Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true
2011/8/17 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: On 17/08/2011 12:19, Sander Deryckere wrote: It has a bad discription, it's a tag for a temporary feature (at least how I interpret it) and it didn't go via the voting process. So I would just delete it and point the writer to the voting process. Since when is the voting process mandatory? I would guess that actually the majority of tags and values in current use have not been formally discussed, let alone voted on. Discussions very often just bleed to death anyway. The whole basis of OSM is openness - you can use whatever tags you like. Discussion and voting is really required only if you expect other consumers of the data to do something with your data, e.g. map renderers or routing engines. This is how it is; it doesn't mean I agree with it. IMHO you are wrong with some of your assumptions. Voting is not required for tags that are already established and widely in use, and it is not required to invent a tag or to use it, but it is required to set up a feature page (key / tag / mapfeatures) for a not yet in wider use-proposal. If you simply want to document that fancy new tag you just invented, why not set up a proposal page (nothing forces you to bring it actually to voting yourself)? This informs the other mappers that the suggestions on the page might not be generally agreed on. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true
2011/8/23 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: My point is that all these tags which are *now* established and widely in use, probably got that way without discussion and documentation *in advance* but were simply taken into use by the early contributors and documented afterwards. +1, I also guess that in the early days more tags were in use then actually documented in the wiki. But this doesn't seem to work any more with armadas of tags in use and a much bigger community at work. A growing problem is IMHO people adding alternative tagging methods to the wiki on the relevant pages where there is already an established tag. Newbies can't recognize this and the data starts to spread (different tagging for identical features). You can find this for instance in source:maxspeed vs. maxspeed:source and the values of these. Also path with some combinations of access vs. footway/bridleway/cycleway is a famous example (maybe the first), or the yes/true/1 value which in some cases mean the same. We can live with a few of those, but the more we get the worse it gets to interpret the data. Evidence that the tag is not in widespread use is not beneficial to your proposal. Hence new tags are quietly introduced without discussion until there is such a critical mass of uses that a vote becomes winnable. well, you need a majority of yes votes and at least 15 votes (very few votations get more participation then 20-40 votes). Voting is not about determining the compulsory method of inserting data, it is rather a process where you propose a tagging scheme and others can help you making it better (or tell you that there is already another wording for the same thing in use). At the time of voting a proposal should usually already be arrived at a point where most of the bunch of voting mappers say: yes. I can't imagine that it is a problem for a newly proposed tag when it is not already in use. The question at hand, is whether the inventor of a brand-new tag should be encouraged to document his invention at an early stage, or whether he should be discouraged from doing so. My impression is that the OP favours discouragement (as others will start to follow the example, which may not be a good idea) whereas I favour early documentation and discussion BEFORE the usage gets so entrenched that it becomes accepted de facto. +1. I also favour early documentation (in the wiki, because that's where most of the people are searching) and discussion, but we should also keep in mind that the wiki is not the only place where new tags are invented. Quite a lot of early discussion is actually taking place on the (local) mailing lists (and forum and maybe IRC), and some of this is not put on the wiki at an early stage. These are the cases where an already in wider use tag will finally also be documented in the wiki (without proposal/voting). I vote for leaving the guy alone, so long as he is not causing any damage. I'd ask him to change his proposal into a formal proposal and ask others for comments. This is clearly not an established feature because it is not in use. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Translating tags into the database itself ?
2011/8/18 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: I also found a related key formal documentation about taxon: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:taxon which deprecates species and replaces genus by taxon:genus. Again more inconsistencies in our documentation... +1, it would be nice if alternatives would be proposed and announced instead of directly creating key pages for them and linking them from feature pages (taxon is currently almost not in use and AFAIR was never announced on tagging). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] mapping static museum ships
2011/8/1 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: should be usefully shown on a map. I don't know if we have a strict definition of building but I would go with something like a man-made structure with walls that is by default inaccessible to the average pedestrian. generally walls are not a requirement for buildings, a roof is. Accessibility to pedestrians is some sub-property I wouldn't add to the building definition. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] mapping static museum ships
2011/7/31 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: The OP is about USS Slater in Albany NY Wikipedia says : The destroyer closes to the public from December to March and moves from the Snow Dock to the port's Rensselaer side ([1]). A ship moving 2 times a year and tagged as a building OK, I wouldn't necessarily tag this one as building (moving 2 times a year might still be a floating building). I didn't research on the particular ship named by the OP but answered based on the topic mapping static museum ships. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named gates
2011/7/29 Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com: Well, I just don't know any gates with names, exept city gates like the Menin gate in Ypres, but they can't be closed and I should not tag it as barrier=gate but rather as a building. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=historic%3Dcity_gate#tags 200x http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=man_made%3Dcity_gate#tags 6x http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=barrier%3Dcity_gate#tags 4x -- I'd add historic=city_gate to city gates. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] mapping static museum ships
2011/7/30 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: HMS Belfast should help: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=51.506278lon=-0.081219zoom=18 Take a scoot South-East for a totally over the top mapped/tagged building. It was the fault of the government IMHO building=ship tourism=museum (culture=museum)? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named gates
2011/7/30 Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com: @Martin: historic=city_gate seems a good tag for city gates indeed, but the menin gate already has historic=monument, so I'll have to think about it. you could think about removing historic=monument, it doesn't seem appropriate for a gate IMHO. See the wiki: An object, especially large and made of stone, built to remember and show respect to a person or group of people Monuments are often built in homage to past or present political/military leaders or religious figures / deities http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument at least I do not know about memorial gates. Maybe you are talking about an arch? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] mapping static museum ships
2011/7/30 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: A ship, even static, is not a building. That's tagging for the renderer. it depends which definition of building you are applying. Floating buildings might be legally considered buildings in some places. there is already 27 building=ship http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=building%3Dship#tags and 43 building=boat/boat_house http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=building%3Dboat#tags Why not a static_ship=museum ? IMHO it is too specific for the key, but you can add this without any problem and see if other mappers like it and use it as well. What is the systematics? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/29 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:58 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if this definition which was formerly part of the description for highway=unclassified is still valid: I love it when people are brave enough to question the semantics of very frequently used tags. If others change the definitions in the wiki for those intensely used tags cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/28 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: 2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Then I can't honestly grasp what this interconnecting network is. Or rather, I think I understand what you mean, but you're not defining it - you're describing it with a vague term. to make this clear: the term we are discussing about is not from me, and as I wrote before: if we can find a better term I would be glad to use that instead. connected. You are saying, basically, if I get it right, that an unclassified is a way that is connected to (and connects) streets of a certain importance +1 - and I agree to that - while, e.g., a residential is only connected to other residentials and/or to the occasional bigger way. a residential road might also be connected on both ends to bigger ways but still itself not be suitable to serve as a general connection. But, of course, this isn't a definition. How important should the connected streets be? How important should the street itself be? that's relative to the surroundings and will not be easily coverable by a general definition - I would omit that part. In a grid-like city, there will be a bunch of parallel streets connecting Large Avenue A to Great Street B; why would a few of those be unclassified's and other residential's? maybe they would all be unclassifieds? Or maybe the turning restrictions and traffic calming and oneway situation would make some of them going through and others effectively not? I would just describe it as a street that, in a urban environment, is used by people to go from a neighbourhood to another neighbourhood. A residential is used mainly by local inhabitants to reach a specific address; an unclassified is a, what's the term?, a passing road? I'm not a native English speaker either, so here some help with the words would be appreciated :-) connecting road ? In the country, it's not the main road you would use to go from town A to town B (that one would be a tertiary), nor it's supposed to be used only by agricultural vehicles (that one would be a track). I don't know if we have to include countryside and urban environment in the definition. (IMHO for a general definition this doesn't matter). I'd say: It is the lowest form of a connection road. Below tertiary roads. All the rest of the wiki page (explanations that unclassified is a classification, examples, ...) could go to the following paragraphs. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Use of official names Re: shortened names
2011/7/28 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: It sounds like there are three types of street name: 1) Official, as decided by the Powers That Be 2) Signed, as displayed on the signs 3) Colloquial, as people habitually use So which one do we put in name=*, and what do we do with the others? 1) should generally be name if there is not good reason not to do this (i.e. nobody uses this official name, then you put it in official_name and use name for the one that's used) 2) some people use visible_name for this, of course you'd omit it if identical to name 3) there is various tags in use for this, e.g. loc_name, alt_name, reg_name, nat_name see also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name cheers, Martin PS: I suggest to continue on [tagging] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
2011/7/28 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com: There's been some recent discussion on the talk page, so please review at least the four sections starting here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/kerb#Height Open issues as I see it include: 1) Replacing lowered with ramp or dropped 2) Replacing raised with normal and bus 3) Units for optional kerb:height 1) lowered is not the same as ramp or dropped. See here: http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg 2) raised is not the same as normal (and normal might differ a lot from place to place, I suggest to actually put the effective height) 3) Units in osm are as specified, if omitted will often be interpreted as meters cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
2011/7/28 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:15 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 1) lowered is not the same as ramp or dropped. See here: http://www.kohl-ratingen.de/images/kohl-markierung/z.299.jpg I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Does the photo represent your notion of a lowered, ramp(ed), or dropped kerb? To me they're all functionally equivalent, meaning they are wheelchair accessible and have a slight (~3cm) abrupt change in height and/or a ramp/slope between surfaces of two different heights (typically a sidewalk and a street). I put this as an example for a lowered kerb, but I have to apologize, I guess it would actually be called a dropped kerb in the UK, right? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] highway=unclassified
I wonder if this definition which was formerly part of the description for highway=unclassified is still valid: Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. It was removed here (Tidying up the struck bits): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dunclassifiedoldid=316530 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: IMHO, it's a sentence that is both unclear and wrong. Interconnecting grid network has no significance: if it wasn't interconnecting it wouldn't be a network, and a grid network is just a specific case of a network but the unclassified applies to any kind of network. I can't follow you here, maybe it's a language problem? Grid network is not used to distinguish different network types, there is only one grid road network=all the connection roads in the world. To me that sentence makes perfectly sense. If I had to explain in other words what it means I'd say: unclassified are the lowest kind of connection roads in the road network. Also, highway=unclassified is not the lowest degree: there's highway=residential in any kind of urban centre, and highway=track in the country. that's what the above sentence implies: residentials and tracks are not part of the interconnecting grid network. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: 2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Maybe I'm being picky. What I mean is: we have a worldwide graph of roads, or a network if we want to call it that. A grid network, to me, sounds like an orthogonal grid, like the one you'd find in Torino or New York. no, I don't think that this was intended Of course, the roads are interconnecting, otherwise it wouldn't be a network. I thought this was a common term in English, but as I am not a native speaker I might be wrong Residential roads connect, too: they form a graph whose edges may be less important than the other bigger ways, but they're still part of the graph, just like tracks and footways. They are part of the road graph, but not of the interconnecting network, that is what this sentence is about Again, maybe I'm just being picky, but if we can come up with a definition that is clear and not an apparent collection of words, all the better. yes, if you have something better to propose we can use that. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) - Yes, but on the other hand deleting the cited part changed the definition and made it more difficult to differentiate between unclassified and residential. IMHO lower end of the interconnection grid network was very clear, but the current state is a longish and almost unstructured page of text, even including some country specific hints, and a very general short description: Public access road, non-residential. I think that every feature should have a clear definition in 1 (max. 3) sentence(s). All the examples and other particularities can go in different paragraphs, but should not be required to understand the point. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unclassified cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] implicit maxspeeds
there is currently some wikifiddling going on for implicit maxspeeds.
on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:maxspeed
someone adds an alternative tagging method like this:
* {{Tag|maxspeed||IT:urban}} and {{Tag|source:maxspeed||implicit}}
* {{Tag|maxspeed||DE:rural}} and {{Tag|source:maxspeed||implicit}}
* {{Tag|maxspeed||IT:motorway}} and {{Tag|source:maxspeed||implicit}}
When looking at the actual database values there is no point in
encouraging different uses of the established tagging:
e.g.
maxspeed=50 and source:maxspeed=IT:urban
maxspeed=100 and source:maxspeed=DE:rural
maxspeed=130 and source:maxspeed=IT:motorway
The above alternative IMHO doesn't contain more information then the
established way.
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:territory
2011/7/25 OSM user o...@fizik.spb.ru: Hello! Please, look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:territory . I suppose to use this tag for addresses, which doesn't contain name of some street (for example, there are no street in some villages, there are addresses name of territory, number of house). What about addr:housename and addr:full ? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Conditions for restriction relations
2011/7/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: http://wiki.osm.org/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_restriction_relations I like this proposal and I think it could be extended for weather/road conditions as well (fog, wet surface, etc.) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - playground:splash_pad
2011/7/20 Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com: To keep things simple the convention is, where possible, to stick with british_english for tags. +1, BE is the general convention for tags in OSM. Wikipedia has a use for some people, but openstreetmap is not part of wikipedia.The english pages are also dominated by american english which makes things difficult when using for researching openstreetmap tags. +1 additionally I recently noticed that there is a lot of articles in German English, French English, etc. in the English Wikipedia ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Introducing Potlatch2 Island - part of the CommonMap group of Islands
2011/7/11 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com Idea's thoughts? I'll be working on this today/tomorrow and work out the layout of one of the islands, then the rest will follow the same structures png_url = ttp://too.where.it.is/features/pois/food_pub.n.24.png maybe you can find another key-structure for icons, because there are many versions and variations of certain icons available. class = Entertainmentdefinition = A public house, informally known as a pub, is a drinking establishment which is part of British,[1][2] Irish,[3] Australian,[4] and New Zealand culture. where does this come from? The wiki reads: An establishment that sells alcoholic drinks that can be drunk on the premises. Pubs commonly sell food which also can be eaten on the premises. They are characterised by a relaxed atmosphere. You can usually sit down and there is usually no loud music to disturb conversation. A pub would be good location to meet after a day's mapping for OpenStreetMap. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: http://maps.google.ch/maps?q=paris,+Passage+de+la+Boule+Blanchehl=frll=48.85134,2.37229spn=0.001273,0.001982sll=48.853082,2.370364sspn=0.002545,0.003964t=kz=19layer=ccbll=48.851346,2.37229panoid=M3k9nxcYnp2fn3fpfeP39Qcbp=12,33.63,,0,-2.44 The Passage de la Boule Blanche is closed by a door. Or would you qualify this a gate ? Yes, I'd call that a gate. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/7 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: And this case, Cour Delepine entrance, Paris: http://maps.google.ch/maps?q=paris,+Cour+Delepinehl=frll=48.853267,2.376236spn=0.001272,0.001982sll=48.853393,2.376266sspn=0.002527,0.003964t=kz=19layer=ccbll=48.853272,2.376236panoid=QaPsmt8GresisBm_udoo9wcbp=12,4.87,,0,10.23 (no open space on top) I'd say yes, I guess there is some language problem that porte in french can also translate to gate sometimes. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/7/6 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: well, wikipedia also says that hyphens are sometimes used as diacritics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic ;-) [off-list] Well, I'd certainly like to see you try and convince people that the hyphen in drive-through is actually a diacritic all along. ;-) :D cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/1 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: thank you for this comment Paul. I overlooked this and will change it the next days. I guess the thing on the pic is a kind of guard_rail (probably could be subtagged). I didn't put this picture in myself and it is not showing what I had in mind when suggesting rope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_barrier Thank you Nathan. I added this as a distinct value cable_barrier to the proposal. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/1 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: On 06/30/2011 05:35 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: How about lane dividers? This is an example below, though where I'm thinking of them they actually divide a couple of lanes for about a km or so - no lane changing allowed at that point. http://www.ingalcivil.com.au/reboundable_lane_divider.html Wouldn't that be a form of bollards in a series? Well, maybe the ones in the picture are rigid and could be called bollards, but in the case they are flexible, on in other cases where a priority lane is divided by small pieces on the ground, bollard would not be the right name. lane-divider is too generic IMHO, as it doesn't say much about the physical appearance: whether the barrier can be crossed without damaging the vehicle or not, etc. This is one the kind of dividers commonly used in Rome for instance: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=romhl=dell=41.896933,12.501827spn=0.002976,0.005284t=hz=18layer=ccbll=41.896933,12.501827panoid=pghlMFQlmBnzHE7V13DBYQcbp=12,310.86,,1,9.46 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/2 Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com: I like the proposal. I'm always coming across barriers I can't adequately tag. The section that also caught my eye was the bit near the end about subtags like barrier:key=yes/no/number. I've been trying to tag in useful ways for the blind and was wondering whether this sort of subtag could be extended to entrances. Or should entrances have an additional barrier=door tag then a barrier:key=yes/no/number tag? Yes, of course these can be added to entrances (that is their main purpose). I usually tag entrances with building=entrance. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/3 Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com: Maybe these are better examples of what I meant, though I have seen the others in use in the same role. http://www.zjeastsea.com/en/lane-divider.html http://www.roadstud.com.cn/road-studs/61.html I wouldn't call them bollards - bollard implies to me something that will actually damage your vehicle, or completely stop you going through. These you can drive over, but you'll notice that you have. It's a barrier that is more informational (You shouldn't do this) than real (you can't do this). +1 do you have a tagging suggesting? maybe barrier=road_stud ? What would you call continuous ones like the one I posted from street view? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/7/1 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: just an FYI, one hyphenated tag still on the wiki in use is amenity=parking, parking=multi-storey There is many more of them. I propose to use service=drive-through to follow our standard recommendations (BE, no abbrevs, underscores instead of spaces, hyphens where they should be). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/7/4 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Besides, the fact that someone made a mistake back in 2007 is not a good reason to make a similar mistake today. There's no good reason to replace hyphens with underscores. There are plenty of good reasons. The fact that many people seem to like the hyphen variant means that replacing hyphens with underscores is not a crazy idea. Plus, we don't have to remember whether a value has an underscore or a hyphen. The thing is that a hyphen has another meaning then an underscore. We could also replace j with i because it looks better, and nobody will ever have to think whether he has to type j or i, but I wouldn't recommend this. There is a good reason to use underscores as replacement for spaces and there is good reason to keep hyphens where they apply to. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/4 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 04.07.2011 13:03, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/7/2 Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com: I like the proposal. I'm always coming across barriers I can't adequately tag. The section that also caught my eye was the bit near the end about subtags like barrier:key=yes/no/number. I've been trying to tag in useful ways for the blind and was wondering whether this sort of subtag could be extended to entrances. Or should entrances have an additional barrier=door tag then a barrier:key=yes/no/number tag? Yes, of course these can be added to entrances (that is their main purpose). I usually tag entrances with building=entrance. I do not know/find barrier=door. Didi I miss something or do you want to add it to the proposal ? I do not want to add it, because I think that building=entrance does suit this case (maybe also barrier=gate if you want to use something from the barrier namespace). In my understanding of the wiki and tagging history, barrier=entrance does _not_ fit here, because it defines an opening rather then a closure (IMHO a door can also be closed while an opening/barrier=entrance is always open). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/7/4 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: 81 instances of denomination=latter_day_saints http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/denomination=latter_day_saints see below 331 instances of denomination=seventh_day_adventist http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/denomination=seventh_day_adventist 1 instance of denomination=seventh-day_adventist http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/denomination=seventh-day_adventist http://www.adventist.org/ suggests to use seventh-day_adventist. Feel free to correct it, I never heard about them so I won't touch this. 609 instances of shop=second_hand http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=second_hand my dictionary tells me that the correct writing is second hand so second_hand seems correct. hyphens where they should be is hardly a standard. IMHO this thread is about drive-through and not about exotic churches. I suggest to correct errateous other tags, but it has few if not nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The best way to synchronize tags is to use uniformly the same writing in the wiki, in the presets and in the renderers and to ignore misspelled tags in the renderer (on the main page of OSM, I agree that generic rendering rules would try to catch as much information as possible). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
btw.: I adjusted the wiki page so that it reflects the original tag and the potlatch preset (JOSM has no preset for this) as well as the English spelling. btw2: The problem is present with drive-in as well. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/7/4 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: I prefer to convert hyphens to underscores so why would I correct this? and what do you suggest to convert underscores to? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/7/4 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I'm using barrier=door from time to time when a private service street is closed by a door (not a gate) or a named path or footway, again when it is closed physically by a door (it is private but has a street name and deserves several building entrances with different address numbers). Could you explain or give an example for a door leading to the outside of beeing completely outside (e.g. part of a wall or fence) that is not a gate? IMHO gate does comprise doors (especially doors that lead to the outside). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/7/4 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: Your point actually gives us a reason to use underscores instead of hyphens. If many people can't remember that two words are correctly hyphenated (without doing research that a hyphen was correct in the first place), why should we force correct hyphens when we can use underscores? why should we use either? We could omit all of them ;-) Seriously, you seem to have picked on this particular issue and are now advocating wrong spelling pretending this would make mapping easier. IMHO correct spelling (inherent logics) is always easier then rules how to do it wrong in order to do it right. I know and can see from the lists that there are apparently some people in the project with problems in orthography (and I include myself for the lists in English language), but making arbitrary rules will not improve the situation. I also agree that tags are not written in a #@^′\programming_-_language_^* cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/6/30 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: In April 2010, I first suggested having another value (namely, service=drive_thru) for the service=* tag for drive-through lanes similar to service=parking_aisle: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-April/001710.html Based on the responses, the rough consensus that I gathered was for using service=drive_through. Why? Because people have said that OSM has a strong preference for unabbreviated words, +1 and also that there's a strong preference for underscores (In fact, there is no hyphenated key or value in the Map Features page). I think that this is a misconception. Usually we use the underscore in keys and formal values where these are several words (in normal language separated by a space). Please also note that there is indeed some keys which do use hyphens (OK, most of them seem to derive from imports): http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=-#keys Having two tags (drive_through=yes and service=drive-through) one with an underscore and another with a hyphen is quite inconsistent. So there's an incentive to harmonize these two tags to both use underscores. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
Folk, I rediscovered an old proposal which is extending the set of barrier values. Please comment now on this, before we can eventually vote to get this to a more definite status: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/6/30 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: Yes and no. It's true that we use underscores simply because we substitute spaces with underscores. But there's actually a precedent for substituting an underscore for a hyphen and this is the tag for specifying power sub-stations (created back in 2007): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsub_station well, the correct spelling is substation ;-) Cheers, Mar_tin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types
2011/6/30 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: The rope barrier pictured is actually a crash fence commonly used as a cost saving measure on motorway medians in the US. thank you for this comment Paul. I overlooked this and will change it the next days. I guess the thing on the pic is a kind of guard_rail (probably could be subtagged). I didn't put this picture in myself and it is not showing what I had in mind when suggesting rope. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
2011/6/29 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: Well, technically if were mapping whats on the ground, a lot of restaurant signs say Drive thru. The wiki has a redirect from drive_thru to drive_through, with 4 occurances of 'drive thru' on the page, but no explanation about why the tag uses the British English phrase instead of the words which are actually on the sign. because mapping what's on the ground does not imply to copy every single letter from signs in every case. drive thru is not a name but is a generic description hence should be described by a formal tag. For tags we agreed on using BE. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] the map on osm.org - airstrips showing only at zoom 10
2011/6/25 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Wasn't there some discussion about that before, how important airports such as LAX should show sooner than regional airports which should show up sooner than grass airstrips. Yes, the discussions and proposals are endless for this. Suggestions are usually that you should deduct the importance by analyzing the map dat (e.g. surface of the runway, length of the runway) and combine OSM data with external sources (numbers of starts/landings a year, number of passengers a year, freight volumes, ...). Personally I think that to get a rough estimate it is sufficient to tag the most important ones with aeroway=airport this renders nicely and is suitable IMHO, even if it is not the ultimate level of detail. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
2011/6/22 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: I removed the yes and no values, because I couldn't see any utility, instead offering the unknown value. I don't think it is a good idea. In fact, the 'yes' value is widely used in OSM when you don't know the details (e.g. aerial imagery survey). For instance, building=yes. You are changing a basic rule of OSM tagging without any improvement. I think it does not matter. Why and how would you survey kerbs from aerial imagery? While yes is widely used in OSM for many features, in the kontext of kerbs (with the suggested values raised and lowered) it makes as much sense as highway=yes (there is indeed 105 of them). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb
what about introducing a kerb:height ? Implying heights from values like yes, raised, normal will probably not be very reliable or stable as this might vary from country to country and also in different cities/neighbourhoods. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Missing only_u_turn?
2011/6/19 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: And in that case, only_left_turn or only_right_turn would seem applicable. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=avoid
2011/6/14 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/83524747/history No comment. you are actually missusing the access-tag because it is intended for legal restrictions and not for recommendations. Why not use another tag? Their number is not limited... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=avoid
2011/6/14 Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com: It's Paul Johnson who introduced the tag, not Nathan. Your comment is right, but you should point it to Paul Johnson instead. yes, I saw this, he kept it, so they're sitting in the same boat ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=avoid
2011/6/14 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: the wiki page doesn't say that the restriction need to be of a legal kind. How else can you interpret: Description For describing the legal accessibility of an element. ? access=no could also mean that it is physically not accessible even though it might be allowed legally. no cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Club
2011/6/7 Alessio Zanol nar...@infinito.it: In data lunedì 6 giugno 2011 15:13:42, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer ha scritto: A last side note: someone mentioned recently on the German ML that sport=xy should not be used to describe any kinds of sports but only places where you actually can exercise this sport. Personally I don't agree that this is a good definition, but it is what the wiki currently states as well: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sport I really don't understand this definition. So what should we do? create a new Key? sport_whatsoever=* Or create a new tag for each sport? club=soccer, club=tennis, club=rugby ...? A waste of tags.. I would stick to club=sport (or association=sport, or whatever this becomes), and propose a change to the sport=xy page. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Club
2011/6/8 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 8 June 2011 10:08, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: In Australia, 'going to the club' means (generally) going to a licenced members-only venue, this is true for many parts of the world I believe, and why I questioned the actual decision for club as key (but still supporting the feature in general, it is just the key name that could be improved.). Another issue: do we really need leisure=club, or would club=xy be sufficient? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?
2011/6/7 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: I think it'd make sense to broaden the definition: Sleeping and living quarters provided by an institution for (large numbers of) people associated with that institution. For example, housing for university students. Yeah, I think I like this best. Add typically before large numbers of. +1 We need tags to be somewhat broad and somewhat flexible - a single tag that defines only a very, very specific kind of thing causes pain later on when someone wants to map something that is similar, but not identical. ... +1 glad that this seems agreed (so far). How shall we deal with this change in practical? Simply change the wiki page? Do we need a vote for this? Maybe ask on the local lists? Are there any objections to simply change this in the wiki? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?
2011/6/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:10 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I have at least 2 problems with this definition: 1. It doesn't seem to be a British English term (at least not with this definition) 2. It seems to exclude the use for monasteries (3. It was introduced without discussion or proposal) I'd agree with this - it's a fairly broad term but with a narrow definition. If it's really restricted to tertiary student accommodation, a name like student_accommodation might have been better. thing is: shall we continue to go with this narrow definition, or would it be better to widen the use case (already tagged objects will not be affected, if the new definition fully comprises them). The dormitories you're trying to tag, are these open to the public? Sometimes they might accomodate guests, but generally they are either halls for the community to sleep in or will have a typology with a corridor and small indivual cells for the monks/nuns to sleep. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Club
2011/6/6 Alessio Zanol nar...@infinito.it: Hello, this is my feature proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Club Please discuss here or even better in the discussion page on the wiki. I think that here is a better place to have discussions, that's why I reply here. I like this proposal, because it fills a gap for a type of organization that does occur in many countries and does play an important role in the spare time of many people. Maybe there is an issue with the wording. Club seems to have a lot of meanings in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_(disambiguation) with the (IMHO) most important one beeing nightclub (apparently not what you are after). What about using association, and have subtags for the organisational form and targets (e.g. voluntary, paid membership, whatever). As a side note: in Germany there are now some smoker's clubs (which before where pubs or restaurants or similar) as a result of a law that prohibits smoking in public venues, maybe you could add those? Another side note: you propose club=chess, but that might also be club=sport, sport=chess (really ;-) ) A last side note: someone mentioned recently on the German ML that sport=xy should not be used to describe any kinds of sports but only places where you actually can exercise this sport. Personally I don't agree that this is a good definition, but it is what the wiki currently states as well: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sport cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?
2011/6/6 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: I think it'd make sense to broaden the definition: Sleeping and living quarters provided by an institution for (large numbers of) people associated with that institution. For example, housing for university students. in the case of a monastery it is not a quarter but a single building or part of a building. Also large numbers is not correct for many monasteries so I'd prefer to do without. Maybe for my case building=dormitorium would be better suited then the ambiguous dormitory. Not sure if the large numbers of helps or hurts, thus the parentheses. yes, I'd do without. This broader definition could also be used for other similar things, like military barracks. Why? This would introduce another imprecision, I'd either use a very generic building=residential or simply building=barracks for military barracks (they are indeed a proper architectural typology) To take it a step further, something like residence_hall might be a better term than dormitory, but since it's got hundreds of uses already, just changing the definition might be enough! +1, for the student's living space residence_hall would have been a better approach. Maybe we could still switch. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?
2011/6/6 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: why not just stick with building=residential then? actually in the case of a monastery I would prefer dormitory because it is a dedicated place for sleeping, not for living. There are other buildings for other aspects of residential in a monastery from which I would like to separate the dormitorium. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?
2011/6/6 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: If you want to split that hair, sleeping_quarters would be a lot more clear in English than dormitorium. From your earlier comment on quarters, it sounds like you might be confused by this term, but quarters can apply to a single structure or part of a structure. (for example, crew's quarters on a ship) OK, I was not sure about this (that's why I tried to explain how I got it). Seems like dormitorium is not used in English (Oxford dictionary has a reference to it in dormitory, there is also dorter and dortour (ancient) for this part of a monastery, but I couldn't find the latin word in any resource in English). Isn't sleeping quarter then something that only refers to a part of a building, or would you use it for a standalone structure as well? Maybe I should go for dorter if I wanted to be specific? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging monasteries, convents and
Vincent, thank you for your valueable feedback. 2011/6/1 Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com: looking at the available data and in the wiki I'm currently missing some tags for monasteries. They are different things to be tagged : * the building, that can be tagged in building=monastery ou building=convent [1]. Those values are not very used... yes, I'd also do this, but am also thinking about identifying smaller typologic entities like cloisters and give them their own tag. * the community living there and I have started trying the tag community [2]. * the other building that should be tagged as other (farm, workshops, hostelery...) +1 IMHO, The church must be tagged as amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian|buhddist... when open to every one (at least to belivers) I usualy use also the tag building=church for the architecture. +1, but I'd tag places of worship that are not open to the public nonetheless (access=private). The other buildings should be tagged for what they are : hangar, hostellery, shop... I don't get hangar, isn't this something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangar ? I'm not too much in favour of a landuse=religious, because the landuse, in itself is not a holy place or a sacred place, well, in the case of a sanctuary it is, but I also am not fond of using this landuse value because it would conflict with farmland, etc. I would prefer a relation=site + site=monastery for gathering all the stuff and defining the whole monastery. This relation could have a tag access=private to indicate the closure. Usualy, there is a wall, or a hedge around the closure. +1 I don't know enough buhddist or other religious communities to improve the consistancy of a tag community. It is why I still not have made a proposal. I'm interested in knowing your opinion about this way of tagging. I think your proposed building values are OK for the actual buildings, but there should be a suggested tagging for the institution and details about it. The community tag doesn't seem obvious to me, why don't we use operator? Current community values are mostly abbreviated which makes interpretation more difficult IMHO: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/community#values and with 127 occurences the tag is not really established. There is this list in your userspace: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:FrViPofm/Community which I suggest to change (official name could become operator and community could become operator:ref) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging monasteries, convents and
A first draft for monasteries can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/monastery (I am currently working on this, and will extend the content this afternoon). Btw.: I found another argument against the use of a community-tag (against the tag name): there seem to be also monasteries which are operated by hermits. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging monasteries, convents and
2011/6/3 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: A first draft for monasteries can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/monastery (I am currently working on this, and will extend the content this afternoon). OK, I arrived at a point where this should be reviewed by someone more expert then me to confirm or propose changes to the scheme. I'd consider the current state almost RFC-ready. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] steps as access to water, and waterfront
2011/6/3 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com: I would use highway=steps on the steps, and highway=footway for the walk along the water. Yes, but probably not on the ladder that gives you access to (or from) the water. I'd tag this on a node (the alternative would be to draw a way with 2 nodes, set layer-tags to the nodes and move one above the other which does not really make sense unless you continue somehow on the lower end with some highway). What about highway=ladder on a node? There is already 10 uses in taginfo ;-) An alternative (or addition) could be to tag the water access as POI, e.g. waterway=entry_point (could maybe also be ambigious and refer to a point where water leaks in). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?
I am currently preparing a proposal for monasteries and part of them is generally also a dormitory. By looking up the wiki I found this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddormitory which does limit the use to sleeping and living quarters for University students, provided by the school. I have at least 2 problems with this definition: 1. It doesn't seem to be a British English term (at least not with this definition) 2. It seems to exclude the use for monasteries (3. It was introduced without discussion or proposal) If there is a majority in favor of keeping this tag nonetheless with this definition, what should I use for the dormitory of a monastery? E.g. I could use building=dormitorium (i.e. tag in latin). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] etymology of street names
2011/6/1 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de: Why not include a weblink to the reason for the name? That could be a wikipedia-link to the page of the person the name comes from - or something else. The key could be eponym, but personally I don't see necessity for this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Building life cycle
2011/5/29 Mihkel Rämmel r...@hot.ee: If it is not right then please correct me. you can also have a look at start_date which would be inauguration or start of usage of the building. Would building=yes ruins=yes (3000 uses) and building=ruins (850 uses) mean the same? Which one would be better to use? The standard is building=building-typology. I would not consider ruins a typology, but a state, that's why another approach might be better. building=xy, ruins=yes has as disadvantage that you have to evaluate the ruins-tag to get it right, but personally I'd prefer this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: tower:type=lighting proposal
2011/5/27 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:46 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose the following new tag {{tag|tower:type|lighting}} as follows:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dtowerdiff=nextoldid=639593
Would this also include street lamps?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dstreet_lamp
IMHO both are not really towers. I'd consider the tower John
proposes as a kind of lightning device that is not a tower (although
being cantilevered).
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging monasteries, convents and
looking at the available data and in the wiki I'm currently missing some tags for monasteries. All I found is this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonastery which suggests to tag former monasteries as historic=monastery and the monastery building as monastery=yes. If I see this right there is currently no tag for a monastery as an institution/place, nor for some of it's parts (the church will be tagged like any other church I think, the garden could also be tagged with leisure=garden and maybe a garden type, but the dorms and other specific places could merit some dedicated tags). I would like to distinguish between (and maybe more, let's see what you can contribute). monastery convent canonry sanctuary abbey friary (some might be attributes or subtags) For the comunity that operates the place I will make a list in the wiki so we can propose a set of typical values in unified form. We could use the keys operator and operator_congregation (e.g. Canons Regular of the Immaculate Conception) for these. This would be tagged on a surrounding area (or multipolygon relation or site relation). Any comments? Wikipages I missed? Tags in use? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] URL to view specific Relation version?
2011/5/20 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Hi There's a URL to view specific relation versions. Something like: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1318928/version/2 this is not a question for tagging. The answer is: http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/1318928/2 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Spam?] JOSM wiki Potlatch2 In consistencesfishmonger vs. seafood
2011/5/18 j...@jfeldredge.com: In American usage, seafood covers all aquatic-origin food, whether from fresh water, estuaries, or the ocean. In the context of OSM I am more interested in the British usage. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr keys (2011-04)
2011/5/17 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: something like that should be handled in a seperate proposal, though i think most of your examples are covered with addr:housename. none of this is covered by addr:housename. addr:housename is for individual names (like Windsor Castle), not for descriptions. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr keys (2011-04)
2011/5/14 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: any other comments on that proposal? otherwise i'll start the voting phase: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr_keys_%282011-04%29 Yes. You are currently concentrating on the micro level, but there could be a suggestion for the intermediate scale between the whole complex and the micro level as well: de:Hof (engl. courtyard) This is often also expressed indirectly in addresses with the German terms Seitenflügel (side wing), Vorderhaus (front building), Hinterhaus (rear building), 2. Hinterhaus (second rear building = 2nd courtyard rear building), etc.) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging split exit ramps
isn't this information a router could gain from the data simply by looking where the ramp leads to? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Spam?] JOSM wiki Potlatch2 In consistences fishmonger vs. seafood
2011/5/16 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: I agree. I think seafood is a more generic proposal than 'fishmonger' which may not be understood as widely. I recall this vivid discussion where in the end it was agreed on shop=seafood (with myself not beeing extremely happy about it, because I'd personally consider shop=seafood inappropriate for a shop e.g. selling the kind of trouts that live only in freshwater). shop=fishmonger is the standard term every German-English dictionary returns for the German word Fischhändler. No mention at all of seafood e.g. in LEO: http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=endelang=desearchLoc=0cmpType=relaxedsectHdr=onspellToler=search=fischh%C3%A4ndler To sum this up: IMHO fishmonger is more generic (and I guess more BE) than seafood. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Spam?] JOSM wiki Potlatch2 In consistences fishmonger vs. seafood
2011/5/17 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: I think fishmonger is the shop/retailer, seafood is the product. would you use seafood for freshwater fish? And if yes, also if they sell only freshwater fish? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/13 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: OK, but there's still the issue of a so-called flush median. I think in a rural area with few intersections this would be called a dual carriageway. I can't find an image, but Interstate 90 used to have one over Lookout Pass in Idaho. You can imagine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPaP3K9xp3g with the concrete barrier removed. We should make a difference between physically impossible and physically possible but legally forbidden. This is important for a series of situations, e.g. an emergency car in action could cross a road marking without problems (paying attention to surrounding traffic), while if would still be physically impossible to cross a concrete or steel barrier. Ideally our data would allow to extract this information. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/13 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 5/13/2011 6:47 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: An emergency vehicle could also cross a grass median if there's no raised barrier. yes, and a person can jump over a 2ft wall and climb a 8ft wall. A series of bollards is no barrier to bicycles and pedestrians, but it is to cars. You can also open a wire fence if you have pincers. You won't be able to cut metal bars with pincers though. Personally I think that it would be interesting to have these details in the map. For dual carriageways and other parallel / close by streets there is also a proposal how this data could be entered (relation area). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - voting - childcare
2011/5/12 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: i changed the main key to service_times, but i kept the subkey. otherwise it would be problematic in case someone want to tag the office hours separately. IMHO the key service_times refers to the feature, which is children daycare in this case. There is no need to namespace this tag. If you namespace it, you make it more difficult You could have office_hours for the office hours. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 j...@jfeldredge.com: Also, sidewalks are not always directly next to the driving lanes. There are sometimes grassy borders between the driving lanes and the sidewalk. Typically, this is a meter or so, but can be wider. On one street here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, the sidewalk is about three meters to the side, and about two meters above the roadway, with occasional steps down to the roadway (the road ascends a steep hill on a diagonal). If the sidewalks are separated from the driving lanes by grass or some other divider I would map them separately. (i.e. if you draw area:highway-objects you will draw different objects for the sidewalk and the street). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare
2011/5/12 Sean Horgan seanhor...@gmail.com: I personally like when OSM definitions are linked to other references, especially a well-known source like wikipedia. at least then link to a specific version of an article. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+service: social service n. 1. Organized efforts to advance human welfare; social work. 2. Services, such as free school lunches, provided by a government for its disadvantaged citizens. Often used in the plural. or Merriam Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20service : an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance (as of the disabled or disadvantaged) I can add these references to the tag page if people consider them better form. -1, please copy the definition. Do not link them from external sites. To the content of dictionaries you cited: the exact meaning of social is generally tainted by political / philosophical ideologies/point of view as well as cultural background. I wouldn't dig too much into the details. As for removing the daycare reference in social_facility, I agree that replacing it with a link to an approved childcare feature makes sense. IMHO no link but a short description in the OSM wiki. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/12 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: What do we do with dual-carriage ways ? Sometimes there exist paved connections between both directions. Maybe blocked by a barrier but that is no need. if they are constantly connected (no change of the paving, no physical barrier) it's actually not a dual-carriage way. If these connections are punctually you'd simply draw them explicitly and tag them as what they are (incl. turn restrictions. etc.) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] website=*url* vs. contact:website=*url*
2011/5/12 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: when was the topic of webcams ever mentioned? they are part of the contact-proposal. I mentioned them to point out, that even if everyone followed this proposal and added contact: to some of the tags, this wouldn't improve overall consistency. contact information and what not. pretty much everybody agrees that phone, fax, e-mail and website are seen as contact information, probably because millions of people put those on their business cards. yes, like they put their name and address. That's why I pointed out that nevertheless in OSM noone so far used contact:addr:street. the topic is whether to use the contact namespace for those (four) keys or not. not cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions
2011/5/11 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com: It's been about a month now, and I've gotten some feedback from the talk page. My thoughts are that we either: * reuse the existing place=suburb (as the wiki definition seems like it might work) * use the new place=neighbourhood yes, you can use suburb for all kinds of subdivisions, but it is not really helpful for other then find something for a given name. In the case of an actual hierarchy (is contained in) or a quantitative distinction ([neighbour hood] is smaller then [suburb]) it would be desirable to have this relation in the database as well. So place=neighbourhood would be preferable to suburb for mapping neighbourhoods. Either way I think we need to allow for admin_level or something similar to permit nesting of neighborhoods. Any more feedback is appreciated, particularly in regards to this latter point regarding nesting. Yes, I also would like to have an approach to do nested hierarchies as well as parallel systems for sub-settlement places. In Rome there is at least 4 different systems of toponyms/subdivisions (plus other toponyms for various places), which apparently sometimes do overlap or not, and are there for historic reasons besides the actual current administrational divisions. I feel that mapping all of them with different place values does seem reasonable. To give you an idea this is an overview in Italian: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suddivisioni_di_Roma (the English version concentrates on administration and is leaving out a lot of aspects). We already talked about this locally, but did not yet move towards a proposal. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions
2011/5/11 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: Of course there can also be parallel hierarchies, like police force areas and their districts and subdistricts, or postal systems with major towns, distribution points and individual postcodes (in the UK these frequently span national borders!). +1, also think about the organisation and subdivisions of the catholic church, which is strictly hierarchical and spans over huge parts of the world down to very fine granular divisions. Has anyone ever tried to get this info? Maybe the vatican has this stuff in a GIS form and would donate the data? Is there any interest? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: There's a problem if this is treated like landuse. it is not landuse, so there is no problem. There is still space for landuse=highway. The highway landuse goes up to the edge of the right-of-way, and includes sidewalks and and clear zones, but your example includes only the paved driving area. This is more of a surface tag, like a pond in a park or a sand trap in a golf course. +1 I think that area:highway is fine for the key name. There is some other problems (or better missed opportunities) in this proposal. See the discussion page. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid
2011/5/11 Ilya Zverev zve...@textual.ru: I've reverted his edits of the proposal page, but is he right? Is any proposal with incorrect subject line in tagging@ post (let along those which weren't mentioned here) automatically invalid? Well, it is an established convention to send an email to tagging with VOTING in the subject, but I would not go so far to consider the voting invalid if this did not happen. IMHO you did right to revert his fiddling. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: The proposal makes reference to landuse, in particular stating that one might cut off adjacent landuses at its border. But the two positions on landuse are that it shouldn't be cut or that it should be cut at the right-of-way line, not at the edge of the roadway. +1, you're right I overlooked this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid
Actually there is a problem here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/water#values water is already in wide use, but most of the values in use are not part of the proposal. Maybe some amendmend or changing of the key name (e.g. water:type seems to be what the proposal wants to achieve: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/water%3Atype#values ) would be appropriate. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway
2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Flaimo wrote: In the example image, lanes (in this case: sidewalks) of the road that are mapped as separate ways also have their own areas. Currently, I tend to instead support one area for the entire road, containing the central highway ways and the ways for the lanes. If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. no, if this would be possible there would be no sense at all to map areas. You can't see sidewalks as just another lane, because they tend to be quite irregular in certain settings (unlike lanes which usually keep their width and have no corners and other weird points). The point of mapping areas is to be able to map irregular street areas, changes in the sidewalk and similar. That's why I proposed the area relation: to be able to map these details, to be able to add topology details like kerbs and lower kerbs and similar issues. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - voting - childcare
2011/5/11 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare#Voting I don't see why there should be service_hours:childcare. Can't we reuse service_times? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service_times cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions
2011/5/11 j...@jfeldredge.com: Part of the problem is that neighborhoods, unlike official administrative units, or even Home Owner Associations, don't necessarily have agreed-upon boundaries. Different people may consider the same location to be in different neighborhoods. then it's a node ;-) seriously, maybe OSM can be a system to find / establish the exact boundaries of a neighbourhood - iteratively. (or maybe they are really nodes) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions
2011/5/11 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com: Can we begin discussion of this? A place_level that allows for unincorporated areas, neighborhoods, and the like. I am not sure that we need a place_level. Such a key would only make sense if there was a clear hierarchy. Place structures can be different overlapping systems without clear hierarchy. Which would get a higher place_level, unincorporated areas or neighbourhoods? A place might even really be part of 2 neighbourhoods at the same time? An unincorporated area could still get a place value like hamlet, village or town, couldn't it? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare
2011/5/10 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: Further, i too consider the social facility tags to negative. Besides that, i couldn't see a social_facility=* value that would fit. the or=child part references to an target audience, which would correspond more to the age tag of my proposal and not the amenity=childcare. Actually I perceive as well some reference to class struggle, especially in the introduction of the linked wikipedia article: pursuit of social welfare, social change and social justice. I suggest to remove this reference, as it is not even helpful in its generic definition, and social change, social justice and to some point also welfare are not about what it is, but why it is (so it belongs to philosophy / politics / economy and not to OSM). It is also not helpful to have the basic definition (A social facility is any place where social services, as defined here, are conducted:) linked to a dynamic page ;-), and I think in OSM we could well live without the as defined here part. Given all this I agree that there is not yet a suggested value, but there is daycare as an example: social_facility:for=child e.g. daycare center for children, i.e. following the logics of the cited page there would be social_facility=daycare, social_facility:for=child to be amended. Following the logics of your proposal instead, there could be an amendment to your proposal saying that daycare should be removed from the example section of social_facility:for (or a link to your tag added. Removing daycare from social_facility would not be a problem because there is not yet a single object with this tag in the database (according to taginfo), cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare
2011/5/8 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: no further comments over the last 1 1/2 weeks, so i'll start the voting phase: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare sorry for writing late, I think there are some problems. E.g. age. if you tagged a feature with amenity=childcare age=4 it would not be completely clear, that age is the age of the children. I'd also suggest to change the underscores in colons in cases where you have hierarchical tags like operator:type The way you propose to use opening_hours is IMHO not in line with the wiki. You suggest to use open opening_hours on the facility even if it is closed but the office is open. I'd do it differently (opening_hours to indicate the times of the facility and office_hours or something similar, or a distinct office object with it's own opening_hours) The biggest issue I see is that this feature seems already be covered by the social facility feature: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Social_facility Have a look at the subkey social_facility:for=child e.g. daycare center for children cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare
2011/5/9 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: I notice the suggested rendering is similar to schools. Don't know about other areas, but in the US, many childcare centers are run out of private homes, so that rendering might seem a little strange. Maybe in that case a node is a better choice. The question whether a node or an area is more appropriate to represent a feature should be seen independently of a certain render style. The rendering suggestion in feature proposals is only a suggestion and has no influence on the actual rendering in maps (actually IMHO rendering suggestions in feature descriptions are somehow superfluous and can just as well be omitted). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC advertising
There is a new draft how to tag advertising objects. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/advertising Are there any comments on this? What should be added/changed? According to tagwatch, some of the proposed values are already in use: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/advertising#values cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Car access tag
2011/5/5 Stefan Bethke s...@lassitu.de: I've completed the draft and would like to solicit your comments: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Car_access_tag The proposal introduces a new tag car=* that applies to just cars, and clarifies the meaning of the motorcar=* tag, which applies access=* restrictions to cars and larger vehicles like trucks, busses, etc. You state: No specific legal definition is given since country specific or even local law does differ too widely with respect to vehicle classes. but how can you then determine if your car with an 1-axle-trailer is included or not? Or your car with a length of 6,5 ? Or your car which only has 2 seats and legally goes as goods-vehicle even if it is a small car? If you introduce a new class you should define to which vehicles it applies. If you can't do it for all countries, do it for your country and let others do it for theirs. Then you redefine motorcar to The Map features’ Restriction section entry for motorcar is updated: Access permission for (motor) cars, including larger vehicles like trucks and busses. Also see car=*. See the access=* page for details. I am opposing the inclusion of busses and trucks in motorcar, as I don't think that this is the common interpretation of this tag (whatever the wiki states about it). Let's undo (or revision) this edit: 11:39, 14 October 2010 T-i (Talk | contribs) m (12,875 bytes) (→Land-based transportation: adjusted hierarchy) typical case of wiki fiddling where the meaning of motorcar was extended to all those other classes. This was never intended to be like this. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccessaction=historysubmitdiff=545364oldid=542111 I undid this, please verify. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping these locations, they are important to people, and people have already shown that there are physical places that can be mapped. Yes, they already do use it: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: It's being used for a Maori fortress, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 IMHO the tag is not very well chosen. Besides that I agree with John Smith (subtagging as a fortress) at least the tag could acknowledge that we use generally British terms for key identifiers and give a hint like historic=mi:pā instead of pa cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: 2011/5/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose physical presence is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical interest in that a Roman building or forum was there. Usually you will also find something on the ground, at least if you dig. Looking at the page for historic=event I can see that most people are arguing against historic=event and historic=battlefield because there is nothing on the ground. At least for battlefields this is pure ignorance. In many cases you will find lots of evidence, e.g. in the WW I battlefields (the whole terrain is modified, even a hundred years after you can actually see remains of the trenches and craters of the grenades and bombs, not to speak about the dead bodies still unburied in the ground). btw.: Simone, don't forget to add historic:civilization=ancient_roman to the aforementioned ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the OP is about historic=event, not battlefield. The edit war started because JohnSmith documented what you, Martin, suggested in a previous thread although that thread showed already a strong opposition about such tagging yes, I do remember this. I did also notice that there was opposition. I do not expect myself to tag lots of events, but I might add some, e.g. there is a place in Rome which is said to be the locus where Julius Cesar was stabbed by Brutus. I find this interesting and I think that others do so as well. We should face the fact that starting your own parallel database is often not an appropriate answer, but of course every mapper also has a responsibility not to tag his first kiss in OSM (I found this recently, take it as a proof that mappers won't restrict themselves even if no adequate tag is suggested in the wiki: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/895372910 (the name translates our first kiss, I am not sure, maybe there is something there called like this, I don't know the place, that's why I left it for the moment and contacted the creator) And then JohnSmith enforced this in Map Features and tells now to others 'please discuss instead of reverting'. Yes, I agree that this was not nice from John Smith. While I do think documenting all tags in the wiki is a good thing, we don't have to put them all on mapfeatures as well. Someone else is also trying to improve the general description about the key 'historic' in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic) which is something more productive than this discussion. Thank you for pointing at this. Actually I prefer some discussion before main key descriptions go into heavy refactoring. I don't think that adding a novel to a feature definition is a good thing. Keep it short. There is diary pages for the novels (or you make an additional wiki page, and do not hijack a Key description but rather link it from there). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
