Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

[Alberto Nogaro via Tagging]

Including path sections leading up to the scramble part appears to me as the 
only information which highway=scramble would add to the sections mapped with 
highway=path +  sac_scale = demanding_mountain_hiking or an upper value of 
sac_scale. But it's a kind of information which routers can compute without the 
need to explicitly map it.

Alberto

-Original Message-
From: Peter Elderson  
Sent: 15 September 2022 00:04
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

I would probably apply it to the actual scramble sections, though, not 
including path sections leading up to the scramble part. 


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

Re: [Tagging] cable:ferry

[Alberto Nogaro via Tagging]

Maybe we might use “reaction” as a value for the ferry:cable 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ferry:cable>  key for those specific 
types of cable ferries, and keep the value “yes” for a generic/unspecified type 
of cable ferry, and change the wiki definition accordingly.

 

Alberto

 

From: joost schouppe  
Sent: 17 December 2020 09:21
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] cable:ferry

 

Hi,

 

This article https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dferry mentions 
ferry:cable=yes as a reaction ferry -  a specific type of cable ferry. While 
the article has a picture of a non-reaction cable ferry, it offers no tagging 
suggestion for that. So I'm guessing that in practice, there is no tag for 
reaction ferry at all, and the wiki definition of ferry:cable should be changed.


-- 

Joost Schouppe

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

Re: [Tagging] Hiking logbooks

[Alberto Nogaro via Tagging]

Related, but limited to log books placed on summits of peaks, 
summit:register=yes is documented and in use (904 uses on points).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:summit:register

There are also limited undocumented uses of:

register=yes 3 uses
register_book 1 use

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: 26 June 2019 10:54
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] Hiking logbooks

Hi,

On some hiking trail there are log books, usually at the start and end and 
possibly other places for walkers to record there intentions and observations.
They can be used when someone is overdue by authorities to establish there 
likely whereabouts.

At the moment I think the closest documented tag is checkpoint:type=notebook.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:checkpoint

Description; "A paper based medium to sign/note, such as a notebook or guest 
book"
Some 55 uses of this.

There are also some used of 'logbook' - undocumented

amenity=logbook 10 uses
logbook=yes 3 uses
piste:amenity=logbook 4 uses

So..
Should 'logbooks' be tagged under checkpoint:type=notebook or should they have 
yet another tag?
If they are to be included under checkpoint:type=notebook then I'll add some 
words to the wiki to say so.
If it is a case of 'yet another tag' .. what is your recommendation?


___
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] key: starting=yes ??

[Alberto Nogaro]

As a node, the trailhead proposal might fit as well:



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



Alberto



From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: venerdì 11 maggio 2018 11:33
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] key: starting=yes ??



2018-05-11 11:22 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com 
<mailto:pelder...@gmail.com> >:

Well, in a roundtrip there are often multiple designated starting points with a 
parking lot, information panels, bus stop or railway statin nearby, toilets. 
These designated starting points are commonly shown on paper maps and tourist 
maps, and present themselves as starting points.



I do not see how this is recorded by adding ways.





I agree it is worth tagging (if objectively observable / signposted), and agree 
with Mateusz it has to be part of the route relation, not a node. My suggestion 
would be to add a node (or more if needed) to the route relation with the role 
"start" or "starting_point".

There are already 3476 role "start" in route relations by the way: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/relations/route#roles

And I have found some docu in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfitness_trail



Cheers,

Martin



---
Questa email è stata esaminata alla ricerca di virus da AVG.
http://www.avg.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How might we best map emergency helicopter landing zones?

[Alberto Nogaro]

>-Original Message-
>From: Tom Pfeifer [mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org]
>Sent: mercoledì 23 novembre 2016 00:49
>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] How might we best map emergency helicopter landing
>zones?
>As we just learned from the Korean mountains example, some light markings
>of a pre-planned emergency site does not constitute a helipad.
>
>Maybe the "purpose-built" goes a bit to far and causes misunderstanding, but
>I would consider a helipad to have some regular use, e.g. to receive hospital
>patients, to serve a country's president or the CEO of a large company, etc.

Ah, now it's clearer to me, I had not considered the regular use condition for 
the helipad. Since I'm mostly dealing with spots on the mountains, which are 
marked with an H, and are conceived only for emergencies or for otherwise very 
infrequent use (for example, to resupply a hut a few times a year) I now 
understand that the correct tagging should then be emergency=landing_site, 
maybe with an additional landing_site=marked.

Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] How might we best map emergency helicopter landing zones?

[Alberto Nogaro]

>-Original Message-
>From: Tom Pfeifer [mailto:t.pfei...@computer.org]
>Sent: martedì 22 novembre 2016 14:33
>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] How might we best map emergency helicopter landing
>zones?
>
>aeroway=helipad should be used only for built-up infrastructure, not for
>emergency places that have a different use normally.
>
>An emergency landing place is nothing but a predefined clear space, it could
>be a soccer pitch or a big lawn in a park in normal situations.

I'm confused by the latest edits on the aeroway=helipad and 
emergency=landing_site wiki pages. I had always thought that "a large H painted 
on it visible from the air" was enough to mark the spot as aeroway=helipad, 
even if the place is mainly conceived for emergency purposes. And that 
emergency=landing_site had to be used for places without any marking, just flat 
and suitable for landing (either by airplanes and helicopters). Now it looks 
like a large visible and permanent H, as a "predefined" but not a 
"purpose-built infrastructure", should rather be marked as 
emergency=landing_site? And what about places which have nothing more than a 
visible and permanent H, but can also be used for purposes different from an 
emergency (for example, supply materials not transportable by other means)? 
Furthermore, how do we specify if an emergency=landing_site is conceived for 
helicopters or airplanes as well?

Alberto


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

[Tagging] Proposal to Change Road Classification, Road Surface, Road Condition, and Add Number of Lanes

[Alberto]

Dear OSM staff, contributors, and users:

I have read the definitions, concepts and description that OSM uses to 
characterize (tag) roads and noticed that OSM does not establish the difference 
between inter-urban (rural) roads and urban roads (comprising mostly avenues 
and streets). Therefore, I propose to replace the existing OSM road 
classification with a "functional classification" that would allow OSM "to 
better model and better visualize" the actual road network. I have noticed that 
you have been challenged to adapt to the differences found in each country. If 
the following classification is adopted, it will be a "universal standard" and 
you will not need to adopt different criteria for developed or developing 
countries, like the OSM example for East Africa.

It would be useful to define a road class (paved/unpaved) and a road surface 
type (concrete, asphalt, surface treatment, gravel, earth). I also propose to 
reduce the options for road condition to only five categories defined by the 
need for maintenance or rehabilitation. I can provide a technical definition 
using the International Roughness Index (IRI) for paved and unpaved roads.


I am fully aware that these changes present a major challenge for the existing, 
coding, renderer, editors, etc. However, I am confident that introducing these 
changes (and adding the number of lanes) will not only simplify the mapping 
tasks, but would substantially improve the quality of the OMS products, 
particularly given the fact that many other layers are highly dependent on the 
quality of the road network.


I am a Civil Engineer (MS Stanford) with training on urban planning (MIT) with 
more than 20 years of experience working with international organizations like 
the World Bank and the African Development Bank on roads and highways in more 
than 50 countries, but mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, South Asia, 
East Asia and the Pacific, and Eastern Europe.

Alberto Nogales

202-257-8726


A. FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION for "Motor Vehicles":


Rural (Inter-Urban) Roads - Located outside of urban areas

Classified Road Network. Generally falls under the responsibility of the 
National, Provincial (State), Municipal/Local Government to build, operate and 
maintain.

1. Primary Roads - National, Main, Trunk Roads outside of urban areas that 
connect the main population and economic centers of the country. Typically 
under the responsibility of the National Government and with high levels of 
traffic.

2. Secondary Roads - Regional, State, Provincial Roads are the main feeder 
routes into, and provide the main links between primary roads. Typically under 
the responsibility of the Provincial Government and with medium levels of 
traffic.

3. Tertiary Roads - Municipal, Local, Rural Roads that connect the smaller 
towns to intermediate cities. Typically under the responsibility of the Local 
Governments and with low levels of traffic.

Unclassified Road Network.

4. Unclassified Roads. Mostly private roads or of unknown responsibility to 
build and operate. Typically maintained by local communities or by private 
mining, forestry, or agricultural enterprises.

Urban Network- Located within the boundaries of urban areas

1/2/3. Highway. [Expressway, Motorways] Parts of the Primary, Secondary or 
Tertiary Roads that go across an urban area. Parts of the National, Provincial 
Network. Expressways with limited access. Typically no pedestrian or bicycle 
access.

5. Arterial. [Route, Boulevard] Connecting key areas of urban activity with 
higher traffic levels and longest trip lengths. High speeds with minimum 
interference to through movements, like those used by bus routes.

6. Collector. [Avenue] Provides land access and traffic circulation within 
urban areas. Penetrates neighborhoods, collecting and distributing traffic 
between neighborhoods and arterial network. Medium traffic levels with moderate 
trip lengths. Medium speeds with frequent interference to through movements.

7. Local. [Street] Road used to provide access to adjacent land and to the 
collector network and to higher order of streets. Lower traffic level with 
through traffic deliberately discouraged. Low speed.

8. Path. [Lane, Passage] Narrow mostly single lane in between buildings or 
behind a row of houses without sidewalks. Single direction and lowest level of 
traffic and lowest speed.

Add Classification for "Non-Motor Vehicles" that will not use the term road nor 
highways, like bicycle lane, pedestrian paths, etc.


Total Road Network = Primary + Secondary + Tertiary + Unclassified + Urban


B. ROAD SURFACE CLASS (Paved/Unpaved) & ROAD SURFACE TYPE

1. Paved

1.1 Concrete

1.2 Asphalt

1.3 Surface Treatment

2. Unpaved

2.1 Gravel

2.2 Earth

C. ROAD CONDITION

1. Very Good. Roads do not require any capital costs. Recently completed and/or 
very good quality and high standard.

2. Good. Roads largely free 

[Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Alberto Chung]

Hi, nice proposal, but i think you can improve some tags, like "The
adoption agency proposal would be tagged building=commercial.", i guess is
better use "building=civic". Also, you can add the "operator=*" tag (the
city, state, any NGO...)



Enviado con MailTrack

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (nutrition_supplements)

[Alberto Chung]

Hi again! Voting process is still opened for nutrition_supplements (6 days
remaining)

amm... somebody knows if i can add a proposed icon yet? if not, how i
should do that?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (nutrition_supplements)

[Alberto Chung]

Hi!

Voting process opened for  shop
=nutrition_supplements


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


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 71, Issue 5

[Alberto Chung]

 into
 highway=* for real paths that are not constructed (and that it would
 also render with default mapnik as otherwise the feedback satisfaction
 factor won't be there and it won't fly against highway=path mess that at
 least renders). That would probably make the issue slightly less
 convoluted eventually (and might allow easier migration between footway
 and path or even defining eventually footway == path as someone
 suggested). ...Sadly the highway=trail discussion lead to nowhere on this
 front [1]. There's informal=yes (and perhaps wheelchair=no too) but that's
 2-3 keys with no really good reason, IMHO.

 However, I'm painfully aware that also all these discussions are unlikely
 lead nowhere as highway=path only supporters seem to be unwilling to allow
 such differentiation (which, according to their claims is exactly same
 class as highway=path and therefore it would be trivial to match them in
 the data user end). I also don't believe that it would be that hard to use
 correctly in practice although some likely would try to claim that such
 highway class woule be very subjective.


 --
  i.

 [1]
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-October/005417.html




 -- Mensaje reenviado --
 From: Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Cc:
 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:10:25 +1000
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
 footway vs path
 On 3/08/2015 8:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

 On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:

 Richard Z. wrote

 ...
 I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
 variant
 of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
 unless
 otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
 ...

 @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really
 need 5
 or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?

 Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible highway=path
 along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
 properties. That way we could replace all
 highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
 keys.

 The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags
 and
 assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.

 Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
 of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
 go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
 same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).


 And that leads to the mess 'we' have.
 Taking this to an extreme there would be some 6(access)*6(surface)*6(set
 widths) of highway=path/footway (216 types)
 each with an individual tag
 just so some mappers would not be put to the trouble of entering the data!

 Oh .. and I have left off the cycleway/bridle way too so add another 3!

 Personally I am for the amalgamation of highway=path/footway.
 Not using the sub tag for detail ... is like using shop=yes ... you simply
 mark the presence of something and leave the detail for someone who cares.
 Most who don't use the sub tags are probably not correctly suing
 path/footway either.






 -- Mensaje reenviado --
 From: Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Cc:
 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:30:16 +1000
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging
 On 3/08/2015 7:51 AM, Ruben Maes wrote:

 2015-07-23 0:12 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:

 Finally, and regarding mobile telecom networks, there is this chart which
 try to illustrate components and relations to be made on a mobile station

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radio_antennas_mapping_proposal.png


 Is there a reason for using the key azimuth instead of direction?
 ___


 Azimuth is used in the telecoms and antenna industries. Including GPS
 antennas. So it is a recognised term within those industries and would be
 easily recognised by people in those industries.

 Using a different term may lead to confusion and possible a reduction in
 data entry.



 http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.html






 -- Mensaje reenviado --
 From: Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Cc:
 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:57:15 +1000
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
 On 2/08/2015 9:16 PM, Alberto Chung wrote:





 The proposal is on the wiki page
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/nutrition_supplements

 And states
 Definition: A shop selling vitamins and minerals; food supplements.

 Does the shop have to sell BOTH vitamins and minerals?
 And the semicolon does not make sense.

 Perhaps Definition: A shop selling food nutrition supplements. ???

 Then states

 Use for shops that offer vitamins and minerals, herbal supplements,
 health and beauty

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)

[Alberto Chung]

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

Re: [Tagging] Pathways with steep vertical slopes, accessed via climbing chains

[Alberto Nogaro]

-Original Message-
From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com]
Sent: martedì 4 novembre 2014 04:35
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Pathways with steep vertical slopes, accessed via
climbing chains

Is this the type of thing you are talking about:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata

Depending on the length of the assisted section, you might also consider this:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Safety_measures_on_hiking_trails

Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] incline default unit ?

[Alberto]

The percent sign % or degree sign ° should always be specified in OSM,
otherwise the risk of ambiguities is too high.
Anyway, on scientific side, if you express a ratio in percentage you must
always postpone the % sign. Ratio is a pure number, true, but if you don't
use the % notation, 10% must be written 0.10, 15% becomes 0.15 and 100%
becomes 1.00.
If you write 10 without % it does not mean a ratio of 10% but 1000%.
Bye
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding

[Alberto]

Martin and Chris opinions are opposite but both true.
I thought voting could be a chance to put attention on the proposal, but it
seems that few people care about it.
On the other hand that proposal doesn't conflict with other tags, so I could
simply create a wiki page to document it and bypass voting as Chris
suggests.
So what should I do, extend voting or not?
Alberto


 If you end voting now it means that your proposal is rejected for absence
of interest (must have at least 15 votes). I think given the low number of
opponents you could extend the voting period and try to encourage more
people to participate in the voting.

 cheers,
 Martin


 Voting is pointless and gives tags an air or importance they do not
deserve - there are *no* approved tags, just tags people use. Discussing and
documenting tags is good, but voting is just daft, especially when the
quorum is just 15 out of about 15000 regular mappers.
 If you like the tag and find it useful, use it.

 Chris Hill


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding

[Alberto]

 What your are talking about are genus not species see:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:genus
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:species

You can specify a single species or many species together. Species is not
intended to be in scientific language but in common language, for
simplicity.
The tag is consistent with animal_shelter and animal_boarding where in
species you could specify dog or mammal or little_mammal or pet or
sea_bird or sea_turtle: so a scientific classification is not
appropriate here, and would discourage the common mapper.


 Landuse=grass seems to be to general better use meadow.

Yes, landuse=grass is general for grass area for example in a dog or cat
breeding. If the grass area is used to feed animals, landuse=meadow or
better landuse=farmland should be used, but probably it would be outside the
breeding facility itself. However, ok, I will put a link to landuse=meadow
or landuse=farmland too.

Thank you for your comments.
Cheers
Alberto



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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding

[Alberto]

I remember you that the voting of this proposal is under way and will end on
2013-06-15:

 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding

 

Please express your opinion, so we can finally end the procedure and create
a definitive wiki page.

Thank you

Alberto

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding

[Alberto]

I ask you to express your opinion about this proposal, by voting it:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding

 

So if you approve it, I can set up the final page on the wiki.

 

Thank you

Alberto - Viking81

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (amenity=animal_breeding)

[Alberto]

Because no oppositions or comments have come so far, I request you to vote
on this proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding

Thank you. Cheers.

Alberto - Viking81

 

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=animal_breeding)

[Alberto]

Since I didn't receive any opposition so far, next week I would put to the
vote this proposal:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding

Use discussion page for any comment.

Bye

Alberto

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

[Alberto]

 could you explain why highway=crossing doesn't work, and why you think
there must be access-tags on the crossing node?

Because highway=crossing by default is for pedestrian. We are talking of
bicycle only crossings (not pedestrian + bicycle).
And there isn't yet an established way to tag it.
So option A) or B) or something else we can discuss here.

 I think highway=crossing + foot=no + bicycle=designated is enough.
Janko
 we are turning in circles, it was already discovered in a parallel thread
that this tagging would prevent the crossing node from being traversed by
pedestrians also on the street.
 Martin

Exactly as says Martin. And I opened this thread with a proposal [1] that is
a possible solution for the problem discovered in that previous thread.
We can use also the proposal discussion page, if you want.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bicycle_crossing

Cheers
Alberto



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

[Alberto]

 It should not prevent this. We already use tags like bicycle=no on
 crossings, and they do not mean that bicycles may not travel along the
 street being crossed - only that this crossing is not for them.
 More generally, it would be wrong to assume that any access tag on a
 node within a street applies to that street. That is only the case if
 used together with particular other tags, such as barrier=*.
 Tobias

On what basis do you say this? I can't find any documentation about this
interpretation.
Reading the access documentation I (and any data user) would assume that an
access tag on a node would influence all ways passing through that node.
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

[Alberto]

 my interpretation would be that no means that they are not permitted to
ride across the crossing. If you tag a node the tags apply to this node,
and therefor also the street would be blocked at this node for the bicycle.
 OK, that wouldn't make much sense, I agree, still, the wiki doesn't really
help us here, and a tagging in this way might have unpredicted results.
 IMHO it is generally not a very good idea to reuse access-tags to specify
the type of crossing, at least not on a node. Effectively a crossing is
never 1-dimensional, it would result in much clearer mapping to tag the
crossing in its whole length (way) for unambiguity.

I completely agree with Martin. BUT in some cases crossings are tagged only
with a node, especially in initial mapping.
So we are here again: what's about the proposal for cicleway-only-crossing
tag, like highway=bicycle_crossing? After all it is a specific OSM object,
we haven't a tag for it and workarounds using key:access can be
misunderstood. So why not a new tag?
OR we must write in the wiki that cicleway-only-crossings have to be mapped
ALWAYS as ways. But then for consistency we should tag also pedestrian
crossings always as ways...
Cheers
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

[Alberto]

From: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com
If not possible please use highway=crossing with crossing:barrier=* and
crossing:access=no crossing:bicycle=designated

It may be a solution. But it is not documented and neither used, according
to Taginfo. So we should decide what is the best for node-only cycleway
crossing and document it.
Option A) highway=bicycle_crossing
Option B) highway=crossing + crossing:access=no +
crossing:bicycle=designated
Please tell me. Thanks.
I would prefer solution A) for simplicity expecially for new mappers.
Alberto


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing) (Alberto)

[Alberto]

As a result of the discussion done here about bicycle-only crossings, I've
made a proposal:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bicycle_crossing
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bicycle_crossing

Cheers

Alberto - Viking81

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

[Alberto]

If the cycleways coming to the crossing are tagged as foot=no, then why
does the crossing have to be tagged with access tags?

Janko

If the cycleway is drawn as a way there is no problem. The problem is only
when you tag the crossing node and you don't draw the cycleway.
Alberto


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=animal_breeding)

[Alberto]

I've created this new proposal [1]: user
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:EdLoach EdLoach noticed that there
isn't a tag for animal breedings.

The proposal follows the schema of approved tags amenity=animal_shelter [2]
and amenity=animal_boarding [3]

 

[1]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Animal_breeding

[2]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_shelter
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_shelter

[3]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_boarding
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_boarding

 

Cheers

Viking81 - Alberto

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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

[Alberto]

 I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with 
 highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would not use access=no 
 because it can be misunderstood and routing software could prevent 
 access to the main street.

From your description it seems that the node might be forbidden to be
crossed by pedestrians (assuming that this crossing is between a cycle way
and a street it would prevent pedestrians to use the street as well)

cheers,
Martin 

You are right, there is anyway a problem for the main street access. So
should we introduce a new tag for single-node cycle crossing?
Or a workaround is to draw the crossing as a way, as I've already said.
Cheers
Alberto - Viking81



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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names

[Alberto]

I think we need some clean-up in the traffic signals tags/relations anyway.

+1 for single traffic signals tags and for a relations to manage them. Who
wants to make a proposal?
Viking81


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

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

[Alberto]

 This is where I still don't understand you: why do I need to specify 
 that
 a feature XXX has the role XXX? Why do I need to specify, that a 
 generator is a generator? A substation a substation? A dam a dam? A 
 valve a valve? A weir a weir? And so on.


 This is just because a role must be specified.


 Why do I have to specify a role?

Yes, roles can be omitted. In some existing types of relations members
haven't a role.
In this case we can omit them.
Viking81



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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

[Alberto]

I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with
highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would not use access=no because
it can be misunderstood and routing software could prevent access to the
main street.
The best solution is to tag intersection node with highway=crossing and draw
the cycle crossing with a way tagged with highway=cycleway and
cicleway=crossing.
Bye
Viking81


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

Re: [Tagging] Life cycle group

[Alberto]

Well, disused:*=* and abandoned:*=* are widely used, you could simply link
to their Wiki pages.
For construction, we should make a general proposal separated from power
refinements, as you suggest.
Bye
Viking81 - Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

[Alberto]

Thanks François for your great work.
One thing: in PV solar panel example, you should change
generator:type=solar_panel to generator:type=solar_photovoltaic _panel, for
consistency with the rest of the proposal.
+1 for relations: as written in the proposal, this advanced tagging is
optional, it is allowed to ensure consistency with wind farms, and ease the
computing of total power plant rating, by adding all the generator:output:*
values of its generator members.
It is useful for wind farms, solar fields, hydro dams, and anywhere the
power elements are dispersed and without a physical perimeter.
Bye
Viking81 - Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] fire_hydrant extensions proposal

[Alberto]

In Italy diameters are measured in millimeters. I think that the
international standard (outside UK and US) is millimeters, not centimeters.
Here for underground and over ground hydrants most commons diameters are 45
mm and 70 mm.
Flow capacity is measured in liters / minute but in Italy normally it isn't
published on the signs.
Pressure is measured in bar, it is the pressure of the local water network,
and in Italy normally this isn't published on the signs too.
Alberto - Viking81


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

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?

[Alberto]

Thank you for your photo. I've also updated the animal page [1] and I reused
your photo.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal

Bye
Alberto


Thanks for the update of the wiki. I added one of my photos.

Best regards,
Martin


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

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?

[Alberto]

To Martin Vonwald.
I've added field_shelter here [1].
Can you upload a picture for it? I haven't one and I don't want to upload a
copyrighted picture.
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type

Thank you
Alberto - Viking81


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

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?

[Alberto]

Some time has passed but nothing has been changed on the Wiki.
So about amenity=shelter + shelter_type=field_shelter + (if necessary)
access=private, should I create a proposal page and vote it to change [1]
and [2] or should I simply update these pages according to what we discussed
here?

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal

Alberto - Viking81

-

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:24:17 +0100
From: Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com

Makes sense. So we're back to amenity.

Something like amenity=shelter + shelter_type=field_shelter + (if
necessary) access=private should cover it.

Martin

2013/2/6 Alberto albertoferra...@fastwebnet.it:
 I'm against animal=shelter. As emerged in previous discussions, an 
 animal is not a shelter.
 It exists amenity=animal_shelter [1] for large structures with a staff 
 that takes care of animals and that eventually heals them.
 On taginfo already exists animal=shelter, and in many cases it has 
 been used to tag what now is tagged with amenity=animal_shelter. The 
 migration is slow because we have to check every single case.
 For consistency with other shelter's tags [2], I would use:
 amenity=shelter
 shelter_type=field_shelter
 The availability can be specified by access=* tags.
 After all if you need a shelter against bad weather, you can use also 
 a field shelter, if it is accessible. In this sense consistency with 
 amenity=shelter tag is useful.
 You should also update page on shelters [2] and on animals [3] when 
 we'll agree on field shelters' tagging.

 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_shelter
 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
 [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal

 Alberto - Viking81





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

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?

[Alberto]

I'm against animal=shelter. As emerged in previous discussions, an animal is
not a shelter.
It exists amenity=animal_shelter [1] for large structures with a staff that
takes care of animals and that eventually heals them.
On taginfo already exists animal=shelter, and in many cases it has been used
to tag what now is tagged with amenity=animal_shelter. The migration is slow
because we have to check every single case.
For consistency with other shelter's tags [2], I would use:
amenity=shelter
shelter_type=field_shelter
The availability can be specified by access=* tags.
After all if you need a shelter against bad weather, you can use also a
field shelter, if it is accessible. In this sense consistency with
amenity=shelter tag is useful.
You should also update page on shelters [2] and on animals [3] when we'll
agree on field shelters' tagging.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_shelter
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal

Alberto - Viking81


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

Re: [Tagging] wiki building=hangar

[Alberto]

so the french, italiano and deutch wiki are wrong when it's explain
building=hangar is for storing good?
i can modify the french wiki but not all others language
cheers
didier

To me they seem wrong compared to the English page. If you agree I can
modify the Italian page.
Bye
Alberto - Viking81


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

[Tagging] R: agglom?ration

[Alberto]

How do we tag agglom?rations?

What's about the proposal for urban settlements?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements

Alberto



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

Re: [Tagging] Places admin boundaries

[Alberto]

 1) Polygon vs point for Populated urban areas (place=city, town...):

Hello, we talked about this problem in Italian list [1].
We agreed that boundaries and places should not be confused because in
general they refer to different things.
We also agreed that tagging the urban area with landuse=residential is wrong
in most cases because the urban area comprehends also commercial and
industrial zones.
We concluded that to maintain compatibility with places tagged only on the
central node, it would be appropriate to maintain the tag place=* on the
node and to tag the urban area polygon with a new tag.
We created a new proposal for urban area tagging [2]: any advice is
appreciated.

[1]
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tag-place-ridondanti-td5727924.html#a5729470
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urban_settlements

Cheers
Alberto - Viking81


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

Re: [Tagging] Lane dividers

[Alberto]

Two issues I see here:
* type:divider - this key doesn't seem very intuitive to me. No, I don't
have a better one right now but I'll start thinking ;-)
* values: if we tag the way the divider looks, any application has to
understand all values in all countries. I'll ask again: do we really gain
important information to justify this? Of course I know the counter-argument
to my own argument: if we only tag the effect a renderer which really
renders lanes has to know how to render each effect in each country. So no
matter how we solve this, one kind of application has a problem.

I think that tagging the effect is more important than the actual behavior
of the sign.
If you are in an unknown country, what would you like from your GPS, that it
gives you correct navigation instructions or correct rendering?
The rendering can be adjusted country by country, if needed.
Regards
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] Status of building=stable

[Alberto]

You're right. I'll change the proposal in the following way:
a) building=stable, no building:use: looks like a stable, used as a stable
b) building=stable, building:use=not stable: looks like a stable,
but used for something different
c) building=whatever, building:use=stable: looks like whatever,
but is used as stable
I assume, that the majority of who used building=stable in the past
meant it is used as a stable.
Better?
Martin

+1. Since this tag is already used, I think that you should also create a
page in active map features, not only in proposed features.
cheers
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

[Alberto]

I created a new picture very much  based on the old one. Just made the road
gray to try to make it more clearer?
http://minkarta.no-ip.org/Lanes_Example_2.svg
Im not sure how to upload it so if anyone thinks this is better please do,
otherwise I atleast learned a little what I can do in inkscape :).
Best Regards Tobias J

I like it, but you must convert it into .png before you can overwrite the
existing file.
Alberto



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

[Alberto]

  a) One way with lanes=4
  b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each
  c) Tell me!

a) because distinction between physical and legal barriers is important.
Ok in that picture there is no much difference, but as Simone pointed out,
for long roads there is a big difference: if any router can't distinguish
between physical and legal barrier, it will not suggest to emergency vehicle
to cross the line, and it will tell them to do a long alternative trip
instead. This is a big problem, because when you are driving the GPS shows
you only a little portion of the route and you may not understand
(especially in emergency) that you can shorten the route simply crossing the
line.
Moreover if we accept solution b) we should tag every road with continuous
line in the middle as two separate roads, one for each direction.

Additionally to the lanes=4 and oneway=yes you could put a divider-tag on
the way http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divider
even if it doesn't explicitly tell you where the divider is placed you
might be able to infer it from the following ways (at least in this case).

+1 We can improve this proposal, to make clear where the divider is placed.

Cheers
Alberto (Viking81)


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal shelters and animal boarding facilities

[Alberto]

Because we found a good compromise in the definition and nobody demands for
changes any more, I put the proposal forward for voting:

 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal_shelters_and_animal_boarding_faci
lities
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal_shelters_and_animal_boarding_facil
ities

 

Thank you

Alberto (Viking81)

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal shelters and animal boarding facilities

[Alberto]

Because we found a good compromise in the definition and nobody demands for
changes any more, I put the proposal forward for voting:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal_shelters_and_animal_boarding_facil
ities


Thank you
Alberto (Viking81)


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

[Tagging] Animal shelters and animal boarding facilities

[Alberto]

I've rewritten the proposal about animal shelters according to your
suggestions.

 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal_shelters_and_animal_boarding_faci
lities
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal_shelters_and_animal_boarding_facil
ities

Check it and if all is ok we can go to the voting phase.

Thank you

Alberto (Viking81)

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

[Tagging] Animal_shelter and animal_boarding

[Alberto]

Because some of you requested a more generic tag than kennel or cattery, and
others pointed out that animal shelter and boarding kennels/catteries should
be distinct, I ask to everybody if a good compromise could be to have
amenity=animal_shelter and amenity=animal_boarding. 
Please leave your comments here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_shelter  so we can see all of
them together.
Thank you
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] Animal_shelter, multiple semicolon separated

[Alberto]

Ok, how many of you vote to separate tags amenity=animal_shelter and
amenity=animal_boarding? I want opinions from other countries, not only
from United Kingdom.
We could also use the key animal_boarding=species to specify that a
facility offers boarding service (e.g. amenity=veterinary +
animal_boarding=cat;dog).
In the case of a boarding kennel it would be amenity=animal_boarding +
animal_boarding=dog
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] Animal_shelter, multiple semicolon separated

[Alberto]

We are looking for a general tag that comprehends all facilities that can
host animals of any kind and for any purpose.
Maybe animal shelter doesn't sound very good in some cases, but it is the
most general definition we found.
It is not true that boarding kennels and adoption kennels are very
different. Here in Italy it is very common that the same kennel offers
boarding and adoption.
So I didn't ignore you, but simply it isn't true that they are always
different. And a worldwide definition must be open to all cases.
In the definition something tagged as:
amenity=animal_shelter + animal_shelter:boarding=dog
is a boarding kennel, not a wildlife rescue center that would be:
amenity=animal_shelter + animal_shelter:release=wildlife
But the power of the general definition is that you can correctly describe
any mixed case without creating a dedicated key for each case.
For example you can describe a facility that recover stray dogs and gives
them in adoption while it offers boarding for dogs and cats. Or a facility
that recovers any type of wounded animals, including stray dogs, then it
gives dogs and cats in adoption while rehabilitates and releases wild
animals.
Alberto

 I have a cousin who runs boarding kennels for cats, dogs and a few other 
 small pets. If he saw his business described on OSM as an animal shelter 
 he would be horrified.
 
 An animal shelter is a place where abandoned or injured animals are 
 taken to be cared for. Some stay for life, some pets may be found new 
 homes and some wild animals that recover from injuries may be released. 
 The wild animal version and the pet versions are usually separate. 
 Animal shelters are often run by charities.
 
 Boarding kennels (or a cattery) is a place where pets are boarded for a 
 while, but their owners return to collect them. A very few boarding 
 kennels offer quarantine facilities for people bringing animals into a 
 country from overseas. Kennels are usually run as a business.
 
 Animal shelter and boarding kennels are very different in the same way a 
 charity shop and a supermarket are very different. We should describe 
 them separately.
 
+1
I have already pointed out how very very wrong the use of the words
animal shelter is in the Kennels thread but it appears to be being
ignored.
http://www.mail-archive.com/tagging@openstreetmap.org/msg11341.html

Most pet owners do not consider their cat or dog an animal, and would
never consider boarding them at an rescue centre. Humans are also
animals.

Catterys often describe themselves as 'Cats Hotel' or 'Cats Motel'.

More upmarket kennels and catterys often provide TV.

Phil


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=animal_shelter)

[Alberto]

I've changed the proposal amenity=kennel to amenity=animal_shelter.

I ask your help to refine it. See the related discussion page.

Thanks a lot.

Alberto

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

[Tagging] animal shelter

[Alberto]

Phil wrote:

An animal shelter is a place where lost, or abandoned animals are taken.
Either to be cared for, or re-homed. UK examples are charities such as
the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs Home and numerous other smaller
places.

Animal shelter appropriate in those cases, but not in the case of
Boarding Kennels, or Boarding Catteries where you take your pet to be
cared for whilst you go on holiday. For these I would propose
amenity=boarding_kennel and amenity=boarding_cattery. 

---

This isn't true: in Italy there are animal shelters that take lost animals
but they have also some boxes to take pets from people who go on holiday.
If we are looking for a general tag, we have to find one that can fit in all
the world.
The distinction you say can be done with additional tags, like
boarding=yes/no, stray=yes/no.
Alberto


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

[Tagging] amenity=kennel to amenity=animal_shelter

[Alberto]

- Mail original -

I also think that amenity=animal_shelter with other tags to indicate
kinds of animals goes in the sense of OSM tagging. Things like
animal=shelter are nonsense: a shelter is not an animal, whereas an
animal_shelter is an amenity.

To set a general rule of thumb, for those tags that are not boolean
properties (yes/no), the value (animal_shelter) shall be an item from the
set represented by the key (amenity).

To remove ambiguities related to short tags like horse=yes, why not using
another set of specific tags indicating whether a kind of animal is accepted
in the shelter, like animal_shelter:dog=yes, animal_shelter:cat=yes,
animal_shelter:horse=yes and so on, maybe refining the attribute yes by
something more useful?

Teuxe

+1.
I'll put these tags in a proposal amenity=animal_shelter.

What do you think about refine it in animal_shelter:dog:stray=yes/no,
animal_shelter:dog:boarding=yes/no and so on for other species?
If you know a kennel is for stray and boarding you should tag with
amenity=animal_shelter, animal_shelter:dog:stray=yes  and
animal_shelter:dog:boarding=yes .
If you don't know the purpose of a kennel you just tag it with
amenity=animal_shelter and animal_shelter:dog=yes.
If you don't know neither the species kept in a shelter, you just tag it
with amenity=animal_shelter.
Is it too complicated?

Or maybe it would be better for a stray and boarding kennel to tag it with
amenity=animal_shelter and animal_shelter:dog=stray;boarding ?
Which solution would be correctly interpreted by route planning software?

Alberto



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

[Tagging] amenity=kennel

[Alberto]

I don't think stable is a good tagging for all animal shelters, as you and
other people say, stable is for horses.

In addition the proposal was to add a tag stable to a building or a part of
it. But a kennel for example is a wider area that includes buildings,
courtyards and meadows.

We can add a tag amenity=kennel (or any more general if we can find it) to
the whole area and then within it you can add building=yes, landuse=grass
and so on.

I think that the key amenity should be used, and do not introduce a new key.

About the more general tagging, what do you think about
amenity=animal_shelter with dog=yes or cat=yes or wild_animals=yes and so
on?

In this case a tag for each animal species accepted should be added, because
in the same structure you can host dogs and cats or different wild animal
species. So for example you cannot set at the same time stable=dog and
stable=cat.

In this way we could use amenity=animal_shelter also for animal recovery
centers held by WWF or any other associations. You can also add a tag
operator=*.

Last but not least, why don't we move to the Discussion Page, so anyone can
see this discussion, not only people subscribed to this mailing list?

Any suggestion from native speakers is welcome.

Alberto 

 

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:00:19 +0200

From: Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com

To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

tagging@openstreetmap.org

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=kennel)

Message-ID:

 
cakjckyon+j+8oezocrsbtv-0ytkszumpu30gmz7fucwghqn...@mail.gmail.com

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

 

2012/9/13   mailto:te...@free.fr te...@free.fr:

 Thank you for your proposal.

 Couldn't we have some more general tagging for this purpose? Such
facilities can generally keep other kinds of animals (like SPA, Soci?t?
Protectrice des Animaux in France) so why having a specific tag for dogs?

 

Actually I just revived an old proposal for stables [1]. My first thought
was to simply use stables=animal until someone with much better english
language skills pointed out that stables usually only refer to horses. I
would also like to see one common tag for some place where animals are kept
and taken care of. Any suggestions from native speakers?

 

Martin

 

[1]  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Stable
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Stable

 

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

[Tagging] amenity=kennel

[Alberto]

Ok, because according to English native speakers there isn't a single word
that indicates a facility where animals are kept and the staff feeds them
and cares of them, I propose to change from amenity=kennel to
amenity=animal_shelter.
In Italy there are centers for dogs only, cats  only, dogs and cats, wild
animals in general, wild sea animals only, wild birds only and so on. Any
combination is potentially allowed, so adding a tag dog=yes, cat=yes,
wild_animals=yes, wild_birds=yes and so on is useful.

pet_keeping is not used according to taginfo and it is too restrictive:
there are facilities that don't held pets but wild animals.

building=asylum is not intuitive and it's not used according to taginfo.
Moreover the key building is too restrictive for a center that can include
buildings, meadows, courtyards.

Amenity=animal_boarding is too restrictive: there are kennels that take
stray dogs, catteries for stray cats, rescue centers for wounded wild
animals.

On the other hand amenity=animal_shelter is intuitive and already in use
according to taginfo. Also animal=shelter is already in use: in the wiki
animal page it's suggested to use it, but on what basis? There isn't any
proposal page and it hasn't been voted.
Ultimately I think we have to unify amenity=animal_shelter and
animal=shelter in one tag, refine and officialize it. I think that with a
feature page and with a preset in editors, one of these could become an
universally used tag.
Then we can refine it and add one or more additional tags for the purpose of
the facility.
I prefer amenity=animal_shelter to animal=shelter because according to
wiki amenities are an assortment of community facilities and an animal
shelter is one of them.
On the other hand the key animal is not defined on the wiki and according
to taginfo it's often used to indicate a species of animal or simply
animal=yes.
We have already amenity=veterinary and not animal=veterinary, so why not
amenity=animal_shelter?
Alberto


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=kennel)

[Alberto]

 

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (amenity=kennel)

[Alberto]

Here the link to the proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kennel

Thank you for any comment.

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

Re: [Tagging] Towing service?

[Alberto Nogaro]

-Original Message-
From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith
Sent: domenica 9 gennaio 2011 12.00
To: m...@koppenhoefer.com; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Towing service?

It shouldn't matter, however using craft=* is likely to really confuse
native english speakers as others have pointed out craft is something
really different to a trade and expectations of that will cause people
to either complain or mistag because they're confused. I'm not sure
how to make this explicitly clear to reduce confusion, which is why
tag names are usually picked to reduce confusion.

Maybe the handycraft value might hint that the craft key is used in OSM with 
a broader meaning?

Alberto 


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

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

[Alberto Nogaro]

-Original Message-
From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simone Saviolo
Sent: venerdì 27 agosto 2010 9.41
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com:
 * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself
 should probably be tagged with foot=no.

-1. no is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a
road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). 

Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when
paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. They are
only allowed to walk on a road when designated paths either don't exist or
are some reason unusable (see Codice della strada, paragraph 190, clause 1).
I don't know about other countries, though.

Regards
Alberto


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