Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
I wrote: From that I've so far used amenity=dog_bin d replied: I don't like the sound of that one... Is it for dogs to use or where you put your used dogs? :/ I'm not sure whether this is tongue in cheek, or where you are, but in the UK (or at least this bit of it) it is an offence for dog owners not to clean up any solid waste that their dogs leave in public areas, punishable by fines. To assist with this (some) councils provide bins for such bagged waste to save the dog walkers the hassle of carrying it home to get rid of it. Not all do, alas, so on my mapping walk yesterday around some local meadows I still had to watch where I was walking. And one dog owner who walks their dog along our street has been seen bagging up the waste and then disposing of the bag in a handy front garden (my stepdaughter spotted her once doing so in our garden and took the bag back to her). In the area I was in yesterday, and the recreation ground I was looking at, the dog bins are more numerous than the litter bins. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
2008/12/21 Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk I wrote: From that I've so far used amenity=dog_bin d replied: I don't like the sound of that one... Is it for dogs to use or where you put your used dogs? :/ I'm not sure whether this is tongue in cheek, or where you are, but in the UK (or at least this bit of it) it is an offence for dog owners not to clean up any solid waste that their dogs leave in public areas, punishable by fines. To assist with this (some) councils provide bins for such bagged waste to save the dog walkers the hassle of carrying it home to get rid of it. Not all do, alas, so on my mapping walk yesterday around some local meadows I still had to watch where I was walking. And one dog owner who walks their dog along our street has been seen bagging up the waste and then disposing of the bag in a handy front garden (my stepdaughter spotted her once doing so in our garden and took the bag back to her). In the area I was in yesterday, and the recreation ground I was looking at, the dog bins are more numerous than the litter bins. I've never heard of them called dog bins before... There was a certain amount on tongue in cheek in my reply... A waste bin is for putting waste in, a waste paper basket is for putting waste paper in, a recycling bin is for putting recycling in, etc... so a dog bin, following the same logic would be for putting dogs in... Dog insert work meaning excrement bin would make sense... Or Dog waste bin in a more general sense, or to generalise even more incase of non-dog pets that may be found, pet waste bin... Just trying to suggest clear tagging :) d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:50 PM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: I've never heard of them called dog bins before... There was a certain amount on tongue in cheek in my reply... A waste bin is for putting waste in, a waste paper basket is for putting waste paper in, a recycling bin is for putting recycling in, etc... so a dog bin, following the same logic would be for putting dogs in... Dog insert work meaning excrement bin would make sense... Or Dog waste bin in a more general sense, or to generalise even more incase of non-dog pets that may be found, pet waste bin... Just trying to suggest clear tagging :) amenity=feces_bin human=no dog=yes ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
2008/12/20 Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk: On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:42:01PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: Why do people use _ instead of , seems very cumbersome really. Because * it's been an OSM convention (standard) since 2006. No one voted and the wiki wasn't locked. * many of us are programmers * it's easier to spot mistakes like __ than That just calls for better highlighting of possible mistakes in editors and viewers and lint‐checkers. Of course, my patches are absolutely ready to be committed… ☺ Same goes for trying to encode hierarchy into keys and values really. It's quite cumbersome. We're using XML, it's good for structuring data (eye of the beholder thing there), and instead of trying to encode structure in values that's where it should be. Of course, my complete overhaul of OpenStreetMap tools/API to do all this is just around the corner too. I jest. Well XML is just the transport format. The actual database is stored in a relational database, and they really aren't very good at hierarchies at all. Anyway, if you want hierarchies you can always use relations :-) Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:25 PM, elvin ibbotson elvin.ibbot...@poco.org.uk wrote: I was taught that apostrophes should be used in two cases: to indicate a missing letter and to indicate possession, The 3rd common usage being to catch anyone who forgets about escaping in their parser or when generating xml files... having a tag like amenity=doctor's would at least cause such systems to fail earlier, by putting quote marks into a tag in common usage ;) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
A late reply, triggered by some mapping today and the discussion about new shops/amenities. Dave wrote: They're bins. In England at least you'd talk about rubbish bins (1), or just bins (12), but I don't think we've really paid much attention to mapping them. I hadn't tagged bins previously, but I spent an hour walking around a nature reserve today, and had a quick look at a recreation ground I hope to get to soon. From that I've so far used amenity=dog_bin and plan on using amenity=litter_bin when I get around to adding those (to distinguish one from the other). They probably won't get rendered, but at least they'll be marked, and perhaps at some point I can update them to something better. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: amenity=litter_bin I've been using amenity=waste_disposal waste=trash For these public roadside litter bins. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
2008/12/21 Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk From that I've so far used amenity=dog_bin I don't like the sound of that one... Is it for dogs to use or where you put your used dogs? :/ d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: Why do people use _ instead of , seems very cumbersome really. Because * it's been an OSM convention (standard) since 2006. No one voted and the wiki wasn't locked. * many of us are programmers * it's easier to spot mistakes like __ than ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:42:01PM +0200, Nic Roets wrote: On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: Why do people use _ instead of , seems very cumbersome really. Because * it's been an OSM convention (standard) since 2006. No one voted and the wiki wasn't locked. * many of us are programmers * it's easier to spot mistakes like __ than That just calls for better highlighting of possible mistakes in editors and viewers and lint‐checkers. Of course, my patches are absolutely ready to be committed… ☺ Same goes for trying to encode hierarchy into keys and values really. It’s quite cumbersome. We’re using XML, it’s good for structuring data (eye of the beholder thing there), and instead of trying to encode structure in values that’s where it should be. Of course, my complete overhaul of OpenStreetMap tools/API to do all this is just around the corner too. I jest. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Browet wrote: It's fairly standard usage, you see a doctor at the doctors, a butcher runs the butchers. There should really be an apostrophe in there I think, ie: the butcher's shop, the doctor's surgery. But that's not really how people think of it. Just stick both on and point out everyone else's bad grammar :-) Please bear with non-native english speaker. I agree we all use english for easyness but those subtleties seem far-fetched. Let's keep it simple and avoid the non-grammatically-correct-possessive-case. I think the tag value should represent a concept, not be grammatically correct. We might as well use A124 or whatever. If everybody agrees it means a doctor amenity in whatever language, the goal is reached. Obviously, it's far less mnemonic, though... :-) - Chris - grammar-fascist The apostrophe is not correct anyway. It denotes a missed letter, in this word-position it would be 'doctor is', as opposed to the non-apostrophe version meaning 'belong to the the doctor' or plural doctors. Doctors' is just silly but would be technically correct(ish) for multiple doctors (plural) /grammar-fascist I hope we all enjoyed that. Given that the tags are in use, I'm going to pull rank declare a special interest ;) - use amenity=doctors. DrMark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJCrH6JfMmcSPNh94RAmDxAJ9bk9ks6o1CetfwTOxJu+Xlg4gEKgCgk8SZ 8vya/IqBq3HFbr2/iu851OE= =P3Ku -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
Mark Williams wrote: The apostrophe is not correct anyway. It denotes a missed letter, in this word-position it would be 'doctor is', as opposed to the non-apostrophe version meaning 'belong to the the doctor' or plural doctors. Heehee, don't get me started. doctor's is the appropriate usage to denote possession (belonging to the doctor). And it does denote a missed letter... just a long while ago. The Old English genitive of *doctor would have been doctores, with something similar carried through into Middle English, and that e is what the apostrophe is replacing. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: grammar-fascist The apostrophe is not correct anyway. It denotes a missed letter, in this word-position it would be 'doctor is', as opposed to the non-apostrophe version meaning 'belong to the the doctor' or plural doctors. I think you're thinking of its as in the news group alt.its.possessive.has.no.apostrophe -- it's an exception, not the rule. But hey, there's nothing more funny than someone getting their grammar-fascism wrong. :-) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
grammar-fascist The apostrophe is not correct anyway. It denotes a missed letter, in this word-position it would be 'doctor is', as opposed to the non-apostrophe version meaning 'belong to the the doctor' or plural doctors. I think you're thinking of its as in the news group alt.its.possessive.has.no.apostrophe -- it's an exception, not the rule. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
From: Mark Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 31 October 2008 07:21:30 GMT To: Chris Browet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: OSM-Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Browet wrote: It's fairly standard usage, you see a doctor at the doctors, a butcher runs the butchers. There should really be an apostrophe in there I think, ie: the butcher's shop, the doctor's surgery. But that's not really how people think of it. Just stick both on and point out everyone else's bad grammar :-) Please bear with non-native english speaker. I agree we all use english for easyness but those subtleties seem far-fetched. Let's keep it simple and avoid the non-grammatically-correct-possessive-case. I think the tag value should represent a concept, not be grammatically correct. We might as well use A124 or whatever. If everybody agrees it means a doctor amenity in whatever language, the goal is reached. Obviously, it's far less mnemonic, though... :-) - Chris - grammar-fascist The apostrophe is not correct anyway. It denotes a missed letter, in this word-position it would be 'doctor is', as opposed to the non-apostrophe version meaning 'belong to the the doctor' or plural doctors. Doctors' is just silly but would be technically correct(ish) for multiple doctors (plural) /grammar-fascist I hope we all enjoyed that. Given that the tags are in use, I'm going to pull rank declare a special interest ;) - use amenity=doctors. DrMark To be even more pedantic... I was taught that apostrophes should be used in two cases: to indicate a missing letter and to indicate possession, so the premises of a doctor would be the doctor's surgery, while a group practice would be the doctors' clinic. If the doctor was at work you could say the doctor's at the doctor's. Of course, the English language wouldn't be half so interesting if he rules were simple, so there is an exception with it. Where it's means it is but something belonging to it would be its. Having said that, I tend to go along with the school of thought that we would be as well of without any apostrophes so amenity=doctors seems fine. elvin ibbotson___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Lars Francke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: waste_basket (150) is something I find useful, too. God knows how Why do people use _ instead of , seems very cumbersome really. -- /emj ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
Hi, Dave Stubbs wrote: Trash is the American version of rubbish. In line with recent remarks about places nobody wants to map... trailer trash would be caravan rubbish then? ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
It's fairly standard usage, you see a doctor at the doctors, a butcher runs the butchers. There should really be an apostrophe in there I think, ie: the butcher's shop, the doctor's surgery. But that's not really how people think of it. Just stick both on and point out everyone else's bad grammar :-) Please bear with non-native english speaker. I agree we all use english for easyness but those subtleties seem far-fetched. Let's keep it simple and avoid the non-grammatically-correct-possessive-case. I think the tag value should represent a concept, not be grammatically correct. We might as well use A124 or whatever. If everybody agrees it means a doctor amenity in whatever language, the goal is reached. Obviously, it's far less mnemonic, though... :-) - Chris - ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to Map Features based on tag usage
I've added some values to the Map Features amenity section (with the times used): - 2320 bench (used a LOT more than park_bench - only 1100 times) - 1485 shelter - 351 emergency_phone I hesitated to add other values where I was unclear about ... I wonder why there is a amenity=veterinary on the map features page but nothing at all about doctors. amenity=doctors (used about 400 times) and amenity=doctor (~150 times) seem useful to me. Is there something I'm missing? waste_basket (150) is something I find useful, too. God knows how often I've looked for one Lars ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
