Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

>If there clearly was a difference in meaning or better if there was a clear difference in meaning we wouldn't have the discussion. I got confused myself in the past when trying to find the right tag. There is a clear difference in meaning: The word mast derives from Old English and German and

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

On 16/04/2016 3:21 AM, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 15/04/2016 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: do you agree to use tower for communication towers? Yes. My suggestions relate to the form of the structures, not their usage. Those would be defined by secondary tags.

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

On 15/04/2016 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: do you agree to use tower for communication towers? Yes. My suggestions relate to the form of the structures, not their usage. Those would be defined by secondary tags. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

Am 15.04.2016 um 17:43 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: there's clearly a difference in meaning (the words are not synonymous), so why would we want to remove this distinction? If there clearly was a difference in meaning or better if there was a clear difference in meaning we wouldn't have the

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

sent from a phone > Il giorno 15 apr 2016, alle ore 13:53, Malcolm Herring > ha scritto: > > The whole point of my definitions is to *NOT* use the word "tower" for > communications masts do you agree to use tower for communication towers? cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

sent from a phone > Il giorno 15 apr 2016, alle ore 17:26, Tobias Wrede ha > scritto: > > > So what's the point in distinguishing mast from tower at all? there's clearly a difference in meaning (the words are not synonymous), so why would we want to remove this

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

Maybe before discussing if some structure is better named tower or mast you/we should reflect why we should make a distinction at all: Is the difference whether... 1) the structure is free-standing or not? 2) the structure has one contact point to the ground or several? 3) there are

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

You want to retag communication towers that are identical in structure to the power towers on the Wiki page as masts? I would disagree totally with that idea. A mast does not have legs in common American usage. Is that your thrust or do you have another term in mind? On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:53

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

On 15/04/2016 12:39, Dave Swarthout wrote: I think you had better make the requirements for tower less strict. The whole point of my definitions is to *NOT* use the word "tower" for communications masts. I am trying to resolve the ambiguity by choosing one in preference to the other, even

[Tagging] highway=service major type sub-classification - mini vote

We had a discussion here in March about introducing a new value for the service=* sub-tag of a highway=service, classifying it as a generic major service way category, in contrast to minor values such as service=parking_aisle or service=driveway or service=drive-through. Data consumers already

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

I think you had better make the requirements for tower less strict. Most of what I consider radio towers have no accommodation in them. It's the shape and structure of the tower that makes the difference. Here is the wiki page concerning towers:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

On 15/04/2016 11:31, Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Aleksandr) wrote: This all similar to power=* group of tags, That's pretty much the poster child for "how not to design a tagging system", in a couple of different areas*. I'm sure that you had nothing to do with that mess, but I wouldn't use

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Aleksandr) wrote: > IMHO, it is much better to have alternative advanced tagging > system from which data users can benefit much (e.g. search > by school's speciality). As a general point, could I please encourage people not to second-guess what data users might

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

There is the problem, not all educational institutions in country are the same. Even in countries that have very strict standards there are a lot of institutions that do not fit in current system. Some has specialities, some provide special education for people with disabilities, some provide

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

I wouldn't go that far, but I assume that in 1 country the majority of driving schools have the same system: begin course based, and with a parttime-regime and you can get all common driver licenses. So for some uses amenity=driving_school is more than sufficient. I understand that when you want

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

You can probably have tags amenity=driving_school_category_b, amenity=dancing_teaching_center and other purely descriptional tags and it would be a mess and headache to sort and retrieve information. IMHO, it is much better to have alternative advanced tagging system from which data users can