[Tagging] Admin division multi-polys
Reading the Multipolygon page in the wiki, I'm unclear as to exactly what the current best practice is for tagging a mutipoly and its members, which represent a city boundary that has portions of unincorporated county inside it, like this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/111828/ 1, Is it really correct that the relation has no tags at all? (I added the name tag just to make it easier to find in JOSM) 2. Is it correct that the inner members have no tags at all, instead of maybe tagging them the same as the county boundary, and also adding them to a multipoly for the county? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
At 2009-12-21 11:01, Roy Wallace wrote: ... If you don't know where the other end of the street is, you can't use an addr:interpolation way, so it seems to me that you are just tagging a sign. Is there already a tagging scheme for this? If not, propose one - but (as others have said) don't use existing tags in a way they are not intended for. (btw, please don't follow up with but I want it rendered... :P) I've been tagging the sign from survey photos, with address nodes to which I add the tag pseudo=yes. When you get info for adjoining intersections, they could be used to construct a true picture of the range of possible addresses. This area shows the results of a survey of both pseudo-addresses (from street signs) and actual ones (from mailboxes): http://osm.org/go/TaBihQXG4- (Yes, I need to discuss/document this. I suppose this is the discuss part :) ) -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.
At 2009-12-22 02:07, Erik Johansson wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2009-12-21 11:01, Roy Wallace wrote: ... If you don't know where the other end of the street is, you can't use an addr:interpolation way, so it seems to me that you are just tagging a sign. Is there already a tagging scheme for this? If not, propose one - but (as others have said) don't use existing tags in a way they are not intended for. (btw, please don't follow up with but I want it rendered... :P) I've been tagging the sign from survey photos, with address nodes to which I add the tag pseudo=yes. When you get info for adjoining intersections, they could be used to construct a true picture of the range of possible addresses. Shouldn't that be psuedo_position=yes, or some thing describing that you don't know the accuracy of the node you have entered? It's not really the position - the address itself is not real. It is the beginning (or end if you like) of the range of addresses known to start on the nearby corner. Here is one of your nodes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/587389651 And the pic from which I tagged it: http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/DSCQ4093.low.jpg?attredirects=0 Using the knowledge that even numbers are on the south side of the street in this city[1] and the position of the sign (on the north side of the intersection) from the GPS track, I marked the pseudo-address 698 on the south side of the street, just west of the intersection, as being the most easterly possible address on that block. Similarly, the starting addresses on the other three corners of 13th St are marked 699, 700, and 701. If the next intersection west along 13th St (5th Ave) were surveyed, it would likely read 500 (left) and 600 (right), at which point that corner could be tagged and we would know for certain that the range of possible addresses is 600-698 on the south side and 601-699 on the north side. This area shows the results of a survey of both pseudo-addresses (from street signs) and actual ones (from mailboxes): http://osm.org/go/TaBihQXG4- (Yes, I need to discuss/document this. I suppose this is the discuss part :) ) I'm inclined to mark the position as inaccurate and some tag to be able to put an interval there as well.. The current scheme with drawing a way to interpolate is too much work and cumbersome, for me anyways. I agree it's cumbersome. The interval is not definite - only that it be at least 2 because of the spec of being odd on the north/even on the south. There was some discussion a couple weeks ago that the Karlsruhe schema implied that all addresses within the given range were actually present, a scheme that would not be realistic anywhere I have travelled. As I think I wrote back then, most places seem to use a relative position within the block to assign the actual address. Even within fairly uniform tracts, there will be non-standard intervals between some adjacent properties to account for slightly smaller/larger lots, rounding, different driveway positions, etc. It does seem that these address nodes will need to be associated with the road they sit beside _somehow_ in order to make it useful with reasonable efficiency for any sort of navigation. [1] http://www.qcode.us/codes/upland/view.php?topic=15-15_40-15_40_030frames=on et seq -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?
At 2010-01-07 19:59, Steve Bennett wrote: When a divided motorway/trunk/primary/... has a spot for turning or u-turning, should that be marked as primary or primary_link? The wiki isn't clear. I tag them as highway=x_link where the roads being linked are tagged highway=x (e.g. highway=motorway_link if the roads are highway=motorway). This seems consistent with the description of highway=*_link. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
At 2010-01-18 18:31, Randy wrote:
Avoid using power=station (although it would be my preferred term) as a
misdefined term which, when properly used in according with the wiki, is
misused in accordance with common English understanding (acknowledging the
possible blur in the German usage).
Use power=plant to designate a power generating facility,
What was wrong with power=generator - the existing widely-used tag? It's a
little too specific, since such plants include things other than the actual
generator, but this seems close enough and less prone to confusion with
other meanings of the word plant, not to mention being similar in many
languages.
Use power=substation to denote a voltage transforming (either up or down)
and/or switching facility which is not normally the final transition point
prior to consumption of the power.
Doesn't this create a conflict with the existing uses of sub_station (1183
in north-american TW)? If these were tagged correctly (according to the
wiki definition), is it really right to make them wrong by changing the
definition? (I'm assuming here that this isn't about sub_station vs.
substation)
Use power=local_distribution or something similar for pole transformers,
and underground power, distribution transformers such as the one shown in
the wiki station photo, which are typically the final transition prior
to use by a commercial or residential consumer.
How about power=transformer, again being more specific (in this case
correctly), and having the benefit of being similar in multiple languages.
Then again, is it really necessary (or wise*) to tag something this small?
My questions are:
1. Should we actually attempt to correct what appears to be only a
difference in the actual word (station) used for a value? Are not the user
agents (Potlatch, JOSM, etc.) supposed to ultimately isolate the user from
the underlying tags (certainly for non-English-speakers)? Are we being
US-centric here (is the term really globally wrong)?
2. If it should be fixed, is it not then correct to look at all the
existing uses (of power={station|sub_station})
and make them conform to the new definitions if necessary?
One minor caution to some of this: there are other power plants than
electrical plants. For example, there are a few steam power plants where
steam is distributed outside the plant and is used for motive force other
than to turn electrical generators.
Aren't these simply steam plants? I thought we were using the term
power as an abbreviation of electric[al] power. How about
man_made=steam_plant for these?
--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?
-- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dutch cafes
At 2010-01-20 17:46, John F. Eldredge wrote: It seems more reasonable to tag the general cuisine, whether food is available, whether alcohol is available, whether reservations are required (usually only at fancier establishments), and whether the establishment allows children (in the USA, at least, places that mostly deal in alcoholic beverages, rather than food, such as bars or nightclubs, are generally required to be limited to adults only by the terms of their license, but restaurants are generally open to all ages, even if they have alcoholic beverages on the menu). This more or less reminds me of the way I'm tagging fuel stations, with tags to indicate availability of diesel, propane, CNG, snacks, car wash, car repair, etc. Works well. FWIW, my understanding of bar/pub/cafe in the US has been: cafe: Espresso/coffee drinks, soft drinks, baked goods, pre-packed food. Starbucks, Coffee Bean, former Diedrichs, etc. are good examples. bar: Alcohol, maybe with dancing. No food to speak of (maybe bar snacks like nuts). pub: Bars that serve food. There are clearly overlaps, like Panera Bread, which, while its stock trades with and is analyzed as Starbucks competitor, is really more of a restaurant. Yard House is another good example, with easily half the clientele going just to drink beer, but yet they have dining rooms and a very good menu (IMO). I tag this as restaurant also. If you've patronized the place you are mapping, it should be straightforward to pick the major character of it for the amenity=* tag. Otherwise, guess from the name, signboards, or research. Add other tags to indicate the fuels available or entry requirements. I like the following, all optional of course: - cuisine=* - alcohol=yes|no - or more accurately alcohol=beer;wine;spirits (lots of smaller restaurants in the US are beer/wine only) - minimum_age=* (some places are 21, others 18 for different reasons. Maybe alcohol as a value to indicate the legal drinking age, in case it changes) - dancing=yes|no - music=no|band;dj - music:type=rock;oldies;salsa;etc. - sport=billiards;darts;projectile_vomiting :) - smoking=no|yes|patio - smoking:type=cigarette;cigar;pipe - cannabis=yes (bringing it back around to the subject of the thread :) ) -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ref tags and reference routes
At 2010-02-03 06:19, Richard Welty wrote: ... so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref tag or not? the wiki doesn't discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is needed? I would say the question is what happens when one of these routes is adopted as a state route and then signed? If it retains the same route number as this reference route, and is then signed that way, I would say that ref is the appropriate tag. Otherwise, a separate tag seems correct, since we may ultimately have to carry both IDs. I might put parentheses around the value if it is not currently signed that way. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?
At 2010-02-17 21:12, Roy Wallace wrote: I'm a big fan of source:*=*. This allows for a road to be tagged with e.g. source:name=survey + source:surface=nearmap But there doesn't seem to be any way to specify the source of a feature's *location*. I've been using semi-colon-separated values like source=survey;image;usgs_imagery;LACA to indicate that I: - Drove the street (survey) - Took a picture of the street sign (image) - Traced it from the USGS satellite imagery (usgs_imagery) - Confirmed the name with the LA County Assessor's maps (LACA) The source generally implies what type of information was used from it, though there is some overlap (like using tract maps to provide exact measurements for new streets or those with unclear imagery). I have no opposition, though, to the more precise: source:location=survey;usgs_imagery + source:name=survey;image;LACA -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] source:geolocation?
At 2010-02-22 22:29, Steve Bennett wrote: ... and there is not (afaik) any way to tell what changes were included in a changeset, or modify changeset comments after the fact... OT: Can someone create the ability to edit one's own changeset comments after creation (maybe from the http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/* page)? I'd sure like to be able to clean up my occasional mistakes. I use these comments to keep track of my progress on a particular survey or area. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Utility overcrossings?
There are bridges over freeways called utility overcrossings that contain pipelines, electrical cables, etc., but do not support any kind of foot or vehicle traffic. Any suggestions on how to tag these? Obviously bridge=yes + layer=1, but I can't find an appropriate highway= value. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Banquet facilities
Distinct from town halls, there are privately-owned banquet/reception halls for hosting special events, like wedding receptions, meetings, etc. How should these be tagged? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-newbies] motorway _link and _junction tagging
the originating motorway and the motorway role being the destination motorway. Sometimes, my connector and onramp names look like motorway direction / towards onramp e.g. CA-210 East / Redlands onramp. towards is the signed (actually official in CA) destination of the motorway, or a major city along the way [3]. When a link is shared by traffic both exiting and entering the motorway, I use a semi-colon-separated list of values. Example: name=I-710 South - Long Beach onramp;I-405 North - Santa Monica onramp ref=Exit 32B from I-405 North;Exit 4 from I-710 North for this way: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26968059 The same applies to the situation where one exit ramp for both destination directions leaves the originating motorway and then splits into separate links (see freeway interchange example at top). I see, in that example, I put both directions in the name key instead of using the semi-colon approach - something I'll have to deal with manually. Admittedly, much of what is tagged to the ramps can be derived from the related nodes at each end with some work. There just didn't seem to be anyone doing that work, so I wanted to be able to have them make sense when rendered/spoken now, particularly when used by routing. * Notes: [0] About presets: - I also add 'key key=created_by value= /' to my presets, based on the wiki saying this tag has been deprecated, and can be removed when seen. - For the onramp/offramp way presets, I also add 'key key=oneway value=yes /' because there was some conflicting info in the wiki as to whether this was implied for *_link ways. - All tags get 'delete_if_empty=true' though this seems unnecessary now (doesn't JOSM do this by default?) [1] Unlike the ref tag, I hyphenate route numbers (instead of space-separating them) when used in a name tag, since the tag is to be interpreted by humans, and is more understandable with the hyphen in it. [2] I'm wishing now that I had used northbound instead of North after the recent issues with street name expansion, which may create ambiguities. [3] This can be particularly useful for those brain-dead (IMO) places where they don't bother to indicate the direction on the sign. I almost always know what direction I want to go, not always what cities lie in that direction, particularly when travelling, when I need it most. The motorway doesn't even always go to the named destination. I think at some point north of LA, I-5 says San Francisco, but it doesn't come within 60 miles of the city./rant :) -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ways that change names while crossing divided roadways
At 2010-04-25 03:44, Ben Laenen wrote: Tyler Gunn wrote: ... I'm thinking the solution would be to split the small way segment between the major roads so that the naming can carry across the major roadway. Just don't give a name to the small ways between the left and right streets. It's not part of either road on both sides anyway. I can see this being awkward for routing: Continue 5.0 miles east on Sunset Boulevard to Cross Street , then continue 60 feet east on unnamed road to Cross Street , then continue 2.5 miles east on Crystal Ave to destination. If you break it in the middle between the two sides of Cross Street (or at either side), or if you bring them together at one intersection, the router can combine the segments with the same name or won't have to, and you get: Continue 5.0 miles east on Sunset Boulevard to Cross Street , then continue 2.5 miles east on Crystal Ave to destination. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ways that change names while crossing divided roadways
At 2010-04-25 07:47, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 3:39 PM, ty...@egunn.com wrote: Hello can you please point out an example of using a polygon to define an intersection? I haven't seen this technique yet. I don't have one (although I'm pretty sure that someone already tried somewhere as I know that some places have all roads drawn with polygons). I just wanted to say that simplifying an intersection to a single node is not technicaly more accurate. As far as accuracy, I was referring to it being a single intersection of roads topologically, governed by a single switching strategy - that a single node (or polygon) is more topologically accurate than 2 or 4 nodes. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
At 2010-04-30 06:08, Jonathan Bennett wrote: On 30/04/2010 13:25, Greg Troxel wrote: I would go for shop=fish. In the US, no one would hear someome saying they were going to the fish store and say but they sell crustaceans and they aren't technically fish. +1 fishmonger works too, but most people in the US will not really know what it means - but they'll guess close enough. Fishmonger is only known in the US from reading classic literature. It is not at all used. In the UK a fish shop can be one of two, usually mutually exclusive, things: * A fishmonger, selling wet (i.e. raw) fish and seafood * A Fish and Chip shop, selling cooked fast food So we'd need to distinguish between these in the UK at least. They are distinguished. The latter is tagged (and documented): amenity=fast_food + cuisine=fish_and_chips Fishmonger has a slight advantage in that it translates into French as Poissionerie, German as Fischhändler, Italian as Pescivendolo, and so on. The only thing that might be close to a literal translation here is the German one. All three contain fish, though. Also, we have shop=butcher, not shop=meat. Because butcher is the commonly-used English word, perhaps because there are many more of them than places that sell only seafood. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
So, we have some objection to shop=fishmonger, and more support for shop=fish and shop=seafood. Do we vote on it or what? User a href=http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Claudius%20Henrichs;Claudius Henrichs/a even went ahead and changed some existing nodes with shop=seafood to shop=fishmonger. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
At 2010-05-04 12:04, Phil! Gold wrote: * Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net [2010-05-04 09:47 -0700]: I generally regard fast_food as a place where you have to walk up to a counter and order your food. Even if they do bring it out to your table when ready, they will not generally come back to refill your drinks or bring additional courses. Tips are not expected. With those criteria, what distinguishes fast_food from cafe? At the risk of bringing up the ambiguous meaning of cafe discussion again :) I'm using cafe for coffee-houses like Starbucks, with very limited, usually pre-made, offerings like sandwiches and pastries. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
At 2010-05-04 21:32, John Smith wrote: ... amenity=fast_food cafe=yes/no seating/resturant=yes/no drive_through=yes/no I've been using motorcar=yes/no for drive-through, similar to access. This did require tweaking of the rendering style in JOSM, which had this tag too far up in position (and the same priority) so it was being rendered instead of the other more definitive tags (like amenity I think). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
At 2010-05-05 08:55, Pieren wrote: ...Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed, imo. Say where things are missing, not where they are obviously authorized. Or you add oneway=no to all roads as well ? +1. Micromapping may be on the rise, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying, on administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2, maxspeed=25 mph, etc.). I currently don't tag these, but it would be useful to visitors to know them. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Scales / weigh stations
Periodically along US highways, there are giant scales for trucks to get a weight certificate to comply with various laws. How should these be tagged? How about: highway=motorway_link for the ramps linking to the motorway highway=scale for the scale node/area -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] More tagging questions
At 2010-05-07 13:09, you wrote: Is there a a good way to define the area covered by school grounds? The examples and documentation about education tags seems to only apply to nodes or individual buildings - I would like something like landuse=school, which would also be a good place to put the name of the school. I draw the boundary and tag it with amenity=school, name=*, etc.: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.13064lon=-117.54788zoom=17layers=B000FTF -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Base transceiver station
At 2010-06-02 02:58, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote: Then there are antennas, which IMHO do not fall in the tower category Except for AM broadcast towers, which are the antennas themselves. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposing bazaars
At 2010-06-06 10:46, pavithran wrote: On 6 June 2010 22:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: There is already a similar tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Marketplace Although I don't know if it is similar enough or not, or if it can be extended or not, but might be worth considering at least before confusing people with 2 similar tags. No market places is different ! Market place more or less is like an area . I used it for this area . http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/50090720 Well I am talking about roads . that was one reason why I used highway tag . Road tagging is quite confusing for us in developing nations because of the wide difference in european roads. I think highway=living_street is probably appropriate for the roads/paths through these areas. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no
At 2010-07-16 21:55, Steve Bennett wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: from a data modeling perspective, though, it's redundant and thus creates the opportunity for inconsistency and unresolvable error. Do data modelling perspectives normally deal with folksonomies though? By its very nature, the data entered by OSM editors is far more susceptible to inconsistency than, say, a corporate database. I really worry about the long-term effects of this, though. Eventually, if renderers have to deal with all those duplicate (and not-quite-duplicate) cases, they will slow to a crawl. Shouldn't we at least try to stem this where we can? The current planet tagwatch has 19243 different keys, and shop, leisure, and amenity have over 1000 values each. Many of these are mis-spellings, capitalization errors, import-source-specific tags, etc., rantbut it also seems like a lot of people aren't bothering to search for existing tags for what they want to map - they just make something up, often without even consulting a dictionary - as if nobody else in the world had ever tagged a fast-food joint or shoe store. /rant This is not a great comparison, but it's all I have access to at the moment. If I use the US tagwatch from 20091206, and look only at keys starting with lower-case letters and that do not contain colons, there are just 1650 such keys. By comparison, the 20100707 planet tagwatch has 7223 such keys. If someone has the last US tagwatch, we could do a better comparison, but there does seem to be a growing problem here. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging U-Turns (Was: [OSM-talk] Divided/Non-Divided Intersection)
At 2010-07-23 18:53, John Smith wrote: On 23 July 2010 23:48, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I spend a totally unreasonable amount of time mapping turn restrictions (mostly no-u-turn) as it is, and even that is hard to justify. I was trying to say that it takes far too long to create this relation, which is necessary on maybe 25% of the intersections I'm mapping. I guess this goes back to the default values for a region/state/country, but in Australia some states have it so that it's legal to do U-turns unless signed otherwise, and other states have it illegal to do U-turns unless it's signed... Should we be tagging where it's allowed or where it's not allowed or where it's signed specifically one way or the other? Tag where it's signed, which is generally the exception to the default. In places where the law is no-U-turn by default, I would expect to see U-turn OK signs where they are allowed. In places where the law is that U-turns are allowed by default, I see no U-turn signs where they are disallowed. It seems that navigation software needs to know which is the default, though. Yet another case for tagging defaults on admin boundaries. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
At 2010-07-27 06:18, John Smith wrote: On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,... I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to do something with the data that turned out to be false... Doesn't our use license include a hold-harmless clause? If not, why not? Not that there's much in the way of assets anyway. It seems already that public entities are interested in OSM. If we can keep those from being purely one-way forks, and manage to keep vandalism (intentional or not) at bay, there is certainly the potential to have extremely accurate maps of things (like hydrants, exits, extinguishers) that may not exist anywhere else. I'd certainly find that welcome in a bullding that's on fire. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
At 2010-07-27 11:41, John F. Eldredge wrote: Yes, but my point was that fire extinguishers are not interchangeable with fire hydrants. I did not quote, and was not arguing with, that. I agree that hydrants and extinguishers should be tagged differently. At 2010-07-27 06:18, John Smith wrote: On 27 July 2010 22:58, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Like an earthquake in Haiti, for example,... I'd rather not be sued because someone thought they might be able to do something with the data that turned out to be false... Doesn't our use license include a hold-harmless clause? If not, why not? Not that there's much in the way of assets anyway. It seems already that public entities are interested in OSM. If we can keep those from being purely one-way forks, and manage to keep vandalism (intentional or not) at bay, there is certainly the potential to have extremely accurate maps of things (like hydrants, exits, extinguishers) that may not exist anywhere else. I'd certainly find that welcome in a building that's on fire. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
At 2010-07-27 23:25, Colin Smale wrote: I think there might be more types of public fire control equipment... I remember often seeing fire beaters (broomstick with flaps of rubber/leather) in a rack on moor and heathland prone to fires. Maybe amenity=fire_beater can be added to the proposal? There are also fire hoses which are attached to building water supplies and fan-folded inside largish glass-front metal cases inset into walls. emergency=fire_hose maybe, though I'd like something that better indicates that it is attached to a water supply, not just a hose by itself. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant
At 2010-07-28 01:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: There are also fire hoses which are attached to building water supplies and fan-folded inside largish glass-front metal cases inset into walls. emergency=fire_hose maybe, though I'd like something that better indicates that it is attached to a water supply, not just a hose by itself. Would this be a fire department connection with a hose attached? No. They are designed to be used by civilians. They are much smaller and lower-volume than standard firefighter hoses. See http://www.femalifesafety.com/stand_pipe/stand_pipe.html . They are apparently called standpipe fire hose stations. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Half-side turning circle?
At 2010-08-07 21:15, Alan Millar wrote: My neighborhood has some streets where there is a section like a turning circle, but it is only on one half of the street. Like this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.4732lon=-122.81386zoom=19 It is not a separate cul-de-sac; it is just considered part of the same street. I ignore them. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] National Forest trail numbering
At 2010-08-17 02:19, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:03:17 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: For Forest Highways (generally major paved roads): ref=FH nn (e.g. name=Angeles Crest Highway + ref=FH 61). For Forest Roads/Routes/Truck Trails: ref=FR yDxx (e.g. name=Upper Monroe Road + ref=FR 2N16) For Forest Trails: ref=FT yDxx (e.g. name=Heaton Flat Trail + ref=FT 8W16) I believe what you're tagging as FH and FR would be better covered under the combined RFD label. The only meaning of RFD I know of is related to a type of postal delivery route. I'm using abbreviations found in USFS documentation, and used by USFS workers. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is cycleway:right=lane necessary on a one-way street?
At 2010-08-17 12:08, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I know that there are some bike lanes on the left side, but is there any real benefit to tagging cycleway:right=lane rather than cycleway=lane when you have a bike lane on the right side of a one-way street? Assuming you meant to add in a place where traffic keeps right, I would say no. How about on the right side of a dual carriageway? Assuming you mean the right side of the right way of a dual carriageway in a place where traffic keeps right, I would again say no, as this is the same as the case above. The way I understand it, cycleway=lane means bike lanes on both sides of a two-way road, or a bike lane on the right or left side of a one way road where traffic keeps right or left, respectively. You need cycleway:right=lane on a two-way road where there is a cycleway only on the right side. You need cycleway:left=lane for a one-way road with a bike lane on the left in a place where traffic keeps right. Prefix the value with opposite_ if bicycle traffic flows opposite to motor vehicle traffic. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] National Forest trail numbering
At 2010-08-17 14:33, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:44:58 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2010-08-17 02:19, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:03:17 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: For Forest Highways (generally major paved roads): ref=FH nn (e.g. name=Angeles Crest Highway + ref=FH 61). For Forest Roads/Routes/Truck Trails: ref=FR yDxx (e.g. name=Upper Monroe Road + ref=FR 2N16) For Forest Trails: ref=FT yDxx (e.g. name=Heaton Flat Trail + ref=FT 8W16) I believe what you're tagging as FH and FR would be better covered under the combined RFD label. The only meaning of RFD I know of is related to a type of postal delivery route. I'm using abbreviations found in USFS documentation, and used by USFS workers. Err, typo. I meant NFD, which is National Forest Development, which is what the USDA itself refers to it's forest routes as. Two digit NFDs are usually the main roads, with three and four digit ones being increasingly minor tracks. As I said somewhere earlier, this seems to vary by region and forest. The tagging I mentioned is used in all southern and central California USFS-oversight forests and the ones I was able to quickly check just now in northern CA. I'll also note that because the township/range numbers are relative to a specific baseline/meridian, there can be duplication of road refs between widely-spaced areas. That is, the refs are relevant only in conjunction with the area in which they lie. Some like to say that one can always look at position within an admin boundary for context, while others might want to include enough in the tagging to make the ref unique, like maybe adding an is_in:county tag (I believe there is exactly one baseline/meridian applicable to each county). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ele-key for lakes / water bodies and glaciers
At 2010-08-23 11:52, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote: How do you use the key ele for water covered areas like lakes? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele I think I would use it to tag the height of the ground (solid) part, and not the water surface, because this is what I would expect a terrain model would display. I would expect the opposite - the elevation of the water surface above sea level. It appears that Google Earth does it this way (e.g. Lake Arrowhead ~ 34.258476, -117.182861). depth=* should then be used to tag the depth of the floor below the water surface. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] craft= Proposal
At 2010-08-24 01:08, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Peter_K=F6rner?= wrote: some months ago I started a craft= proposal in my wiki user space: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MaZderMind/Key:craft My observations: - plummer should be plumber - Is heating_engineer really different from hvac? - I would suggest glass instead of glaziery - the latter sounds like someplace that glazes things (regardless of the definition) - gardening should be gardener in keeping with the other values that are named for the craftsman, not the craft -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] craft= Proposal
At 2010-08-24 01:43, Peter Körner wrote: Am 24.08.2010 10:28, schrieb Alan Mintz: At 2010-08-24 01:08, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Peter_K=F6rner?= wrote: some months ago I started a craft= proposal in my wiki user space: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MaZderMind/Key:craft My observations: - Is heating_engineer really different from hvac? I'm not a native speaker so I'll take your hints as they come. Regarding the difference between heating_engineer and hvac I'm not sure, too, but I know crafts that only installs air conditioner but not heater. They usually specialized on big cooling installations in food production or transport. I'd suggest to keep them seperated. I would think that would be refrigeration. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))
At 2010-08-27 02:49, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote: 2010/8/27 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any application (AFAIK). I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? we use semicolons in cases where 2 values have to be assigned to one key, but it is not beeing evaluated AFAIK, at least not by mayor applications. ... I would not recommend to design a proposal where it is predictable that multiple values to one key will occur in this way. I was told that it is unlikely that multiple values will be taken into account because this is too cost intensive to calculate. Semicolons are necessary, used, and need to be evaluated by tools. The alternative is a massive change to the definition and existing use of many tags, something that seems far more unreasonable. It's not ideal to create new tagging schemes that require them, but IMO, we have to deal with the ones that are there. What probably bothers developers is not wanting to decide arbitrarily which icon to show, and not wanting to invent a whole new metadata scheme to decide priorities (thought this problem exists also when there are both amenity and leisure keys present, for example). Personally, I would rather see an arbitrary priority than nothing at all (the current state). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)
I would not propose both generator:output=* and generator:output:*=yes. I think it should be one or the other (probably the latter until we rationally deal with, or drop, semi-colons). Is there a plan to convert the existing data? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)
At 2010-08-28 01:49, Tom Chance wrote: On 28 August 2010 04:30, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: Is there a plan to convert the existing data? I thought about that, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Any advice is welcome! I could, of course, just download all data tagged with the old schema using XAPI and update it. More time consuming, but polite, would be to contact all the authors of that data to tell them about the new schema. IMO, when you're dealing with just changing a key name or value with a clear 1:1 map from old to new, it makes sense to change the data yourself - pretty straightforward using XAPI. If there is a convenient way to do it (is there?), alerting the creators/editors of those features to the tagging scheme change would be good, too, since they are likely to be taggers of those feature types in the future. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Street names
At 2010-08-29 09:03, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: When tagging a street name and it seems that the street signs are incorrect - all businesses on that street use the alternate spelling as their street address - which name to use? Using the 'Correct name is confusing when navigating to the street because the street sign won't exactly match the street you're being directed onto. Using the name on the sign would result in no match when searching for the street. In such case, I set the official name (the one fixed by the administration) on the tag name and the other one in alt_name with a note explaining that the street sign is misleading. I look up the street name in the city and/or county records, which are available online for many counties. If the signage and the records agree, I put the signed name in name and put the one that is used by businesses in alt_name. If, instead, the records and the one that is used by businesses agree, and the signage is wrong, I put the one that is used by businesses in name and the signed name in alt_name. I also report the signage error to the responsible public works department (usually the city in incorporated areas, otherwise the county). I also add a FIXME tag with a note to re-check it in the future. I've been responsible for a number of sign corrections. In both cases, I add a note tag with an explanation of what I found and did. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice on names for disused/abandoned railways?
At 2010-09-01 07:06, Phil! Gold wrote: The railway portion of the US TIGER import seems to have used the owner of the railroad for the name= tag. (And the owners appear to have been collected over the course of decades, so the current data doesn't reflect a lot of mergers and splits, but that's a separate issue.) As I come across these, I've been moving TIGER's name= value to the operator= tag, since that seems more approprate. I've also been adding the names of the rail lines when I can determine them. I mention this both for context and to see if anyone has any comments on this particular course of action. Seems right for active lines. There are a lot of rail-philes (the actual term escapes me) out there and I've seen some nice web pages with a lot of good info. It would be nice to approach them to make their data available for our use, or better yet, apply it themselves. My question is about disused or abandoned railways. TIGER generally has the last owner in the name= tag, which is as wrong as it is for active railways. The operator= tag no longer seems appropriate, however, since no one's really operating these railways any more. It would be nice to preserve the name of the previous operator somewhere; are there any conventions around this? (If I were creating tags out of whole cloth, I'd probably use last_operator= or operator:last=.) The actual name of a disused or abandoned railway seems a little iffy, too. The names are mostly assigned by the operators and may be renamed or reassigned periodically, so if a railway used to be called X by its previous operator, there's an argument that once it's been abandoned it's no longer named X. Any thoughts on what could be done here? old_name is documented for other objects. old_operator makes sense instead of operator, too. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] power=tower or pole?
At 2010-09-07 02:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote: So obviously this is a tower: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_transmission_lines.jpg I use a key of tower_type with the following values to specify the type of tower when they are not one of the normal types (for which I could not easily come up with names). This is one example what I call a normal single-circuit (3-phase) type: http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_1.jpg This and your example above are what I call a normal dual-circuit (3-phase) type: http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_2.jpg and this is a pole (no matter what voltage it carries): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pyl%C3%B4ne_haute_tension.JPG I use tower_type=monopole for your example and this one: http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_monopole.jpg But what about something like this, where there are several poles with crossbars: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_power_transmission_-_Ljusdal.JPG I treat this just as my other normal non-monopole single-circuit towers. When you look at them, they are all made from various kinds of structural members, including poles, angle-iron, etc. I suppose it might be useful to identify the ones with wood in them for weather/fire reasons. Maybe material=wood? Or this, where a single pole is made of metal with diagonals: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stork_nest_on_power_mast.jpg It doesn't look like a single pole. It looks like multiple pieces of tubing with supporting angle-iron pieces. I'd treat it like a normal dual-circuit tower. I also have these: tower_type=dipole : http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_dipole.jpg Two solid metal/concrete poles that meet (or almost) near the top. dual-circuit capacity. tower_type=u_frame : http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_u_frame.jpg Forms a continuous upside-down U. Multiple sections can be joined sideways, resembling ladyfingers, to handle more than 2 circuits. (This example is unusual in that it only carries a single circuit, with one phase on the right circuit position and the other 2 phases on the left circuit position). tower_type=a_frame : http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_a_frame.jpg Usually seen as the input and output interfaces of a substation. The example shows two of them at right angles to each other. They are made of two identical A-shaped structures with a single pole across the apex of them, similar to a sawhorse. The insulators are spaced evenly across that pole between the A-shaped sides. Additional structures are added sideways to accommodate more circuits. tower_type=a_frame : http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_a_frame_wide.jpg This type of structure is used to carry more than 2 medium-voltage circuits down a utility corridor. Similar to the a-frame described above, it has two ends with tower sections across them. In this structure however, the three phases of a circuit are aligned vertically instead of horizontally. They can be made quite wide to accommodate more circuits horizontally (I've seen 9). To each, I add circuits=* to indicate the number of circuits the tower can handle (not necessarily how many are currently strung on it, which is specified in power=line + cables=*). The number of cables per circuit is implied by the type of transmission, with the default of 3-phase high-voltage AC having space for 3 cables per circuit. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] power=tower or pole?
At 2010-09-07 10:27, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: tower_type=a_frame : http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_a_frame.jpg Usually seen as the input and output interfaces of a substation. The example shows two of them at right angles to each other. They are made of two identical A-shaped structures with a single pole across the apex of them, similar to a sawhorse. The insulators are spaced evenly across that pole between the A-shaped sides. Additional structures are added sideways to accommodate more circuits. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_lines_in_OSM#inside_power_stations appears to call these switches. I've been tagging each node where a line ends in a substation as power=transformer, since I don't map the individual parts of a substation, and the transformer is the most important part. The particular structures I showed are not switches. They simply support the insulators that support the incoming/outgoing cables and spread them from the vertical orientation in which they are carried on multi-circuit towers to the horizontal orientation used in the substation. Some open-frame switches/fuses may be somewhat similar in appearance, though they are generally closer to the ground and more complex-looking. The A-frames that I describe are easy to spot at the external interfaces to the substation. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
At 2010-09-05 18:22, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: In practice, it seems unlikely that any one will try to tag every tree in a forest It's entirely possible to map every tree in a city. Someone else mentioned Girona, I'll mention that Washington, DC's data contains trees and could be imported. Another independent organization in the city also contains tree data- not just the location of the trees but the species as well as date the tree was planted. There's no reason to think that individual trees will not be mapped. Special/historical trees could be mapped tagged historic=yes This approx 50 sq mi area of Bakersfield, CA, USA contains over 41,000 trees that were imported: node[bbox=-119.15,35.29,-119.0,35.38][natural=tree]. No other descriptive info is present. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
At 2010-09-04 09:12, Erik Johansson wrote:
I would like to tag areas with apartment buildings, and small houses
for a single family differently, at the moment I tag all of them with
landuse=residential. I need good terminology in english to tag them.
I've taken a slightly different approach. I use landuse=residential to
outline the entire related area. I then add that way to a relation with
role=boundary. I add the various buildings, roads leading to and within,
swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. to the relation. On the relation
itself, I tag:
type=site
+ site=housing
+ housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
: house is a single-family detached dwelling where the owner owns the land
and the buildings on it
: apartment is a multi-family dwelling where the tenants pay rent to the
owner of the buildings and land
: condominium is where the tenant owns the building (or part of one, as
they are often attached like apartments), but not the land, and pays
proportional rent and maintenance fees for the land and common areas.
: mobile_home is similar to condominium, but using pre-fabricated housing
instead of permanent structures
: public_housing is generally apartments (though occasionally houses) that
are owned by a government agency and occupied by low-income/disabled tenants.
Here's an example of apartment:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/194049 at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.079189lon=-117.560582zoom=18layers=Mrelation=194049
--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
At 2010-09-07 17:51, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote:
2010/9/8 Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net:
At 2010-09-04 09:12, Erik Johansson wrote:
I've taken a slightly different approach. I use landuse=residential to
outline the entire related area. I then add that way to a relation with
role=boundary. I add the various buildings, roads leading to and within,
swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. to the relation. On the relation
itself,
I tag:
type=site
+ site=housing
+ housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
that's fine, but adding simply the tag
housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
to the landuse=residential polygon would have a similar effect.
True - I wanted to be complete about it, though, so I described how I was
doing it, since at the time I started (a year or two ago), there was no
coverage of the subject in the wiki at all.
: house is a single-family detached dwelling where the owner owns the land
and the buildings on it
: apartment is a multi-family dwelling where the tenants pay rent to the
owner of the buildings and land
: condominium is where the tenant owns the building (or part of one, as
they are often attached like apartments), but not the land, and pays
proportional rent and maintenance fees for the land and common areas.
: mobile_home is similar to condominium, but using pre-fabricated housing
instead of permanent structures
: public_housing is generally apartments (though occasionally houses) that
are owned by a government agency and occupied by low-income/disabled
tenants.
Your system is a mixture of typology and ownership.
Intentionally. Sometimes, I don't believe it's necessary to completely
dissect all of the possible features from every different angle -
particularly when many of those features may not be discernable from a
quick survey in person or by records. AFAIK, in the US, these are the types
of housing available when one goes to look for a place to live - this is
the way that they are commonly categorized by people both in the real
estate business and not.
The owner situation might be quite dependent on cultur (even locally,
i.e. differing from one city to another). In Berlin for instance there
are traditionally many people in rented apartments, but you will also
quite often find mixed situations: owners and leasers door to door in
the same building.
This can happen in condominiums here, too. You can sometimes get approval
to rent out your condo. I don't think it's likely to be something you can
see from a survey, though. It's still going to look like a condo, and be
one in most respects. I wasn't attempting to be completely rigorous in the
descriptions - just to try to describe what the thing is for those that do
not know.
There are also people that rent a detached house.
Sure. It's still a house, though. It's still owned by the person that owns
the land, and that is not the government. Perhaps my descriptions should be
broadened to exclude who lives there.
...
Actually this is a really wide field, there are endless singular
projects and exceptions, and there are huge cultural differences:...
Again, I think this is one of those times when we need to focus more on
usability and common knowledge. I believe I have described the terminology
that people commonly know and use. It's worked well for me in the 315 cases
that I've mapped. I don't think it precludes creation of an extended
tagging scheme if someone really wants to import or research the other
information.
--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
At 2010-09-07 20:28, John F. Eldredge wrote: Other arrangements are common as well, such as duplexes (buildings holding two households); the same property owner owns both halves of the building, and the land underneath both; he or she may live in one half and rent out the other half, or may rent out both halves. Yup. You'd think I'd have not missed that one, having grown up in a duplex. :) It seems, really, that this is a special case of a house, since people do the same with their houses (rent out part). Or maybe it's an apartment building (with only two units). My limited experience is that they are built more like houses/townhomes. I wouldn't be averse to adding housing_type=duplex for these. Are there tri-, quad-, etc. plexes? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
At 2010-09-08 01:37, Erik Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
At 2010-09-04 09:12, Erik Johansson wrote:
I would like to tag areas with apartment buildings, and small houses
for a single family differently, at the moment I tag all of them with
landuse=residential. I need good terminology in english to tag them.
type=site
+ site=housing
+ housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
Here's an example of apartment:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/194049 at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.079189lon=-117.560582zoom=18layers=Mrelation=194049
Thanks housing is a better term, here are some questions:
Is it possible to separate your category into physical and legal
status? All I want to do is separate houses/villas from apartment
buildings. I don't know how to spot the differences of different type
of housing tenures, it's only a legal difference between condominium,
housing cooperative and public housing.
You're right, it can be hard to tell from just satellite imagery, but there
are clues.
If you see a tract with houses of various shapes and colors, individual
driveways leading to streets, some swimming pools and some not, I'd call
them house.
Mobile home parks have their own look to them. Once you've seen one, you
know what you're looking at. E.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.12371lon=-117.58092zoom=17layers=M
(it would be nice to have the main slippy map have a selectable satellite
imagery background layer, wouldn't it?)
If you see larger, multi-story buildings, similar to each other, with a
common swimming pool beside a different-looking building, you're either
looking at condos or apartments. In the absence of any other info, I call
them apartment. On surveying, if you can see signage at the entrance for
the name of the complex, you can Google for the name and the street, and
usually find units for sale in the real-estate listing services - then it
is condo. If you don't see the complex name, but see a no trespass sign,
and it has at the bottom Silver Springs HOA (home owners association),
then it is condo.
Further clues can be gotten from county assessor's data if online. Public
housing usually looks like apartment/condo, except it will show as
city/county/federal land in the assessor's maps. Also, the distinction
between condo and apartment is sometimes that condos will have individual
addresses and apartments will not, though this is not the case in every
city (Irvine, CA being an exception that comes to mind where apartments
have their own housenumbers too).
It's possible that I've mapped some duplexes as houses, but I can see
adding duplex as a type.
I can see adding townhouse, too.
The rest seem to be local terminology differences or slight variations on
the same idea of the types already mentioned.
--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
At 2010-09-08 02:13, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote: ... mobile home probably is, but I don't know what sense there is to tag it, as it has no place (it is mobile). I'm not talking about RVs/trailers/campers - I'm talking about housing that is built in 2 or 3 pieces, trucked to a mobile home park, and then mounted fairly permanently to the ground. Once placed, they are rarely ever moved again. It's like a condo complex, in that the tenants own the dwelling and pay rent for the land and common areas. ... There are also mixed use houses, in Germany we call this Wohn- und Geschäftshaus, which is residential and commercial building. Yes - these are getting somewhat popular in new redeveloped urban centers here. The most common case is ground-floor retail with apartments or condos above. Seems like these should be drawn as residential buildings and then add POIs for the shops. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
I wrote:
...
type=site
+ site=housing
+ housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
^^^
This should be housing_type, not housing.
--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
At 2010-09-08 05:14, Eric Jarvies wrote: or dwelling_type I chose housing because it is the commonly-used term to describe the business of building and selling residences. Also, it seems like a word more likely to be understood (not to mention pronounced :) ) by non-native English-speakers. BTW, dwell is one of only three root words in English that begin with dw :) -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] power=tower or pole?
At 2010-09-08 11:15, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Alan posted this one: tower_type=dipole : http://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/power_dipole.jpg Two solid metal/concrete poles that meet (or almost) near the top. dual-circuit capacity. Added, though I can't confirm that the term is used outside OSM. This was my own name. State public utility commission websites are usually a good source of info on power transmission things. You can often find detailed filings for generation/transmission projects from which to get industry terminology. I imagine there's a group of tower-philes or pylon-philes out there that has stuff on the web somewhere, too. The one that I found in England wasn't very precise, though. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Approved: power generator rationalisation
At 2010-09-18 02:28, Tom Chance wrote: Given that the new tags don't require the existing tags to be deleted, The proposal says: - This will deprecate power_source=*. - This will deprecate power_rating=*. - This would deprecate existing values for power_source=* where they combine the source and the method, e.g. power_source=photovoltaic. It seems like there was a rational (i.e. 1:1) map of old values to new values possible. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] operator and brand WAS: Re: community centres
At 2010-09-28 11:43, Sean Horgan wrote: Hotels are similar to petrol stations in that many are independently owned and operated but rely heavily on the brand for marketing.  Coffee shops,  fastfood restaurants and any other franchise-business fall into the same bucket  (starbucks, mcdonalds, home depot, Teleflora).  name, operator, and brand would normally be 3 different things in these cases. +1 The operator is usually the least apparent, being found only on a plaque somewhere or a business license, and may be the same as the brand, in the case of company-owned stores. Many JOSM presets get this wrong by offering the operator tag for this seldom-known info and not the more commonly-known brand tag, causing people to reverse the two, as does the fuzzy language in the wiki. We settled this a while back - can someone review the JOSM presets? On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:56, Mâ¡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/9/28 Sean Horgan seanhor...@gmail.com: sounds good, no objections. OK, as this is IMHO no real change, I put it in the wiki. Now I realized something else: according to the German ML for tagging certain objects 3 tags are useful: name, operator, brand e.g. a petrol station: name would be the _name_ of the specific petrol station operator would be the name of the company or person running this specific station brand would be the name of the chain, e.g. BP, Shell, etc. Now looking at the wiki and getting this example:   * tourism=hotel   * name=Le Méridien Piccadilly (the name of the specific hotel)   * operator=Le Méridien (the name of the company that runs the hotel, and which maybe run other hotels too) Knowing nothing else, the operator key should be brand. If one knows that the chain actually manages/operates this hotel itself, the operator=Le Méridien tag would be appropriate as well. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?
In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation from municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for help and information, networking with other business owners, representing businesses in addressing the city, sometimes informal arbitration, etc. There are only a handful of existing tags with the name [Cc]hamber [oO]f [Cc]ommerce, with no consistent tagging. Any objection to amenity=chamber_of_commerce ? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-storage facilities
At 2010-12-11 14:29, Nathan Edgars II wrote: There is some use of http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/amenity=storage but I don't know if any (except for the ones I tagged) are used for this type of facility. I've been using amenity=storage. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] self-storage facilities
At 2010-12-11 15:04, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: I'd take the view that amenity implies a degree of personal access, so I reckon amenity=storage is probably sufficient rather than risk unnecessary typos with underscores. I think storage and self-storage imply different things. The former would be warehousing etc for business customers, and the latter for the general public. I don't think there is such a division. Both companies and individuals store things in the same places. Some places that cater more to commercial customers may offer enhanced services, like cold storage, which could be added with additional tags, but I doubt they care whether you're just some guy, some guy with a fictitious firm name filed, some incorporated guy, or some guy working for a huge corporation. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fixed position GPS receivers
At 2010-05-20 02:44, Jean-Guilhem Cailton wrote: Le 20/05/2010 06:29, John Smith a écrit : Here's a sample generated from NASA site log files: node id='-1' visible='true' lat='44.4639' lon='26.12573889' tag k='fixme' v='not_reviewed' / tag k='man_made' v='monitoring_station' / tag k='monitoring:gps' v='yes' / tag k='monitoring:glonass' v='yes' / tag k='iers_domes_number' v='11401M001' / tag k='antenna' v='LEIAT504GG LEIS' / tag k='receiver' v='LEICA GRX1200GGPRO' / tag k='name' v='Bucuresti / Romania' / tag k='ele' v='143.2' / tag k='source:url' v='http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/igscb/station/log/bucu_20100503.log' / /node Just to make things more interesting, the lat/lon given for some/all sites are in country or region specific datums, eg Australian locations use GDA94, but the site log file can't automatically be parsed for which datum is used. And it doesn't even always specify them :( Compared with the monitoring sites with other purposes (nice aircraft noise tracking site by the way), I thought that at least for the positioning systems monitoring sites, precise lat/lon should be available. Looking at the Toulouse log file (and Bucarest's as well), it seemed to use ITRF reference system (International Terrestrial Reference Frame - http://itrf.ensg.ign.fr/), apparently fairly close to WGS84 for OSM purposes (ftp://itrf.ensg.ign.fr/pub/itrf/WGS84.TXT). The ITRF values do appear to be precisely what is being measured. However, the Latitude and Longitude below them are not always correctly transformed to WGS84. I spot-checked a few in my area, finding one that was correct, and some that were off by as much as 100m. I used GeoTrans3 and the WGS84 datum for the transformation. I looked up the Wikipedia source and was satisfied that this is supposedly sufficient to get within 10 cm. The lat/lon for BUCU is correct under these circumstances, but that for TOUL is not. I get 43 33 38.5307, 1 28 51.2087, 211.655 - ~9 meters away from the spec'd lat/lon, which seems closer to what appears to be the correct structure in the Bing imagery - the square pad near the edge of the building about 2.7m SSW of those coords. I'd also add ref=* for the 4-char identifier (e.g. BUCU) and start_date from Item 1 Date Installed. Note that at least one of these IGSC stations (LEEP) was previously imported by someone: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/740570067 -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Operator in leisure=stadium?
At 2010-12-18 12:47, Diego Woitasen wrote: I haven't found an owner tag. May be there is something similiar that we can use in these case. owner=* makes sense, and has been used 62064 times according to http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Planet-latest/En/tags.html BTW, is there something better than TagWatch? It takes longer than I'd like to use because of it all being on one page. I'd be willing to work on splitting it into multiple pages (by first character perhaps) if the script is in a language I can hack. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] refs describing routes instead of ways
In parts of Southern CA that I've worked on, aside from the known/signed CA-, I-, and county [A-Z]- route numbers, there are either: - No road numbers (LA, Orange, San Bernardino) - Road number in road books and rarely anywhere else (Kern County). I put these in ref when I come across them in research, but don't like that they render, and would rather put them elsewhere. All bridges in the state have bridge numbers that are signed on or near them, and I put them in bridge_ref so as not to conflict with the route (in ref) that they carry. I really don't want/expect anything to render other than the route numbers in ref. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Airport subtypes
At 2010-12-30 23:43, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: A recent import has highlighted the lack of suitable subtypes of airport in the tagging schema. There are some pages of lapsed concepts on the wiki of different airport subtypes A scan through the wikipedia gives me international airport domestic airport regional airport airstrip or airfield IMO, a single categorization would be a poor choice. Maybe the ICAO or IATA or individual countries' aviation authority have defined categories for these things but I doubt people know them, and any attempt to tag consistently would surely prove futile. I would suggest, instead, listing facilities and services available, much like we tag gas/petrol/fuel stations, e.g. fuels, repair, oxygen, customs/immigration, etc. This is the approach used in the US FAA's Airport Facilities Directory (which could be a decent source of import data if someone would like to work on it). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping gentle slopes?
At 2011-01-04 07:13, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Is there a way to tag that a street is downhill in the forward or backward direction? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:incline -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Towing service?
I can't find a tag for the base of operations of a towing service - i.e. you call them to tow your broken car or truck to a repair shop. The basic definition would be a service that tows cars and other light vehicles. Truck and other heavy vehicle towing would be a separate option. I propose: shop=towing [+ hgv=yes] -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Towing service?
At 2011-01-07 02:19, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 07.01.2011 03:26, schrieb Alan Mintz: I can't find a tag for the base of operations of a towing service - i.e. you call them to tow your broken car or truck to a repair shop. The basic definition would be a service that tows cars and other light vehicles. Truck and other heavy vehicle towing would be a separate option. I propose: shop=towing [+ hgv=yes] For me, a shop would be to get in, buy something (or at least get some service done) and go out. That's not the case here. A towing service will get to your place to do something, much like the office of a plumber (which in most cases also wouldn't qualify for a shop). You might even won't be allowed to enter the area. Agreed. So other than don't tag it, can someone suggest what such a place should be tagged? Really, it's like any other sort of service-based business or office of some other kind of non-retail business. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: Re: Towing service?
I wrote: At 2011-01-07 02:19, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 07.01.2011 03:26, schrieb Alan Mintz: I can't find a tag for the base of operations of a towing service - i.e. you call them to tow your broken car or truck to a repair shop. The basic definition would be a service that tows cars and other light vehicles. Truck and other heavy vehicle towing would be a separate option. I propose: shop=towing [+ hgv=yes] For me, a shop would be to get in, buy something (or at least get some service done) and go out. That's not the case here. A towing service will get to your place to do something, much like the office of a plumber (which in most cases also wouldn't qualify for a shop). You might even won't be allowed to enter the area. Agreed. So other than don't tag it, can someone suggest what such a place should be tagged? Really, it's like any other sort of service-based business or office of some other kind of non-retail business. I wrote this before I realized there were other replies on this topic. Based on them, it seems the closest fit is office=towing, since that's what such a place is primarily used for - accounting, answering the phone, etc. I'll use and document this if there is no significant opposition. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)
At 2010-08-26 05:08, Tom Chance wrote: On 26 August 2010 13:43, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote: ... The source of energy used (generator:source) Combined with 'generator:method=fission' you have to add 'uranium_235'. If change the whole system, please add 'wood', 'wood_pellet', 'diesel', 'crude_oil'. I thought about that for values like biomass and biofuel. Again, it is perhaps getting more detailed than we need in OSM. After all, wood could be broken down into any number of sources such as coppiced_FSC_wood and waste_municipal_tree_cuttings :-) The problem is that diesel and gasoline do not fit in any of the other documented categories, yet both are commonly used for backup generators. If people are to tag those (perhaps important in countries without a stable electric grid), they will vastly outnumber all the other fuel sources. Is there any objection to my adding generator:source=diesel and generator:source=gasoline to the documentation? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)
At 2011-02-21 05:30, Tom Chance wrote: On 21 February 2011 11:08, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2010-08-26 05:08, Tom Chance wrote: On 26 August 2010 13:43, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote: ... The source of energy used (generator:source) Combined with 'generator:method=fission' you have to add 'uranium_235'. If change the whole system, please add 'wood', 'wood_pellet', 'diesel', 'crude_oil'. I thought about that for values like biomass and biofuel. Again, it is perhaps getting more detailed than we need in OSM. After all, wood could be broken down into any number of sources such as coppiced_FSC_wood and waste_municipal_tree_cuttings :-) The problem is that diesel and gasoline do not fit in any of the other documented categories, yet both are commonly used for backup generators. If people are to tag those (perhaps important in countries without a stable electric grid), they will vastly outnumber all the other fuel sources. Is there any objection to my adding generator:source=diesel and generator:source=gasoline to the documentation? Not at all. You might want to add explanation in brackets to make clear that oil doesn't include gasoline/diesel/etc. Doesn't seem necessary once those are shown as additional choices (any more than it's done in docs for amenity=fuel). I added gasoline and diesel to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:generator:source. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag pipestems (shared driveways)
At 2011-02-26 14:35, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 2/26/2011 5:27 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I'm not sure why you need to differentiate between this and a driveway, but I think the driveway is mistagged if marked highway=service. Do you mark the driveways access=private? The standard for driveways is in fact highway=service service=driveway access=private. I don't feel the need to tag access=* on a driveway. It seems that, wherever I draw a driveway, it's access is the same as the property to which it leads, by definition. A standard residential house's driveway (in the US) is on the private property of the homeowner. A driveway leading to a park is usually on the park property and any restrictions are usually posted at/near it's junction with the road, said restrictions applying to the park, not just the driveway. I think the pipestem thing is more detail than most people are likely to want to map, unless you are micro-mapping for the purpose of facilities management of a particular housing development. Where it is exaggerated (hundreds of meters), I tag it highway=service + access=private (usually with evidence from a posted sign at the intersection with the public road), and then tag the individual driveways off of it as highway=service + service=driveway (if I draw them at all). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sports_centre, gym, dojo
At 2011-04-09 20:41, Brad Neuhauser wrote: PS--To me, fitness centre would eliminate any possible confusion with other usages of gym or gymnasium, but if gym has already been in wide usage, it'll do. +1 Not that I spend any time there myself :-|, but people that do almost universally call them gym(s). PPS--In the US, gymnasium is definitely not limited to places where people do gymnastics, as mike said it's a large indoor room for a variety of sports--like basketball and volleyball--and also sometimes events like assemblies or dances. ... at a school. The long form of the word would normally cause one to think about such a multi-purpose building at a high school or elementary school. Colleges and universities generally have separate facilities for some of those things and name them more specifically. I never hear someone refer to one of the commercial fitness centers as a gymnasium. I noticed a note on the bottom of the page that a bot changed ~1500 gyms to sport=gymnastics!? If so, that was almost certainly wrong if people have been using the term as per US common usage. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] convention for multiple maxspeed values
At 2011-04-24 13:46, Richard Welty wrote: some highways have split max speed values, different for passenger cars and trucks. i don't see any provision for tagging this on the map features page. are there any existing proposals for dealing with this? if there aren't, i'd like to suggest something like maxspeed:hgv=50 mph maxspeed:goods=50 mph I've been using maxspeed:hgv for a while. Also, some signs define what an hgv is in terms of axles, so I add hgv:minaxles=3. I also use: maxspeed:towing maxspeed:advisory (for the yellow cautionary speed signs for curves) maxspeed:children_present (for school zones) thanks, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Cemetery section tagging
I'm working on the Riverside National Cemetery here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.88467lon=-117.28189zoom=17layers=M after having found their official map (non-copyright USVA product) to have mistakes and omissions - seeing a useful contribution for OSM. Locations within the cemetery are known by section and site. I've drawn the section polygons based on the official maps, Bing imagery, and some discussion with them, but the boundaries do not really render in Mapnik. The latest iteration I've tried tags the individual sections as amenity=grave_yard + boundary=administrative + admin_level=12. If you look carefully, you can see a disruption in the symmetry of the background fill trees along the boundaries, but I'm looking for something a bit more obvious (like the black lines used for barrier=wall). Well aware not to tag for the renderer, there are still many different ways to tag here - I'm just looking for a clue as to which one might result in the rendering I'm looking for. If there isn't one, how can I get the default Mapnik rendering to draw a thin, contrasting outline around amenity=grave_yard, assuming there isn't an objection? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Missing only_u_turn?
On the turn restrictions page, there is no mention of only_u_turn, yet I've found these to exist in the real world. Any objection to adding this restriction? If not, how do I go about telling consumers about the change? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
At 2012-02-20 03:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted before you can enter them). This is the standard for FCC (communications) and FAA (airspace) in the US. Well, close at least - elevations are generally above mean sea level - I don't know how that relates to the WGS84/GPS and/or survey elevation but I'd expect them to be close. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
At 2012-02-20 04:06, LM_1 wrote: As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would mean that the ground level is at this height. I might add that, if you put a tower on top of the building, I'd expect the ele tag on the tower to be the sum of the building's ele and height tags. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
At 2012-02-20 04:26, someone wrote: We can define away on the wiki all we want; there will always be people who read ele on a building to mean its height. I think this may be a language issue. In American English at least, one would not use/read the word elevation to mean the height of an object - one would always use/expect to read height for that. The words are not synonymous. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] access=no (was Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking))
At 2012-01-16 06:30, John Sturdy wrote: I understand access=no as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps that is better covered by access=private. I use access=private to mean there is no legal access by the public (i.e. posted private property). I use access=no on a road that has semi-permanent barriers to vehicles and humans at both ends (perhaps because it's washed out or otherwise unsafe). If those barriers are to vehicles only, I would add foot=yes. I think/hope this is what the access page on the wiki attempts to describe. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-14 22:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: In the U.S., a gated residential community usually allows anyone in who has a legitimate reason to be there (e.g. visiting a friend, delivering a package, repairing a TV). It seems that this fits access=destination as well as private. Would it be reasonable to tag it as such, and leave access=private for secondary entrances that lack a guard and can only be opened by residents? access=destination says nothing about a legitimate reason to be there according to the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access) - just that it's your destination. For example, you might want to go to a park within such a community to walk your dog, which would seem to be allowed by access=destination on the gate node, roads, or parking, but that would be incorrect unless you are, or are the guest of, a resident. I tag everything within such gated communities as access=private. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-15 05:38, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote: Btw. I think current Mapnik rendering renders addr:housenumber=* over barrier=gate . Meaning: if u tag em both u won't see the gate icon at all but only the house number. .. Which imho is not ideal. I'd love to see both rendered (when space allows) as both are of high importance. This is based on my experience in Haiti where often the only instructions to a place is eg: about 400m down, black gate on the left with #15 on it. Has anyone bn thinking about this? (How) can I submit a ticket to suggest fixing this? .. Nico, Sev, Brian: could this be taken in consideration in the possible Haiti custom rendering style? I would normally tag the address on a landuse area or a building node or area, not on the gate. However, I would agree that Mapnik should render whatever icon is represented by the other tagging on a node at a higher priority than using the house icon associated with addr:housenumber. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Gated communities - access=private or destination?
At 2012-04-15 13:55, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/15/2012 6:30 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-15 01:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How would you distinguish an entry for visitors from an entry for residents only? name= or ref= or whatever else Mapnik was designed to render on a gate. That's only a solution if the gates actually have names. I've never seen such a name. You were asking how to mark a residents only entrance and I suggested one. If you want to be a purist about it, find out what other tags Mapnik might render on a gate and, if one of them is more suitable to put a description in, use it. If not, suggest Mapnik render description=* and use it. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dispute prevention: meaning of lanes tag
At 2012-04-19 04:38, Martin Vonwald wrote: * PSV lanes SHOULD be included (also [2]). Example: lanes=3 and lanes:psv=1 means we have three lanes and one OF THEM is for PSV only. Same goes for HOV (high-occupancy-vehicles) lanes, unless they are separately mapped (which is a better solution for routing, given their controlled access). * Turn lanes SHOULD be included (see [2] and [5]). * The lane count should change, as soon as a) new lane has reached its full width or b) a lane starts to disappear (usually a merge with another lane) (also [5]). Technically, yes, but it doesn't seem practical in developed areas in the US, which typically change lane configurations at every major intersection and then change back again. A typical secondary artery might be 2 lanes in each direction with a raised center island, expanding to 2 lanes in one direction and, in the other direction, a left-turn pocket (in place of the center island), 2 straight-ahead lanes, and a right-turn pocket (in place of some land or sidewalk on the right side). While these additional lanes can be added individually or the way broken to tag them, I just don't see people doing this. It seems like routers could just as easily assume these types of configuration between various road classes, unless told otherwise. I would tag such a road as lanes=4 (lanes=5 if the center island is, instead, a center turn lane). - Two-way roads with a specified lane count, but without a specified lanes:forward OR lanes:backward and a lane count, that is divisible by two, are assumed to have half of the lanes in each direction, e.g. lanes=4 means two lanes in each direction if not specified otherwise. I will add a recommendation for this situation, to add explicit values. If an odd number, assume a center turn lane (e.g. lanes=5 means 2 forward, 2 backward, 1 center). +1 to the rest. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag disputed names in the same language?
At 2012-04-20 08:29, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: One possible way is to introduce ISO country codes (in all caps) and with a format similar to int_name:: PH_name:en=Panatag Shoal I would go with name:en-PH=* or name:en:PH=* to mimic the standard IETF language tag format. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag disputed names in the same language?
At 2012-04-21 23:36, Paul Johnson wrote: On Apr 21, 2012 2:29 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Apr 20, 2012 9:04 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I would go with name:en-PH=* or name:en:PH=* to mimic the standard IETF language tag format. en-PH feels more correct, since it's specifying dialect in a standard format. This seems workable. But I don't think that these differing names that are proper nouns can be considered as a difference in dialect. Well, dialect in the sense that the two countries call the same thing by two differing names in the same language. So your concern is that using en-PH implies that it's a dialectical variant and not a country- or culture-related variant. I would suggest this is a minor difference that should be solved by documentation. There _is_ the potential that there would be different cultural groups within the same country that refer to an area by different names in the same language (in e.g. central Asia), so perhaps the format might be extended to language_code[-COUNTRY_CODE[-culture]]. Culture values could be standardized and documented by local mappers, or not. This seems better than the old loc_name, int_name, etc. format, which always seemed too subjective and limited. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Waterway directionality in drainage canals
At 2012-04-28 02:24, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It's the standard to draw a waterway in the direction of flow. I've questioned this several times, but it's an ingrained default. My question is more specific: what happens to a drainage canal that reverses direction? I offer the Everglades and surrounding agricultural land as an example. There are huge water conservation areas that store water. When it rains, gates are closed and opened to direct water into these. During a drought, gates send water back out into the canals for local use. When there's a big storm, water will instead go directly out to sea. So there are a lot of major canals that have no fixed direction. How should these be mapped? Is there any existing scheme that can show how water flows under different conditions? oneway=no would make sense, since the (unusual) default assumption for this type of object appears to be oneway=yes. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Ojeq Stand
At 2012-04-30 01:07, Alex Rollin wrote: OK, So i make bad (formatting and approach) proposal for tag ojeq stand. It is a motorcycle taxi stand. Why not first search for existing usage? Taxi stands are common all over the world. Searching the wiki for taxi yields: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtaxi . Add taxi=motorcycle;car;hov or maybe individual tags like motorcycle=yes, etc. in the style of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access#Transport_mode_restrictions . -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr
At 2012-05-08 07:02, Brad Neuhauser wrote: But in the US the administrative municipality for an address may be different than the city that is used for mailing to that address, which is regulated by the US Post Office (and I think tied to zip code). To get back to the original question, I believe the addr: tags should be used for mailing addresses. At least that's what seems to be their usage when the target of an import. Physical location can be determined by the surrounding boundary ways. So, for: N Somewhere Street Foo Bar Code I think you can use either: addr:housenumber=N addr:street=Somewhere Street addr:city=Foo, Bar addr:postcode=Code or define and use an addr:baz tag where baz is the name of that type of subdivision: addr:housenumber=N addr:street=Somewhere Street addr:baz=Foo addr:city=Bar addr:postcode=Code I would only do the latter if this additional subdivision is regularly used in addresses. In the US, we have a first-level subdivision in addr:state, addr:city is second-level, and there is no third-level specified in an address. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] beer details, draught beer
At 2012-05-09 12:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'd like to note for pubs, cafes, bars, restaurants and similar if they offer draught beer. Seems like there some discussion about detailed tagging, including micro-breweries etc. I'm thinking it was related to the California coastline somewhere, maybe the central coast (south of San Francisco). You might also check the San Diego area. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposing a page on the wiki: tag names do not always correspond to their definitions
At 2012-05-17 16:30, Paul Johnson wrote: On May 17, 2012 3:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to propose a page that basically says that just because a tag is named X, that does not mean that something should be tagged as such only if it meets the real-world definition of X. This would only confuse things worse than they already are. This is a bad idea outright. The idea, taken in a vacuum without knowledge of personalities, seems correct. There are many more examples, like highway=* things that are not highways. I don't think we need a page for it, but it should be somewhere in beginners documentation that the key and any non-name values may not be exact matches (or maybe even wrong) in your local usage and language. Editors like JOSM already have different, more correct names in the presets menu for some of the tags, and the ability is there (as someone from Indonesia pointed out) to create your own presets (or have them created for you) and name them whatever you want. Other editors have limited and/or hierarchical tagging with icons that accomplish the same thing. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] Multiple values warning in P2
[Moved from dev] At 2012-07-26 01:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Alan Mintz wrote: Semi-colons are the agreed-upon way to provide multiple values for a field. It seems wrong to warn of their use, especially given the demonstrated potential to cause users to fix such values incorrectly. In most cases having two values in a field is undesirable. Virtually no data consumers will correctly parse them: if you have a node with amenity=pub;cafe, it will generally not be recognised as either a pub or a café. I often have to tag retail and food/beverage shops with multiple values. Until someone comes up with a different solution, likely requiring a wholesale renaming of keys and values, I believe the consensus solution is to use multiple values. The subject has certainly been beat to death a number of times, with no other solution coming out of it. Isn't it time the consumers caught up? Not that we are supposed to be tagging for the renderer anyway :) P2 does have a small whitelist of tags for which it won't warn about a semicolon and I'm happy to consider adding to that, if you have a particular suggestion. I would suggest that it should instead be a blacklist for the particular case you mention here: I suspect however that what you're really talking about is the ref tag and that's a little more complex. In some countries (such as, I think, Britain, France and Germany) then a road genuinely can't have two numbers (excepting E-roads); in some it can (US, Poland). So at the least any solution here will need to be bbox-specific. and not in the US, since multiple ref values are still apparently correct, necessary, and common. In my case, the issue recently came up with source (and source_ref) keys, which I routinely tag with multiple values in order to correctly cite my sources. These certainly don't matter to any consumers (except humans). But I'd welcome opinions (ideally on tagging@, not here) Moved from dev. Are route relations not a better solution for those places where roads regularly have two numbers? Would we not be better off fixing our osm2pgsql/Mapnik setup to render refs from relations, rather than telling P2 not to warn about, essentially, deprecated behaviour? I don't agree that it is deprecated. If people are still tagging that way, regardless of admonitions about tagging for the renderer, they will likely continue to do so until the renderers change. I would not be against a more specific warning about the route case (depending on location), but having a general warning about something that is not currently generally wrong does not seem correct, and has the demonstrated ability to cause users to do the wrong thing. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging awards and ratings
At 2012-07-26 10:10, Johan =?utf-8?b?SsO2bnNzb24=?= wrote: Sometimes there is a discussion on how to tag differnt kind of awards and ratings. ... It is basically like this Award_System=Award With a catchy name for the award_system as key and for each award_system there could be a list of values ... example 4 In the blue flag system beaches are rewarded with the blue flag award blue_flag=blue_flag Without a common top-level key (or one that can be matched with a regex), it makes it hard to collect (query, etc.) all objects with award tags. Also, if there is something called blue_flag with a different meaning somewhere (like maybe handicap-accessible), you have a collision. I suggest award:Award_System=Award -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging awards and ratings
At 2012-07-27 00:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: But of course we weren't talking about the photo per se, but about the question whether you could put the rating in the OSM database, and I believe that even if the Michelin rating is displayed in a way so artful that it attracts copyright, the *fact* that the hotel has a certain rating will not be copyrightable. Just to be clear, this is exactly the case I envision, and something our crowd-source model should be good at - people seeing/knowing from local knowledge that a restaurant has a certain star rating and recording and maintaining it in OSM. I'm given to understand that, in France in particular, this information is commonly known and mentioned when describing a restaurant. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a trailer_park ?
At 2012-07-27 06:54, Werner Poppele wrote: In the US [1] I found some trailer parks tagged landuse=trailer_park. Is that ok ? Any other recommendations ? The tag tourism=camp_site seems to be not quite correct IMHO. taginfo landuse=trailer_park8 amenity=trailer_park23 tourism=camp_site 40196 It depends on what you mean by trailer park. For a place that is rented for a short term by the day or week to park your RV or towed camper in, I used tourism=caravan_site per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site . For places called mobile home parks, which are leased by the year (at least), in which to semi-permanently place a pre-manufactured (aka mobile) home that requires a great deal of work to move, I tag landuse=residential, and add it to a relation (with role=boundary) that is tagged: type=site site=housing housing_type=mobile_home e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?box=yesbbox=-117.9384%2C33.63424%2C-117.93623%2C33.63606 These are sometimes grouped together with the first type, usually pejoratively. Having stayed in both types of places, they are nothing alike. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.6209lon=-117.6951zoom=17 Definitely the latter - a mobile home park. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging awards and ratings
At 2012-07-27 15:23, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: Just to be clear, this is exactly the case I envision, and something our crowd-source model should be good at - people seeing/knowing from local knowledge that a restaurant has a certain star rating and recording and maintaining it in OSM. I'm given to understand that, in France in particular, this information is commonly known and mentioned when describing a restaurant. Copying all Michelin rating into OSM is a copyright infringement. I said nothing about copying all Michelin rating[s]. We've been talking about surveys and local knowledge from people seeing the ratings in the window or advertising or word-of-mouth. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging awards and ratings
At 2012-07-29 13:19, Pieren wrote: On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: I said nothing about copying all Michelin rating[s]. We've been talking about surveys and local knowledge from people seeing the ratings in the window or advertising or word-of-mouth. But this is the difference between seeing one fact and collecting all of them into one database. Michelin do not care if one restaurant shows its rating. They do care if slowly these ratings are collected and displayed on a special mashup. The question, though, is whether it is against copyright (or any other) law to collect and publish it in this way. You're saying that the result is what matters, while I contend that it's the process. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Advice clarification of the railway tracks=* tag required.
At 2012-08-07 14:56, Dave F. wrote: Hi A user in GB has been editing railway lines by adding tracks=4 even though each individual track has been mapped: www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/174899570 From the railway page of the wiki: When modeling multi-track parallel railway lines in close proximity they can either be modeled as a single way with tracks=*, or as a number of parallel ways. The tracks=* tag should be used to record the number of tracks with a default value of 1 being assumed where this is not supplied. In the example he's tagged each way with tracks=4. Going on what the wiki says this implies there are a total of 16 tracks on the ground. This seems incorrect tagging to me. I've contacted him directly received a reply but he appears to think his way is correct the wiki wrong, so I'm posting here for advice clarification. The wiki is correct. This is similar to the way roads are mapped - when a road that has lanes=2 is split into two parallel one-way roads, they are each tagged lanes=1 to continue to correctly indicate the number of lanes that each way represents. Similarly, if you were to split a railway with tracks=2 into two separate parallel tracks, each would be tagged tracks=1 (or have no tracks=* tag at all, since this is documented to mean the same thing as tracks=1). -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
