Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:53:52PM +0100, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to the > building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building itself. > Yeah, that was the other solution I thought of. In the particular case

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

On 1/30/2019 7:21 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote: Looking over the page for schools and  all the abandoned proposals, I assume there is some in-use tag for after-school study and test preparation type private “schools” [...] Does anyone have any experience tagging these types of things?

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Currently, and AFAIK, relations are the *only* solution for modeling situations like the one you described... On 2019-02-17 00:40, Anton Klim wrote: > not sure if relations are a good fix though smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

There've been quite a lot of discussions lately about namespaces and indeed current osm tagging is clunky in that regard. not sure if relations are a good fix though сб, 16 февр. 2019 г. в 23:07, Sergio Manzi : > Yeah. The "*other*" solution could be to "*namespace everything*", so you > could

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 2:37 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here waste boxes for syringes tend to be lables 'sharps' .. I think that > is an Americanizm. Any UK experience? > > I like how this has expanded to include disposal of syringes. The original post was about disposing of

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Yeah. The "/other/" solution could be to "/namespace everything/", so you could tag building:whatever_property_key_you_want and amenity:whatever_property_key_you_want, applied to the very same object. But we're probably too late for that and apparently many seems to hate this latter solution.

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

sent from a phone > On 16. Feb 2019, at 23:49, Anton Klim wrote: > > Like in the thread opening email, where there is an amenity that occupies the > whole building, we put amenity tags on the outline. I agree with Serge here, when there is a problem where it is not clear to what the tags

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to the building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building itself. One further benefit is that if the amenity goes you can delete the relation without disturbing the building... Sergio On 2019-02-16

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Like in the thread opening email, where there is an amenity that occupies the whole building, we put amenity tags on the outline. I generally support adding more granularity to start_date, but feel like start_date:* might fit better than *:start_date. Anton Klim > 16 февр. 2019 г., в 21:40,

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

On 16/02/19 19:54, Markus wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 00:59 Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Would =drugs also apply to sharps bins for needle disposal? I would think they should have their own tag? (or is there one already that I just didn't see?) I

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

Sorry for the typo: of course Wikip_*a*_dia was meant to be Wikip_*e*_dia! On 2019-02-16 23:15, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Then why don't you submit a paper to the CNFG (http://www.cnfg.fr/) and > correct the Wikipadia articles? > > Sergio > > > On 2019-02-16 23:07, marc marc wrote: >> Le 16.02.19 à

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

Then why don't you submit a paper to the CNFG (http://www.cnfg.fr/) and correct the Wikipadia articles? Sergio On 2019-02-16 23:07, marc marc wrote: > Le 16.02.19 à 22:32, Sergio Manzi a écrit : >> A static value for a river length in OSM, without any information about >> its source > every

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

Thank you, Markus. Cheers, Eugene вс, 17 февр. 2019 г. в 01:01, Markus : > On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 20:06 Eugene Podshivalov >> What is the best way to correct this, so that all other langauge pages >> got the correction as well? >> > > I'm not aware of any other way than correcting it on each

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 20:06 Eugene Podshivalov What is the best way to correct this, so that all other langauge pages got > the correction as well? > I'm not aware of any other way than correcting it on each page. I've just done this and also added a note that this tag lacks verifiability. >

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Stephan, can you point to any such object in OSM where you find that ambiguity? I have the feeling that we could possibly discover a violation of the "One feature, one OSM element" principle [1] in there... Sergio [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element On

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

TBH, I'm all with you (/and maybe I'm seen as an eccentric too.../) and I see the tagging of waterways length as egregiously useless. Beside, I smell a lack of verifiability [1] in this waterways property: I'm not a geographer, by far, but in the years I made up my mind that this is one of

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 15:26 Andy Mabbett wrote: I would suggest that values entered by human mappers are more likely to be "error prone"; and that we should be more concerned with on-the-ground reality than "offical" figures. It's easy to make a

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

I'm a bit confused by this thread, somehow I have the impression I missed something (that's why I left TOFU in this mail). Anyway, I'd like to summarize: There are many-many objects (most of them buildings - 96%) tagged with start_date=* - I think, that's great. start_date is quite well

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

What is the best way to correct this, so that all other langauge pages got the correction as well? Cheers, Eugene сб, 16 февр. 2019 г. в 21:57, Markus : > On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 00:43 Eugene Podshivalov >> The use of "distance" for river length distracts me as well. >> But I'm trying to find its

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 15:26 Andy Mabbett I would suggest that values entered by human mappers are more likely > to be "error prone"; and that we should be more concerned with > on-the-ground reality than "offical" figures. > I agree. Besides, official figures may not be compatible with OSM's

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 00:43 Eugene Podshivalov The use of "distance" for river length distracts me as well. > But I'm trying to find its origin on this wiki page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:waterway > distance * (optional) Total

Re: [Tagging] Rivers intermittently navigable

I think this topic is related to 'highways shared with waterways' (see at archive https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-December/041370.html), I hope to have agreed clear method to tag these. الحصول على Outlook for Android

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

Hi Leif, Am 16/02/2019 um 15.04 schrieb Leif Rasmussen: > Here is a link to the current proposal, which everyone with a wiki account > can now vote on: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Departures Please mind the rules documented at

Re: [Tagging] waste=trash for amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal? [Was: Medicine Disposal]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 16:04 Markus > I agree, but what about ordinary rubbish bins or containers? Do > amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal without a waste=* tag imply waste=trash or > should that be added too? > Corrigendum: the tag is amenity=waste_basket, not amenity=waste_bin. I had it wrong in

Re: [Tagging] waste=trash for amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal? [Was: Medicine Disposal]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 15:07, Markus wrote: > > I agree, but what about ordinary rubbish bins or containers? Do > amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal > without a waste=* tag imply waste=trash or should that be added too? > Good question. Without a good answer. Because we also need to accommodate

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 73

Hi Stephan & all, I realised this see the lines below, Sergio Manzi Za 16-2-2019 16:06 Hello! Actually the analysis was not mine, but just the result of a query in taginfo (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Astart_date), but I guess I understand what's going on here:

[Tagging] waste=trash for amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal? [Was: Medicine Disposal]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 14:21 Paul Allen Btw, i wonder why the wiki lists trash as a possible value for waste=*. Is >> trash intended to be only used in combinations, such as >> waste=trash;cigarettes? I've supposed that waste=trash is the default for >> amenity=waste_bin and amenity=waste_disposal

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 13:46, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > сб, 16 февр. 2019 г. в 16:30, Andy Mabbett : >> Why would we tag either, when software can calculate them? > Calculated value may differ from the official one and is error-prone I would suggest that values entered by human mappers are

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

W dniu 16.02.2019 o 15:00, Sergio Manzi pisze: > On 2019-02-16 14:46, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: >> Calculated value may differ from the official one ... > > Official according to whom? > Good question - who can we trust? The question is also how to calculate them? If a river has a fork (or even

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 13:22 Tobias Wrede Unfortunately, the legal situation is not always as clear as we wish to. > There are a lot of grey zones and we need to apply common sense when > tagging the access rules. > > Here are a few situations where I would not hesitate to put a foot=no on > the

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

> I didn't follow the discussion but this proposal is at least > helpful. > Why not map xx:xx in the same route relation? Role > examples: > stop@00:20, stop_exit_only@03:45, > stop_entry_only@00:25-00:31, and for > bus stops where the timetable is approximated (like in > Brazil) use "~" > for the

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On 2019-02-16 14:46, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > Calculated value may differ from the official one ... Official according to whom? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile#cite_note-length-1 : /"The length of the Nile is usually said to be about 6,650 km (4,130 mi), but reported values lie

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

сб, 16 февр. 2019 г. в 16:30, Andy Mabbett : Why would we tag either, when software can calculate them? Calculated value may differ from the official one and is error-prone, e.g. when a segment is deleted by mistake or when a segment role is changed between main and side stream. Cheers, Eugene

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 23:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > The Nile rises in Lake Victoria & travels to the Mediterranean with > a length of ~6695km (depending on reference used), but the distance > between Kampala, on the north shore of Lave Victoria & Cairo is only > 3300km. Why would we tag

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Markus wrote: > > Btw, i wonder why the wiki lists trash as a possible value for waste=*. Is > trash intended to be only used in combinations, such as > waste=trash;cigarettes? I've supposed that waste=trash is the default for > amenity=waste_bin and

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

I think those would mostly be historical uses. Considering it’s part of an abandoned proposal, don’t think there would be much new entries. Plus, buildyear implies you can specify a year, instead of a date, like you can for start_date and its possible offshoots. Ant > 16 февр. 2019 г., в

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

Actually building:buildyear is of much more widespread use than building:start_date: * https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Abuildyear -> 2051 objects * https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=building%3Astart_date -> 163 objects that's a 12.6:1 proportion... The key

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

I believe there was an (failed? Undocumented?) attempt to make building:buildyear a thing, but haven’t seen it used for a while. > 15 февр. 2019 г., в 14:44, Stephan Bösch-Plepelits > написал(а): > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:07:09PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote: >> Sounds solid and already

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 00:59 Graeme Fitzpatrick > Would =drugs also apply to sharps bins for needle disposal? > > I would think they should have their own tag? (or is there one already > that I just didn't see?) > I guess you usually aren't allowed to throw syringes in a drugs drop box or to throw