Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Combined bicycle & footway

On 24 August 2011 01:47, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > I could see some benefit to splitting the tag into two - say, > > highway=cycle for "bikes only", highway=cycle+foot for "bikes and > > pedestrians" - and doing (whisper it) a mass cha

Re: [Tagging] shop=farm shop=greengrocer

I think the two tags have a clear and useful difference, and that cartographic styles such as the default OSM.org map could always show the apple symbol for both. Regards, Tom On 8 July 2011 22:42, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > I'm interested in propsing an icon for "shop=farm", for highlighting > ro

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - vegetarian (and other diets)

Just a quick reminder, this hasn't had all that many votes so could you have a look and vote to approve/reject the proposal? Thank you, Tom On 12 April 2011 09:36, Tom Chance wrote: > Hello, > > I've moved this proposal to the vote, it has been open for discussion for a &

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

On 2 April 2011 11:11, Ulf Lamping wrote: > This way we'll have to change each and every tag every year because someone > finds the "new and improved" way to do things as the current tag fashion > expects him to. > Ulf, the new schema was introduced after quite a lot of discussion, changes to th

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - vegetarian (and other diets)

Hello, I've moved this proposal to the vote, it has been open for discussion for a few months and has now been used in the wild for a similar period of time to see how well it works in practice. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vegetarian

Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)

On 21 February 2011 11:08, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2010-08-26 05:08, Tom Chance wrote: > > On 26 August 2010 13:43, André Riedel wrote: ... > > The source of energy used (generator:source) Combined with > 'generator:method=fission' you have to add 'uranium_2

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Vegetarian, vegan, etc. diets

Hello, Thank you for the feedback and suggestions so far, I have now moved this from a draft to a proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vegetarian Please add any comments to the Discussion page. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance

Re: [Tagging] Draft - Vegetarian/Vegan

On 15 February 2011 20:31, Markus Lindholm wrote: > Aren't attributes like that more suitable to describe a person than a > restaurant. I mean a person can follow a ovo-lacto diet, but find hard > to think there would be a restaurant where every meal on the menu > would be an ovo-lacto vegetarian

Re: [Tagging] Draft - Vegetarian/Vegan

On 15 February 2011 00:39, David Murn wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 18:53 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2011/2/14 Tom Chance : > > > AFAIK there is quite a lot of differentiation in the vegetarian > > community (e.g. Ovo, lacto, ovo-lacto, veganism, raw veg

[Tagging] Draft - Vegetarian/Vegan

Hello, Please read and comment on my draft proposal to improve our tagging of vegetarian and vegan food: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vegetarian I want to use something more sophisticated than "cuisine=vegetarian" for restaurants, cafes and shops. Regards, Tom -- http:

Re: [Tagging] Call for German, French, Russian & Japanese updates for changed tag

On 22 November 2010 12:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Tom Chance wrote: > > When that happens, the only logical course of action is to update the > > wiki documentation showing the new tags and removing the > > deprecated tags. It makes no sense to continue telling peo

Re: [Tagging] Call for German, French, Russian & Japanese updates for changed tag

On 22 November 2010 09:36, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Am 22.11.2010 10:26, schrieb Tom Chance: > >> Some time ago a proposal to change the way we specify types of power >> generators was passed. Unfortunately, the German, Russian, French and >> Japanese translations haven'

[Tagging] Call for German, French, Russian & Japanese updates for changed tag

Hello, Some time ago a proposal to change the way we specify types of power generators was passed. Unfortunately, the German, Russian, French and Japanese translations haven't been updated. I left requests on their respective discussion pages but nothing has happened. The original English page is

[Tagging] Feature proposal - community food growing

Hello, I have proposed a new landuse value - for land used for communal food growing (different to farms and allotments): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Community_food_growing Please read the rationale in full and leave any comments. As usual, I suspect there will be a frui

[Tagging] Theatre genres

Further to the culture proposal discussions... Can anyone tell me where the various theatre:genre tags were discussed, put through the proposal process and voted on? I can only find evidence on the wiki of the original proposal in 2006 for amenity=theatre (which I voted for). It looks like they w

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 8 November 2010 13:14, Richard Welty wrote: > a gallery doesn't have to be a building by it self, it doesn't have > to be focused on selling (a false distinction in my book), it can > be 2 or 3 walls in a library > For the moment Martin's proposal doesn't offer anything for those cases. As wi

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 8 November 2010 11:41, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/11/8 Tom Chance : > > culture=art_gallery: a place where the primary purpose is the temporary > > exhibition of art works for artistic appreciation > > _and_ who nevertheless sell art? saatchi for instance I'

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 8 November 2010 10:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I agree that places whose primary purpose is to sell prints, paintings by > > local artists and framing services should be marked as shop=art. > > Thin ice IMHO. You are saying that original art by "local artists" is > on the same level then

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 8 November 2010 10:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: > On Lunes 08 Noviembre 2010 10:09:03 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer escribió: > > yes, we already have a shop value for art galleries that generally > > sell the exposed works, but Tom was saying that we should distinguish > > between museums that exp

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 8 November 2010 08:35, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: > Art galleries are not museums, they are shops. If an institution SELLS art > works, it has to expose them in order for potential buyers to see, so it is > shop=something. If it does NOT SELL, it is culture=museum (even if it sells > reprodu

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 8 November 2010 08:24, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Well, what is your definition of museum? I don't have to follow > slavishly wikipedia but I took this as a first indication. > > This reminds me of turning to the dictionary for a definition of "democracy" when debating political philosophy. T

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 7 November 2010 18:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > don't know. It seems that the british art world is not very active on > wikipedia then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_gallery redirects to > art_museum ;-) > Ah, Wikipedia, that well known internationally agreed source of definitions for w

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

On 7 November 2010 17:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/11/7 Tom Chance : > > In general I like this proposal, but given that this changes a > substantial > > number of very well used tags that go back to almost the beginning of the > > project it is essential to de

Re: [Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture

In general I like this proposal, but given that this changes a substantial number of very well used tags that go back to almost the beginning of the project it is essential to describe how existing data will be migrated across, tools updated, mappers notified, etc. The other job, similar to the sh

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - art gallery

On 6 November 2010 09:42, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/11/5 Tom Chance : > > This proposal has been stuck at the RFC stage for years, I want to bring > it > > to a vote to establish it on the list of map features. > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki

Re: [Tagging] Tidying up arts venues

On 6 November 2010 11:29, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/11/6 Tom Chance : > > > Should I tidy up the music_venue proposal and bring it to a vote under > the > > tourism key > > Is the current split between amenity / tourism about right? > > > no, it is

[Tagging] Tidying up arts venues

Hello, After bringing the tourism=gallery proposal to a long-overdue vote, I'd like to see what people think about the other tags for "arts" (in the broadest sense) venues. Looking around London, where there are thousands of arts venues, we have some fairly confused tagging and a huge number of in

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - art gallery

://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dart - This is not for museums that happen to have some art as part of their collections Regards, Tom Chance -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Approved: power generator rationalisation

On 18 September 2010 11:54, Alan Mintz > wrote: > At 2010-09-18 02:28, Tom Chance wrote: > > Given that the new tags don't require the existing tags to be deleted, >> > > The proposal says: > - This will deprecate power_source=*. > - This will deprecate power

[Tagging] Approved: power generator rationalisation

in London to add these new tags without breaking any existing data. In the next few weeks I will try to contact others who have added a lot of data, and advertise this new schema on my blog and the British mailing list. Perhaps somebody could do the same if they are subscribed to talk, talk-de, etc?

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

Throwing my hat in like a true masochist... I have added perhaps 100 trees - urban/rural, in 'clusters' and on streets where I would not say there is a cluster but where they are closer than 50m. I am also interested in an import from my local council. The wiki is clearly ambiguous and not follow

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

On 8 September 2010 11:33, André Riedel wrote: > But your proposal is not a small change of the whole power=generator > system. A change of tagging for example a tidal power plant shoud not > be done every month. So it would be great if you can stop your > fighting to push the proposal through th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

On 8 September 2010 09:34, André Riedel wrote: > 2010/9/6 Tom Chance : > > If you can do so without requiring that mappers happy with > > generator:method=gasification be forced to instead enter a more > complicated > > mixture of tags to describe those precise processes,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

On 6 September 2010 13:46, André Riedel wrote: > 2010/9/6 Tom Chance : > > Nobody needs the tag to be > > > "generator:method=fission-creating-steam-to-power-a-turbine-that-induces-an-electric-current", > > or > > > "generator:method=gasifiying-t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

On 6 September 2010 09:23, John Smith wrote: > On 6 September 2010 18:09, Tom Chance wrote: > > This is really unecessary and pedantic. Every person with any application > in > > mind for real-world generators (as opposed to school physics lessons on > the > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

On 6 September 2010 08:41, NopMap wrote: > Usually, trees are not rendered or not rendered prominently. I develop a > hiking map in which landmark trees are rendered more prominently with a > small tree icon. From my experience, outside of cities there are many > landmark trees that have been map

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

Andre, On 4 September 2010 15:11, André Riedel wrote: > There are still some mismatches between source and method. > > e.g. generator:source=nuclear, generator:methode=fission > A nuclear fission do not creates electricity it only creates a steam > to power a turbine. > This is really unecessar

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

On 3 September 2010 23:16, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > Tom Chance wrote: > > If voted through, I will look at updating existing data in OpenStreetMap. > > I do not follow this discussion, but automatic data update is generally > not welcome on OSM. > It can/would modif

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation

will look at updating existing data in OpenStreetMap. I am currently working on a groundbreaking map of this for London: http://tom.acrewoods.net/2010/08/28/low-carbon-power-in-openstreetmap Regards, Tom Chance -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance

Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

On 30 August 2010 14:18, Richard Welty wrote: > On 8/30/10 9:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> +1, but site-relations might still be useful in the context of power >> generators. There are situations where the single objects do not >> overlap but are side a side, for example you might have

[Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?

Hi there, I want a way of creating an object for an energy generator and then saying "this is on top of / inside this building object". Here is an example of one such object: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35802300 I checked on the wiki page and couldn't see any established or proposed

Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)

On 28 August 2010 04:30, Alan Mintz > wrote: > Is there a plan to convert the existing data? > > I thought about that, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Any advice is welcome! I could, of course, just download all data tagged with the old schema using XAPI and update it. More time consuming, but

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

On 27 August 2010 10:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I would not recommend to design a proposal where it is predictable > that multiple values to one key will occur in this way. I was told > that it is unlikely that multiple values will be taken into account > because this is too cost intensive

[Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

Martin, Thank you for the feedback. One quick question for the list... On 26 August 2010 18:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any > application (AFAIK). > > I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not? I

Re: [Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)

Thank you for these comments, André, I have updated the wiki page with some amendments: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/generator_rationalisation On 26 August 2010 13:43, André Riedel wrote: > The word 'generator:' is better than 'power:', but it is still not > easy for me t

[Tagging] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)

discussion page. Hopefully it shouldn't need too much extra tweaking following existing discussions. Regards, Tom Chance -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.op

Re: [Tagging] craft= Proposal

On 24 August 2010 09:53, Pieren wrote: > n Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Peter Körner wrote: > >> It goes like >> >> A place producing or processing customised goods. >> >> > We need a better definition. A baker or a restaurant could also belong to > that category but I still prefer 'shop' for b

Re: [Tagging] craft= Proposal

Hi Peter, On 24 August 2010 09:08, Peter Körner wrote: > some months ago I started a craft= proposal in my wiki user space: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MaZderMind/Key:craft > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:MaZderMind/DE:Key:craft > > It has grown over time and I got some q

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

On 19 August 2010 16:54, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Basic address editing, however, requires more knowledge if implemented > using relations - which is bad, because editing addresses is one of the > most basic tasks and would otherwise be well suited for new mappers. > "Click on the building whose add

Re: [Tagging] Wiki q: rolling many proposals into one

On 19 August 2010 11:24, digi_c wrote: > to me this sounds very good. I recommend to ask user:Bahnpirat before, and > invite him to work on this proposal. He makes the whole power=* rendering > things... > > Thanks, I will do that. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/

[Tagging] Wiki q: rolling many proposals into one

Hello, Following discussion about power tagging, I'd like to propose several things in one go: - A couple of new tags - Changing all the power_* tags to power:* tags, to make them more object-oriented So we would go from: power=generator power_rating power_source (changed by proposals) power_ou

Re: [Tagging] Is cycleway:right=lane necessary on a one-way street?

On 17 August 2010 22:13, Alan Mintz > wrote: > At 2010-08-17 12:08, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> I know that there are some bike lanes on the left side, but is there >> any real benefit to tagging cycleway:right=lane rather than >> cycleway=lane when you have a bike lane on the right side of a on

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Energy generator power types

On 17 August 2010 15:25, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/8/17 André Riedel : > >> power=generator (the starting point) > > > > Please do not mix the "power"-tag for generating electricity with > > other sources of energy like steam, vacuum, heat and so on. > > why not? Isn't that all power? > >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Energy generator power types

On 17 August 2010 12:56, Vincent Pottier wrote: > On 17/08/2010 12:59, Tom Chance wrote: > >> Just to help summarise, with these proposals we end up with: >> >> power=generator (the starting point) >> >> power_rating (to specify the watts generated) &

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Energy generator power types

On 17 August 2010 12:12, Liz wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Tom Chance wrote: > > Just to help summarise, with these proposals we end up with: > > > > power=generator (the starting point) > > > > power_rating (to specify the watts generated) > > http://wiki.

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Energy generator power types

, Tom Chance wrote: > Following discussion here and on the wiki I have changed "power_type" to > "power_output": > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_type > > I have also introduced a new tag proposal, "power_method": > h

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Energy generator power types

ues, others might want to expand it. If any wiki enthusiasts want to change the name of the first proposal to "Proposed_features/power_output" and do something with the deprecated proposal currently occupying that URL, be my guest! Regards, Tom Chance On 17 August 2010 08:44, Tom Chanc

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Energy generator power types

On 16 August 2010 21:08, André Riedel wrote: > 2010/8/16 Tom Chance : > > Basically I have deprecated "power_type=photovoltaic" and > > "power_type=solar-thermal", which combine two bits of information (source > of > > energy, and type of ener

[Tagging] Proposal: Energy generator power types

dump via XAPI of all photovoltaic and solar-thermal panels; there aren't too many to correct if this proposal is accepted. Please comment on the proposal. Regards, Tom Chance -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tag