Re: [Tagging] Tagging of community mailboxes (cluster maiboxes)
> it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box > on the postal operator's website and put my letter there? outgoing mail boxes aren't listed on the postal operator's website. As a tourist, if you happen to come across one of these, you are free to deposit any outgoing mail in the designated slot > or is it just a habit that people also put the outbound there ? It's not a habit, there's a dedicated slot to put outbound mail Here's a picture for reference, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/CanadaPostCommunityMailboxes15.jpg > for me, that doesn't matter. it's a amenity=letter_box I get that, since that is it's primary function. How would we then let people know that outgoing mail can be put in the box via the outgoing mail slot? Would it be better to tag one `amenity=letter_box` and one `amenity=post_box`, or simply put it just under `amenity=letter_box` I just want to make sure since there's currently around 4000 uses of `post_box:type=community` (which is the current recommended tag on the Canadian Tagging Guidelines), it would make up a quarter of all uses of `amenity=letter_box` that this is how the worldwide community feels. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site
Le 22.10.22 à 15:09, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : sent from a phone On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key from site_type to archaeological_type such a retagging would be a waste of time if time is a issue to incrise the quality, I volunteer to propose and do the mass edition if the operation is successful. Note however that we don't vote on a mechanical edition, we vote on a tag. the mechanical edition follows a completely different logic. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site
What is the use of the proposal process then? Anne On 22/10/2022 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key from site_type to archaeological_type such a retagging would be a waste of time, I would not pursue this idea, and given the high majority that is required nowadays it is also unlikely to succeed. You could just continue mapping the settlement sites and crannogs as you please and have a wonderful time, document the tags, speak about it so that other people interested in mapping this kind of feature can join you. :-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site
sent from a phone > On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about > the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key > from site_type to archaeological_type such a retagging would be a waste of time, I would not pursue this idea, and given the high majority that is required nowadays it is also unlikely to succeed. You could just continue mapping the settlement sites and crannogs as you please and have a wonderful time, document the tags, speak about it so that other people interested in mapping this kind of feature can join you. :-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site
Hi Andy, all the existing archaeological sites with site_type would have to be retagged, if this is approved. I'm not proposing this lightly, but it is what the people criticising the "_type" suffix want, apparently. It just occured to me that it would probably also affect histosm.org. But I must presume the critics have thought of all that before they voted. Anne On 22/10/2022 13:34, Andy Townsend wrote: On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under "Rationale": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site Hello, That page says "This would apply to c. 113 000 features". For the avoidance of doubt, are you suggesting (after the acceptance of this proposal) that people would "just start using the new values", or are you planning a series of edits following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct , or do you believe that acceptance of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site implies acceptance of a change to OSM data as well? The reason that I'm asking is as can be seen from https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type#projects I'm currently using that tag to control display of features (actual example code at https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5622 for info) and it'd be good to know when I need to change that to say something else. Best Regards, Andy ___ 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 community mailboxes (cluster maiboxes)
sent from a phone > On 22 Oct 2022, at 14:16, Marc_marc wrote: > > it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box > on the postal operator's website and put my letter there? > or is it just a habit that people also put the outbound there ? if it works reliably, it could get amenity=post_box and informal=yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site
On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under "Rationale": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site Hello, That page says "This would apply to c. 113 000 features". For the avoidance of doubt, are you suggesting (after the acceptance of this proposal) that people would "just start using the new values", or are you planning a series of edits following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct , or do you believe that acceptance of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site implies acceptance of a change to OSM data as well? The reason that I'm asking is as can be seen from https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type#projects I'm currently using that tag to control display of features (actual example code at https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5622 for info) and it'd be good to know when I need to change that to say something else. Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of community mailboxes (cluster maiboxes)
Le 22.10.22 à 00:15, wolfy1339 via Tagging a écrit : The `amenity=post_box` tag seems to be only for outgoing mail only, while this handles both incoming, and outgoing mail in one feature, while the `amenity=letter_box` is for incoming mail only. How would you recommend this be tagged, as it seems there isn't a clear consensus between international users? it's at least a amenity=letter_box, ok it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box on the postal operator's website and put my letter there? or is it just a habit that people also put the outbound there ? Should they be re-tagged as letter boxes? - How would it be tagged that this is a community mailbox, that it isn't a private mailbox for just one address for me, that doesn't matter. it's a amenity=letter_box if you have information on the number of people or the geographical area, I have no objection to this being specified as an post_box=* (and unfortunately the most common way is to add the meaningless :type suffix) Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging proposal - salt concentration / evaporation / graduation tower
The proposal needed the necessary changes, so the vote was stopped and the article was repaired under the name: Proposed features/evaporation tower & brine source I’ve fix issues with brine_source=* tag (better definition) and tourism=attraction (optional). But the tag name issue came up again, so I’d like to ask you for help. We have three proposed names: 1. graduation_tower - the name on [en] Wikipedia, which, however, is not documented by any English dictionary. It is a “Polish-English” name deemed illegible for native-speakers. 2. salt_concentration_tower - the most detailed of the names proposed in the last vote 3. evaporation_tower - more legible than the graduation_tower but considered too general Please vote on OpenStreetMap Community: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-proposal-salt-concentration-evaporation-graduation-tower/4481 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site
Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under "Rationale": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site If anyone has any doubts about my contributions to OSM: https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?b-unicycling Enjoy the weekend, Anne ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crannog
Hello all, the proposal for crannog has been rejected with 6 yes votes, 5 no votes and 2 abstain votes. Thank you all for your input. This will be followed up shortly with a new proposal. Anne ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of community mailboxes (cluster maiboxes)
Can people who don't live there post outgoing letters? If not, I wouldn't use amenity=post_box On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, 23:18 wolfy1339 via Tagging, wrote: > > Hello community! > > I have come here to ask some questions regarding the tagging of what we > call community mailboxes in Canada (where each resident living in the > area has their own locker for incoming mail, and there is an outgoing > mail slot and some parcel lockers for things that don't fit in the > regular lockers), hopefully you can help me out! > > We have been discussing on the talk-ca list > ( > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-October/010520.html), > > as someone on the OSM World Discord has asked how to tag them, > I kindly linked to the Canadian Tagging Guidelines page on the wiki, and > another user said that that was wrong tagging. > > That wasn't the first time a similar conversation was had. A user from > the USA had also asked about the tagging, though for the equivalent down > there, and it was suggested to them to put 2 nodes, one letter box, and > one post box. > > Currently, the recommended tagging for these community mailboxes is as > follows > ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:post_box:type#Values_in_use_in_Canada > ): > > amenity=post_box > post_box:type=community > > The `amenity=post_box` tag seems to be only for outgoing mail only, > while this handles both incoming, and outgoing mail in one feature, > while the `amenity=letter_box` is for incoming mail only. > > How would you recommend this be tagged, as it seems there isn't a clear > consensus between international users? > > Should they be re-tagged as letter boxes? > - How would it be tagged that this is a community mailbox, that it > isn't a private mailbox for just one address, you can't reasonably now > which address the mailbox services, and one mailbox can service a couple > streets that are close-by. > > Should an extension of `amenity=parcel_locker` be thought of since the > functionality similarly intersects? > > > Thank you, > > wolfy1339 > > Quebec Canada > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
