Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

sent from a phone > Am 20.03.2016 um 00:18 schrieb Dave Swarthout : > > If it turns out that such places are legitimate to tag, how should I indicate > that they are "administered" through AirBnB? they aren't administered through Airbnb. Airbnb is just one of many websites and services that

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

Dave Swarthout Wrote in message: > I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's probably > sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house but personally as one who > frequently uses AirBnB, I would like to be able to locate them more precisely > than is possible using the maps

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Javbw > On Mar 20, 2016, at 3:30 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > So far as "importance is concerned, that's not "sourced", that's your > *subjective* interpretation. Go google search for: 赤城(Generic images for Akagi) 赤城神社. (The shrine and related shrines) 赤城山 (the mountian itself) All

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:33:13AM +1100, Warin wrote: > On 16/03/2016 12:33 AM, Stefano wrote: > > > > > >2016-03-15 11:32 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring >>: > > > >On 15/03/2016 09:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > >and do you go to the same shops

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 02:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > > > Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis : > > > > OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that > > could lead to better rendered maps or better routing. > > > > importance i

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

sent from a phone > Am 16.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Blake Girardot : > > Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined as > building just because that is a lot easier and then leave the detailed > mapping to someone else. I sometimes encountered whole blocks mapped

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Am Samstag, den 19.03.2016, 10:28 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and > > prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many > > international tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous > > vents and enjoy the hot sp

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

My original intent in this post was to determine what tags to use in describing the guest house as an AirBnB venue. The issue of legality hadn't really occurred to me. If it turns out that such places are legitimate to tag, how should I indicate that they are "administered" through AirBnB? The Air

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun : > >   > > At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they > > cannot identify individual buildings, either because of the > > complexity of the area or because the imagery is n

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

I was told point-blank by the head of OSM-carto on github That (as I remember it) https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/323 A) "importance" is unverifiable, so it is useless for OSM. Gravitystorm: "Importance' and related concepts fails the absolutely vital verifiability

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

I am reluctant to suggest that mapping large groups of buildings as one outline is a good idea. As I said, to me it is a last resort and should be avoided at all costs. Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined as building just because that is a lot easier and t

[Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of railway:station_category=* : http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html The proposition is 7 years old: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

sent from a phone > Am 19.03.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Mike Thompson : > > Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 here some other examples https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/941438 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60616962 ch

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

We are really discussing two different issues here. - use of building key for buildup areas that should be landuse=residential or other landuse variants, don't think anybody disagrees that building is misplaced is such situations - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more tha

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow : > I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the > building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses. yes, multiple addresses on the same building do occur, at least in some regions. I am aware of German

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

sent from a phone > Am 18.03.2016 um 22:36 schrieb John Willis : > > OSM wants local knowledge, per this idea, but not the kind that could lead to > better rendered maps or better routing. importance is relative and it depends on your criteria which things you consider more important than

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

W dniu 18.03.2016 18:50, Chris Hill napisał(a): There are no official tags. Only tags that are used and / or documented. I understand it, just used informal wording. I meant "accepted by voting and documented as such on Wiki", which is - well - longer. -- "Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф.

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 9:21 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially > extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does that > become a new Building? a bridge is definitely not a building, a bus shelter might be considered a buildi

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 19 March 2016 at 17:47, John Willis wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> >> It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to >> some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? > > All of the examples I have given are all sourced in

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Javbw > On Mar 19, 2016, at 7:15 AM, Michael Reichert wrote: > > I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept So displaying more important train stations that: - are more well known, so people would look for them. - are popular points for people (for stations, more

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Simon Poole wrote: > IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed. +1 Philip Barnes wrote: > Mike Thompson wrote: >> My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped. >> > In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases > such as me

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according to > some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to whom? All of the examples I have given are all sourced in local culture. Usually having things named after

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On 03/16/2016 03:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote: Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes tag ? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building ? building=yes is a single building. I have encountered this problem a lot in Senegal. I talked with local mappe

[Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not the hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define organically grown blocks. Th

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Mike Thompson wrote: > Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 > > (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be > corrected/improved soon) > > In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is > no

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be corrected/improved soon) In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is non-building space between them. Mik

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

sent from a phone > Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe : > > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes > tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? IMHO we should try to map every building as its own object, but you can't be sure

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed. If actual building outlines are difficult to determine then one outline for the complex is completely OK. Typical example: medieval cities. Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe: > Is it OK to map multiple buildings

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 19/03/2016 07:41, johnw wrote: OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of things. Mountains are no different. Great! Let's gather lots of data about each place... Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms via some GIS data is ridicul

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

Andy Mabbett wrote: > It's nowhere near as ridiculous as trying to render them according > to some arbitrary and subjective "importance" (Importance to > whom? The people who live near them? Tourists? Mountaineers? > Ornithologists? Aviators? Geologists? Climatologists? Oil > prospectors?). Ex

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

On 19/03/2016 04:41, Dave Swarthout wrote: I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's probably sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house but personally as one who frequently uses AirBnB It'll depend on the individual location, won't it? Some I'm sure will be essential

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 19 March 2016 at 07:41, johnw wrote: > OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of > things. Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are > worth labeling at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous. It's nowhere near as ridiculous as tryin

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

On 03/19/2016 05:41 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's probably sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house tourism=guest_house guest_house=clandestine Beside all the arguments previously expressed here, many owners use AirBnB as undecla

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some > cases such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to > work out what roofline belongs to which building. > Yes, it is often difficult, if not impossi

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun : > > At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot > identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area > or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them > to indicate that there are

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Hi all, I notice the same trend happening with nearly all discussions. Instead of being able to consistently look at and discuss these key features as a world-wide general term the discussion tends to become mired in precise local situations. The discussion was originally about the key ‘build

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 8:49 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole : > (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its > own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has > been demolished). > yes, it happens. One of the reasons is that buildings don't fly ;-) They are standing on the ground, exerc

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

We will need a definition of "building". Some may consider a terrace of houses to be a single building. One definition I have worked with involves assessing the ability of the "building" to remain standing and usable if the "buildings" on either side were removed. If a house in the middle of a te

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

sent from a phone > Am 19.03.2016 um 08:41 schrieb johnw : first, those internationally unknown volcanoes in Russia won't compete with your Japanese mountains, because they're too far away, what I suggested was aimed at deciding locally what to show/label, not necessarily compare significan

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Hi Joost, The main wiki entry on building tagging says this about building tagging: "In addition outlines can either be simplified shapes or very detailed outlines which conform accurately to the shape of the building. It is not uncommon for buildings to initially be described as simple group

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses. Because the buildings were different heights it is difficult to determine where one building ended and another started. For example the CenturyLink bui

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Wed Mar 16 15:03:25 2016 GMT, Mike Thompson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe > wrote: > > > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the > > building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? > > > My feeling is that individual bui

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > prominence and topographic isolation, Neither are good measures of mountains, besides for record holders. - There are bigger volcanoes than Mt Fuji in Russia, just north of Japan, that no one kno

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:38:05 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > On Sat, 2016-03-19 at 11:41 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. > > The only authoritative source for the houses currently offered on > Airbnb is Airbnb itself. That is untrue. Fo

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

sent from a phone > Am 19.03.2016 um 07:07 schrieb Dave Swarthout : > > The fact that they are advertised, on AirBnB and locally on signs, seems to > imply that the data is available for public consumption. But maybe including > them in OSM is, as you suggest,illegal I also assume that copy

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On 2016-03-17 08:49, Simon Poole wrote: > - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one > building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual > component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its > own" criteria, having seen other build

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 00:38:05 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > On Sat, 2016-03-19 at 11:41 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. > > The only authoritative source for the houses currently offered on > Airbnb is Airbnb itself. There is a reason A