Re: [Tagging] Tag:bicycle accident=true

2011-08-22 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-08-22 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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 ?

2011-08-21 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-08-01 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-31 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-29 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-28 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-28 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-28 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-28 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-27 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-27 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-27 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-27 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-26 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-24 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-23 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-20 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-07-05 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin 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.

cheers,
Martin

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


Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-07-04 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-30 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-29 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-25 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-22 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-22 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-19 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-14 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-14 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-14 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-09 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-09 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-08 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-03 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-03 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-03 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-03 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-06-03 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-06-01 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-31 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-31 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-31 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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?

2011-05-19 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-18 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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)

2011-05-17 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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)

2011-05-16 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-16 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-16 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-16 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-13 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-13 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-12 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-12 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-12 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-12 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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*

2011-05-12 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-11 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-10 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-09 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-09 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-07 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-06 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-05 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-05 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-05 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-05-05 Thread Mrtin Koppenhoefer
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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >