Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 5:03 PM Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end > > tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of > permanent > > housing. Granted, my exposure to this phenom

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

On 25/05/19 18:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 25. May 2019, at 09:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Key:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the nappy/diaper of babies or young children. Pedantic hat on. Self references: babies ... plura

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

I would not be worried about excluding some things from a clarified definition of sport. I would have a new key for those excluded .. say 'recreation' that can be non competitive, non physical. Renders can then chose to show them the same way as 'sports' or not - their choice, at the moment t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:42:24 -0500 From: Paul Johnson To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"     Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges" Message-ID:     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> I perso

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

sent from a phone > On 24. May 2019, at 23:35, Nick Bolten wrote: > > > crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell > > pedestrians when to stop. There are very likely road markings, but even if > > not, the absence of road markings, in the presence of actual traf

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

sent from a phone > On 24. May 2019, at 22:10, Paul Allen wrote: > > OK, so let me ask this. Do zebra stripes on their own have any legal > significance? Can > you have zebra stripes without lights or are they only ever present with > lights? > > If you can have zebra stripes without ligh

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

sent from a phone > On 25. May 2019, at 22:40, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I wanted to explicitly document > that it is ok and that it does not matter > that it is not fitting some definitions > of word "sport" it does fit the definition of sport being competitive, even if no competitions

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 21:38 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > On 25. May 2019, at 20:57, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169286212 >> >

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

some activities can be sport or not, depending on the context, and it will eventually be on the mapper to decide. For example dancing can be practiced as a sport or for leisure, both in dedicated places and elsewhere. (similarly swimming may be close to bathing in some context). We will not be

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

sent from a phone > On 25. May 2019, at 20:57, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169286212 > that are used solely for climbing not done as competitions there are lots of the features with sport tags not used for any competitions. The sports tag (property) is

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 19:59, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I thought about cases like > > (1) > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169286212 > that are used solely for climbing not done as competitions > You're counting that as sport usage and I'm not disputing that. But climbing can also be compe

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 20:40 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 19:34, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > > >> Modified to " >> Limit to physical activity only would exclude for example >> {{tag|sport|chess}}. >> Limiting to competi

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 19:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Modified to " > Limit to physical activity only would exclude for example > {{tag|sport|chess}}. > Limiting to competitions only would exclude many cases of correctly used > {{tag|sport|climbing}} that nevertheless is not done as part of > co

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 00:20 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 02:10, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> This would exclude for example {{tag|sport|chess}} or {{tag|sport|climbing}} >> not done as part of competitions. >> > >

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

25 May 2019, 17:44 by f...@zz.de: > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote: > >> >> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote >> a culture of dissent. >> > > I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication > make a "cu

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a > culture of dissent. I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication make a "culture of dissent"? Can you elaborate why you think

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:25 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au: >> Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied >> crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise? >> > > Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do > not map local legislatio

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 00:36 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > I think it is way too soon to summarize a discussion that started less > than 1 week ago. > I am open to amending it. Can you propose some specific changes? (I am not fan of participating in discussions that end with noimpact whatsoever, with

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 23:41 by nbol...@gmail.com: > > What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line or node > > to represent the footway that isn't there? > > Personally, I've tagged crossing=no on ways either when it's illegal (there's > a sign saying no crossing) > I add also ac

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 23:43 by nbol...@gmail.com: > > AFAIK once traffic lights are present markings are not changing anything > > (and crossing with traffic lights without markings are really rare, I > > suspect that almost always result of worn-out > painting or recent surface reconstruction). > > Cha

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Which seems to be precisely the opposite of how most people interpret it. Which is very bad, because those people are all diametrically opposed to the wiki definition that, for all its problems, been around for about a decade. To me, this says that there is likely a lot of bad data out there. I

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 15:29, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: In Poland crossing with traffic signals > works in the same way no matter whether > markings are present, and it is extremely rare > for markings to be missing where crossing have traffic lights. > Thanks for the clarification. -- Paul ___

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Here we seem to be in fundamental disagreement. A crossing with traffic signals is a crossing with traffic signals independent of road markings These proposals are literally to tag these things independently. > the interaction of pedestrians and traffic is determined by the status of the light

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

25 May 2019, 14:20 by pla16...@gmail.com: > I have yet to see anyone present a case where the presence or absence of road > markings at a > crossing controlled by traffic signals requires different behaviour by either > pedestrians or > traffic.  Perhaps such cases exist (Poland is a possibilit

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 08:03, Nick Bolten wrote: > What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND with road markings? > > Status quo, per the wiki: tag with crossing=traffic_signals, > hiding/erasing any information about markings that would be communicated in > other values. > > Under t

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Am 25.05.2019 um 12:48 schrieb osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au: > > Yes, but that’s not the point. > >   > > The presence or absence of markings do not change the fundamental > operating principle of the crossing (go only when it’s green). > >   > > The strips shown in the image you linked do no

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing > list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop > participating. > The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame, > in prec

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

sent from a phone > On 25. May 2019, at 11:01, Markus wrote: > > . I think it makes more sense to tag lakes or coastlines > accordingly if swimming is not allowed or if the water is polluted. swimming=no (or similar ) in case it is forbidden surely makes sense. It is also the mostly used val

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Yes, but that’s not the point. The presence or absence of markings do not change the fundamental operating principle of the crossing (go only when it’s green). The strips shown in the image you linked do not mean that pedestrians have priority here and can just walk across any time, no ma

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:27 AM Paul Allen wrote: > But you stooped anyway. Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. Why create a situation in which stooping is a possibility? My opinion is exactly the opinion you've been projecting onto this mailing list at others. If that were your ob

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> […] > lights. Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? Which > of the two takes > precedence? Motorists have right of way if their signal is green; > pedestrians have absolute > right of way just by stepping on the crossing irrespective of the lights. > Does not compute

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Am 25.05.2019 um 02:18 schrieb Paul Allen: > > +1 for "mutually exclusive."  Except, perhaps, in Poland.  I'm still > waiting for an answer on that one. > > Traffic signal controlled crossings with markings (including stripes of some colour) exist (not claiming that they are "common") at least all

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 116, Issue 160 constructive comminucations

Hi OSM / mappers, I do have some remarks; IMHO there are too much channels or Fora, from OSM to Github, to read or talk about or over OSM. Par example if you want to read them all, you won’t be able to contribute as a mapper to OSM 🙂. I can’t admit what has been written before, but reactions t

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

Am 24.05.2019 um 19:37 schrieb Kevin Kenny: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: >> On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: >>> Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would >>> listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a >>> financ

[Tagging] RFC7282 on "rough consensus"

Hi all, As part of the wider discussion of "how to make decision", yous might like to know there's a RFC for how one group comes to decisions using "rough consensus". This puts into words a lot of how I think decisions should be made, and often how (I think) tagging decisions are made here.

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 09:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But it is a physical activity, with the result of good health and has > dedicated infrastructure ... and therefore is a a sport under the various > definitions of type C. Yes, but i think sport=* should only be added if a con

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

sent from a phone > On 25. May 2019, at 09:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Key:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the > nappy/diaper of babies or young children. > > Pedantic hat on. > > Self references: > babies ... plural of baby > changing - repeat

[Tagging] RFC for mounting_block

Hi, Following the draft for the feature mounting block (traditionally used to mount a horse) I have moved this to a 'request for comments' stage. I think most have had an input but here it is to meet the rules. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/mounting_block Definition: An

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

On 25/05/19 17:46, Valor Naram wrote: Did it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table "A place for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children." Too quick .. wait, say, a day and see if there are any other thoughts... I can be wrong! Original Mes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

Did ithttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table"A place for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children." Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 25/05/19 17:11, Markus wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Accepting that requirement would mean that beaches cannot be tagged with the sport swimming as there is no construction for the sport. Cycleway are specifically constructed for bicycling .. so ca

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

On 25/05/19 17:15, Valor Naram wrote: Hey all, something else that needs to be discussed/improved before starting the second voting? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table Key:baby_changing_table Definition: Provides a place for changing the nappy/diaper of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

Hey all,something else that needs to be discussed/improved before starting the second voting?CheerioSören alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: Valor Naram To: "Tag discussion, strategy a

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Accepting that requirement would mean that beaches cannot be tagged with the > sport swimming as there is no construction for the sport. > Cycleway are specifically constructed for bicycling .. so can be tagged with > the spor

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> What do you mean by a crossing with traffic signals AND with road markings? Status quo, per the wiki: tag with crossing=traffic_signals, hiding/erasing any information about markings that would be communicated in other values. Under the new proposals: tag with crossing=marked (or crossing:marki