Re: [Tagging] Maxtents= or capacity:tents= for campsites?

These are mainly meant to be used with tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site to show the total capacity of the facility, which might be important for groups. For tourism=camp_pitch it could be used for large "pitches" that are intended for a group, such as an extended family. I've seen these

Re: [Tagging] Maxtents= or capacity:tents= for campsites?

On 04/07/19 11:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 10:06, Joseph Eisenberg mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: Some users specify the number of tents or caravans allowed at a campsite or camp pitch with tents= and caravans=, but more frequently these are

Re: [Tagging] Maxtents= or capacity:tents= for campsites?

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 10:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Some users specify the number of tents or caravans allowed at a > campsite or camp pitch with tents= and caravans=, but > more frequently these are specified with capacity:caravans=, > capacity:tents= or maxtents= > > So I'm thinking that

Re: [Tagging] Maxtents= or capacity:tents= for campsites?

It’s true that tents=yes/no/ are all used. I suppose it takes a slightly more complicated SQL query to interpret as equivalent to “yes”, but it would be easier for mappers to use just one key, I think? Are others ok with tents= and caravans= in addition to a”yes” and “no” values? Joseph On

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=power_supply

3 Jul 2019, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > I don't have enough interest and motivation to try to fit at least four > different kinds of power-providing devices into one tag > > Note that you are not obligated to follow all (or any) suggestions. If you prefer you may make

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=power_supply

Like your message (+1) marc marc Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=power_supplyFrom: marc marc To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: I think you were badly inspired when you listened to the supportersof the mega proposals that fail to pass the vote

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=power_supply

I think you were badly inspired when you listened to the supporters of the mega proposals that fail to pass the vote (see history of police=* diaper=* and many other). I think the first version of your proposal was good, just focus on a new tag, without including the unfinished debate on a

Re: [Tagging] Maxtents= or capacity:tents= for campsites?

all maxtents=yes are in a "small" area in the north of the USA. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KrR I have send a changeset comment to ask the meaning. despite that, maxtents= are indeed a bad idea. capacity:tents is a more common schema but I don't really see any advantage with tents=yes +

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=power_supply

I have now canceled the proposal. I really just wanted to establish a tag for the shore power devices in front of my workplace. I don't have enough interest and motivation to try to fit at least four different kinds of power-providing devices into one tag. And I also can't think of a way to

Re: [Tagging] extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

Le 03.07.19 à 17:36, Paul Allen a écrit : > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 16:16, marc marc wrote: > Le 03.07.19 à 16:55, Paul Allen a écrit : >>> What "unsigned" doesn't do is identify how the mapper came >>> to any conclusion about the weight >>> limit or how other mappers may verify it. >>

Re: [Tagging] extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

sent from a phone > On 3. Jul 2019, at 17:14, marc marc wrote: > > Similarly, when I > do a survey and I notice that a house does not have the usual sign > indicating its house number, I can said that the sign is not there. yes, and if they advertize their street address including “snc”

Re: [Tagging] extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 16:16, marc marc wrote: > Le 03.07.19 à 16:55, Paul Allen a écrit : > > What "unsigned" doesn't do is identify how the mapper came to any > > conclusion about the weight > > limit or how other mappers may verify it. > > unsigned just said "no info on the ground" > The same

Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?

On 7/2/2019 8:20 AM, marc marc wrote: Le 02.07.19 à 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : There are two similar property tags that describe the presence of a barbecue (BBQ) grill at another feature such as a campsite or picnic site. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bbq

Re: [Tagging] extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

Le 03.07.19 à 16:55, Paul Allen a écrit : > What "unsigned" doesn't do is identify how the mapper came to any > conclusion about the weight > limit or how other mappers may verify it. unsigned just said "no info on the ground" the panel may have fallen, stolen or not yet installed, the unsigned

Re: [Tagging] extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 14:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > "unsigned" means there is no sign on the ground, this would not avoid > noname=yes or nohousenumber=yes because they state there is no name or > housenumber, not that it isn't signed. > Surely "unsigned" means that the weights can only

Re: [Tagging] Reservation= or booking= for campsites etc?

The user (Hjart) who created the wiki page for booking=* says they are fine with deprecating it and using reservation=* instead See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:booking Joseph On 7/3/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 21:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >>

Re: [Tagging] extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

Am Mi., 3. Juli 2019 um 15:48 Uhr schrieb marc marc < marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>: > Le 13.06.19 à 15:15, Tobias Zwick a écrit : > > it semantically refers to the <...> key > > it is a problem common to many keys but there is no overall coherence. > > extend unsigned used for name with unsigned= >

[Tagging] extend unsigned to describe "no info on the ground" for a key

Le 13.06.19 à 15:15, Tobias Zwick a écrit : > it semantically refers to the <...> key it is a problem common to many keys but there is no overall coherence. extend unsigned used for name with unsigned= is easy to make a link betweeen the key and "no info on the ground". it avoids: - using funny

[Tagging] disclosing grant (was Re: Maxweight wiki page changes)

I was unsure how much the grant that I disclosed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/368849 should be mentioned (it is mostly offtopic here and mentioning it everywhere would be spammy) but to

Re: [Tagging] Maxweight wiki page changes

Could both of you be a bit more transparent about the situation. You should be disclosing that Mateusz is being paid to work on your project and while not a direct employer-employee relationship, it is clearly that the success of what Mateusz is working on is in the end dependent on you accepting

Re: [Tagging] Maxweight wiki page changes

Reviewed it. That is some impressive work, thank you for this! A few remarks: 1. Maxweight 1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. It suggests itself. 1.2 At the examples: Conditionals should maybe better be catch-all, so i.e. axles>=3 instead of axles=3

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

sent from a phone > On 3. Jul 2019, at 07:16, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > How come? You are pushing the changing of entire water tagging schema! this is an off topic comment here and is not comparable because with water tagging the meaning of tags should not be changed, but different tags

[Tagging] Maxweight wiki page changes

There were recently significant changes at OSM Wiki page about maxweight tag and related tags. Review is welcomed. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight - major changes included fixing mistakes in examples, adding additional

Re: [Tagging] Maxtents= or capacity:tents= for campsites?

"capacity" is the well established for the number of items the facility can hold, from students in school, parking spaces to hotel rooms. "maxtents" is hard to understand, ambiguous and likely leading to confusion. It could refer to the size as well (maxi tents?) which might explain the poorly

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:10:24 -0600 brad wrote: > Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: " > To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype > =*. " > But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

On 03/07/19 11:10, brad wrote: A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is Improved Road Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance) Four Wheel Drive Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar. Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets a feel