, cause > it seems to correspond to private companies who work with this kind of > services. > > I thought about using the office=government scheme, with the subtag > government=job_centre. > You think this is ok or is there a better way? My local one has amenity=job_centre - for which there is no doc... -- Cheers, Jeremy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging a government job centre
Hi there. I was searching for a way of tagging a government job centre and I found there's no suitable way of doing this. There's office=employment_agency which doesn't seem to fit here, cause it seems to correspond to private companies who work with this kind of services. I thought about using the office=government scheme, with the subtag government=job_centre. You think this is ok or is there a better way? Regards. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] railway=station areas
Apologies for breaking the thread, but I was unable to connect to Tagging & missed the initial message in my email client. I'm the user in disagreement. (Although reading the current railway=station wiki page I'm not convinced there's an genuine alternative belief). I believe most of this discussion is moot as the *vast* majority of railway=stations are mapped as nodes: Node Way Relation IT 2878 400 15 DE 4388 39 45 FR 2553 646 14 JP 9063 5 11 US 4140 174 8 I edited a copy of the diagram (A-simple-station.svg) of a station layout, primarily to remove any references to PTv2 tags, a completely independent, duplicating tagging schema, irrelevant to anything to do with the railway=station tag. I also amended the area indicating what roughly constitutes a 'railway station' according to the wiki. This is the only page I uploaded the image to. (It's not complete - the creation of the PNG image removes the angled text I used) It appears that in 2015 a user took it upon himself to wholesale rewrite the wiki page, based on discussions in OpenRailwayMap IRC, a small clique group that keeps no record of any conclusions. If anyone knows if discussions took place on a major, wider reaching forum, please indicate them. Tagging objects should be based on the understanding of what the general consumer of OSM accept it to be, not just a small group of "rail enthusiasts" from Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_station - "It generally consists of at least one track-side platform and a station building providing such ancillary services as ticket sales, waiting rooms and baggage/freight service." @ If you went up to a commuter waiting on the platform & asked 'what constitutes a railway station' they would give close to the description above. I *very* much doubt they'd also turn, point & say 'Oh, & also that one signal. about about 1 km down the track'. Landuse=railway should be used for railway areas that far away from the station. Further comments inline: On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > This was also discussed in the wiki: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:railway%3Dstation#Station_an_area_.3F That makes no mention of a station's extent. > And it is what we do around here locally. As I've shown, that's not the case, & anyway, OSM is global, not local. > It is also what the definition of railway=stations says, the tag defines "A railway station". See above at @. > A fellow editor now insists that this tag should be used on the same area > as defined for public_transport=station, i.e. the part of the train station > that is accessible by passengers (platforms and buildings near the > platforms). From the wiki "Railway stations are places where customers can access railway services ". Signals/points are not relevant to customers. On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 Andrew Harvey wrote: >the railway is from the rail network/infrastructure point of view and public transit from the passenger point of view. This seems to be a common misunderstanding by those advocating PTv2. Railway=station is the original tag for all stations, including passenger. Introducing a disparate schema at a later date, does not change the meaning of the original tag. > In practice many are mapped as the same area, but that's usually only because unless you're a train operator it can be hard to actually survey where the station starts and ends from the train network point of view. No, it's because the public area is what most people consider to be a 'station'. (& most are mapped as nodes) Cheers DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 9 paź 2020, 15:33 od ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle" with "bicycle", > or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different > functionality. > > Similarly like "parking" and "bicycle parking" or "motorway" and > "cycleway". > > > Eeeh, motorway and cycleway make sense because they're definitely two > fairly different beasts, but for amenities and parking, motor_vehicle=no, > bicycle=designated seems like a better idea in retrospect. > > I guess that it depends on personal > preferences. > > I really dislike need to enter multiple tags > to specify basic type (yes I like > highway=bus_stop) > I mean, sure, but it's also not like highway=services are intrinsically and inherently motorist oriented, either. Not sure how many don't cater to motorists, but I don't see a reason to make a tag for the same thing but doesn't allow motor vehicles... Presets are your friend to reduce input fatigue. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?
9 paź 2020, 15:33 od ba...@ursamundi.org: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor >> vehicle" with "bicycle", >> or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different >> functionality. >> >> Similarly like "parking" and "bicycle parking" or "motorway" and "cycleway". >> > > Eeeh, motorway and cycleway make sense because they're definitely two fairly > different beasts, but for amenities and parking, motor_vehicle=no, > bicycle=designated seems like a better idea in retrospect. > I guess that it depends on personal preferences. I really dislike need to enter multiple tags to specify basic type (yes I like highway=bus_stop) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle" with "bicycle", > or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different > functionality. > > Similarly like "parking" and "bicycle parking" or "motorway" and > "cycleway". > Eeeh, motorway and cycleway make sense because they're definitely two fairly different beasts, but for amenities and parking, motor_vehicle=no, bicycle=designated seems like a better idea in retrospect. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?
For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor
vehicle" with "bicycle",
or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different functionality.
Similarly like "parking" and "bicycle parking" or "motorway" and "cycleway".
I would use a new tag.
Sep 28, 2020, 21:22 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> Can I use highway=services for a service stop on bike routes? It typically
> comprises restrooms, some kind of food service, bicycle repair tools/service,
> often bicycle rental.
> They go by different names. In Italy we have a number of "Bicigrill", a term
> "borrowed" from a trade mark for motorway fast food ("Autogrill").
> Examples
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/f7z3DBQiS6FVyppXXQ97RL
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/kJFqtrHTLfmgdePbfsbbiQ
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PU34nYunoIEvH3PnRuJgtQ
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/5FU96KmV7_l8U-iHURV5uQ
>
>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. > www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
