Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: > I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my > local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong, It's not wrong. It's just another way to use the tag layer. I't not because other contributors don't share you opinion t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 0:46 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar : > > I'm not so sure about operator:wikidata=* (or wikidata:operator=* as > suggested on the wiki talk page) and the other similar tags like that. I > think this should be discussed more since the current set of proposed > supplementary tags seem like

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 05:10, André Pirard wrote: > Practically, if I click "item with ID Q1722", the first impression is > > A script on this page may be busy, [...] Likely a transient issue, with causes which may be at either end of the connection. > then quite a dump of seemingly computer savvy dat

Re: [Tagging] Issues relating to URIs and tagging

On 2 April 2014 03:58, André Pirard wrote: > I opened a JOSM bug saying that many presets > lack the Website tag box where to enter an URL. It should be posisble to give JOSM (or other editors) the URL of a "contact us" web page, and for JOSM to then go to that page, read an hCard microformat (o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 6:10 GMT+02:00 André Pirard : > > The last URL I used for OSM is http://www.palogne.be and I would like > to know how I can find the corresponding Wikidata ID to go alongside. > That's one of the strengths of Wikidata over Wikipedia. In wikidata you just have to make a new item, giv

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 10:47 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > I think these tags are essential because the wikidata tag should be used > very carefully. People are probably going to start tagging McDonalds > restaurants with wikidata=Q38076 . > That is (maybe not so obviously)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

I've been experimenting with wikidata tagging in OSM a bit lately. One doubt I have is when tagging tombstones with subject:wikidata. Is that correct? Normally that one is used when an artistic image is made of someone. What if it's a family grave with more than one 'subject'? What if it's only the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 11:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > in the case of a Franchise operator:wikidata would > not be McDonald's Corp. but the company that > operates the small restaurant (sometimes it is McD, > but mostly not). Then we could use wikidata:brand= -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http:/

Re: [Tagging] Issues relating to URIs and tagging

On 2 April 2014 10:49, Andy Mabbett wrote: > It should be posisble to give JOSM (or other editors) > the URL of a "contact us" web page, and for JOSM > to then go to that page, read an hCard microformat > (or some other contact metadata) and bring it back > into the preset dialogue for editing an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 12:24 GMT+02:00 Jo : > What I found though, is that it seems like it's necessary to create an > article on at least one WP, to make it possible to have a notable Wikidata > entry. +1, IMHO it would be desirable to have the possibility to create wikidata entries also for stuff that h

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 12:24 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett : > Then we could use wikidata:brand= +1, or maybe brand:wikidata? Has the advantage to have all brand referers in one block when sorting alphabetically. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstre

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

or rather brand:wikidata (which is already in the list) 2014-04-02 12:24 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett : > On 2 April 2014 11:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > in the case of a Franchise operator:wikidata would > > not be McDonald's Corp. but the company that > > operates the small restaurant (some

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 11:24, Jo wrote: > I've been experimenting with wikidata tagging in OSM a bit lately. One doubt > I have is when tagging tombstones with subject:wikidata. Is that correct? I don't see why not; but we could use burial:wikdata= What do you sue for the non-wikidata tag? > Normally

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 11:31, Jo wrote: > or rather brand:wikidata (which is already in the list) Please see the proposal's talk page for discussion of how to order the componets of sub-tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Wikidata#Order_of_parts -- Andy Mabbett @pigs

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 09:47, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I think these tags are essential because the wikidata tag should be used > very carefully. People are probably going to start tagging McDonalds > restaurants with wikidata=Q38076. That is (maybe not so obviously) wrong > because that little restaurant

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:15:39AM +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: > > I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my > > local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong, > > It's not wrong. It's just another way to use the tag l

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

Very interesting and important discussion. Are you all aware of that one of the main subjects of the next wikimedia hackthon in May in Zurich is about this? Maybe it is interesting to discuss this subject in Zurich? Like send the worked proposal to the people there or something?? nounours77

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

2014-04-02 13:51 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > It is not wrong by itself but there are many circumstances where it > is plain wrong > +1, it is not wrong as long as there aren't any crossing / overlapping objects that have a different layer in OSM (e.g. no layer tag in OSM = implicit layer=0) but ar

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 13:46 GMT+02:00 Matthijs Melissen : > Is the assumption that one Wikidata object should correspond to at > most one OSM object? If so, it would be good to make that assumption > explicit. > I wrote exactly that here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata#wikida

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What other possible justification is there other than not wanting to do the work of tagging bridges with a layer=1? If you argue it's okay if there aren't a

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-04-02 13:51 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > It is not wrong by itself but there are many circumstances > where it > is plain wrong > > +1, it is not wrong as long as there aren't any crossing / overlapping > objects that have a diff

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: > C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do > things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What > other possible justification is there other than not wanting to do the work > of tagging bridges with

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > C'mon guys. It should be done with sensible defaults rather than forcing > mappers to tell such plain obvious things. Rivers tend to pretty > universally go below bridges, don't you agree? Or bridges go above rivers? :-)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

In order to apply the name:etymology:wikidata=Q... tags, I created associatedStreet relations for most cases. Polyglot 2014-04-02 14:47 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > 2014-04-02 13:46 GMT+02:00 Matthijs Melissen : > > Is the assumption that one Wikidata object should correspond to at >> most one O

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Ilpo Järvinen > wrote: > > C'mon guys. It should be done with sensible defaults rather than forcing > > mappers to tell such plain obvious things. Rivers tend to pretty > > universally go below bridges, don't you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 02.04.2014 12:24, Jo wrote: > I've been experimenting with wikidata tagging in OSM a bit lately. One > doubt I have is when tagging tombstones with subject:wikidata. Is that > correct? wikipedia:subject is mentioned on the German wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Friedhofmapping (gr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

Since the person buried there is mentioned in name, maybe we should also have name:wikidata? person:wikidata or tomb:wikidata would also be better choices than subject, I guess. Polyglot 2014-04-02 15:17 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr : > On 02.04.2014 12:24, Jo wrote: > > I've been experimenting with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 14:47 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > For example, one street is often made of several parts that have the same > name. If we were strict with that rule, we would use relations for all > streets (which isn't practical). it isn't practical to create them for all streets, but my guess is i

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

2014-04-02 15:10 GMT+02:00 Ilpo Järvinen : > Definately, both :), which was my point. Adding layer in this case is just > to satisfy some lawyer rather than useful "work". > not adding layer tags to objects crossing on different layers is incomplete data. It can still be rendered "correctly" i

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > Rivers tend to pretty universally go below bridges, don't you agree? > > Or bridges go above rivers? :-) ^^ Sounds like the glass being half empty or half full. We will never reconcile the two points of view ;-) Pieren __

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:53:25PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do > > things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What > > other possible justification

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:21:51PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > April 1st aside: the number of important implicit assumptions is relatively > small. Rivers under, power lines over, closed ways under except if they're > tagged building, etc. Currently this type of layering is implicit in > vario

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:53:25PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > > > C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to > > > do > > > things, unless it is a covered river or one that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 15:35 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > it isn't practical to create them for all streets, but my guess is it > would well be doable for all streets with a wikidata correspondent. The > same for rivers (where it would be generally desirable to have a common > object, as these have to

[Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

Hi, I have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where a highway is going over a waterway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway We have been thinking about it for a while and it seems there is some demand which cou

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 13:05, nounours77 wrote: > Very interesting and important discussion. Thank you. > Are you all aware of that one of the main subjects of the next wikimedia > hackthon in May in Zurich is about this? Maybe it is interesting to discuss > this subject in Zurich? Yes; unfortunate

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 13:47, Janko Mihelić wrote: > "There shouldn't be more than one Openstreetmap item with the same Wikidata > ID." > > Although that's not entirely possible. There is also the case of sets; for example, four carvings which form a single artwork, but which are mapped as separate en

Re: [Tagging] What is OSM: a base layer for individual maps, or a fully featured geobased information system?

On 2014-03-30 13:50, Frederik Ramm wrote : > Hi, > > On 29.03.2014 13:41, nounours77 wrote: >> BUT: I asked OsmAnd to render the tag, and the >> answer was - quite understandable: "/Only officially supported tags will >> be rendered/". > This is silly. How do they define "officially supported tag"

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where > a highway is going over a waterway: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway > > We have been thinking about it for a whil

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > > > have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where > > a highway is going over a waterway: > > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_on

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

> It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of the bridge to 0 Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely. In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not represented by areas. The question should be whether the value of the

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson : > > It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of > the bridge to 0 > Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely. > We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), you can always create more abstracted

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014-04-02 0:46 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar : > > >> I'm not so sure about operator:wikidata=* (or wikidata:operator=* as >> suggested on the wiki talk page) and the other similar tags like that. I >> think this should be discussed more sin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On 2 April 2014 15:56, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 2 April 2014 13:47, Janko Mihelić wrote: > >> "There shouldn't be more than one Openstreetmap item with the same Wikidata >> ID." >> >> Although that's not entirely possible. > > There is also the case of sets One might also reasonably expect to fi

[Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

Not only was I disappointed to see this ticket: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9885 closed as "wontfix", but I don't understand the reason given: This format seems not to be used much. Too much work for too little gain. not least since I specifically referred to "an hCard microfor

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

> We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), 1) How much precision/accuracy? No real world measurement or recording of such measurement is exactly precise/accurate. Do you use a commercial grade differential GPS when surveying? When you are create a way to represent a road which in reali

Re: [Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

On 02.04.2014 19:25, Andy Mabbett wrote: > (...) I don't understand the reason given: > >This format seems not to be used much. >Too much work for too little gain. > > not least since I specifically referred to "an hCard microformat or > some other contact metadata". > > Was I unclear in

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

> > In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not > represented by areas. > no, their geometric representation is a line, but their width is (or can be) added with a tag like width and lanes, of which the latter defaults to 2 (for non- > links) if not added explicitly

Re: [Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

You should ask the developer for clarifications. But personally I agree with him. The effort to develop this functionality wouldn't be worth it. I don't think any website I added until now had contact metadata. Most people probably wouldn't even know this feature existed if it did. As far as I kno

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 02.04.2014 18:14, Richard Z. wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to >> connect 2 ways with a node which are in reality disjunct > > objects connected with pylons and lifts are als

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

2014-04-02 19:29 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson : > 1) How much precision/accuracy? No real world measurement or recording > of such measurement is exactly precise/accurate. Do you use a commercial > grade differential GPS when surveying? When you are create a way to > represent a road which in reality

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

2014-04-02 19:40 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson : > A bridge that is a single node could also have a tag for length (as well > as one for width). yes, but it would not tell you how they are oriented, because a node has no direction, it is a point. cheers, Martin _

Re: [Tagging] What is OSM: a base layer for individual maps, or a fully featured geobased information system?

Hi, On 02.04.2014 17:20, André Pirard wrote: >>> BUT: I asked OsmAnd to render the tag, and the >>> answer was - quite understandable: "/Only officially supported tags will >>> be rendered/". >> This is silly. How do they define "officially supported tag"? There's no >> such thing in OpenStreetM

Re: [Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

On 2014-04-02 19:37, Tobias Knerr wrote : > On 02.04.2014 19:25, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> (...) I don't understand the reason given: >> >>This format seems not to be used much. >>Too much work for too little gain. >> >> not least since I specifically referred to "an hCard microformat or >> so

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinkable

Hi, according to this discussion I cancel the former proposal "drinkable" and start a new proposal "drinking_water". We can transfer "drinkable=" to "drinking_water=". The future tagging- scheme will have only one tag to indicate the existence and quality of drinking water. In the future the t

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

Hi, according to the discussion in the mailinglist I cancel the former proposal "drinkable" and start a new proposal "drinking_water". We can transfer "drinkable=" to "drinking_water=". The future tagging- scheme will have only one tag to indicate the existence and quality of drinking water. I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - drinking_water

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Rudolf Martin wrote: > Hi, > according to the discussion in the mailinglist I cancel the former > proposal "drinkable" and start a new proposal "drinking_water". Note: There's quite an active mapping effort around drinking water: including use of drinking_water=y

Re: [Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

2014-04-02 18:25 GMT+01:00 Andy Mabbett : > Not only was I disappointed to see this ticket: > >http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9885 > > closed as "wontfix", but I don't understand the reason given: > >This format seems not to be used much. >Too much work for too little gain. > > not

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

At a road intersection, vehicle can interchange. At a railroad intersection only one mode can use the way at a time. A river/highway crossing is not an intersection. The stream does not stop for traffic. These features should not share nodes, no mater how they are tagged. I see no problem with a

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

My apologies in advance if I break convention or code, but I just recently started mapping and even more recently joined the mailing list. As a mountaineer I was very intrigued by the hut discussion and wanted to share some of my knowledge on this area. I will however definitely exceed the initial

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

2014-04-02 16:56 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett : > > There is also the case of sets; for example, four carvings which form > a single artwork, but which are mapped as separate entities. > You could put the four carvings into a relation, and put the wikidata tag there (along with the name=* and tourism=

[Tagging] OpenPlaques

We should merge: Key:openplaques_plaque (27 instances) and: Key:openplaques_id (293 instances) while the latter is more widely used, the former is less ambiguous, as OpenPlaques also has IDs for people and venues. Do we have a process, or preferred venue, for for discussing such matters?

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

It's great to have new people enthusiastic about tagging. A good side of already existing tags (alpine_hut, shelter..) is that a mapper not very experianced in mountaineering can tag them easily without reading 3 pages of text. Also, non-specialized renderers don't have to think too much about the

Re: [Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

On 2 April 2014 21:45, Dan S wrote: > I know how those microformats work but I don't feel that they're very > common, so I don't have any particular problem with the reason given. > Do you feel to the contrary, that they are "used much"? Do many > business/organisation websites actually add these

Re: [Tagging] Ticket for JOSM to read contact metadata closed

On 2 April 2014 18:37, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 02.04.2014 19:25, Andy Mabbett wrote: > The response probably refers to the fact > that, unfortunately, very few business websites offer contact data in a > machine-readable format. Perhaps, though a number do. But why would the machine-readable d

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

I'm afraid I don't fully understand the reasoning behind OSM having its own wikidata DB. What extra (different) data would we store in it, which couldn't go in Wikidata? I understand it in the case of Commons to store metadata like diaphragma and lenses used when taking those pictures. Oh, maybe we

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

Also -1 for the proposal. Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have 2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending you have drawn a little bridge precise, when you didn't. All of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

I think our own wikibase could be used to give a more structured semantic meaning of tags, and combinations of tags. For example, we want to define what a McDonalds restaurant is in our database. Is it a node with name=McDonalds? Well, a parking lot could be named the same. Is it a way with amenit

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

Nico said, "As a mountaineer I was very intrigued by the hut discussion and wanted to share some of my knowledge on this area. I will however definitely exceed the initial question in this message, since I'm more interested in the differentiation between the tags." Actually, the reason I started t