Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

I see no meaningful difference between amenity=carpet_hanger and man_made=carpet_hanger so I changed proposal to man_made=carpet_hanger On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:57:55 +1000 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > man_made would be a more specific key and avoids excluding ones that > are not for the

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

As mentioned earlier (maybe a year ago) in a similar thread on flowers/flowerbeds, I mapped quite a few of them: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/nl/map/rozentuin-rose-garden-vrijbroekpark_21719#18/51.02054/4.46236 As said back then, I am willing to retag them when something betters turns up. Nothing

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

Not all "flowerbeds" that are tourist attractions are human made. The Hallerbos near Brussels is famous for its bluebells [1], which are only carrying flowers for a couple of weeks. Outside this period, the forest remains a nice place to walk, but is not really a tourist attraction anymore I

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

In John Wills original post he talked about tulip farms. These are tourist attractions around me, but really it's about farming. Around me they plant tulips to harvest the bulbs with a side business of tourism. Farming is different than gardens. Both are valid. Clifford -- @osm_seattle

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

man_made would be a more specific key and avoids excluding ones that are not for the community, e.g. a commercial enterprise. man_made "for identifying man-made/(artificial)/ structures added to the landscape" amenity "an assortment of community facilities" On 10/04/18 14:37, Mateusz

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

carpet hanger (also carpet stand or carpet rack) is a construction to hang carpets for cleaning with the help of carpet beaters. Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_hanger Currently there is no documented tagging scheme for this feature. At this moment amenity=beater is

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

On 10/04/18 09:51, John Willis wrote: On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:47 AM, John Willis > wrote: landuse=flowerbed Although I searched the wiki and didn’t find the page I was looking for — when I googled for it, I found a “defacto” page made for

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:47 AM, John Willis wrote: > > landuse=flowerbed Although I searched the wiki and didn’t find the page I was looking for — when I googled for it, I found a “defacto” page made for landuse=flowerbed. 1200 uses.

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

Hi, Am 31.03.2018 um 17:00 schrieb Johnparis: > This implies the following changes to v2: > > 1) every platform node should have mandatory {mode}=yes tag(s) I also think that public_transport=platform without *=yes tags is some kind of incomplete. > 2) stop_positions should be optional on the

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

Hallo Mateusz, Am 09.04.2018 um 12:55 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Currently definition at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbus_station > is unclear, it fits two cases > > * intercity bus station (routes between cities, importance comparable > to railway=station) > *

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:34:17 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > * [[waterways]]: general waterway mapping information I restored this reference and added some info about lifecycle tagging (copy pasted from mailing list, hopefully it is OK).

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

During this discussion it is evident That we need a macro "venue" tag *And* A micromapping "flower bed" tag together. let's take a Rose garden for example. The garden itself is one big landuse. The standard "garden" tag should suffice. Then there are all the little pieces inside. The paths,

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal btw, would you agree it is good to remove the link to the general waterways page from specific tag pages / see also section? to me the reference would seem useful * [[waterways]]: general waterway mapping

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 20:38, Christoph Hormann pisze: > By the way the wiki page > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal > > is a great demonstration of how dysfunctional the tag documentation on > the wiki has become - in this case with the attempt to encourage >

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

It is not the first time this subject (here literally this subject) has been discussed: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-August/thread.html#26101 By the way the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal is a great demonstration of how

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

sent from a phone > On 9. Apr 2018, at 19:53, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I think that it could be improved by deprecating it. > > Use more modern lifecycle tagging. +1 Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

sent from a phone > On 9. Apr 2018, at 19:37, Johnparis wrote: > > There is no building associated with it. Most bus stations that I map don't > have a building. > > Another thing to consider: the stop area, which I also mentioned above, is > logical (a relation)

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > When deciding about rendering change of waterway=derelict_canal on > osm-carto we are not sure what to do, because meaning of the tag is not > clear for us: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1003 > >

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

Ah, good, the Moroccan photos were quite a mish-mash. The one you just posted is indeed a bus station. And sort of a classic one at that -- it has both intercity and regional lines (lines that extend well beyond the city limits but aren't long-distance lines). Also, intracity lines have stops in

[Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

When deciding about rendering change of waterway=derelict_canal on osm-carto we are not sure what to do, because meaning of the tag is not clear for us: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1003 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal What would

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

2018-04-09 18:05 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > Or also like this: > https://www.alamy.de/fotos-bilder/bus-moroccan.html > sorry, wrong link, I meant to post: https://www.alamy.de/stockfoto-warteschlangen-am-busbahnhof-marrakesch-33054989.html Martin

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

2018-04-09 15:24 GMT+02:00 Wiklund Johan : > I think there is no realistic distinction to be made between a bus station > and a "regular" bus stop. Mainly because each bus stop is different from > the next. One could argue that any bus stop where more than one waiting >

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 15:14 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć : > W dniu 09.04.2018 o 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > > maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For > reference, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type > e.g. garden:type=garden_show or

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

Your point about stopping in traffic is a good one, and it dovetails with the notion that a bus station (amenity) normally includes one or more dedicated bus lanes. Perhaps that can be added to the wiki. Smaller places and/or transfer points are well covered by the Stop Area concept, which the

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

I think there is no realistic distinction to be made between a bus station and a "regular" bus stop. Mainly because each bus stop is different from the next. One could argue that any bus stop where more than one waiting area is a bus station, or if it has some kind of amenity tied to it like a

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For > reference, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type > e.g. garden:type=garden_show or flower_show There's also another property of gardens and it sounds

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 13:47 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout : > But we're not talking about either farmland or a crop in this case. The > flowers (or flowerbed, if you prefer) I'm talking about is actually a > tourist attraction and is maintained for that purpose. > maybe it could be

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 13:43 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć : > Maybe it sounds strange, but when analyzing the meaning of "garden" in > OSM to make osm-carto rendering sane, I have found that size can vary a > lot. It can be as small as flowerbed (but there are other plants than > only flowers - this

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

But we're not talking about either farmland or a crop in this case. The flowers (or flowerbed, if you prefer) I'm talking about is actually a tourist attraction and is maintained for that purpose. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-04-09

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 02:28, John Willis pisze: > Flowerbed? seems a little weird to tag 3000m2 as a flowerbed. But if > it is approved I will use it. Maybe it sounds strange, but when analyzing the meaning of "garden" in OSM to make osm-carto rendering sane, I have found that size can vary a lot.

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

On 09/04/2018 11:55, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Currently definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbus_station is unclear, it fits two cases * intercity bus station (routes between cities, importance comparable to railway=station) * terminus highway=bus_stop (routes

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 13:08 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:50:50 + > Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > How about > > tourism=attraction > > attraction=flowers > > I think that man_made=flowerbed + tourism=attraction would be > preferable,

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

In BE a bus is a vehicle used for short local journeys, more On 9 April 2018 11:55:35 BST, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >Currently definition at >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbus_station >is unclear, it fits two cases > >* intercity bus station (routes

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

Not quite sure what you mean by "importance lower than railway=halt". A halt is a place where a train doesn't normally stop unless a would-be rider hails it. A bus stop that is so minor would certainly not qualify as a bus station, and I don't think it would fit the definition in the wiki unless

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:50:50 + Dave Swarthout wrote: > How about > tourism=attraction > attraction=flowers I think that man_made=flowerbed + tourism=attraction would be preferable, it would allow tagging also flower fields that are not a tourism attraction at all.

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

2018-04-09 12:55 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Currently definition at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbus_station > is unclear, it fits two cases > > * intercity bus station (routes between cities, importance comparable > to railway=station) > *

[Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

Currently definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbus_station is unclear, it fits two cases * intercity bus station (routes between cities, importance comparable to railway=station) * terminus highway=bus_stop (routes within city terminate and start here, minor

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 9:32 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > A museum just needs standard opening hours tagging. > > then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between a museum that is a tourist attraction only when open and one that is an attraction also when closed. ;-) Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

On 04/09/2018 01:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would >> need some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag? > > > > Following this logics, what about museums,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

A museum just needs standard opening hours tagging. The start of a flower season will vary from year to year. This year everything is really late. Phil (trigpoint) On 9 April 2018 07:35:07 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >sent from a phone > >> On 9. Apr 2018,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would need some > seasonal tagging with the tourism tag? Following this logics, what about museums, aren’t they only attractions when open,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would need some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag? Flowers can be part of agriculture - grown for sale in florist shops for example. On 09/04/18 11:50, Dave Swarthout wrote: How about tourism=attraction attraction=flowers