Re: [talk-ph] shop=general for general merchandise stores

[Glen Scott]

Variety Store?

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 15:43, Jherome Miguel  wrote:

> I’ve been using shop=general to tag general merchandise stores – a type of
> store that is of a size in between sari-sari stores and
> groceries/supermarkets, sells everyday staples like groceries, home goods,
> stationery, and some clothes, construction supplies, farm supplies, and
> hardware, and commonly found in commercial centers of many towns and small
> cities, as well as barangays. Some of these are clearly marked as general
> merchandise stores in their signs, and some are named like sari-saris, the
> name being in the format “[Owner’s first or last name] Store”. We currently
> don’t have an recommended tag for it, and except for those that have
> “General Merchandise” on their name and sells a general line of retail
> goods but is not essential in nature, is tagged the same way as sari-saris
> with shop=convenience. Is this a good tagging idea? Any further suggested
> tags?
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

Aw, sorry for my last post. I see now you’ve possibly misread or missed
part of my email that you replied to. I was saying you have the first draft
proposal where the OSM classification of a road is closely tied to the
road’s official designation (i.e. trunk = national road, primary =
provincial road, secondary = city/municipal road, tertiary = barangay
road), which many of us disagree with because official road classifications
has more to do with funding, and won’t create a good road map.

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:37 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Sorry for that, I can’t recall everything in the git ticket. Who actually
> did the second proposal?
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:11 AM Erwin Olario  wrote:
>
>> Correction: I never proposed changing OSM highway classifications with
>> government designations.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>> 
>> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
>> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
>> D56B
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing on, I would also like to bring up some points back on the
>>> earlier discussion at the git (see
>>> https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38)
>>>
>>> First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology for determining trunk
>>> roads. Particularly problematic is using the tree-trunk analogy (a.k.a.
>>> “scissors test”) to determine trunk roads. I completely disagree with that
>>> for it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to trunk because it’s being
>>> an critical link for movement of goods in one’s opinion, and led to primary
>>> and below its “branches”. I agree trunk roads are generally vital highway
>>> links, but this time, we need a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the route
>>> should a key road link between major population centers (i.e. large
>>> cities).
>>>
>>> Another problem back in the first discussions on possible reform of the
>>> existing scheme back in 2018 is regarding the designation national road.
>>> Yeah, I agree it’s more of a funding classification, but during that time,
>>> I haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses (national primary,
>>> national secondary, national tertiary) as found in the DPWH department
>>> order I referenced, which has defining functional criteria that is of
>>> relevance in OSM, resulting to the argument to deemphasize official
>>> designation and use informal tests that would only worsen the problem with
>>> the already dense trunk road network. Add to the problem is the presence of
>>> two proposals, one by me (which is based on multiple factors) and one by
>>> Erwin (which ties OSM classification with gov’t designation).
>>>
>>> Beyond that, I just realized after digging into older discussions in the
>>> wiki that the existing road classification schemes documented in the wiki
>>> are more of suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any discussion
>>> here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal guidelines; these
>>> suggestion became guidelines as mappers begin to take them as such. Again,
>>> the prevailing scheme the from 2015 is being more of an amendment to
>>> the pre-existing scheme.
>>>
>>> Until we reach any agreement here, we would be following the existing
>>> classification scheme, but taking note these are more of suggestions or
>>> rough guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying these. I
>>> would also tag the existing scheme documented in the wiki as containing
>>> conflicting, controversial or outdated information.
>>> ___
>>> talk-ph mailing list
>>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>
>>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] [Talk-ca] Fwd: Revisiting exits with “names” in Ontario and Quebec

[Jherome Miguel]

The issue with what that clique has been doing with Ontario and Quebec
highway exits is not only tagging for the renderer, but also not following
best tagging practices followed elsewhere. For exits, most of Canada
generally observing the practices documented at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info. Also there is a note about
the use of name=* for highway=motorway_junction, which I quote here:


   - name=* for the name of the junction or interchange. Do not
confuse the *name
   of a junction* with the *destination(s) the junction *leads to. In most
   cases worldwide, sign information describes destinations, not the name of
   the junction or interchange itself. If a signpost or indication displays
   destinations exclusively, this data belongs to destination=* tags, *not* the
   name=* of the highway=motorway_junction node.


In this case, the names in the exits are not an innocent mistake, but a
problematic tagging practice perpetuated by a small group of mappers. Add
to the problem is that name=* is rendered at the main map layer, further
encouraging some mappers to tag destinations as “names” just for the render
result.


On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 6:48 PM john whelan  wrote:

> It is normally politeness to ask someone if they are happy if emails sent
> between two people is to be shared more generally.  My comments might have
> been slightly different in view of the different audience.
>
> To recap we have determined that you are not local to Ontario or Quebec.
> The local mappers who have commented are not in agreement with your
> thoughts.
>
> In OSM the authority is the consensus of the local mappers.
>
> and to recap your problem is?
>
> Thanks John
>
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 20:34, Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> Ngah, should have replied to all. Not just you.
>>
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] weeklyOSM #571 2021-06-22-2021-06-28

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 571,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/14691/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph