Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > If we want to extend the tagging, we should use a new but generic tag > (camera?) in my opinion. > Yes, this may result in parallel tagging - but we should not run in the next > cul-de-sac with one's eyes open. We already have some tags whic

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 02.12.2013 11:31, schrieb Pieren: Adding a sub-tag will simply move the current 21700 man_made=surveillance elements without subtags in uncertainty. OK, that is a point, I agree here. I still think that a (public) webcam could be tagged differently from a CCTV because it's not the same pur

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 02.12.2013 15:22, Zecke wrote: > Am 02.12.2013 14:52, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> >> The long standing interpretation was that "website" is about >> the official website of a feature, while "url" is just another / some >> webpage. > I heared it also as Pieren wrote. URL should be replaced by

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 02.12.2013 14:52, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/12/2 Pieren mailto:pier...@gmail.com>> website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki) is it? The long standing interpretation was that "website" is about the official website of a feature, while "url" is just another / some webpage

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

2013/12/2 Pieren > website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki) is it? The long standing interpretation was that "website" is about the official website of a feature, while "url" is just another / some webpage. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing l

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Adding a sub-tag will simply move the current 21700 man_made=surveillance elements without subtags in uncertainty. I still think that a (public) webcam could be tagged differently from a CCTV because it's not the same purpose and not the same legislation even if it is a camera and may transit throu

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Dear all, sorry for my long silence, but I was away. I seems that my opinion are minoritarian, but still I want make one last try to explain things clearly and then I will shut up on this subject. 1. Why is "man_made" bad * It's a very unclear category anyway. If you

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Or this is how you contact someone via webcam such as with skype (BTW I realise that's not a webcam is but some people call it that) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 21:39, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: I think, contact should be restricted to ways o

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: I think, contact should be restricted to ways of getting in contact to someone, and IMHO seeing images of a webcam is not getting in contact to the webcam or "someone" else. regards Peter I agree. "Contact" usually refers to a way to reach a person;

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 01.12.2013 21:04, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: > On 01. des. 2013 18:11, Peter Wendorff wrote: >> Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: >>> On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different pur

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 01. des. 2013 18:11, Peter Wendorff wrote: Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions re

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Yes, I was vague in my comments. What I meant was that most, fun/weather/scenic/city cams are open to all comers and therefore providing uncontrolled surveillance where at least police or council cameras are strictly regulated and their feed is largely private (except if used in court). My a

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I would agree, the contact key has not taken off and may fit for phone or fax (although the old way is still more popular) the use for webcam is back to front. Was the original intention to cover video calls like skype? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 17:11, Peter Wendorff wro

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Yes! http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 14:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 12/01/2013 03:18 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: I am not at all interested in spending months of my life arguing about an elaborate schemes for cameras. I will just Get It Done. I can't blame you for that :) I think the key here is to use contact:webcam= . That alone is enough to get make an o

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 00:44 +0100, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: > > Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland : > > > contact:webcam= is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need > > anything more to tell its a webcam? > > > I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact som

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 01.12.2013 16:05, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: > On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves >> a different purpose. >> contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the >> webcam, or whom to co

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 01. des. 2013 15:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g.

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Hi, I'm not happy with contact:webcam, as the contact namespace IMHO serves a different purpose. contact:webcam could define whom to contact for questions regarding the webcam, or whom to contact BY webcam (as contact:phone is for how to contact e.g. a shop by phone). 1) I would change the order, a

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 01. des. 2013 09:52, yvecai wrote: On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is man_made=surveillance surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public * surveillance:type=camera * surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic * contact:webcam=

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 01. des. 2013 00:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland : contact:webcam= is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything more to tell its a webcam? I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam. Cheers

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is man_made=surveillance surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public * surveillance:type=camera * surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic * contact:webcam= name=* operator=* description=* camer

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 11/30/2013 11:22 AM, Jonathan wrote: I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it goes and who has it. It should be tagged ac

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I agree, contact doesn't make sense. webcam:url=http://... is better Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 23:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland : contact:webcam= is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything more to tell

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland : > contact:webcam= is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need > anything more to tell its a webcam? I think contact:webcam is nonsense, you can't contact someone via his webcam. Cheers, Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

man_made is "A tag for identifying man-made /(artificial)/ structures added to the landscape." taken from the Wiki. It's not just technical, and when you look at what is now included under this bizarre heading: adit, clearcut, monitoring_station, pier, snow_net, snow_fence, wastewater_plant, w

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 29. nov. 2013 09:15, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland > I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do not have huge problems with it as long as it is documented. If something is properly documented in OSM it i

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it goes and who has it. It should be tagged accordingly. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/11/29 nounours > > > completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging! > > > > > why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common? > > > > > BUT: > > > > 1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should > als

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Jonathan wrote: > Why can we not have: > > man_made=surveillance > surveillance:type=webcam > surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic. > url=http:// > > The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because > > no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

2013/11/29 nounours > completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging! > why? Can you expand on this? What have CCTV and a webcam in common? > > BUT: > > 1) man_made does not make any sense for a camera - ifnot, we should also > tag highways, restaurants and buildings as "man_ma

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I agree the man_made tag is ludicrous, but we're stuck with that for the time being, changing that is a whole other thread. The two level tagging is what is currently defined for cameras that film public spaces, I was just suggesting a new value of webcam etc and the addition of a new key of U

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 29.11.2013 um 21:02 schrieb Jonathan: > Why can we not have: > > man_made=surveillance > surveillance:type=webcam > surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic. > url=http:// completly agree that all cameras should share a common tagging! BUT: 1) man_made does not make any sense for

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jonathan wrote: > Why can we not have: > > man_made=surveillance > surveillance:type=webcam > surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic. > url=http:// > > The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because no > matter what the intention

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Why can we not have: man_made=surveillance surveillance:type=webcam surveillance:zone=weather;traffic;scenic. url=http:// The overarching category of man_made=surveillance is important because no matter what the intention of a webcam it is pushing to the internet and therefore there is

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

It may be too obvious, but one good thing, with 'webcam', is that it describes what it is ! Clifford Snow a écrit : >On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Yves wrote: > >> Also, for me 'surveillance' conotes a security related camera. >> I fear that if the actual definition is extended to the so ca

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Yves wrote: > Also, for me 'surveillance' conotes a security related camera. > I fear that if the actual definition is extended to the so called webcam, > this connotation will prevent the use of it to webcams. > A simple scheme like webcam=weather/yes/..., url= w

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Also, for me 'surveillance' conotes a security related camera. I fear that if the actual definition is extended to the so called webcam, this connotation will prevent the use of it to webcams. A simple scheme like webcam=weather/yes/..., url= would be so simple ! For the need for the tag, given t

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I have no problem to use a different tag. The purpose is not the same. It's maybe country specific but a webcam is usually not allowed to film the public in such a way that people can be identified. In the opposite, a CCTV can film more things and the aim is to be able to identify faces. Regarding

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

+1 http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 13:18, Zecke wrote: Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg A webcam is a webcam. This exam

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote: I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg A webcam is a webcam. This example is also called a weathercam: http://www.wetter.tv/de/webcam

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 29. nov. 2013 10:32, Jonathan wrote: I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that is regulated. Maybe the wiki page needs re-wo

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I would agree, I think that covers it. A webcam is surveillance, it's a camera that is watching you making it available to anyone. Some would say that is a greater infringement than an official camera that is regulated. Maybe the wiki page needs re-wording to reflect that it doesn't matter

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Hi! 2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland > I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do not have > huge problems with it as long as it is documented. > If something is properly documented in OSM it is a near to perfection as it will ever get ;-) I also think that surveillance does mak

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 28. nov. 2013 20:07, Dan S wrote: 2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland : I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place, so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a service to

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Hi Egil, > > So I feel man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance > cameras are not public on internet. > > I think amenity=webcam is a good tag. Applies to node. amenity is definitvely a bad choice. First, we should be careful to tag everything with "amenity". Second,

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland : > I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for > tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place, > so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a > service to the public, not to Big Brother.

[Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place, so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a service to the public, not to Big Brother. So I feel man_made=surveillance