[Tagging] capacity=* of bicycle sharing stations when no. of bikes > no. of stands

[Michał Brzozowski]

Hi all,

A new bicycle-sharing scheme called MEVO has just (sort of) started in
Poland.
It consists of 660 stations, which function like regular bicycle stands (no
active parts).

The bikes are station-less, which means they can be left in almost any
place in the city except excluded zones (albeit for a small extra fee). The
normal intended usage is to leave them at stations, which is verified by
GPS geofencing. This implies that people may (and they did) leave more
bicycles than there are stands at some stations.

How should we map the number of stands, if it's not really a measure of
capacity?
One mapper that mapped them went with e.g. capacity="5 stands", but this
doesn't seem elegant or parsable to me.

Thanks for suggestions
Michał
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours too long for OSM

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:44 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> It is all fine and dandy for us to abstractly discuss such things, it is
> another to explain to Josephine mapper that no, the opening hours of the
> shop you want to map are one character too long and you need to map less
> detail. I just don't believe that "map less detail" is a concept that
> you will be able to convey to a majority of contributors and trying to
> do is likely futile.  The trend is simply the consequence of progressing
> from the rough to the detailed.
>
>
>
All the while other map providers (e.g. Google) don't bother to have
something more than static hours that are  identical every week.


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

Re: [Tagging] esperanto=yes

[Michał Brzozowski]

czw., 28 cze 2018, 12:59 użytkownik Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> napisał:

>
> I agree it would be better to be more explicit, like teaches:esperanto=yes
> or speaks:esperanto=yes
>
> Did you contact przem?
>

Sure. Waiting for reply, but I want to give constructive feedback to him
for the second case, which is why I ask.

Michał

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

[Tagging] esperanto=yes

[Michał Brzozowski]

Hi,

Today user przem started to add esperanto=yes to two kinds of objects
- streets named after Zamenhof (creator of it)
- schools which presumably use or teach it

For the first case it would be correct to tag name:etymology:wikidata=Q11758

But how about the second case?
esperanto=yes seems too vague to be useful, and is a precedent (I didn't
see english=yes etc. being used). It seems to be a catch-all for everything
related to esperanto, not unlike your typical hashtags in social media.

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

[Tagging] Marking shops open on trade-free Sundays?

[Michał Brzozowski]

Recently a law has been passed on Poland which restricts shops that can be
open on trade-free Sundays (currently 2 per month, in 2020 all).
There is already a few apps (search keyword is "sklepy otwarte w niedzielę"
) which crowdsource shops that are open during such Sundays*. But they are
not based on OSM.

* "The law applies to all stores, except those where the owner is the sole
worker in the store, stores located in train stations, airports, ports, as
well as florists, bakeries (until 13.00), ice cream sellers, sellers of
religious items, ticket sellers, newspaper sellers, post offices, tobacco
sellers."
(Wikipedia)


This is a great opportunity (and the need has been raised) for OSM to
incorporate such data.

How should we map such shops? An extension of opening_hours feels wrong -
many (most?) clients stop on parsing when they encounter something they
don't understand.

It seems for now the best solution would be to invent a tag, but which term
should we use for it to be proper English?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging fraction house numbers?

[Michał Brzozowski]

I'd look how other map providers solved this.

On a side note, why I've never see such phrase on this list? We'd figure
out many problems by looking how others do things. There's nothing wrong
with it.

Michał

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Brad Neuhauser 
wrote:

> I found it hard to pull out usage of "1/2" through taginfo, but was able
> to search for usage of the UTF-8 version (½):
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%C2%BD#values It's used very
> few times (~200) and many are by the same user, which seems like more
> argument against using UTF-8.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:17 AM, James  wrote:
>
>> so far the fractions I've seen are ½ and ¾ and ¼. On phones it's very
>> easy to input fraction in unicode(press and hold the numerical value of the
>> numerator: 1 for ½, ¼ or 2 for ⅔), but I agree that dealing with Bom of
>> UTF-8 usually ends up being messed up and is why I'm asking what the norm
>> for OSM is
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 12:04 PM Vladimír Slávik, <
>> slavik.vladi...@seznam.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> Technical: Unicode will be hard to manipulate by hand without a table of
>>> characters/symbols to copy from. Subsequent editors or users down the chain
>>> of tools will break it. Most prominently, search may break, because users
>>> will not know how to input 1/2. (Oh look, I just didn't, either...).
>>>
>>> Is it common to have more complicated fractions? Here we append letters
>>> to do the same, and I have seen places where they had to go all the way to
>>> "h" - which would be 1/8 for you? Or 8/8? Does unicode even have 8/8? I
>>> haven't been able to find a decisive answer.
>>> -- Původní e-mail --
>>> Od: James 
>>> Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>>> Datum: 12. 3. 2018 16:46:40
>>> Předmět: [Tagging] Tagging fraction house numbers?
>>>
>>> https://i.imgur.com/eigT5hX_d.jpg?maxwidth=640=thumb
>>> idelity=medium
>>>
>>> How should this be tagged in housenumber? Using unicode ( ½ ) or ASCII(
>>> 1/2 )?
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Michał Brzozowski]

I don't see how going from "typology" you conclude it's strictly about
form. Typology is about types, not saying with respect to what.
When you look at top building values in Taginfo, it's clear to me
these state purpose (house, residential, garage, apartments,
industrial, school and so on), with only exception being hut, other
non-purpose values from the first page are in fact non-buildings
(roof).

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> it is a long standing definition in the wiki (almost from the beginning of
> the building tag) and it is still there:
> "Buildings can simply be building=yes or use a value that describes the
> building typology, for example building=house, building=hut,
> building=garage, building=school. See building=* for a more complete list of
> options and have a look at what is actually used. "
>
> it is clear that in a project like OSM and with a key that is used millions
> of times, there will also be some outliners, but I don't think the best way
> is to encourage ignoring the standing definition. If you need a key for the
> function in a building (i.e. the current purpose), invent a different tag
> (although usually you already have this covered with amenity, man_made
> etc.).

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

> building=* has never been about "purpose" though, it is about architectural
> type (form, shape, function, structure, etc.). The purpose is what leads
> (amongst other criteria) to choosing an architectural type, so there is a
> link between the two, and it seems this might be creating some confusion.

I see you saying this another time, but I doubt it's as common opinion
as you make it to appear.

Using "purpose" for building differentiation is quite standard in
mapping (to name a few - BDOT Polish topographic maps, all the
different cadastre maps and so on. And that's how I've seen it used in
OSM, too.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] fixme -- by a specific date

[Michał Brzozowski]

remonty.openstreetmap.pl/remonty does exactly that for Poland. It's used
mainly by paid mappers from Yanosik who get info from their app. IIRC it
issues a note whenever an opening is due.

Michał

28.11.2016 18:54 "Martijn van Exel"  napisał(a):

> Hi,
>
> When mapping seasonal closures here in Utah[1] I realized I am still
> missing a solid way to mark a road as closed for the season and then have
> some level of confidence that someone will look at it in the spring and
> 'reopen' it. More generally for someone to map a feature and somehow tag it
> as needing another look by a certain date.
>
> I added a discussion section to the wiki[2] for the fixme tag where I
> propose adding the fixme:by qualifier to indicate the (approximate) date by
> which a mapper should look at the feature again.
>
> There should be more use cases for this. I can think of proposed or
> under-construction features for which you may know a projected start /
> finish date. Or semi-permanent features that you know will disappear at
> some point. I know HOT has interest in this kind of 'lifecycle' tagging as
> well.
>
> Martijn van Exel
> http://mvexel.github.io/
>
> [1] A lot of fairly major roads close here for the winter, typically
> between November and May: http://udottraffic.utah.gov/
> CLALertViewer.aspx?CLType=3
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Key:fixme#
> Revisit_by_a_certain_date
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Differentiating streets with official name from non-official yet name

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Please don't. First, this is kind of troll-tagging, first declaring
> something a name and in the next line denying it. Second, the "name:*"
> namespace is declared for real names (name:LL and name:left|right), not for
> additional attributes.

I too thought it has a troll-tag potential. But if the name's on the ground...
A similar thing that came to my mind some time ago are named alleys on
allotment gardens. These are not official names, yet they're on the
ground. It'd be sensible to exclude them from reverse geocoding and
street list generation, probably downplay them in search results, but
keep displaying them as normal.

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

[Tagging] Newspaper classified ads office?

[Michał Brzozowski]

There's an office that enables people to make classified advertising
in a few local newspapers. I guess there's no exstisting tag for it?
What would you suggest?

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=service major type sub-classification - mini vote

[Michał Brzozowski]

I think you miss the point. When there's no service key, you have no
idea whether it doesn't fit in the current set of (parking_aisle,
driveway...), or it is indeed but hasn't been tagged because the
mapper didn't provide this information. It's an informational
consistency problem, peculiarity of the way we handle things, namely
non-distinction between "inapplicable" and "unknown".

Michał



On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 15 apr 2016, alle ore 13:40, Tom Pfeifer  
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> Values for mini-vote:
>>
>> service=main
>> service=access
>> service=major
>
>
> main and major seem a bit odd (after all, service roads are minor roads, so 
> that would be a "major minor road"? access on the other hand is what all 
> service roads are about (access to a house, a facility, a row of parking lots 
> etc.)
>
> I still don't see the need for subtagging service roads with a tag that 
> unlike the well introduced qualifiers says that it's not a less important 
> than a generic service road
>>
>> Proposed description:
>>
>> Voluntary sub-tag for a highway=service for distinguishing a major service 
>> way
>> from sub-ordinated ways, or generally classify it into the major category.
>> Examples are the access way into a parking lot (distinguished from 
>> parking_aisle),
>> or a service way connecting several residential driveways.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Fixing Starbucks Wikipedia Tags (Was Nominatim Weakness)

[Michał Brzozowski]

I was thinking of using osmosis to filter out objects with wikipedia
tag and then running a query in PostGIS. What a brain fade I've had,
we have Taginfo to the rescue:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikipedia#values
It's really interesting to see Wikipedia tags on individual ways of
routes, and this seems very widespread. Do you think this should be
fixed by assigning wikipedia=* only to relations?

There are counterexamples, like this:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/wikipedia=pl%3AUlica%20Pu%C5%82awska%20w%20Warszawie
which actually *does* refer to a particular street.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse=farmland and highway=track

[Michał Brzozowski]

On a side note, tools that generate vector maps seem to be really
clueless about fusing such separated polygons back again at low zoom
to simplify them without blank stripes inbetween and caring about
topological correctness. Is there any GIS toolchain that could
scalably (country/world level) generalize landuse/natural/water
polygons the correct way? I take a guess ArcGIS can do that as their
spatial analysis toolset is very advanced, but anything free?

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Wi-Fi or internet access at Stores

[Michał Brzozowski]

There's widely supported internet_access tag.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:internet_access

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Michał Brzozowski]

To me residential_link doesn't provide any meaningful distinction to
warrant a new highway tag. Maybe you misunderstood what link is about.
Links are for when collision-less means of joining or leaving high(er)
speed traffic are needed. From what I know about your residential_link
examples it's not really that, they are just shortcuts to make turns
less awkward. It's not standardized for a reason - they don't make
sense.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, johnw  wrote:

> Google Maps is actually two different sets of data: Google’s and a Japanese
> GIS company, Zenrin. They have basically surveyed all of Japan building by
> building, and everything is drawn area based (because the roads in Japan can
> be such weird shapes and always change width suddenly).

Frankly I don't find their road system to be that different to
necessitate areal representation, I guess it's more of a tradition
thing. But if you don't know, there is area:highway tagging scheme
developed by Marek Kleciak that allows to represent roads as areas, as
an extension to their linear representation. Note this is distinct
from area=yes highways that simply don't have any meaningful axis. If
there are resources available, people of Polish community (marimil)
could help set up a visualization layer for it.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Unmarked opening hours

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 7:15 AM, John Willis  wrote:
> I would use:
>
> fixme=opening hours not posted. Add hours.

I purposefully wanted not to use free text. People would write it in
local language or with typos. You couldn't easily search for that in
Overpass or JOSM.

Michał

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

[Tagging] Unmarked opening hours

[Michał Brzozowski]

In the course of surveys, I fill in opening_hours of shops and other
venues. Sometimes though, they are not marked outside. Therefore, when
looking at a feature that lacks opening_hours other mappers and I
can't tell the reason. I've been thinking of a standardized way of
marking such cases, like:
opening_hours:status=unmarked
which is to be understood that mapper didn't see opening hours
displayed outside (but other sources may be available).
This would benefit survey planning. A mapper will know to come at
standard business hours to ask staff and that it can take slightly
more time to survey.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Shop values review

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> Candidates for deprecating:

> radiotechnics - electronics?

I proposed[1] electronic_parts (though honestly didn't remember to
make a voting after the RFC) - in a hindsight it could probably be
named electronic_supply as they sell things like multimeters, ordinary
tools, soldering irons etc.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Delectronic_parts

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Road classification

[Michał Brzozowski]

This (importance ranking) is something I thought recently. How about
devising a data-driven importance rank? One could priotitize POI that have
a Wikipedia page or even grab publicly available pageview stats from them.
There are numerous ways to implement something good enough, you just have
to be open-minded.

I, like others, think we need to establish a second style that is free of
all the conflicting requirements (mapper feedback, instant updates, a
dedicated group of complaining people) that would serve as a map for
general users, show the good practices of cartography (generalization,
which may require preprocessing) and respect regional conventions. Not
being real-time makes it much easier to solve problems.
As per distribution, vector tiles seem to be the right solution. Everybody
could set up their own server and render that style in no time, with no
lengthy and ridiculously RAM-hungry DB imports. This facilitates rendering
on a cluster of commodity hardware which is much cheaper than dedicated
servers. Simply grab a weekly (example period) vector tile package and copy
it to all your machines.

Michał
3 wrz 2015 00:50 "John Willis"  napisał(a):

>
>
> Javbw
>
> > On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:17 AM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> >
> > It also means that real importance could be tagged one day instead of
> "official" importance, so we have at least something proper once people
> will have what they really want anyway. =}
>
> Rant:
>
> I agree that importance is very important. But not everyone agrees.
>
> I mentioned "importance" on the -carto github page (rendering mountain
> icons based on a tagged "importance" score or something), and gravitystorm
> informed me that it is unmappable because it is unverifiable, linking to a
> "verifiable knowledge" page on the wiki.
>
> It is verifiable. It just that it is not documented in a neat tidy way.
>
> We can't even separate hills from mountains because they are all "peaks"
> for some reason.
>
> I mean, a 30m tall hill called "fujiyama" (there are hundred or more
> little "Mt fuji" hills and mountains throughout Japan) and the iconic Mt
> Fuji have the same name, characters (富士山), icon, and rendering in OSM. This
> particular name issue famously led some Chinese tourists to my small town
> looking to climb Mt Fuji, and they arrived at"base of mt fuji" train
> station (fujiyamashita) - which is below a hill that takes 5 minutes to
> walk up. It is a national joke. Google Uses it in ads to show off Android.
>
> It obviously is known and documented that this hill is less important. But
> making one icon render at z8 and one render at z15 is not allowed, because
> it is "unverifiable". ><
>
>  OSM is stuffed full of value judgements - but the ones that could improve
> renderings on tiny, large, and iconic non-manmade items the most is not
> allowed.
>
> Labeling Denali or the Grand Canyon or Mt Everest or other natural
> landmarks *correctly* requires a value judgement by someone. Every online
> map does this. Someone put the special "mt fuji" icon in Apple Maps for a
> reason. Ot is an internationally famous peak.
>
> It requires prioritizing their rendering over other mountains, and their
> own sub-peaks. And cluttering the map with peak icons that appear and
> disappear all at the same zoom level gives no idea as to the size,
> visibility, cultural importance, nor landmark status of the peaks and other
> natural features.
>
> I purchased a USA map that won a national mapping contest - this 1 guy
> spent years choosing features to include and exclude - highest points,
> POIs, and historic features - his map beat out NatGeo and other maps in the
> contest. It is beautiful.
>
> Capturing local / regional information on what should and shouldn't be
> shown at certain zoom levels - importance - makes a better map.
>
> Ignoring it seems to be the exact opposite of OSM's mission to capture
> local knowledge to make a superior map.
>
> Javbw
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Contact:* prefix

[Michał Brzozowski]

This means just not to add contact details of private persons like me or you.

As per contact: prefix, opponents argue it's redundant. Isn't so addr:
as well? In reality keys with and without contact: are equivalent.
My argument for using it is that new popular services for
communication appear every year nowadays, and contact: prefix makes it
clear and easy to standardize. You can have contact:facebook,
contact:twitter, contact:instagram and so on.

Michał

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
 Hi

 wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:contact

 I remember a discussion a while back about this. As the page makes no
 mention of the logic behind, could someone please remind me of the reasoning
  advantage over straight forward phone, fax, website etc.

 You should only add contact informations to POIs and not to any private
 address!

 By 'POI' does he mean 'public company'?

 Thanks
 Dave F.

 ---
 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 http://www.avast.com


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

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

Re: [Tagging] RFD tag:shop=camera?

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:30 PM, John Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
 OSM needs to provide for objects that fall under more than one category,
 whether it is done by allowing multiple tags with the same key, using
 semicolon-delimited values, or some other means. One often-quoted expression
 is that OSM needs to show the ground truth, and it is frequently the
 ground truth that objects fit into more than one category.

Yeah. It's ridiculous. I was surveying a week ago and there was a shop
that sells coffee AND tea. So what then? There's shop=coffee, and
shop=tea. Whoever invented these tags wasn't a far-sighted person. Or
a shop that sells both doors and windows (maybe even floors - there
were a few of them). The problem with current tagging system lies in
its **unsustainability**. It relies on people inventing new tags
ad-hoc if a POI doesn't fit. And then? Most likely it won't be
recognized by software in foreseeable future ie. unlike it gains
traction. Do you see the nonsense of this?


Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Murry McEntire
murry.mcent...@gmail.com wrote:

 This terminology problem is the main reason I stopped recommending OSM to
 non-technical relatives and friends. I knew they would use current U.S.
 assumptions on what the terminology of the map meant and would be misled. I
 knew they would not use a map that, in their eyes, was inaccurate and
 sometimes flat out wrong. They are much better off using Google maps or Bing
 to find shops and services. This is also one of a few reasons why I largely
 stopped contributing to OSM: why pursue a scholarly effort that is of
 little use to the people I would most like to share my efforts with.

 Murry

This was the same issue that I was encountering with fast food vs
restaurant distinction. A fast food for a typical person is either
McDonald's/KFC or one of many kebab venues. On the other hand, I was
told that amenity=fast_food is when you pay before consumption. This
is quite wrong to me (are you going to include an asterisk quoting
that definition when someone searches from an app?), as there is
smooth distinction and I'd rather promote intermediate cases such as
casual dining style restaurants.

My bottom line is:

1) Don't reinvent the wheel. See how competitors have tackled a
problem (Gonna elaborate very widely on that when I'll have enough
examples and time to write).

2) Tag to users' expectations, not to your definitions. But the
consequence would be a substantial reduction in the mailing list
traffic :-P

3) Ontology should be simple and rather general. Being too particular
while incomplete is a plague of current shop and services tagging
system.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Robin `ypid` Schneider ypi...@aol.de wrote:
 Hi everyone

 As noted by Ein Mapper on [the current weekly task in Germany][1] it would 
 be
 convenient to have an implicit PH off added to most opening_hours values
 during evaluation. I had not thought about this before but now that I do I 
 agree
 more and more that this makes sense and wrote a proposal [2]. Any thoughts 
 about
 this?

Don't be German-centric :-P (I know that basically everything closes
on public holidays in Germany). It really is another hoop to jump
through, another thing that we impose on data consumers of this
already potentially (edge cases) very elaborated tag. And while a
notion of SH/PH is rather well defined for a mapper in given country,
default closure in these days may be not. Another table to maintain.
It really makes more problems than it solves: is PH off supposed to
apply also to 24/7 features? E.g. convenience shop vs an outdoor ATM.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

[Michał Brzozowski]

You have to edit the Map Features template.

Michał

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
 I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help?

 On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2
 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule

 Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

 Jan van Bekkum
 www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl

 On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes,
 and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period
 for another week.

 Regards,

 Jan

 On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote:
  On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
 
  Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated
  previously
  allowed to vote?
  It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back
  and
  only being involved to vote 'no' is -
 
  1. Bad manners. And any community has many unwritten manners rules.
 
  2. Unproductive. Lot of well meaning effort goes into a proposal,
  where
  is the pleasure in killing it, apparently just for the sake of killing
  it ?

 There is a lot more benefit in improving a tag. Please use the
 comments/draft time to do that.

 
  I would oppose firm rules like Jorg mentioned but, like any community,
  we need to indicate clearly just what bad manners are ! Perhaps a
  short
  para on good manners on the voting page ?

 Best Practice? And it needs to be for the draft/comments section. With
 an expansion on the voting section?

 
  David
 
 


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



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


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

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

[Michał Brzozowski]

Consider that every major map provider does this (Japanese train
lines, and sometimes icons like that stylized katakana te for post
offices). Also highway shields. Although OSM-carto is not supposed to
be consumed by end-users, it often is; moreover it could be serve as
an example on how to implement that (in order to encourage other OSM
rendering style authors to do so).

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] JOSM 7995 (January 2015) released

[Michał Brzozowski]

Oddly enough, there is no info on the JOSM start page. I thought this
info gets updated automatically.
I did clear the cache, btw.

Michał

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
 Spreading the word. Thanks to the devs.

 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Dirk Stöcker openstreet...@dstoecker.de
 Date: 2015-02-01 13:40 GMT+01:00
 Subject: [josm-dev] JOSM 7995 (January 2015) released
 To: josm-...@openstreetmap.org


 Hello,

 the new JOSM tested version for last month is out. Feel free to spread the
 word :-)

 Ciao


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


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

Re: [Tagging] length=

[Michał Brzozowski]

Just FYI, at OSM-PL people map highway milestones - as nodes near
highways - which is less prone to error due to people editing
geometry..
The map: http://osmapa.pl/konkursy/pikietaz/

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

[Michał Brzozowski]

Yes. As much as all this you can use any tags you want creates an
environment open for innovation, it creates a horrible mess when you
use it without coordination and on existing features.
Also, no-one seems to ask a question How it that problem solved in
other maps? when proposing tags or other solutions.
No need to re-invent the wheel. Look how others do it and you may find
an elegant or just practical solution.

Some people in Poland (the ones who never browse community forums)
maniacally tag every dirt road as highway=track, even if it should be
residential+unpaved (Like short named streets at suburbs) Another
prevalent  thing is tagging every place such as out-patient clinic as
amenity=hospital.
Lack of discipline is very annoying because correcting these is a
Sisyphean task.

Also, I think that editor presets makers should really implement *all*
approved tags (barring some specialized stuff like OSM-3D, indoor
mapping etc) because not featuring a tag makes some people tag things
not exactly correctly, just to map it.

Michał

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
 Now that the water_tap proposal discussion is over, I'd like to join
 this important discussion.

 My opinion: Since OSM is a *map*, we should *map* things. That means,
 we should tag what actually exists on the planet, not what is implied.
 Sometimes things are tagged in real life. For example, motorways are
 marked with special traffic signs, therefore we can tag a road as
 motorway. In other cases, we should use common sense to call the
 things by their names. I am usually asking myself: How would I explain
 to a tourist how to find his way? I will use something like Pass by
 ... or You will see  This ... is then the name (hence tag) to
 be used.

 A good example of the contrary is amenity=drinking_water. Though the
 original intention is clear, I believe the solution is suboptimal: a
 tourist wouldn't know what to search for (since it is not drinking
 water but rather its source that is actually visible in a given
 place). A mapper may also have hard times identifying whether a
 specific water source provides potable water or not.

 So, my answer would be we should map what the things *appear to be*.
 Taking the example of Japanese roads, I would also add with
 reasonably common knowledge. It does leave some space for
 uncertainty, but this uncertainty is also present in real life, so it
 can appear in OSM as well.


 Warin's question also identifies a problem I'd like to discuss. There
 seem to be no formal agreements on how to create OSM. Things are
 documented in the wiki, which is subject to uncontrolled changes and
 no review and which is not always read by the mappers. Data is then
 used by software development companies in the way they find
 reasonable, without any foundation for consistency. It may be cultural
 but I am looking for some sort of more robust, maybe even enforced,
 agreements. They may be subject to changes, but their mere existence
 would help. What do you think?


 Cheers,
 Kotya




 On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
 This comes from the tap discussion but has implications elsewhere.

 What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level?

 Are 'we' tagging for

 What things are? eg highways

 OR

 What things are used for? eg amenity

 
 Explanation? By example;

 Highways are used for transport so would be better tagged as
 transport=motorway, sub tags for vehicles etc.

 OR

 amenity=drinking_water would be better tagged as water=blubber

 --
 Is there an FAQ on this? Or has this never been documented/though of?
 Have fun with this  :)




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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:

 Maybe it's way too easy to start mapping. Maybe you should first follow a
 course on how to map before making your first edit. During this course you
 can learn about the good mapping habits in your country. But this is
 probably also not a popular measure.

Some time ago I thought let's be realistic and that iD, our go-to
editor for newbie mappers, could show some task-oriented
mini-tutorials. Like I want to map a / change... so it would show
relevant remarks (that is, like When drawing buildings, do not place
the outline on the roof, move it to the base. Remember to rectify
corners if the building if applicable and so on). A large quantity of
mappers are, as the HDYC site ranks them, hit-and-run mappers that
only map 5 or 20 edits and get bored - or just OSM is superbly mapped
in their area (:

If you can't beat them (iD), join them...

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Defining genre for public bookcases

[Michał Brzozowski]

You can take a look at Dewey decimal system or the likes of it.

Michał

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Guillaume Pratte
guilla...@guillaumepratte.net wrote:
 Hello,

 Many public bookcases are small enough (20-30 books) that hey can have an
 implicit genre, for example most books are science-fiction novels,
 cookbooks, etc.

 If you are looking for a particular genre, this information can be
 particularly helpful on a public bookcase map (so you know which public
 bookcase to visit).

 There does not seem to have a generic genre tag in OSM. Should it be
 mapped like proposed in amenity=theathre?

   theatre:genre=drama
   theatre:genre=opera
   ...

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtheatre

 This could give:

   literature:genre=science-fiction
   literature:genre=mystery
   literature:genre=cookbook
   literature:genre=comedy
   …

 What do you think?

 Guillaume

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=electronic_parts

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org wrote:

 there is a shop nearby that exactly matches this definition. but in
 addition, it also offers repairs of TV sets, radio sets and other
 consumer electronics.

 In this case, presumably service=repair should be used in addition?

I don't know whether re-using service=* key is a great idea, as it's
normally used as a refinement to highway=service (Compare that with
all these type=* issues where it collides with use of type=* on
relations).
Non-medical services generally fall into shop=* key (such as
shop=hairdresser), but hey, nobody bothered to finally solve this one
POI, many types of shops problem. There's also craft=* but it doesn't
seem appropriate.

Michał

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=electronic_parts

[Michał Brzozowski]

Hi there.

I am writing to propose a new, hopefully more precise and
self-describing tag for shops that sell electronic parts.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Delectronic_parts

Wishing you a mappy new year :)

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] The not-shops: industrial, industry, or business

[Michał Brzozowski]

I'm surprised nobody so far mentioned Mapbox's Maki icon set:

https://www.mapbox.com/maki/

Another thing maps based on OSM lack is clickability (like Google Maps
or Bing Maps). It's less CPU intensive than placing markers
afterwards. Maybe there's some clever way to embed clickable spots
information (just coordinates) into the tiles themselves.
Michał

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
 Agreed. The general-purpose renderings, at least those intended for
 small-screen use, should use a limited number of icons, and those should
 each apply to a range of related object types. Large-screen and printed maps
 can use a wider range of icon types, since there is room for a map legend.
 Special-purpose renderings can use more specific icons, but may need to
 either include a legend or provide a link to a legend.



 On September 16, 2014 1:32:29 AM CDT, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
 wrote:

 Hi,

 On 09/15/2014 07:43 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

  Maybe this is running up on the limit of only rendering shop values with
  100 instances?


 I think that many people think too much information science (how can I
 compress the most information into the smallest room) and too little
 cartography (how can I make a map with a good user interface).

 A map icon is what, 32x32 pixels or so? A couple of millimeters on the
 screen. As long as you stick to 20 POI icons, you will be able to select
 icons that are instantly recognizable. Something with a film strip...
 must be a cinema. Once you introduce 100 icons, your map becomes
 unreadable without a legend. Yes you *can* devise a film-strip-and-pipe
 icon denoting a cinema that uniquely shows crime dramas but you're
 leaving the realm of the easy-to-use map (much like having 5 different
 types of dash-dot patterns for various types of tracks).

 It appears to me that unless the user actively requests to drill down
 deeper on something (and we have the technology to do that), we should
 stick with a very small number of icons.

 Maybe we can find a way to actually detect that shop=bicycle;skateboard
 is some kind of sports-related shop and display a generic
 sports-related-shop icon, the same that we would use for shop=bicycle or
 shop=skateboard alone.

 Bye
 Frederik


 --
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
 drive out hate; only love can do that.
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] The not-shops: industrial, industry, or business

[Michał Brzozowski]

Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean the generic point shop icon?
Michał
13 wrz 2014 11:29 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com napisał(a):

 This is no longer true.

 2014-09-13 9:03 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:

 And keep in mind the current cartocss rendering leads to another
 distortion:
 tagging for the rendering.  Only a few shop tags are rendered in mapnik.

 Another huge constraint is the lack of support for ; in the default
 rendering.  For example:

  shop=bicycle
 renders
   shop=bicycle;skateboard
 does not

 Fixing these two issues would go a long way to making the current tagging
 work better.

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



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


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

[Tagging] The not-shops: industrial, industry, or business

[Michał Brzozowski]

On 09/03/2014 11:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 Another thing that comes to my mind: maybe we could indeed create this
 catalogue of tens of thousands of business types - who if not us will be
 able to do such a work? This doesn't imply the mapper would have to scroll
 long lists of thousands of entries, it could be well structured from coarse
 to fine.

I too wondered about this problem. The current shop/craft tagging
seems *very* broken for everything non-standard. We can't expect
people to invent new tags for every type of service or merchandise,
such as tractor repair or chimneys. You can use any tags you
want, but think of the software, how can it deliver relevant results
then?

Think what people *need*. When they go to Google Maps, they don't look
for a supermarket or grocery, they look for some specialized
stores/services.
Another issue is that people passionately add OSM notes for businesses
there's no approved tagging for.

I too, thought independently, about these human-readable description
tags like shop:merchandise:language and how idiots (of which we have
an abundance already) or diary spammers (who laugh in admins' faces)
will abuse it. But who knows, this may be a viable solution.
Compare with Business Name at
https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177?hl=enref_topic=4540086
.

So, I checked how Google does this. And here you have all the 2200+
POI categories you can choose from when you add your
business/institution/whatever.

http://pastebin.com/BHqXvkS4

It seems they flattened their hierarchy here, for instance every
cuisine has its own restaurant tag.. I guess internally there's some
tree of categories, so that searching non-specific terms returns
meaningful results.

Anyway, our shop/service tagging system is quite flawed in its current
form and is suitable for consumption only at a basic level.

This presents an issue that too few people think of OSM as an
ecosystem. We have disjoint teams (or individuals) developing
tagging/website/editors/map style/map applications. This isn't good
for creating a map that would serve users' needs (couldn't help myself
but write the proverbial displace Google Maps ;-) )

Greetings
Michał

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

[Tagging] Xezzvxzxc

[Michał Brzozowski]

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

[Tagging] Zzzzxzzzhzxzvczz

[Michał Brzozowski]

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

[Tagging] DxzDc

[Michał Brzozowski]

ZcSSxfsxzsvz CcCCf vfzzzdwzvbxcas cdzdzvxzdxzc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Zv

[Michał Brzozowski]

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

[Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food

[Michał Brzozowski]

Sometimes it's hard for me to tell whether a food venue should be
classified as a restaurant or a fast food.
From the description in the Wiki, the distinguishing features are:
* payment right away
* counter-only service (no waiters)
* disposable plates and utensils
* usually offers take-away
* very fast (I guess this means in most cases you wait at the counter
for your order to be fulfilled)

Having listed that, a few problematic cases from my experience in Poland:

GreenWay, BioWay and the likes
* vegetarian food
* no waiters, you order at the counter, wait at your table and take
your meal from the counter when it's ready
* non-disposable utensils

Various pizza venues, be it a part of bigger chain or one-off
* offers pizza, maybe other Italian dishes, salad, fries,
* no waiters, as above
* telephone delivery
* non-disposable utensils etc when you eat at the venue
Basically similar to eg. Domino's.

These usually get tagged as fast_food. Should they be? Sometimes food
venues beg to be called a fast food (and someone tags them so) due to
quality, but then again, they're not so fast - so maybe there should
be amenity=shitty_food? :P Jokes aside, it's all subjective (hence,
fails at verifiability).

Michał

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