Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

> On Jun 24, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > Ok.. > I’ve decided after talking to a few more people about this that I’m going to > just support things in iD the best I can, and pull back from tagging > discussions. > > "just support things" sounds fine, if this means adding

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

2018-06-24 18:01 GMT+02:00 Bryan Housel : > Ok.. > I’ve decided after talking to a few more people about this that I’m going > to just support things in iD the best I can, and pull back from tagging > discussions. > "just support things" sounds fine, if this means adding support for established

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Ok.. I’ve decided after talking to a few more people about this that I’m going to just support things in iD the best I can, and pull back from tagging discussions. Thanks, Bryan > On Jun 24, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > >> On 24. Jun 2018

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

sent from a phone > On 24. Jun 2018, at 16:19, Bryan Housel wrote: > > I can’t be any more clear than this: > > I will support `covered=yes/no` as a checkbox. > I will support `booth=*` as a dropdown > I won’t support `covered=booth` . that’s all fine, but you should not retag the objects

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

> On Jun 24, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > what about modifying all booth=yes on telephones to covered=booth ? No. That’s the exact opposite of what I’m trying to achieve. I feel like you might not have read very carefully any of the emails that I’ve sent on the subje

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

sent from a phone > On 24. Jun 2018, at 00:55, Bryan Housel wrote: > > The only features I’m modifying have the tags `amenity=telephone` and > `covered=booth`. > I will change `covered=booth` to `covered=yes` > I will add a tag `booth=yes` but only if there is not already an existing > `boot

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

sent from a phone > On 23. Jun 2018, at 18:39, Bryan Housel wrote: > > "Consensus on list is that covered=booth offers no additional information > over booth=* and conflicts with existing semantics for covered=yes/no. We'll > replace all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes and add a

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On 2018-06-18 21:00, Bryan Housel wrote: *Proposal:* I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s superfluous.  If the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` you know it’s a booth.  Then we’re not repurposing the `covered=*` for a thing that it doesn’t normally do in o

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On 24/06/18 08:55, Bryan Housel wrote: On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones. Just the ones that - don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that these al

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones. Just the ones that >> - don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and > > That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that > these all have a booth. > So I woul

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On 24/06/18 03:07, Bryan Housel wrote: Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with no hood, no booth, and no cover, so adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error. Are you being deliberately obtuse? We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones. Just the ones t

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with > no hood, no booth, and no cover, so > > adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error. > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? > I am not being deliberately obtus

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

> Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with no > hood, no booth, and no cover, so > adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error. Are you being deliberately obtuse? We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones. Just the ones that - don’t already have a `booth

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Per Paul Allen’s suggestion, mappers can continue use `covered=yes` for > telephones with a hood. > Would it be better to abuse booth rather than covered and have booth=hood? That way covered can be dropped entirely for use with phones. I

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Looks like we can wrap up discussion on this. Per Paul Allen’s suggestion, mappers can continue use `covered=yes` for telephones with a hood. Opened https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging/issues/8 to track next actions for this. "Consensus on lis

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:37 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > Boothless is also common in North America: > Just to complicate matters, Wikipedia refers to phones with acoustic hoods, even minimal ones, as booths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_booth It may be just me, but I think tha

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

sent from a phone > On 19. Jun 2018, at 15:59, Tobias Wrede wrote: > > You might be surprised. Deutsche Telekom's answer to vandalized phone booths, > the "Basistelefon": > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Öffentliches_Telefon.JPG in Italy there was also a period when uncovered phon

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Boothless is also common in North America: https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/539646770_464dffea77_b.jpg On 19/6/18 23:59, Tobias Wrede wrote: Am 18.06.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Paul Allen: Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a booth also lack an acoustic hood.  S

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Le 19. 06. 18 à 15:41, Bryan Housel a écrit : > the actual work of replacing the tags I never used the tag covered=booth but I don't understand the advantage of what you want to do. To know if an object is covered, just look at the tag covered=*. With your proposal, the tag to analyze will depend

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: If you can find out who mapped them then you can at least ask why they > tagged them like that. What information do they think would be lost if > that tag was removed? > I can tell you why I used covered=booth. Because, at the time I mapped

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On 19/06/2018 14:41, Bryan Housel wrote: Sounds good to me. We can leave the thread open a few more days to see if anyone cares that much about `covered=booth`. I think 5 days is plenty. I'd suggest that you'd wait longer than that, and also attempt to find out where the 5k current examples

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Am 18.06.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Paul Allen: Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a booth also lack an acoustic hood.  So should mappers and consumers assume a hood is present unless booth is specified?  Except I can conceive of a phone in a building passage having n

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Sounds good to me. We can leave the thread open a few more days to see if anyone cares that much about `covered=booth`. I think 5 days is plenty. If nobody is using it, I’ll open an issue on https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging on or around June 23 to st

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5088 > > *Proposal:* > I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s superfluous. > If the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` you know it’s a > booth. Then we’re not

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Le 18. 06. 18 à 22:00, Bryan Housel a écrit : > Someone has asked me to add a `covered=booth` field to the telephone preset. imho he need at least to document it > Generally the tag `covered=*` (usually ‘yes’)  is used to indicate that > a highway goes under a building part, so that linters and

[Tagging] drop covered=booth?

from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5088 `covered`, traditionally: Someone has asked me to add a `covered=booth` field to the telephone preset. I’m pushing back on the request slightly because `covered=*` already has a mostly-understo