Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

[Florian Lohoff]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 02:36:06PM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The proposed new tag, vaccination= available>, seems like a reasonable idea.
> 
> However, it might be necessary to discuss a main feature tag to use in the
> case when these are not administered by a clinic or doctor's office or
> hospital.
> 
> There does not seem to be a widely used, suitable tag under healthcare=* or
> amenity=* for a place that specializes in administering immunizations only.
> 
> healthcare:speciality=vaccination is not a primary feature tag, but a
> secondary tag which needs to be added to something under the key amenity=*
> or healthcare=*.
> 
> Perhaps amenity=vaccination_centre would work?

Yes please - I can see planning coming up for vaccinations centers here 
in Germany and these are not planned in hospitals but in vacant commercial
buildings which have loads of parking spaces. So using some
healthcare specific tag is probably misleading.

These will be temporary things (Timeframe be years) but LOADS of people
will try to find it. And its a global issue.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I would use "survey using high quality dualband GPS (accuracy with X m)"
to make it clearly understandable.

Most people would be unaware of meaning of "GPS dualband"
(I ma quite interested in this topic and I am unsure what is the accuracy
difference, especially as there massive differences in
accuracy between smartphone GPS receivers and more dedicated 
GPS receivers - even Garmin etrex will have much higher accuracy)



Nov 29, 2020, 22:45 by amadva...@gmail.com:

>
> Hi,
>
> I bought a tracking device that supports GPS dualband (also called dual 
> frequency) for high precision mapping, and I'm wondering if I can put this 
> information in the "source" tag.
>
> The intention is to make future mappers consider the device precision when 
> doing corrections.
>
> Here some info about this new kind of GPS: > 
> https://www.gps-forums.com/threads/what-is-dual-band-gnss.46938/
>
>
>
> At present I'm thinking to use "source=survey;GPS;dualband"
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Ciao,
> Andrea
>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[ael via Tagging]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:45:13PM +0100, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:
> The intention is to make future mappers consider the device precision when
> doing corrections.

My experience is that many mappers, especially armchair mappers, ignore
source tags. I often find that my fairly accurate gps mapping is
degraded by later mappers without local knowledge.

Recent threads here have suggested that source tags are obsolete
and changeset comments supercede source tags. I strongly disagree.
So be prepared for problems.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Nov 2020, at 10:46, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Yes please - I can see planning coming up for vaccinations centers here 
> in Germany and these are not planned in hospitals but in vacant commercial
> buildings which have loads of parking spaces. So using some
> healthcare specific tag is probably misleading


healthcare is not related only to hospitals, vaccinations are clearly 
healthcare related. I agree that these facilities are candidates to be shown on 
general purpose maps, as a lot of people will be looking for them.

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[Warin]

On 30/11/20 8:45 am, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:

Hi,

I bought a tracking device that supports GPS dualband (also called 
dual frequency) for high precision mapping, and I'm wondering if I can 
put this information in the "source" tag.


The intention is to make future mappers consider the device precision 
when doing corrections.


Sigh.

If the intention is to indicate the error/accuracy/uncertainty then 
tag/state that. The better GPS devices give indications of this 
error/accuracy/uncertainty.


As the error/accuracy/uncertainty varies with the topography, satellites 
presently in view and the capabilities of the GPS device a statement of 
the GPS device capabilities revel little about the actual on the ground 
situation at the time of survey. Some of these 
error/accuracy/uncertainty can be reduced by taking many GPS tracks over 
several days/week/months and obtaining an average that excludes 
outliers. If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare them 
to see how much they vary day to day ... they should give an idea of 
problem.


In some locations the topography gives reflected signals that produce 
false GPS tracks, in these areas imagery may well be better than survey 
by consumer GPS even with dual band and many constellations are used.




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

Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

[Warin]

On 19/11/20 6:59 am, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
With the first Covid-19 vaccines getting approved, many municipalities 
are planning facilities for administering mass vaccination. In Berlin, 
the two former airports Tegel and Tempelhof are planned,

along with some sports facilities.

This raises the question for appropriate tagging.



In Australia, and I would think a portion of the world, there are yearly 
vaccinations for the flu. We don't tag them as they are available from 
the local GP/doctor and even some pharmacies in Australia, so they are 
'expected'.


The  existing facilities cope with the yearly flue vaccine though I hope 
the participation rates are better for the COVID vaccine.


COVID testing centers have also been setup ... but these are usually in 
place for short periods of time and then move or are disbanded waiting 
for the next problem area to occur. Being short term they don't go into 
OSM.


How  long are these mass vaccination centers going to operate for?

I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be 
widely publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further 
identification within OSM?



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[Andrea Mazzoleni]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:11 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I would use "survey using high quality dualband GPS (accuracy with X m)"
> to make it clearly understandable.
>
This sounds like a good idea.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Nov 2020, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be widely 
> publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further identification 
> within OSM?


the same holds true for post offices and townhalls.

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

[Tagging] Defining amenity=coast_guard

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

I run into https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcoast_guard
and despite that I have basically zero experience with such objects 
I am pretty sure that this description (and an old proposal) has a
problematic definition

It was "A building housing the Coast Guard administrative offices"
what seems clearly bad:

- we have building tags for buildings
- this clearly tags coast guard facility (office? station?), not
  building housing it
- this matters for cases like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1573145
  with more than one building
- what about Coast Guard parts that are not administrative?

Change description to refer to "coast guard base"?
Describe office=government as better for
"Coast Guard administrative offices" and mark it as replaced?
Recommend landuse=military / amenity=police if applicable in
a given country?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[Andrea Mazzoleni]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the intention is to indicate the error/accuracy/uncertainty then
> tag/state that. The better GPS devices give indications of this
> error/accuracy/uncertainty.
>
The big advantage of the dualband is not (only) the increase in accuracy
but the ability to work in not optimal conditions, like under a clif or
other obstacles where you have reflected GPS signals.

To give you an example, my eTrex device reports 3m of precision, the new
GPSMAP 65s reports 1.8m.
But reality is that I saw errors up to 50m with the eTrex. It's also
difficult to know the precision because it changes while moving, and it's
not recorded in the track.

> If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare them to see how
> much they vary day to day ... they should give an idea of problem.
>
I bought that new device exactly due the frustration of always seeing a
different recording...

My initial tests are really encouraging. Yesterday I repeated 10 times a
trail under the woods of a hill, comparing the results of the eTrex and
GPSMAP 65s, and the dualband one has the recorded tracks a lot more
consistent. Something like 10m vs 2m thickness.

> imagery may well be better than survey by consumer GPS
>
I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as reference. But most
of the trails of my local area are under the woods (low mountain) and the
GPS is the only source of information.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Nov 30, 2020, 14:33 by amadva...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> imagery may well be  better than survey by consumer GPS
>>
> I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as reference. But most 
> of the trails of my local area are under the woods (low mountain) and the GPS 
> is the only source of information.
>
Check whatever LIDAR is available! My region has high-quality LIDAR data on
a compatible license allowing to - for example - map paths in a forest
based on elevation data.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[Lindsay Barnes]

I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience with the
accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a comparison of
three devices I had personal experience with including a new Garmin GPSMAP
66sr which I posted here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711

In short, multi-band and multi-GNSS devices do offer in an increase in
precision and accuracy and we're seeing this become more common in a
standard smartphone. However, that level of precision is not necessary in
most cases. It is most helpful in areas without good satellite imagery
coverage or where imagery lacks reference points (like in wooded trail
areas, as mentioned). This is compounded by the fact that one GPS device
has a floor to how accurate it can be due to the nature of the system and
interference from the natural landscape, as was mentioned. Furthermore,
mult-band and mult-GNSS chips are becoming more common in smartphones and I
would expect this level of precision available to most mappers without the
need for specialty equipment over the next 5-ish years.

To answer your question about tags, a comment can be added in the source
field of a changeset, but in my opinion most mappers will not dig too deep
into a change to determine how precise the mapper may have been . Satellite
imagery is generally used as the source of truth and if a mapped feature
varies substantially from the imagery, mappers are inclined to move the
feature to match imagery without researching how the feature was initially
created. The good news is that if satellite imagery in unclear or lacks
reference marks, mappers will usually leave features alone unless they have
personal knowledge of an area or are working off a tasking manager.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrea Mazzoleni 
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If the intention is to indicate the error/accuracy/uncertainty then
>> tag/state that. The better GPS devices give indications of this
>> error/accuracy/uncertainty.
>>
> The big advantage of the dualband is not (only) the increase in accuracy
> but the ability to work in not optimal conditions, like under a clif or
> other obstacles where you have reflected GPS signals.
>
> To give you an example, my eTrex device reports 3m of precision, the new
> GPSMAP 65s reports 1.8m.
> But reality is that I saw errors up to 50m with the eTrex. It's also
> difficult to know the precision because it changes while moving, and it's
> not recorded in the track.
>
>> If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare them to see how
>> much they vary day to day ... they should give an idea of problem.
>>
> I bought that new device exactly due the frustration of always seeing a
> different recording...
>
> My initial tests are really encouraging. Yesterday I repeated 10 times a
> trail under the woods of a hill, comparing the results of the eTrex and
> GPSMAP 65s, and the dualband one has the recorded tracks a lot more
> consistent. Something like 10m vs 2m thickness.
>
>> imagery may well be better than survey by consumer GPS
>>
> I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as reference. But
> most of the trails of my local area are under the woods (low mountain) and
> the GPS is the only source of information.
>
> ___
> 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] Animal trails

[s8evq]

Hello everyone,

With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our main 
national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more and more 
OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.


"Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for humans, but 
simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that these are 
visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also look like trails. 
However, it is really not the intention that people should walk there. They 
change regularly and we also do not want to put signs 'forbidden entry' all 
over the area. 
We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active 
micromapper might add them again."

Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be mapped 
at all (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). However, 
when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. Not 
mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely show 
up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else. Therefor, we 
would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track, to make sure 
mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT be mapped as a 
regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a different approach?

Thanks.


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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Seth Deegan]

You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact the
mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.

I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is *especially *necessary.
If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the future
(as you've seen), incorrectly.

On a related idea, OSM should probably implement "Area Notes" into the API
to notify mappers how to map specific areas.

lectrician1 


On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM s8evq  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our
> main national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more
> and more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
>
>
> "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for
> humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that
> these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also
> look like trails. However, it is really not the intention that people
> should walk there. They change regularly and we also do not want to put
> signs 'forbidden entry' all over the area.
> We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active
> micromapper might add them again."
>
> Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be
> mapped at all (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). However,
> when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. Not
> mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely
> show up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else.
> Therefor, we would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track,
> to make sure mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT
> be mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a
> different approach?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ___
> 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 for dualband GPS ?

[Andrea Mazzoleni]

>
> I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience with the
> accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a comparison of
> three devices I had personal experience with including a new Garmin GPSMAP
> 66sr which I posted here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711
>
Very interesting!

Here you can find the mapping of my tests with GPSMAP 65s and eTrex 30x:

https://ibb.co/bKvpxYG

It's a circular trail repeated 5 times with one point every second.

I repeated it again with the recording frequency set to Auto, and the
GPSMAP lost a bit in accuracy, so better to stick to one point every second.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 3:45 PM Lindsay Barnes 
wrote:

> I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience with the
> accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a comparison of
> three devices I had personal experience with including a new Garmin GPSMAP
> 66sr which I posted here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711
>
> In short, multi-band and multi-GNSS devices do offer in an increase in
> precision and accuracy and we're seeing this become more common in a
> standard smartphone. However, that level of precision is not necessary in
> most cases. It is most helpful in areas without good satellite imagery
> coverage or where imagery lacks reference points (like in wooded trail
> areas, as mentioned). This is compounded by the fact that one GPS device
> has a floor to how accurate it can be due to the nature of the system and
> interference from the natural landscape, as was mentioned. Furthermore,
> mult-band and mult-GNSS chips are becoming more common in smartphones and I
> would expect this level of precision available to most mappers without the
> need for specialty equipment over the next 5-ish years.
>
> To answer your question about tags, a comment can be added in the source
> field of a changeset, but in my opinion most mappers will not dig too deep
> into a change to determine how precise the mapper may have been . Satellite
> imagery is generally used as the source of truth and if a mapped feature
> varies substantially from the imagery, mappers are inclined to move the
> feature to match imagery without researching how the feature was initially
> created. The good news is that if satellite imagery in unclear or lacks
> reference marks, mappers will usually leave features alone unless they have
> personal knowledge of an area or are working off a tasking manager.
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrea Mazzoleni 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If the intention is to indicate the error/accuracy/uncertainty then
>>> tag/state that. The better GPS devices give indications of this
>>> error/accuracy/uncertainty.
>>>
>> The big advantage of the dualband is not (only) the increase in accuracy
>> but the ability to work in not optimal conditions, like under a clif or
>> other obstacles where you have reflected GPS signals.
>>
>> To give you an example, my eTrex device reports 3m of precision, the new
>> GPSMAP 65s reports 1.8m.
>> But reality is that I saw errors up to 50m with the eTrex. It's also
>> difficult to know the precision because it changes while moving, and it's
>> not recorded in the track.
>>
>>> If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare them to see how
>>> much they vary day to day ... they should give an idea of problem.
>>>
>> I bought that new device exactly due the frustration of always seeing a
>> different recording...
>>
>> My initial tests are really encouraging. Yesterday I repeated 10 times a
>> trail under the woods of a hill, comparing the results of the eTrex and
>> GPSMAP 65s, and the dualband one has the recorded tracks a lot more
>> consistent. Something like 10m vs 2m thickness.
>>
>>> imagery may well be better than survey by consumer GPS
>>>
>> I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as reference. But
>> most of the trails of my local area are under the woods (low mountain) and
>> the GPS is the only source of information.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Animal trails

[Yves via Tagging]

Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
Yves 

Le 30 novembre 2020 21:27:33 GMT+01:00, Seth Deegan  a 
écrit :
>You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact the
>mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.
>
>I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is *especially *necessary.
>If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the future
>(as you've seen), incorrectly.
>
>On a related idea, OSM should probably implement "Area Notes" into the API
>to notify mappers how to map specific areas.
>
>lectrician1 
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM s8evq  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our
>> main national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more
>> and more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
>>
>>
>> "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for
>> humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that
>> these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also
>> look like trails. However, it is really not the intention that people
>> should walk there. They change regularly and we also do not want to put
>> signs 'forbidden entry' all over the area.
>> We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active
>> micromapper might add them again."
>>
>> Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be
>> mapped at all (
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). However,
>> when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. Not
>> mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely
>> show up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else.
>> Therefor, we would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track,
>> to make sure mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT
>> be mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a
>> different approach?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Animal trails

[Casper van Battum]

Adding a `note=*` would not really help much here. The issue is that the 
paths show up on the maps viewed by people. If we want to to give 
platforms the ability to not render animal paths, they should be easy to 
filter out. You can't do that with a generic note. I'm not sure if 
something already exists for animal paths like this but I would also be 
in favor of creating a specific tagging scheme for this. Without going 
into the entire `highway=path` discussion, as alternative to 
`highway=animal_track` we could maybe add a more specific version along 
the lines of `path=animal`.


As a quick solution: A simple `access=no` might also do the trick of 
course, but that doesn't describe the actual path.


Cheers, Casper

On 2020-11-30 21:27, Seth Deegan wrote:
You could add a `note=*` to every element. You should probably contact 
the mappers of that region and explain to them not to add them.


I agree that in this case, mapping animal tracks is /especially 
/necessary.
If someone isn't going to map it now, they're going to do so in the 
future (as you've seen), incorrectly.


On a related idea, OSM should probably implement "Area Notes" into the 
API to notify mappers how to map specific areas.


lectrician1 


On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM s8evq > wrote:


Hello everyone,

With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with
Natuurpunt, our main national nature conservation organization.
They are slowing using more and more OSM and recently came to us
with the following remark.


"Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths
for humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows.
I assume that these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the
field they may also look like trails. However, it is really not
the intention that people should walk there. They change regularly
and we also do not want to put signs 'forbidden entry' all over
the area.
We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an
active micromapper might add them again."

Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should
NOT be mapped at all
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1
).
However, when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL
THE THINGS. Not mapping these "animal trails" that you know about,
means they will likely show up on the map as a simple
highway=path, added by somebody else. Therefor, we would prefer to
map them with a tag like highway=animal_track, to make sure
mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT be
mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or
a different approach?

Thanks.


___
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] Animal trails

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging 
wrote:

> Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>

Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths, but
what would you tag them as?

Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't
appropriate for an animal track!

New tag animal=track / trail / path?

&, as in most things OSM, it's been discussed before, apparently with no
resolution?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things related to
animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden.  Perhaps a combination
of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what we're describing?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 4:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging 
> wrote:
>
>> Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>>
>
> Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths,
> but what would you tag them as?
>
> Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't
> appropriate for an animal track!
>
> New tag animal=track / trail / path?
>
> &, as in most things OSM, it's been discussed before, apparently with no
> resolution?
>
> 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] Animal trails

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
wrote:

> Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things related
> to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden.  Perhaps a
> combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what we're describing?
>

 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

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

Re: [Tagging] Defining amenity=coast_guard

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 23:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I run into https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcoast_guard
> and despite that I have basically zero experience with such objects
> I am pretty sure that this description (and an old proposal) has a
> problematic definition
>

Yep.

Of a lot of interest to me, because I'm a member of a volunteer Marine
Rescue ("Coast Guard") unit.

I remember this being discussed previously with the same dilemma - Coast
Guard means different things in different places, from an armed military
force (that also has a rescue function) to a strictly volunteer Marine
Rescue unit, with no official powers of any sort.

Maybe the existing amenity=coast_guard & emergency =coast_guard tags both
need to be deprecated in favour of two new tags:

landuse=military + military=coast_guard: Base for a military /
para-military force intended for protection of a country's coastal waters
against enemy military forces, smugglers, terrorists etc, & which usually
also has a marine rescue function. eg United States Coast Guard, Australian
Border Force (& others). This would render as the standard military area; &

emergency=marine_rescue: Base for a group, frequently non-Government /
volunteer only, dedicated to the rescue of vessels / sailors at sea. eg
British RNLI, Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, Volunteer Marine Rescue (&
others). A good render would be a simple "SOS"! Alternatively, these could
be mapped under the existing amenity=rescue_station tag, but that tag
itself should come under the emergency= heading.

There's currently about 150 x amenity=coast_guard, & only ~25 x
emergency=coast_guard, tags in use, so not a major problem to go through &
correct them. There are a *lot* more rescue bases that should be tagged
though, in the order of 300 in Australia alone!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 30. Nov. 2020 um 14:36 Uhr schrieb Andrea Mazzoleni <
amadva...@gmail.com>:

> But most of the trails of my local area are under the woods (low mountain)
> and the GPS is the only source of information.
>


you can use any tag like "source" or "note" to try to convey to the
following mappers that you have used equipment that promises higher
accuracy compared to the common consumer GPS devices. A standardized way
does not harm either, something like gps=dualband as tag on the changeset.

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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Lukas Richert]

I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my 
area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it 
is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes 
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would 
be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.


- Lukas

On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
mailto:zelonew...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. 
Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
we're describing?


 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

--
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 for dualband GPS ?

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 7:46 am, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote:


I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience
with the accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a
comparison of three devices I had personal experience with
including a new Garmin GPSMAP 66sr which I posted here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711

Very interesting!

Here you can find the mapping of my tests with GPSMAP 65s and eTrex 30x:

https://ibb.co/bKvpxYG

It's a circular trail repeated 5 times with one point every second.

I repeated it again with the recording frequency set to Auto, and the 
GPSMAP lost a bit in accuracy, so better to stick to one point every 
second.



Think your confusing two terms;

resolution


accuracy


With increased points along a way there is increased resolution.

The accuracy does not follow with increased number of points unless they 
are all for the same location so averaging those points reduces noise 
thus increasing accuracy.




On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 3:45 PM Lindsay Barnes > wrote:


I recently wrote a series of diary entries about my experience
with the accuracy of one-device GPS precision. I concluded with a
comparison of three devices I had personal experience with
including a new Garmin GPSMAP 66sr which I posted here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bobwz/diary/394711

In short, multi-band and multi-GNSS devices do offer in an
increase in precision and accuracy and we're seeing this become
more common in a standard smartphone. However, that level of
precision is not necessary in most cases. It is most helpful in
areas without good satellite imagery coverage or where imagery
lacks reference points (like in wooded trail areas, as mentioned).
This is compounded by the fact that one GPS device has a floor to
how accurate it can be due to the nature of the system and
interference from the natural landscape, as was mentioned.
Furthermore, mult-band and mult-GNSS chips are becoming more
common in smartphones and I would expect this level of precision
available to most mappers without the need for specialty equipment
over the next 5-ish years.

To answer your question about tags, a comment can be added in the
source field of a changeset, but in my opinion most mappers will
not dig too deep into a change to determine how precise the mapper
may have been . Satellite imagery is generally used as the source
of truth and if a mapped feature varies substantially from the
imagery, mappers are inclined to move the feature to match imagery
without researching how the feature was initially created. The
good news is that if satellite imagery in unclear or lacks
reference marks, mappers will usually leave features alone unless
they have personal knowledge of an area or are working off a
tasking manager.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:36 AM Andrea Mazzoleni
mailto:amadva...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:

If the intention is to indicate the
error/accuracy/uncertainty then tag/state that. The better
GPS devices give indications of this
error/accuracy/uncertainty.

The big advantage of the dualband is not (only) the increase
in accuracy but the ability to work in not optimal conditions,
like under a clif or other obstacles where you have reflected
GPS signals.

To give you an example, my eTrex device reports 3m of
precision, the new GPSMAP 65s reports 1.8m.
But reality is that I saw errors up to 50m with the eTrex.
It's also difficult to know the precision because it changes
while moving, and it's not recorded in the track.

If possible take tracks of home to/from work and compare
them to see how much they vary day to day ... they should
give an idea of problem.

I bought that new device exactly due the frustration of always
seeing a different recording...

My initial tests are really encouraging. Yesterday I repeated
10 times a trail under the woods of a hill, comparing the
results of the eTrex and GPSMAP 65s, and the dualband one has
the recorded tracks a lot more consistent. Something like 10m
vs 2m thickness.

imagery may well be better than survey by consumer GPS

I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as
reference. But most of the trails of my local area are under
the woods (low mountain) and the GPS is the only source of
information.



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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert :

> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my
> area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is
> allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant
> shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would be good.
>

+1

After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I believe
that they mostly do not apply to the situation here. People were mainly
concerned about wildlife protection, and Belgian cows are not falling under
my idea of "wildlife".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Defining amenity=coast_guard

[Andrew Harvey]

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 23:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> I run into https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcoast_guard
>> and despite that I have basically zero experience with such objects
>> I am pretty sure that this description (and an old proposal) has a
>> problematic definition
>>
>
> Yep.
>
> Of a lot of interest to me, because I'm a member of a volunteer Marine
> Rescue ("Coast Guard") unit.
>
> I remember this being discussed previously with the same dilemma - Coast
> Guard means different things in different places, from an armed military
> force (that also has a rescue function) to a strictly volunteer Marine
> Rescue unit, with no official powers of any sort.
>
> Maybe the existing amenity=coast_guard & emergency =coast_guard tags both
> need to be deprecated in favour of two new tags:
>
> landuse=military + military=coast_guard: Base for a military /
> para-military force intended for protection of a country's coastal waters
> against enemy military forces, smugglers, terrorists etc, & which usually
> also has a marine rescue function. eg United States Coast Guard, Australian
> Border Force (& others). This would render as the standard military area; &
>
> emergency=marine_rescue: Base for a group, frequently non-Government /
> volunteer only, dedicated to the rescue of vessels / sailors at sea. eg
> British RNLI, Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, Volunteer Marine Rescue (&
> others). A good render would be a simple "SOS"! Alternatively, these could
> be mapped under the existing amenity=rescue_station tag, but that tag
> itself should come under the emergency= heading.
>
> There's currently about 150 x amenity=coast_guard, & only ~25 x
> emergency=coast_guard, tags in use, so not a major problem to go through &
> correct them. There are a *lot* more rescue bases that should be tagged
> though, in the order of 300 in Australia alone!
>

100% agree.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote:


I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in 
my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but 
it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes 
significant shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases 
would be good. However, they should be lower priority than real paths.


- Lukas

On 30.11.20 23:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 at 21:45, Brian M. Sperlongano 
mailto:zelonew...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Note that there is already an animal=* tag for describing things
related to animals, so that probably shouldn't be overridden. 
Perhaps a combination of foot=no and animal=yes satisfies what
we're describing?


 Or not:highway=path + note=animal trail.

--



I think these are called 'animal pads'? They are usefull for hiking 
where no other path exists as they avoid further damage to vegetation 
and damage to pants/gaiters/shoes. They do also lead hikers astray by 
leading away from the path that they should use. Possibly highway=pad or 
highway=animal_pad?


The tags 'note' and 'comment' are for mappers and not usually used by 
renders, using the tag 'description' may be more helpful?


The tag 'access' should be used where access is restricted within OSM. I 
don't think it is necessary to have signage on the ground to apply 
access tags that are 'community standard' e.g. most home driveways in 
Australia would be regarded as access=private and should be tagged as 
such within OSM despite there being no sign on every home driveway.


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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Casper Van Battum]

I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the sense that 
the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on the trails. I'm 
guessing it's either protected land or private property these trails are on. 
Since the organization mentioned they didn't want to put up "no access" signs, 
it would be appropriate to map the paths as such.

However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general solution for 
tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this specific situation.

The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human path? 
Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal paths. It 
would be hard to define it. We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways 
according to their usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently 
highway=path  is defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" 
and animal paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths 
as "generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a specific 
kind of path (something along the lines of highway=path+animal=yes) rather than 
a new type of highway. But again, is this enough of a distinction to merit its 
own tagging scheme?

Cheers, Casper

On 1 Dec 2020, 00:47, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
>>:
>
>> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in
>my
>> area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but
>it is
>> allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes
>significant
>> shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would be good.
>>
>
>+1
>
>After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
>believe
>that they mostly do not apply to the situation here. People were mainly
>concerned about wildlife protection, and Belgian cows are not falling
>under
>my idea of "wildlife".
>
>
>
>
>___
>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] COVID-19 vaccination centres

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 12:24 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 30. Nov 2020, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be widely 
publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further identification 
within OSM?


the same holds true for post offices and townhalls.



Err no. I would expect mass vaccination centers to be heavily publicized in the 
local press (TV, radio, newspapers, etc) with location, opening hours, and 
other operating details
where as the townhall could be mentioned occasionally in the press as part of a 
news articular but without any location and opening hours information.
Post offices here only appear here in advertising brochures and these are 
general in applying to all, they don't give any location information at all.

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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Warin]

On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote:
I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the 
sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on 
the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private 
property these trails are on. Since the organization mentioned they 
didn't want to put up "no access" signs, it would be appropriate to 
map the paths as such.


However I'm with you on that this brings us no closer to a general 
solution for tagging animal paths, that applies even beyond this 
specific situation.


The big question is: what distinguishes an animal path from a human 
path? Animals use human paths, and in numerous cases humans use animal 
paths. It would be hard to define it.



Animals come in different sizes.

A pad made by wild horses have sufficient height and width that most 
hikers could use them, this they can get muddy or steep in certain places.


A pad made by wombats can go under plants that would have humans 
crawling on their stomachs not just on their hands and knees.


We generally follow the guidelines to tag highways according to their 
usage (see tracks vs roads for example). Currently highway=path  is 
defined as "generic path, multi-usage or unspecified usage" and animal 
paths do already fit that description. We could define animal paths as 
"generic path, used mainly by animals" but I suppose it should be a 
specific kind of path (something along the lines of 
highway=path+animal=yes) rather than a new type of highway. But again, 
is this enough of a distinction to merit its own tagging scheme?




I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess! 
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example 
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging 
that... terrible.




Cheers, Casper
On 1 Dec 2020, at 00:47, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote:




Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert
mailto:lrich...@posteo.net>>:

I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many
trails in my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom
used by people - but it is allowed for people to walk on these
and they are sometimes significant shortcuts so allowing
routing over them in some cases would be good.


+1

After reading the comments to the diary post that the OP linked, I
believe that they mostly do not apply to the situation here.
People were mainly concerned about wildlife protection, and
Belgian cows are not falling under my idea of "wildlife".




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] Animal trails

[Tod Fitch]

Maybe animal_path=yes|cow|deer|...

Where the values cover the various animals that create paths visible on imagery.

--
Sent from my phone, please forgive my brevity.

> On Monday, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:15 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  (mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 06:54, Yves via Tagging  (mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org)> wrote:
> > Creating a new tag for this is not a bad idea.
>
> Not a bad idea at all, even if just to stop them being marked as paths, but 
> what would you tag them as?
>
> Footpaths etc are currently tagged as highway=xxx, which really isn't 
> appropriate for an animal track!
>
> New tag animal=track / trail / path?
>
> &, as in most things OSM, it's been discussed before, apparently with no 
> resolution?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Minh Nguyen via Tagging]

Vào lúc 16:32 2020-11-30, Warin đã viết:
I would not encourage the use of the tag 'animal' as it is a real mess! 
See taginfo for the variety of values that have no coordination. Example 
animal=wellness ... for which animals and then the problem of tagging 
that... terrible.


animal=wellness is a terrific example of conflicting key usage [1] 
between "It is for ___ animals" [2] and "It is a ___ for animals" [3]. 
It looks like there's already been an effort to deconflict this usage, 
with amenity=animal_boarding now pairing with animal_boarding=* and 
amenity=animal_training with animal_training=*. Meanwhile, access 
restrictions use freestanding keys like horse=* and dog=*, and the 
hazard=animal_crossing proposal currently would use hazard:animal=* or 
hazard:species=*. [4] If these "It is for ___ animals" usages are out of 
favor, then there would be no conflict in adopting highway=path 
animal=yes cow=yes or animal=path cow=yes for a cowpath.


Regardless, informal=yes seems especially appropriate for these 
animal-made paths.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Homonymous_keys
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_training
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Peter Elderson]

humans=no?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 30 nov. 2020 om 20:44 schreef s8evq :

> Hello everyone,
>
> With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our
> main national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more
> and more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark.
>
>
> "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths for
> humans, but simply flattened walking routes made by the cows. I assume that
> these are visible on aerial photographs, and in the field they may also
> look like trails. However, it is really not the intention that people
> should walk there. They change regularly and we also do not want to put
> signs 'forbidden entry' all over the area.
> We could delete them from OSM, but then of course soon later, an active
> micromapper might add them again."
>
> Most people seem to think paths made by cattle or wildlife should NOT be
> mapped at all (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pascal%20Cuoq/diary/1). However,
> when there are micromappers around, they tend to map ALL THE THINGS. Not
> mapping these "animal trails" that you know about, means they will likely
> show up on the map as a simple highway=path, added by somebody else.
> Therefor, we would prefer to map them with a tag like highway=animal_track,
> to make sure mappers see that this thing was analyzed before and should NOT
> be mapped as a regular path. Do you have any suggestions for a tag or a
> different approach?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ___
> 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 for dualband GPS ?

[Andrea Mazzoleni]

> Think your confusing two terms; resolution, accuracy
>
I understand that you mean, but check this detail: https://ibb.co/7ycFW5J

At least my impression is that the 1Sec is also more accurate. It's
obviously only a single test, and the recording happened at a different
time, so indeed it could be something different.

Instead, in other parts of the track it's clear the error caused by the low
resolution: https://ibb.co/mC3sKcz

Anyway, it seems that such "Auto" setting is not optimal.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging