Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith wrote: > > I don't see an overly compelling reason to change the existing tag, Me either. In my previous post I was actually trying to point out the problems with the landuse tag, rather than advocate it. I think natural=beach is fine to describe an area of sand that resembles a beach (regardless of whether humans have created it or use it), just as natural=water tends to be used to describe an area of water. > however there are things like golf course bunkers that are sand but > aren't a beach that probably shouldn't be tagged natural=beach like > some people did in the past to make the bunkers render. Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace wrote: > Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is also sand in deserts, and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't part of a beach either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
2010/4/11 John Smith : > On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace wrote: >> Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. > > I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also > have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is > also sand in deserts, and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't > part of a beach either. +1 even for jumping (sports) there are sand pitches, on playgrounds, ... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
For a while now, I've been drawing and tagging drive through lanes at fast food restaurants with highway=service and service=drive_thru (and sometimes also oneway=yes since it seems that the implicit vs. explicit tags debate is not yet done). Does anybody think that this is a good idea that can be adopted by others? Here are some actual examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/37125344 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39809748 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/30691826 Eugene (osm:seav) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 12 April 2010 01:36, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > For a while now, I've been drawing and tagging drive through lanes at fast > food restaurants with highway=service and service=drive_thru (and sometimes > also oneway=yes since it seems that the implicit vs. explicit tags debate is No idea if this is a good idea or not, is there a need to tag drive through differently? If there is a good need for a sub-type, you could always add oneway=yes as implied by your tag scheme. Should through be shortened to thru since road isn't abbreviated to Rd etc? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:46 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 12 April 2010 01:36, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > For a while now, I've been drawing and tagging drive through lanes at > fast > > food restaurants with highway=service and service=drive_thru (and > sometimes > > also oneway=yes since it seems that the implicit vs. explicit tags debate > is > > No idea if this is a good idea or not, is there a need to tag drive > through differently? > Depending on the situation it might affect routing. I have indeed tagged a couple of these, using "highway=service, service=drive-through, access=private, oneway=yes". In my experience the oneway is usually explicit, as there are arrows on the ground. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Anthony wrote: > > I have indeed tagged a couple of these, using "highway=service, > service=drive-through, access=private, oneway=yes". > > highway=service + oneway=yes + access=destination Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 12 April 2010 01:56, Anthony wrote: > In my experience the oneway is usually explicit, as there are arrows on the > ground. junction=roundabout implies oneway=yes, which is why you don't need to add a oneway tag as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:13 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 12 April 2010 01:56, Anthony wrote: > > In my experience the oneway is usually explicit, as there are arrows on > the > > ground. > > junction=roundabout implies oneway=yes, which is why you don't need to > add a oneway tag as well. > Ah, I see. Now, if we really want to start a flame war, maybe I should ask whether or not to include "bicycle=no" :). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 12 April 2010 02:33, Anthony wrote: > Now, if we really want to start a flame war, maybe I should ask whether or > not to include "bicycle=no" :). While your comment is tongue in cheek, most drive throughs have height/width restrictions and usually don't allow towed vehicles to be taken through either, not sure if anyone has come up with suitable tagging for this. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:18 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace wrote: >> Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. > > I was hoping for something a little more generic Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for "roads/footpaths" (although strangely it's also used for leisure=pitch's - seems the wiki needs updating). And landuse is perhaps problematic for the reasons I mentioned before (i.e. overlap with "natural"). Although, landuse=sand would be analogous to the current use of landuse=grass. > you can also > have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches leisure=pitch + sport=volleyball (or beach_volleyball, I would suggest) + surface=sand (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch) > there is > also sand in deserts, I'd suggest natural=desert (+ maybe surface=sand). Strangely abandoned old proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deserts > and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't > part of a beach either. Surely natural=sand_dune ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > For a while now, I've been drawing and tagging drive through lanes at fast > food restaurants with highway=service and service=drive_thru I've done similar, though I've used "service=drivethru". Adding oneway=yes can't hurt. Would be nice to see this added to the wiki at least in these locations: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfast_food As for what exactly is the best tag, FWIW, wikipedia has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-through, thus perhaps service=drive-through would be best. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 07:50, Roy Wallace wrote: > Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for > "roads/footpaths" (although strangely it's also used for Why does the surface tag have to be limited to roads/footpaths? > leisure=pitch's - seems the wiki needs updating). And landuse is > perhaps problematic for the reasons I mentioned before (i.e. overlap > with "natural"). Although, landuse=sand would be analogous to the > current use of landuse=grass. landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the "ground" eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil > leisure=pitch > + sport=volleyball (or beach_volleyball, I would suggest) > + surface=sand (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch) You are contradicting what you said earlier about surface... > I'd suggest natural=desert (+ maybe surface=sand). Strangely abandoned > old proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deserts Seemed like a reasonable proposal, but I didn't check on usage. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
From: "John Smith" > I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also > have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is > also sand in deserts, and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't > part of a beach either. Sand is not a necessary element of a beach in any case. In fact, the original meaning of 'beach' was: 'The loose water-worn pebbles of the sea-shore; shingle.' -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 09:09, Steve Doerr wrote: > Sand is not a necessary element of a beach in any case. In fact, the > original meaning of 'beach' was: 'The loose water-worn pebbles of the > sea-shore; shingle.' All this means is that sand is assumed, since natural=beach renders as a yellow colour. To be able to accurately tag beaches, natural=beach needs a sub-type to modify the default, surface=* might be a suitable option. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> >> I have indeed tagged a couple of these, using "highway=service, >> service=drive-through, access=private, oneway=yes". >> >> > highway=service + oneway=yes + access=destination > > Pieren > An explicit tag would be better since routers can then let the user filter for fast food restaurants that have drive-throughs and then route them to the selected drive-through entrance appropriately. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar > wrote: > > > > For a while now, I've been drawing and tagging drive through lanes at > fast > > food restaurants with highway=service and service=drive_thru > > I've done similar, though I've used "service=drivethru". Adding > oneway=yes can't hurt. > > Would be nice to see this added to the wiki at least in these locations: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfast_food > > As for what exactly is the best tag, FWIW, wikipedia has > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-through, thus perhaps > service=drive-through would be best. > Since a couple of people mentioned that service=drive-through is a good value, then I'd go for this value too for consistency. I'd rather get some more people agree to this idea before changing the wiki pages. :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On 12 April 2010 13:49, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Since a couple of people mentioned that service=drive-through is a good > value, then I'd go for this value too for consistency. If you want to be consistent, use underscores not hyphens, eg service=drive_through ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John Smith wrote: > > On 12 April 2010 07:50, Roy Wallace wrote: >> Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for >> "roads/footpaths" (although strangely it's also used for > > Why does the surface tag have to be limited to roads/footpaths? It doesn't have to be in future. It's just what the wiki says at the moment. > landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse > to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the "ground" > eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) >> leisure=pitch >> + sport=volleyball (or beach_volleyball, I would suggest) >> + surface=sand (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch) > > You are contradicting what you said earlier about surface... Well, the wiki page for surface=* contradicts the wiki page for leisure=pitch. I think the latter is better. Anyway, the approach seems to be to 1) mark what the feature is, then 2) mark what the surface is, and if necessary 3) mark what the area is used for. So for the bunker, golf_course_obstacle=bunker (or whatever) + surface=sand sounds fine to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
It sounds to me like we're getting back to the old argument about the difference between land-use and land-cover. Unfortunately, tags for both have been lumped together into landuse=*, (as well as some natural, man-made etc) which is why the debate reoccurs so often. Sand is a cover, not a use. So are grass, rocks, pavement, trees, water, etc. It's common for a single landuse (eg a park) to have many different covers (eg some grass, some trees, a pond, a paved area, etc). It's also possible (though less common) for a single landcover area to have different uses - eg a single patch of grass near me is a park at one end and school grounds at the other, with no fence. We should be encouraging that any given area may have both a use type tag and a cover type tag. My personal opinion is that we should separate out the cover tags from landuse into some other tag (doesn't have to be landcover). Not because this is required, or it for easier searching, though they may be side benefits. Simply because having cover types in landuse confuses things. Stephen >> landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse >> to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the "ground" >> eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil > > Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? > (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 14:20, Roy Wallace wrote: > Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? > (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) It seems inconsistent with other landuses such as residential, industrial, commercial etc. > Well, the wiki page for surface=* contradicts the wiki page for > leisure=pitch. I think the latter is better. Someone updated the wiki on natural=beach in February to include a surface=* option. > Anyway, the approach seems to be to 1) mark what the feature is, then > 2) mark what the surface is, and if necessary 3) mark what the area is > used for. So for the bunker, golf_course_obstacle=bunker (or whatever) > + surface=sand sounds fine to me. I updated the ticket I submitted the other day for surface=sand to be rendered the same as natural=beach http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 15:05, Stephen Hope wrote: > My personal opinion is that we should separate out the cover tags from > landuse into some other tag (doesn't have to be landcover). Not > because this is required, or it for easier searching, though they may > be side benefits. Simply because having cover types in landuse > confuses things. surface=* seems to be the logical tag to use for this, and is already widely used, and not just for highways/paths... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
