[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:archaeological_site

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Voting is open on the archaeological_site key.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site

Cheers,

Anne


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

Re: [Tagging] amentiy=donation_centre?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

maybe these can be seen as
amenity=social_facility?

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

Re: [Tagging] amentiy=donation_centre?

[António Madeira]

It seems good.
It even has a subtag social_facility 
=clothing_bank 




Às 11:41 de 14/11/2022, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:

maybe these can be seen as
amenity=social_facility?

___
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] amentiy=donation_centre?

[Warin]

On 14/11/22 22:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

maybe these can be seen as
amenity=social_facility?

_



Which "these"???


"These" I would not tag as amenity=social_facility;

The charity shops here do not buy things, people come into the shop and 
donate things. The shops then sort those things out and sell some of them.


There are also donation 'bins' where you can deposit things to 
charities. These too are sorted for resale, sometimes as cleaning rags 
or some times free to the homeless.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 2:49 AM Marc_marc  wrote:

> We can see it with the osm-fr experience: the immature forum has split
> the community, far from federating
>

Thank you for clearly describing the root cause of your objection.

In my opinion, it is better to let people decide for themselves where they
wish to communicate.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amentiy=donation_centre?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

that is for place giving clothes, not collecting them

it does not mean that they collect them
(and even with place collecting and giving located at the same place
they may have separate opening hours or other detail)


Nov 14, 2022, 13:59 by antoniomade...@gmx.com:

> It seems good.
>  It even has a subtag > social_facility 
> > => clothing_bank 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> Às 11:41 de 14/11/2022, Martin  Koppenhoefer escreveu:
>
>> maybe these can be seen 
>> asamenity=social_facility?___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] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

[Adam Franco]

> a site relation is made for wind farm sites because the space
> between the turbines is sometimes used for other things (e.g. grazing),
> and not to include other elements such as the workers' parking, the
> restaurant where they eat and the shop they visit
>

My own mapping practice while canoe camping often involves mapping
collections of back-country tenting sites scattered around the shores of
remote lakes, with significant wilderness and water between them.  Each
tent site is marked on the ground by a numbered post and sometimes a
fire-ring and trampled ground, but there is no delimited boundary of each
tenting place that would warrant a polygon -- I just place a node at the
marker post. These tenting sites have a reference number and are all
managed as a unit by the enclosing park or forest service with a website,
unified reservation system, and policies that apply to all of the
individual tenting sites. I would think that a site-relation would be a
good way to model these dispersed pitches as there isn't a meaningful
polygon that could contain them.

Examples:

   - Green River Reservoir
   
   VT, USA -- very dispersed tent pitches around a large lake that is used for
   other purposes as well. The entire protected area
   
   is not a "camp site" itself, but does include many pitches. Modeling these
   pitches into a single site relation would be an improvement over their
   current modeling as unlinked individual tourism=camp_site.

   
   - Saint Regis Pond
   ,
   NY, USA -- Very dispersed tent pitches around a small lake. Each lake and
   most ponds in the Saint Regis Canoe area
   
   few pitches on it, but the entire protected area is not a "camp site"
   itself. Modeling these pitches into a single site relation with their
   shared operator and policies would be an improvement over their current
   modeling as unlinked individual tourism=camp_site.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Cartographer10 via Tagging]

"here is the logical error: no the forum does not attract a global audience, it 
may one day, now it is in test, half of the things do not work and therefore 
let us leave time to have a functional forum (including by email) in stead of 
trying to an attempts of discussion where the current majority of the 
participants are not, with an aim of satisfying those which do not produce for 
the moment much content level proposal (because if it were the case, the forum 
would be already very used for the discussion of the proposals of these 
people)."

First of all, the new forum is not is testing. You can no longer create topics 
on the old forum. There are already quite some topics being made on the new 
forum.
Secondly, the forum is intended to be a central discussion place for OSM. It 
makes perfectly sense to also require announcements to be made on the new 
forum. 60% votes for this move during the first vote. The current proposal will 
provide a way for everybody to use the platform of their choice. Seems like a 
fair middle ground to me.

"empty argument, the mailinglist is already linked to my osm account email, 
given that you only sign up once for 10 years, such a big change to gain one 
click to sign up is absurd compared to the fragmentation of discussions this 
"too-early" proposal will cause"

Some people don't want to use their private email address for a public mailing 
list. This means they have to use an alias services or secondary email account 
solely for the purpose of this mailing list. So it is not a one click sign up 
for everybody.



14 nov. 2022 08:43 van marc_marc_at_mailo_com_xrkimi...@simplelogin.co:

>
> here is the logical error: no the forum does not attract a global audience, 
> it may one day, now it is in test, half of the things do not work and 
> therefore let us leave time to have a functional forum (including by email) 
> in stead of trying to an attempts of discussion where the current majority of 
> the participants are not, with an aim of satisfying those which do not 
> produce for the moment much content level proposal (because if it were the 
> case, the forum would be already very used for the discussion of the 
> proposals of these people).
>
>> with the new forum linked to your osm.org user account
>>
> empty argument, the mailinglist is already linked to my osm account email, 
> given that you only sign up once for 10 years, such a big change to gain one 
> click to sign up is absurd compared to the fragmentation of discussions this 
> "too-early" proposal will cause
>
>> doesn't require special software
>>
>
> mailing need a email client (including in a browser)
> forum need a browser (which probably needs to be recent, poorly usable on 
> phone, unusable in command line, difficult to interface if you want to make 
> personalized notifications, etc)
> accessibility is certainly not in favour of the forums. (the blind person on 
> the osm-fr mailing list was using email with his braille reader and not a 
> forum)
>
>> pick a winner if and when this occurs.
>>
>
> This is a win-lose vision, whereas by giving the forum time to mature, there 
> could be a merger of the 2 which would be win-win (and would render the 
> current proposal useless as the same content would be accessible both by 
> email and by a web interface, with unified instead
> of fragmented discussions).
> We can see it with the osm-fr experience: the immature forum has split the 
> community, far from federating
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Marc_marc]

Le 14.11.22 à 14:49, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit :
it is better to let people decide for themselves  
where they wish to communicate.


a community split offer a fake "let people decide" :
- if someone want to make a proposal, the notification must be send
to both channel
- if a mailing list user want to reply to a message on the forum,
he must subscribe/use the forum
- if a forum user want to reply to a message on the mailing list,
he must subscribe/use the mailing list

the only choice you have is to ignore the other part of the community.

to offer a real choice of interface, the only solution is to make the 
forum mature, solve the exposed problems and then merge both interfaces 
in one "place to be", then only a user of the forum will be able to 
answer a user of the mailing list and conversely.


the talk-fr experience shows that the division has not increased the 
volume of messages (despite some dual-posted message which artificially 
increases the totals, on the contrary, some people have migrated to the 
forum and are talking to each other, a few others are still on the list 
and are talking to each other, a tiny fraction has freed up the extra 
time needed to manage an extra channel.




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Davidoskky via Tagging]

- if a mailing list user want to reply to a message on the forum,
he must subscribe/use the forum 
Note that this is already happening with some things being discussed 
both on the forum and on the mailing list without the requirement to 
post it there.


This has also been the norm until now with people writing on the wiki 
and other on the mailing list and nobody ever complained.



But the proposal is not about this, the proposal is about letting the 
people who are using the forum and not the mailing list know about 
proposals that are being made.


Since, as you say, the community will be split among the two 
communication channels, I don't really see why the people using one of 
the two should be favoured and naturally included in updates about 
tagging and the other ones shouldn't.



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

[Tagging] Re-opening of historic=* key vote without community notification

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

It has come to my attention that the "historic" proposal has apparently
been re-opened for a vote without even a courtesy message to the tagging
mailing list.  Thank you to user Mnalis to noticing this and alerting
several community members that have previously commented on the proposal.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic

I'm assuming this was merely an oversight, and so I wish to bring it to the
community's attention.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

[Matija Nalis]

Also, 

I'm not sure if it was mentioned by proponents here, but Voting on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic

has been re-started.
(also note that initial votes have been nullified by proponents; so if you 
voted before, you might have to do it again).

On a personal note, I also find current proposal quite confusing about what is 
actually being proposed in this iteration and why.
I've noted my concerns at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Historic#intention_of_this_proposal%3F

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:15:05 +, martianfreeloader 
 wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I’m proposing to approve the historic=* key together with a number of tags:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic
>
> historic=* is in widespread use and currently documented as de facto.
>
> Please comment wherever you feel most comfortable:
> - Here
> - On the wiki talk page
> - In the forum
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Matija Nalis]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:00:42 +0100, Davidoskky via Tagging 
 wrote:
> Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet 
> proposal? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet

You mean the one that was cancelled because it was a duplicate of already 
existing 
and hugely popular 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=drinking_water ?

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

[Warin]

On 15/11/22 12:16, Matija Nalis wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 17:00:42 +0100, Davidoskky via 
Tagging  wrote:

Is this proposal functionally any different from the water outlet
proposal?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_outlet

You mean the one that was cancelled because it was a duplicate of already 
existing
and hugely 
popularhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=drinking_water  ?


Fundamental differences:

water supply outlet may not be drinkable.

A decorative fountain is not a water supply outlet.

Problem? - a well is not a water supply outlet.

There is a lot of thinking and work to be done if there is to be a good outcome.

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