Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?
On 25.3.2020 16.20, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: In that case, please add it to wikidata with a reference, but it would not be appropriate for Openstreetmap. Unlike wikipedia and wikidata, which are based on references and citations to "authoritative" sources, Openstreetmap has always been designed as a primary source: we map real, current features which you can visit in person. I agree that names in fictional languages should not be added to name: tags, nor any name which cannot possibly be confirmed to be true or false by local mappers. If an Indonesian mapper adds name:id=* tags to every village in northern Finland, how is anyone to confirm that they are right or wrong? I strongly disagree with this. IMO the OSM data should be useful, and because of that we should use our common sense just as in any other tagging issue. The data won't be useful, if we can't actually add all the relevant information but instead limit to whatever information is available strictly on-the-ground. If this were the case, I'd found a new project for actually useful information and stop contributing to OSM. In my email I provided two links for verifying the Finnish name Jokohama for Yokohama. Do you believe it's easier to find someone local in Yokohama to verify this instead of verifying it online? If an Indonesian mapper adds a name:id=* to the villages in Northern Finland, I wouldn't go on-site to verify the data, I'd rather look up the names online. That's the same thing I do as a first step to any data in Finland, even data in Finnish. I know ground verifiability is the guideline in OSM, but I'm sure there's plenty of other tags that also somewhat expand from it. The wiki even acknowledges this: ”OSM data should, as far as is reasonably possible, be verifiable.” – the point I'm making being _reasonably possible_. IMO the requirement you're suggesting isn't reasonable. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?
On 25.3.2020 12.58, Christoph Hormann wrote: In terms of our traditional values and principles active use of the name is not the necessary criterion, it is verifiable local knowledge. Like with any kind of names practical verification of names would be possible by inquiring about the name to people locally. This essentially means the following practical requirements: * there being a sufficient number of people present locally that speak/write the language in question. Those don't have to be people living there, it can also be visitors. * these people knowing the name in said language - being able to look it up on some external source does not count, that is wikipedia verifiability, not OSM verifiability. * these people largely consistently agreeing on the same name. I slightly disagree with this one. IMO a name in a foreign language would be admissible if it is recognised by native speakers of the language either back home or in the local community OR if the name is otherwise regarded correct by mainstream media or a language authority. I recently checked if the foreign cities listed in the Finnish Wikipedia as having a specific Finnish name were correct in OSM. I stumbled upon Yokohama, for which I didn't know there's a Finnish wording (Jokohama). However once I saw it, it definitely is understandable and clearly Finnish. It is also used by the Finnish mainstream media[1] and endorsed by the Institute for the Languages of Finland[2], which is the authority responsible for recommendations concerning the Finnish language. Still, if asked, I wouldn't have instantly been able to recognise the name as correct despite being a native Finnish speaker. 1) https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10956002 2) http://www.kielitoimistonohjepankki.fi/haku/jokohama/ohje/633 Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”
On 21.9.2019 12.52, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I'd see that very suitable. You can define the subtype by tagging community_centre=*, and I would not see a requirement that the facility needs to be open to everybody, it can be for a specific user group, which can be tagged with community_centre:for=* . This is the one that seems most suitable from the current tags, but I'm still a bit stuck on the idea that a community centre should also have some communal functions. These course centres I'm referring to don't really belong to the community, but basically just provide space for rent for users, which are usually non-profit because of the low-end facilities. When I look at the definition of a community centre in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_centre#Uses_and_activities), the only one that matches IMO is the one about renting a space. Is it thus really a community centre? Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”
On 23.9.2019 9.49, Warin wrote: "Thirty en-suite bedrooms ranging from standard and family rooms to individually styled Executive Rooms. All bedrooms are equipped with tea and coffee-making facilities, telephones and colour televisions. Dormitory accommodation and camping facilities are also available by arrangement. Exclusive use of the hotel, its grounds and facilities can be arranged subject to availability. Camping is available which must be booked in advance. The charge is £6 per person per night which includes use of the indoor heated swimming pool and showers. It seems I forgot about this discussion, sorry! Anyway, I meant that the course centers I'm referring to are more low end – no reception, no staff (except possibly a cook, though only in the larger ones). The one you linked seemed more high-end with en-suite rooms, reception and other facilities. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=
On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote: But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that shop, in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect the rest of the shop via a lift. Maybe a tagging with bottle_return=yes bottle_return:type=machine for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts bottle_return=yes bottle_return:type=checkout would be more accurate? I think it's not a good idea to limit this useful tag to just bottles. Cans, bottle crates and as we can see also other containers can be returned in a reverse vending machine or a return point. So instead of bottle_return I suggest container_return respectively. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
On 14.1.2020 13.06, Simon Poole wrote: Currently I see the usual problem that the discussion is trying to solve the general problem. Is anybody actually interested in if free water is dispensed in other than bring your own container/bottle scenarios? IMO this is also an interesting concept for use in bars, night clubs etc. – I myself try to choose establishments that provide free water at least when buying a drink, preferably also without buying a drink at the same time. In Finland it is quite usual to provide it, but since it isn't required, many establishments also charge for a glass of water, silly as it is. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”
On 22.9.2019 1.52, Warin wrote: There are similar places , mostly to run corporate training events .. for example Baskerville Hall Hotel, http://www.baskervillehall.co.uk/ Way: Baskerville Hall Hotel (502969627). Tagged as a Hotel in OSM. You can camp there, and they have conference rooms too. This indeed seems more like a hotel than these course centers I'm referring to. They don't have reception or en-suite rooms and are quite a bit more low-end. Best regards -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”
On 21.9.2019 13.56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Could you provide a link to one of these? I think these might be what we call a “retreat center” in the USA. They are campsites used for groups only, or sometimes more like resorts with chalets and apartments. If the accommodations are tents and rough cabins mainly, I would use tourism=camp_site plus group_only=yes The tag group_only was meant for campsites that are just for groups: "Is it only usable for a group, eg. Church Groups, Schools, Clubs?" (seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site) Sure. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450218735 This is one of the large ones. The center's web site is at https://www.turunseurakunnat.fi/kirkot-ja-tilat/leirikeskukset/kunstenniemen-leirikeskus . This is a center which has a camping ground and multiple larger cabins with multi-person rooms for accommodation and one or more meeting rooms for trainings, programme etc. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/727035045 The center's web site is at https://hp.partio.fi/hameen-partiopiiri/kokoustilat-ja-leirialueet/laitikkala/ . This is a smaller center with a single building containing group accommodation rooms for about 50 people, a few group meetings rooms and one larger meeting rooms, plus kitchen and dining room. I've previously used camp_site for these, but it seems a bit unsuitable since they're not really only used for accommodation but has indoor accommodation and meeting facilities. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”
Hi, At least in Finland we have course centers maintained by non-profit organisations, for example religious and scout organisations. These usually have accommodation space to some extent, kitchen facilities and usually also some yard space for tents and other outdoor accommodation for having larger outdoor events. They're located in the countryside away from the city center and for example hotels. I was wondering what would be a good way to tag these. I found the following alternatives from the current wiki descriptions: – leisure=summer_camp. Not suitable because these facilities are used round the year and they're not used by a single entity, but rented to different uses (often with some limitations though, for example not for parties etc.) – tourism=camp_site. Not suitable because these facitilies are not rented freely to campers but mainly to groups for courses, camps etc. – amenity=social_centre. Not suitable because they're not for the use of only a single entity but all kinds of non-profits. – amenity=community_centre. Not suitable because they are only used for private or limited events, ie. are not used for regular support groups or other community activities. – amenity=events_venue. This also doesn't seem suitable since it's more low-key having group accommodation in larger rooms and not being suitable for actual parties or similar. – Proposed amenity=conference_centre. This doesn't fit since it's more low-key. Usually there are meeting rooms and possible even an auditorium, but the facility is usually in the countryside or at least away from the city centre and for example hotels. – amenity=course_centre. This is an undocumented tag that is used by one facility in Finland, which seems to be one of the course centres I'm meaning. Any ideas for tagging these other than the last (very little used) one, or would it be better to use it and document it on the wiki? Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging
On 3.4.2019 19.40, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Despite the feedback that maxspeed:conditional would be better suited > for this use case, this key has now been documented on the wiki: > https://wiki.osm.org/Key:maxspeed:seasonal:winter > > I find that rather disappointing because the key is a poor fit with > several existing conventions. Even if we keep "winter" in the key, the > ":seasonal" should definitely be dropped. After all, we use > maxspeed:forward (not maxspeed:directional:forward) and maxspeed:hgv > (not maxspeed:vehicular:hgv). > > Conditional restrictions still strike me as the best solution, though, > and there are a few hundred examples in the database already. The feedback was quite limited and you or anyone else expressed no definite stance against documenting the current practice. As the use case currently has no documented solutions, I considered it appropriate to document at least the most common one. This is considering there was no clear opposition for documenting it, although some alternatives were suggested. We have also discussed this on #osm-fi@freenode and I considered also that input in the decision to write the documentation. Points raised raised in the discussions on #osm-fi@freenode were that a) the winter speed limit is a relatively long-term condition, being applied up to half of the year, b) having this kind of long-term condition applied in the same scheme as short-term conditions may make it more difficult to apply and understand ways that have both a winter speed limit and other conditional speed limits, c) many users also thought that the conditional scheme overall is difficult for data consumers to use, and unlike short-term conditions, it's important that the winter speed limit is easy to parse and use to make sure the data is accurate at least most of the whole year. I think it's most important that we at least have one scheme documented, otherwise people won't create the tag at all. maxspeed:seasonal:winter is the only one that is IMO used enough to warrant documentation without proposal, and therefore I decided to document it based on the input. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] capacity=* of bicycle sharing stations when no. of bikes > no. of stands
On 31.3.2019 4.51, Michał Brzozowski wrote: > A new bicycle-sharing scheme called MEVO has just (sort of) started in > Poland. > It consists of 660 stations, which function like regular bicycle stands > (no active parts). > > The bikes are station-less, which means they can be left in almost any > place in the city except excluded zones (albeit for a small extra fee). > The normal intended usage is to leave them at stations, which is > verified by GPS geofencing. This implies that people may (and they did) > leave more bicycles than there are stands at some stations. > > How should we map the number of stands, if it's not really a measure of > capacity? > One mapper that mapped them went with e.g. capacity="5 stands", but this > doesn't seem elegant or parsable to me. IMO this sounds like a problem that would also happen for example in the Turku city bike scheme. Here there are a number of racks in the station area, but even if the station is full one can leave the bike chained to another city bike, and so the number of bikes can easily double from the designated capacity. I think it makes sense to still use the capacity as the designed capacity, ie. number of stands (unless one can leave one bike on both sides of the stands, in which case the capacity is double the number of stands.) Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging
Hi, In Finland most of our main roads have their speed limit changed for up to six months in the winter. The change takes place over a period of (usually) a few weeks, partly depending on the area's weather conditions. The change is mostly done by changing the physical actual traffic signs, although on some of the more recent main roads there are variable speed limit signs. It's therefore a bit different than other scenario speed limits, for example smog and hazard limits. I've been using the following scheme: – maxspeed defining the normal (summer) maxspeed, to ensure that there's a decent value that all software understands. – maxspeed:seasonal:winter for winter maxspeed, and :forward/:backward appended as necessary On motorways with variable speed limits I've additionally added a maxspeed:variable:max to indicate the highest (summer) speed limit allowed on the highway. I'd like to document the scheme I've used to OSM wiki, but I'd like to hear your input on a) does this sound sensible or should we make some changes and b) does this need to go through the proposal process or could it be documented as a de facto approved tag? P.S. I found three ways that these winter speed limits are currently tagged: – maxspeed:seasonal:winter (2864 uses) – maxspeed:conditional=80 @ (winter) (570 uses) – maxspeed:winter (167 uses) And a few one-way taggings: – maxspeed:seasonal:winter:forward (13 uses) – maxspeed:backward:seasonal:winter (4 uses) – maxspeed:seasonal:winter:backward (3 uses) A bit unrelated: – maxspeed:practical:winter (45 uses) – minspeed:winter (8 uses) Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra
On 26.10.2018 13.26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Re: marking= zebra > Problem is that the zebra stripes can have different meaning in > different countries. In Italy it can mean, depending on the context: > "foot-only" or "foot-and-bicycle". In addition we also have additional > non-zebra signing for bicycles. > It would be much better to distinguish between "marked" and "unmarked" > for the horizontal signalling, without specifying the signalling details > and use foot=yes|no and bicycle=yes|no|dismount (?) to indicate the type > of traffic that can cross. > > Re: precedence of vertical signalling over horizontal signalling > I am not sure about this here in Italy and even less so in other countries. > We do have here many crossings that consist only of painted zebra > stripes on the ground without any vertical sign. > > Re: Zebra markings with traffic lights > This standard in Italy. > In Germany the standard for that looks different: two rows of dashed > white stripes (may we should call that Okapi), but the meaning is the same. Aaaand here's Finland, just to mix things up :) In Finland crossings controlled with traffic lights often (if not always) have also a vertical signal and zebra markings, which are only in effect if the traffic lights are off for some reason. A footway crossing that gives foot traffic precedence is marked with a vertical signal and MAY be marked with a zebra marking. Both are usually used, but not always, and a missing zebra marking doesn't have any effect on the meaning of the controls. There's another kind of marking, which is kind of a ”cut” zebra marking (like this: https://www.finlex.fi/data/sdliite/liikm/5818.gif ). This may be on the side of a zebra marking or by itself, and it designates a bicycle and moped crossing. The bicycle crossing has no effect on precedence of the traffic modes. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra
On 26.10.2018 10.44, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > There are some marked non-zebra crossings in Switzerland: > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zMqUsiFYNMiJ3_kA4ODHSQ > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OVsXNBwnJXFIAobJxFjUlQ > > However, i'm unsure if vehicles have to stop there if pedestrians want > to cross. (Vehicles have to stop at the yellow 'zebra' crossings.) In Finland the marking in the first image is for an ”extension of a cycleway”, ie. a place for cyclists to cross the road. It's not meant for foot traffic and doesn't give cyclists precedence over traffic on the road, unlike a marked footway crossing. The second one would in Finland probably be used for marking the edges of a bump, also having no effect on the precedence of traffic modes. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Winter service
Hi, starting voting on the feature proposal originally made by malenki for winter service tagging. The proposal can be found in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:winter_service Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Winter service
Hi, I noticed that there was a stalled feature proposal originally made by malenki for winter service tagging, and I'd like to propose the same myself amended with my proposals. Currently tagging of winter service is mostly done by the tag snowplowing=*, but that only covers one aspect of winter service: Winter service of roads may additionally contain salting, gritting etc., and the service priority is also worth documenting. The tag winter_service is also used, although less widely. The proposed tag is an enhancement to highway=* and can also be used on amenity=parking etc. It would partially duplicate the meaning of snowplowing=*, but will provide useful additional information that doesn't fit the current tag. The tag is also much more descriptive than the currently used de-facto-tag. The proposal can be found in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:winter_service Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - highway strip
Hi, starting voting on the previously proposed aeroway=highway_strip tag. The proposal can be found in <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway_strip>. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway strip
On 26.06.2018 09:29, Philip Barnes wrote: > No strong opinion either, but how are these verified. Is there some > sort of sign? At least in Finland there is a warning sign of low-flying airplanes (<https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Suomen_liikennemerkeist%C3%A4#/media/File:Finland_road_sign_182.svg>) and stopping is forbidden on the strip. The strips also have certain characteristics: They're usually paved wider than needed for highway use and traffic signs and trees have been cleared from even wider, any necessary traffic signs being far on the side at least on Finnish strips. AFAIK these are also marked in aviation maps, if the user has access to those. > Don't really have a strong opinion on it either way, just to raise a > point for discussion... but if it's for emergencies, should it have > some tag in the emergency=* namespace? I think in reality these are used mostly for military exercises, although they're marked as emergency landing strips in aviation maps, so I'm not sure. Perhaps some kind of combination could make sense, suggestions? This is somewhat similar to emergency=landing_site, but the highway strips are at least in Finland not used actually for emergency landings but for military exercises, which makes me think at least one of the tags should be in aeroway=*. Of course one possibility would be to combine emergency=landing_strip and military=highway_strip (or something like that), but at least military=airfield seems to also require an aeroway=* tag, so why not this one too. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway strip
Hi, proposing a new value aeroway=highway_strip for landing strips that are normally used as a part of a highway, but can be closed either because of a military exercise or emergency landing for aeroplane landing. The tag should only be used when the strip has been dedicated as an emergency landing strip, other possibly suitable emergency landing strips should not be tagged. Currently there are a few highway strips that have been tagged with aeroway=highway_strip (in addition to the proper highway=* tag). Others have been tagged as aeroway=runway, which causes the strip to be rendered the same way as an aerodrome runway, which isn't sensible. There should be a way to separate strips that have been dedicated as emergency landing strips but are otherwise in use as a highway and normal runways / dedicated emergency landing strips. The proposal can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway_strip . Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sauna
Hi, starting voting on the previously proposed sauna=* tag. The definition was amended per the discussion on the tagging list and discussion page. The proposal can be found in <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sauna>. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
On 11.06.2018 10:29, Rory McCann wrote: > I suggest adding `sauna=gay`, for a gay bathhouse. "gay" is a > simplification since many men who have sex with men visit them (not just > gay men). `sauna=msm` sounds clinical and might be not obvious to data > users. > > In some countries (like Germany) saunas are always naked, in others > (e.g. Ireland) that is definitely not the case, you're expected to wear > your swimsuit). I don't know if that's worth tagging or if data users > should just deduce it from the country. Thanks for the suggestion! IMO this fits better as a separate amenity tag, with the sauna=* tag only specifying what kind of saunas the amenity has – steam, dry etc. In the wiki discussion I noted that there's a used (though undocumented) tag brothel:saunaclub, which to me sounds a bit similar but might still not be correct. Nevertheless I think this doesn't really fit with the suggested tag, but needs to be a separate amenity tag. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
On 11.06.2018 12:17, Max wrote: > Great idea to make the sauna key more useful. But it should be looked at > in more detail and with less of a Finnish bias. :) > > Some questions that the tag should address: > > 1. How to tag a place which has several individual saunas? > 1b. What about other sauna related amenities like cold pools (how > cold?), whirlpools, hot tubs (how hot?)... Ice buckets, etc. > 2. What's the method of heating: Wood, electricity... > 3. What's the designated temperature in that sauna? > 4. Are occupants allowed to handle the löyly themselves or is only staff > allowed to do that? At what times do they (often Saunas have löyly at > the full hour/ half hour, etc) > 5. how many people fit inside? > 6. how to tag the opening hours if they are different for men/women/mixed? > 7. is clothing allowed? > 8. There ara also other types of saunas in the world that might have > their particularities. 찜질방 in Korea come to my mind, where you can > actually spend as much time as you want and even stay overnight. The > very traditional types are basically a kiln and have a fire burning > inside for a day and then the ashea are brushed out and the walls > radiate the heat for another day. > > Then there are countries where the word sauna is just a synonym for a > place where people fuck, like it is in France. Might lead to odd > situations if those are confused. > > Some of these things on the list may indeed be concluded from the > country specific customs, but a map and tagging scheme should at least > consider them Thanks for the comment! Right now I decided to go with the easy one, ie. the sauna experience. The heating, strict temperature etc. are more of per-location things, and go quite a bit deeper – of course we could expand the definition right away to those also. Number eight sounds like it would fit in this ”experience”, so we should probably add that one. Is there a western spelling for that? Not sure what to do with the ”brothel sauna”. I'd say we add that as a ”see also”, as there seems to be a used tagging for that already: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/brothel%3Asaunaclub . I don't think it fits the sauna=* definition very well anyway :) Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
On 10.06.2018 18:34, Johnparis wrote: > You might (or might not) want to reconcile this with > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_bath Thanks for the suggestion! A sauna, at least in Finland, is quite different from a public bath. These two might of course exist in the same place: A sauna nicely adds to a public bath, but most saunas in Finland are just the sauna room next to the bathroom – and quite often even without, for example at cabins that allow you to wash yourself in the water. So I think we should change the division; though I'll probably edit the Related tags -description in amenity=public_bath, it's a bit misleading. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pet
Hi, proposing a new tag pet=* (that is sometimes already used) for similar use as dog=*, ie. for specifying if all pets have access to the amenity. The proposal can be found in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pet The proposed values as of now are as follows: pet=yes Pets are allowed or the amenity is for the use of pets. pet=no Pets are not allowed pet=leashed Pets are allowed only when on a leash. In addition shop=pet uses the pet key to specify which species the shop sells. All other values are for shop=pet species definition only. There is another key pets=* that is also used by some for the same purpose. It is slightly more used, but as all other access keys are in a singular form, it'd seem better to use pet=*. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
On 10.06.2018 16:14, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > If you are tagging one individual leisure=sauna, it makes sense that the > sauna key has only one value. > > But if you are tagging sauna=* on a hotel or other larger object that > contains a sauna, there might be different ones available. > > In that case, there should be some defined way to allow multiple values, > probably either: > > sauna=hot;steam;dry > > or > > sauna:hot=yes > sauna:steam=yes > sauna:dry=yes > > The 2nd variant has the advantage that it invites easy extensions like: > > sauna:hot:count=3 > sauna:steam:opening_hours=16:00:22:00 The proposal has already been updated to allow multiple values with a semicolon. It is true that the subkey solution would be more extendable, should the proposal be changed to use that? Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
On 10.06.2018 15:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > What is the point of adding sauna=yes to leisure=sauna? None. sauna=yes is currently apparently used when tagging other features than leisure=sauna that also have a sauna (hotels etc.) I amended the proposed description to state that sauna=yes should only be used with features other than leisure=sauna. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna
Hi, proposing a new (or actually amended) use of the sauna key to specify which kind of sauna the leisure=sauna is. The proposal can be found in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sauna. The proposed values as of now are as follows: – sauna=yes General purpose value – sauna=hot A Finnish-style sauna with a temperature of over 60°C because of the water thrown on the rocks of the stove. This kind of sauna is relatively dry because of the high temperature. – sauna=steam A Turkish-style steam sauna with a lower temperature and limited visibility because of the steam generated. – sauna=smoke A Finnish-style hot sauna in which the stove has no chimney but instead the smoke fills the room when the sauna is prepared, and the smoke is then ventilated out when the sauna is ready. – sauna=dry A non-steam dry sauna in which water is not thrown on the stove. – sauna=aroma A sauna that constantly has an aroma. A Finnish sauna with occasional aroma liquid added to the water is tagged as sauna=hot. – sauna=infrared A sauna-like construction that is used for infrared therapy. Best regards, -- Jyri-Petteri Paloposki ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
