Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/01/2015 05:07 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I don't think that is something that really advances the quality in OSM,
> and I would encourage you to grab a notepad and venture outside to do
> some mapping. That way you wouldn't be scripting world-wide cleanup
> operations but who knows, you might actually add real value to OSM.

I would still say that to anyone who suggests some sort of world wide
"cleanup" but I recognize that it was a bit silly saying it to you
(Andrew) - given that you are probably the human being with the most
survey-based edits in OSM.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup

[Shaun McDonald]

> On 1 May 2015, at 16:56, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> If we want to unify a kind of chain store, I think we should leave the name 
> tag, and focus on other tags. Some examples are ref:vatin=* for the vat id of 
> the store, brand:wikidata=* for the wikidata id of the brand owner, website=* 
> for the central website, or we can find a new better tag that should be the 
> same with all certain chain stores. Names should be left to the local mapper.
> 
> Janko
> 
When I add the website to an object in OSM, I try to add a link to the specific 
branch in the branch finder rather than the home page, thus would need to be 
careful with the matching, as exact matching won’t work. Also need to cater for 
when one person uses https url, and another uses http for example.

Shaun___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/05/15 18:01, Colin Smale wrote:


A bit of a meta-discussion I wonder why this topic is not going 
the same way as the debate on talk-gb last November-December in which 
it was proposed to tidy up and normalise various spelling variants? 
There was a lot of vehement opposition to any automated "corrections" 
as many chains are inconsistent with their own orthography and only 
on-the-ground mappers would be able to tell whether or not there is an 
apostrophe present in the signage at this particular branch (etc. 
etc., you get this idea).





Possibly because the various points of view were well articulated then 
and many of them (chains don't rebrand instantly and consistently, 
fixing misspellings gives a false impression of quality - or not) have 
already been raised here in some form - everyone piling in with "me 
too!" posts doesn't help the list become more navigable.


Cheers,

Andy

... and apologies for a largely content-free meta-post :)


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

[OSM-talk] contact: tags

[Andrew MacKinnon]

I am proposing that the contact: set of tags (contact:phone,
contact:website, etc.) be depreciated and replaced with the simpler
set of tags (phone, website, etc.) I am not proposing that anyone do
any mechanical edits.

The reason is that the contact: tags are unnecessarily verbose (we
should use simpler tags whenever possible) and the simpler tags are
much more popular (there are 98865 contact:phone tags but 490328 phone
tags). Why do we need to have more than one way of tagging common
things like phone numbers?

I'm also not sure why we need to have both website and url tags
(though in some cases I have seen people put two different websites on
a POI, one in website and one in url). There are 737911 website tags,
324963 url tags and 67038 contact:website tags. Though url is far more
popular than contact:website, so I don't think it makes sense to
depreciate this.

Anyone like/absolutely hate this idea? I do not understand why we need
to have so many different ways of tagging the same thing. This has
become a big problem in OSM in general, but this is one of the most
annoying cases of this.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] GeoHipster comment on OSM

[Simon Poole]

See

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/963

for the PR.

Simon

Am 01.05.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Simon Poole:
> I was actually going to suggest something along such lines given that
> both the Help and About pages are not particularly well used. But didn't
> want to get in to the bike shedding trap, so if I get around to it I'll
> submit a couple of PRs.
> 
> Simon
> 
> Am 01.05.2015 um 10:52 schrieb Tom Hughes:
>> On 01/05/15 09:25, Simon Poole wrote:
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure that it has been discussed before (for a while
>>> pre-redesign we had such a link at least on the German version which we
>>> really should still have for legal reasons). I suspects the designers
>>> issue is using screen real estate for stuff that is not that often used.
>>>
>>> It is simply the small matter of producing the code and a test instance
>>> of the rails port with the corresponding changes.
>>
>> I don't think a new link is necessary - how about just beefing up the
>> current extremely minimal "Help" page with some nice text and including
>> a section with contact details for various use cases?
>>
>> Tom
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/03/2015 05:17 PM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
> I am proposing that the contact: set of tags (contact:phone,
> contact:website, etc.) be depreciated and replaced with the simpler
> set of tags (phone, website, etc.) 

IIRC when the contact:* stuff was proposed, the reasons for it were that
it was "tidier" to have all forms of contact grouped, and that in some
cases there might be different telephone numbers or different web sites
for different purposes, e.g. a general contact telephone number and,
say, an emergency or reservations or god-knows-what other telephone number.

FWIW I think the simpler tags are perfectly ok.

Tagging list will probably yield more voices about this.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags

[Bryan Housel]

I like the `contact:*` tags, but only because it simplifies a few things in the 
iD editor.  When copying and pasting an object, we really want to remove the 
name/address/contactinfo so that the pasted object doesn’t have the same values.

If all the custom keys are grouped under `contact:whatever` this is easy to do, 
otherwise we need to build the logic into the editor to remove the values.  I’m 
certainly ok with having the keys either way, just saying this is one area 
where a namespace helps.

For the curious, the code to do this is here:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/js/id/behavior/paste.js#L4-L18 


Thanks, Bryan




> On May 3, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Andrew MacKinnon  wrote:
> 
> I am proposing that the contact: set of tags (contact:phone,
> contact:website, etc.) be depreciated and replaced with the simpler
> set of tags (phone, website, etc.) I am not proposing that anyone do
> any mechanical edits.
> 
> The reason is that the contact: tags are unnecessarily verbose (we
> should use simpler tags whenever possible) and the simpler tags are
> much more popular (there are 98865 contact:phone tags but 490328 phone
> tags). Why do we need to have more than one way of tagging common
> things like phone numbers?
> 
> I'm also not sure why we need to have both website and url tags
> (though in some cases I have seen people put two different websites on
> a POI, one in website and one in url). There are 737911 website tags,
> 324963 url tags and 67038 contact:website tags. Though url is far more
> popular than contact:website, so I don't think it makes sense to
> depreciate this.
> 
> Anyone like/absolutely hate this idea? I do not understand why we need
> to have so many different ways of tagging the same thing. This has
> become a big problem in OSM in general, but this is one of the most
> annoying cases of this.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Andrew MacKinnon 
wrote:

> I am proposing that the contact: set of tags (contact:phone,
> contact:website, etc.) be depreciated and replaced with the simpler
> set of tags (phone, website, etc.) I am not proposing that anyone do
> any mechanical edits.
>

Without a mechanical edit, what's the real benefit?
Since there are tens of thousands of each, rendering, editing and
processing tools must cover all styles.
A human viewer will see each style also.

-
Mechanical tag consolidation is possible in OSM, though it's pretty hard.
I recently completed tag
consolidation on motorhome toilet dump stations (though failed to get
consensus on the related boat feature).  That
was a much smaller feature count, but dozens of tagging styles.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags

[pmailkeey .]

On 3 May 2015 at 17:05, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> I like the `contact:*` tags, but only because it simplifies a few things
> in the iD editor.  When copying and pasting an object, we really want to
> remove the name/address/contactinfo so that the pasted object doesn’t have
> the same values.
>
> If all the custom keys are grouped under `contact:whatever` this is easy
> to do, otherwise we need to build the logic into the editor to remove the
> values.  I’m certainly ok with having the keys either way, just saying this
> is one area where a namespace helps.
>
> For the curious, the code to do this is here:
>
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/js/id/behavior/paste.js#L4-L18
>
> Thanks, Bryan
>
>
>
Bryan, as a copy operation, I'd expect all the tags to be copied - it is
after all the purpose of copying ! why should the contact details of a
pasted object be different ?

URL / website -  If the thing has a website, then that should be tagged as
website. If the URL is to a document, use URL. I'm happy both should stay.

As for contact:*, I'm not bothered either way - but have a preference for
choice - so that if there's a reason for its use, it can be used.

I'd be interested in a response to the idea of an object having a 'data
manager' tag - for one who should be consulted before editing an object - a
person who has agreed to maintain that object in the db.

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags

[Andrew MacKinnon]

> Without a mechanical edit, what's the real benefit?
> Since there are tens of thousands of each, rendering, editing and processing
> tools must cover all styles.
> A human viewer will see each style also.
There are various tags that we have decided are "deprecated" like
building=entrance is an obvious example which has been replaced with
entrance=*. The JOSM validator will give a warning if you use this tag
but 55 900 objects in the database that still use it. Someone
attempted an undiscussed mechanical edit of this in the past and got
reverted. Similar examples are power=sub_station, power=station,
oneway=true, oneway=1, oneway=-1, etc.

There tends to be a widespread dislike of large-scale mechanical edits
among the OSM administrators so I don't want to do that. There is also
the issue that some objects might have both the regular and contact:
tag set with different phone numbers or websites. (OSM ought to allow
commas in values to allow for more than one website or phone number).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] GeoHipster comment on OSM

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 01/05/2015, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Am 01.05.2015 um 02:29 schrieb Nicholas G Lawrence:
>> Exactly why this is necessary is a mystery to me. If business wants to
>> make use of OSM data, they can download the planet file just like anyone
>> else. If business wants to contribute data, or donate equipment or
>> sponsor events, those things are also possible.
>
> It should be pointed out that during 2012 and 2014 and continuing with
> at least the LWG till today, dozens of companies and organisations
> (outside of the geo-industry) with questions have had no problems
> contacting the OSMF and getting an answer back, typically within less
> than 24 hours. The OSMF even has a published and working postal mail
> address (contrary to certain other organisations).

Contacting the OSMF is one thing, but for most companies the only
reason to do that is to clear a license question (which sadly come up
much more often than they should). The other reasons to want a single
point of contact is to get technical support and all kind of services,
which companies like Mapbox and Geofabrik cater for (I'm sure they can
proxy legal questions as well).

I can't help but draw a parallell between OSM and PostgreSQL, which
has the same "actual product is only owned by a community, but lots of
companies offer commercial support" structure. Nearly all other big
databases are backed by a single company, and PG regularly gets
feedback about people turned off by the lack of an official PG
company. No matter how many companies offer high quality support, and
that this setup is demonstrably better for the project as a whole,
some potential users will always be turned off.

So I feel that we don't have a problem with the current structure, but
perhaps we could present that structure better. Compare for example
http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support/ to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Companies. Gary's "OSM for business
consortium" also has a nice ring to it (if anything, because the
members would be self-selected, it'd avoid a wiki edit war or a
complicated OSMF-led selection process).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] contact: tags

[pmailkeey .]

On 3 May 2015 at 21:25, Andrew MacKinnon  wrote:

> (OSM ought to allow
> commas in values to allow for more than one website or phone number).
>
>
>
It is suggested that semicolons are used to separate multiple data.

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] weekly 248/249

[Manfred A. Reiter]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 248/249, is now available online
in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the
openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu

Enjoy!

-- 
## Manfred Reiter - -
## www.weeklyOSM.eu
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk