Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2010 01:24, Stephen Gower wrote: >> Those calling for shop=fish rather than shop=fishmonger - what would you use >> for >> the pet fish shop? > > How many pet shops would there be that only sell fish? > > I'm guessing a small minority at best, but this would be better as a > sub tag of a pet shop... There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like shop=fish. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 5 May 2010 17:16, Erik Johansson wrote: > There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near > me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like > shop=fish. I haven't seen any pet shops that only sell fish, but as for shops selling equipment to catch fish, these are usually shop=bait_and_tackle ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
Am 05.05.2010 06:17, schrieb John F. Eldredge: > Yes, that is the origin of the term. However, usage of words shifts over > time, often into multiple meanings, depending upon context. From what I have > heard, a "coffeehouse" in Amsterdam, Holland, now means a place that sells > marijuana, not one that sells coffee. It's called a "coffee shop"[1] and those are available throughout the netherlands. You can buy soft drugs and soft drinks (maybe a coffee) for local consumption, but you'll often won't get any cakes or alike or any alcohol there. But seeking for corner cases throughout the world is probably not the best way to find a good way to tag things. I guess even most dutch mappers won't tag a "coffee shop" as amenity=cafe, because the main purpose to get there is not to get a coffee. Regards, ULFL [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_coffee_shop ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
Am 05.05.2010 07:47, schrieb Roy Wallace: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM, John Smith wrote: >> On 4 May 2010 18:14, Roy Wallace wrote: >>> 1) allow for the specification of more than one type simultaneously, >>> e.g. amenity=A;B, amenity=B;C, etc., or >>> 2) change/specify in more detail the definitions of A, B and C so that >>> they *are* mutually exclusive, or >>> 3) be forced to tag things incorrectly >>> >>> Which option shall it be? I vote 2, which includes the option of just >>> using amenity=D (where D=A OR B OR C) >> >> Do you have any concrete examples? > > So, I've been asked for a concrete example, presumably referring to > how to define fast_food/restaurant/cafe *mutually exclusively*. I > looked at the current wiki definitions for all three tags, and these > are the best, new *mutually exclusive* definitions I could come up > with, in the form of a flowchart: > http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1179/amenity.gif > > If you have suggestions to improve the flowchart, that's great - the > main point is that, I believe, it is possible to precisely define the > definitions of cafe/amenity/restaurant. And, I would suggest a unified > flowchart in this case makes life easier than comparing three > separate, vague wiki pages, or by doing "mental experiments". You are asking for black and white definitions/decisions where there's lot's of room for grey. What about a place that serves limited breakfast in the morning, would classify as a cafe throughout the day, serves full meals only at noon and becomes a bar selling cocktails at night? What you can do is try to find good descriptions so that most people understand what is meant and decide locally how to tag it best. Regardless how fine grained you are doing this, there will always be corner cases where two people will disagree with each other. What you just can't do is find a precise definition that is valid throughout the world and will be doubtless in all possible situations. BTW: The flowchart is using highly subjective language "heavily-advertised pseudo-food" which is *very* certainly not a good way to find a concensus. Why does it try to offence junk food fans? Oh, and the definition of "pseudo food" will very certainly differ between people from the western world and people in africa starving right now. Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On 5 May 2010 18:30, Ulf Lamping wrote: > BTW: The flowchart is using highly subjective language > "heavily-advertised pseudo-food" which is *very* certainly not a good > way to find a concensus. Why does it try to offence junk food fans? Oh, > and the definition of "pseudo food" will very certainly differ between > people from the western world and people in africa starving right now. I don't know how prolific it is, but there have been cases "proper" restaurants preparing meals or at least parts of meals ahead of time, I agree that criteria should be dropped and instead focus on the average time the customer expect before receiving their meal. Apart from junk food fans, there is the case of consistency, even if it isn't consistently great it might be the lesser of other evils, for example if you are used to having breakfast cereals with low amounts of sugar in your culture and you end up in one that doesn't eat anything but pure sugar as if it's going out of fashion for breakfast you might get an inkling of where I'm coming from. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Erik Johansson wrote: > There are two pet shops that sell nothing but fish related items near > me, and another two that sell fishing equipment. Even though I like > shop=fish. Personally, I don't really like the idea of a myriad distinct "shop=*" tags - it means any software that deals with the data has to support them all, or report merely "some kind of shop". Compare: shop=fish (software that doesn't know about fish shops only knows that it's a shop) shop=pet pet=fish;terrapins (most software can render it as a pet store. fancy software can get more specific) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 5 May 2010 19:16, Steve Bennett wrote: > Personally, I don't really like the idea of a myriad distinct "shop=*" > tags - it means any software that deals with the data has to support > them all, or report merely "some kind of shop". It's a cascade problem... what is it... a shop what sort of shop... fish shop... what does it sell... what is it... a shop what sort of shop... pet shop... what sorts of pets... Either way you look at it, shop is the base unit, followed by what it sells... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 05/05/2010 10:24, John Smith wrote: > It's a cascade problem... > > what is it... a shop > what sort of shop... fish shop... > what does it sell... > > what is it... a shop > what sort of shop... pet shop... > what sorts of pets... > > Either way you look at it, shop is the base unit, followed by what it sells... To be consistent, your example above should really be: > what is it... a shop > what sort of shop... food shop... > what sort of food... -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 5 May 2010 20:27, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > To be consistent, your example above should really be: > > what is it... a shop > what sort of shop... food shop... > what sort of food... can't get much more generic than that... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > To be consistent, your example above should really be: > > what is it... a shop > > what sort of shop... food shop... what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs cooking/preparing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz wrote: > what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs > cooking/preparing He's talking about this sort of thing: shop=food food:ocean_fish=yes food:shellfish=yes food:river_fish=no ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 5 May 2010 22:10, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz wrote: >> what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs >> cooking/preparing > > He's talking about this sort of thing: > > shop=food > food:ocean_fish=yes > food:shellfish=yes > food:river_fish=no > shop=food food=sea_food food:ocean_fish=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Cleaning up
I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was wondering if it was OK do to things like: * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that way instead. * Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really parks (adding a tree_lined=yes tag to intersecting way if appropriate). * Remove walkways that are just side walks. * Align POIs so that shops, pubs etc recognized by a store front are a small distance inside it's building. * Align hole-in-the-wall ATMs to lie on the edge of the building. * Aligning areas that lie directly next to each other in the real world (park next to building with no road in between) so there is no space in between (sharing points whenever possible). Objections? -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that > way instead. Is there a good reason you want to reduce information? > * Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really > parks (adding a tree_lined=yes tag to intersecting way if appropriate). Instead of removing them, wouldn't it be better to change the tags to make them as wooded areas? > * Remove walkways that are just side walks. Why do you want to remove information if things are correctly tagged? > * Align POIs so that shops, pubs etc recognized by a store front are a small > distance inside it's building. Is the sat imagery of better quality than the original POI was sourced from? Or do you need to align the imagery with the POIs? > * Aligning areas that lie directly next to each other in the real world > (park next to building with no road in between) so there is no space in > between (sharing points whenever possible). You should use relations instead of having ways duplicate nodes, otherwise it's a pain in the butt for the next person editing to do anything useful with the ways without splitting them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
2010/5/5 John Smith : > On 5 May 2010 22:10, John Smith wrote: >> On 5 May 2010 21:21, Liz wrote: >>> what sort of food... ready cooked food or food that still needs >>> cooking/preparing >> >> He's talking about this sort of thing: >> >> shop=food >> food:ocean_fish=yes >> food:shellfish=yes >> food:river_fish=no >> > > shop=food > food=sea_food > food:ocean_fish=yes > > Well, this actually makes more sense. Altough it will require lot of retagging and "selling" idea to real mappers. While discussing this, can we create proposal page for shop=seafood? Cheers, Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to > that > > way instead. > > Is there a good reason you want to reduce information? > Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier & faster. And it makes things more consistent. > > * Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not > really > > parks (adding a tree_lined=yes tag to intersecting way if appropriate). > > Instead of removing them, wouldn't it be better to change the tags to > make them as wooded areas? > landuse=wood on top of sidewalks inside cities? Doesn't feel like correct usage of the tag to me... > > * Remove walkways that are just side walks. > > Why do you want to remove information if things are correctly tagged? > See above. > > * Align POIs so that shops, pubs etc recognized by a store front are a > small > > distance inside it's building. > > Is the sat imagery of better quality than the original POI was sourced > from? Or do you need to align the imagery with the POIs? > This is just for looks, to avoid POIs in buildings to overlap POIs on the street. It also gives mapnik more space to render in. > > * Aligning areas that lie directly next to each other in the real world > > (park next to building with no road in between) so there is no space in > > between (sharing points whenever possible). > > You should use relations instead of having ways duplicate nodes, > otherwise it's a pain in the butt for the next person editing to do > anything useful with the ways without splitting them. > In this case I meant when you have two rectangular areas right next to each other, no road. Sharing points means they will render better. But in this case I am fine letting each area have it's own points even though they lie almost on top of each other, whatever is most common. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith > wrote: >> >> On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote: >> > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to >> > that >> > way instead. >> >> Is there a good reason you want to reduce information? > > Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good > thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane was > to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my > limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier & faster. And it makes > things more consistent. > Well, one man's cruft is another man's gold, so objectively you don't know what is useful and what's not, so it is simply better for everyone to remove anything what is not correct. I suggest to filter maps out when exporting them to your GPS instead of removing them from OSM. Like it or not, micromapping is on the rise and I am quite sure that we will see routers inteligent enough to make use of this "uncessary stuff". Cheers, Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 5 May 2010 23:12, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good > thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane was > to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my > limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier & faster. And it makes > things more consistent. So you want to remove information to improve your rendering experience, imho this isn't good enough, simply exclude this information if you don't want it, but don't deprive others, and especially don't disrespect the work of others, upsetting other mappers that have spent a large amount of time mapping individual ways accuractely. > landuse=wood on top of sidewalks inside cities? Doesn't feel like correct > usage of the tag to me... So people are tagging strips of grass/trees between foot paths and roads? >> > * Remove walkways that are just side walks. >> >> Why do you want to remove information if things are correctly tagged? > > See above. Unlike cycleways, these are usually physically separated from the road way, if they aren't that's one thing, otherwise you are disrespecting the work of others that mapped this in the first place. > This is just for looks, to avoid POIs in buildings to overlap POIs on the > street. It also gives mapnik more space to render in. POIs are useful for more than just rendering, you shouldn't just place items inaccurately to have them render nicer. > In this case I meant when you have two rectangular areas right next to each > other, no road. Sharing points means they will render better. But in this > case I am fine letting each area have it's own points even though they lie > almost on top of each other, whatever is most common. As I said in my previous email, if areas share nodes/sections of ways you should use relations instead of duplicating ways, otherwise put the areas close to each other without sharing nodes as it makes it too difficult to edit individual areas in future... You are after all trying to reduce clutter, so start with shared segments... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 5/5/10 9:12 AM, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > > Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a > good thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and > cycleway=lane was to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It > avoids clutter on my limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier & > faster. And it makes things more consistent. > probably better to address GPS clutter in the process of rendering GPS format maps in the long term. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > > > > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, John Smith > > wrote: > >> > >> On 5 May 2010 22:50, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > >> > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to > >> > that > >> > way instead. > >> > >> Is there a good reason you want to reduce information? > > > > Yes, as you may guess from my topic. Removing unnecessary stuff is a good > > thing IMHO. I thought the idea behind cycleway=track and cycleway=lane > was > > to avoid having to draw lots of parallel ways. It avoids clutter on my > > limited resolution GPS. It makes routing easier & faster. And it makes > > things more consistent. > > > > Well, one man's cruft is another man's gold, so objectively you don't > know what is useful and what's not, so it is simply better for > everyone to remove anything what is not correct. I suggest to filter > maps out when exporting them to your GPS instead of removing them from > OSM. Like it or not, micromapping is on the rise and I am quite sure > that we will see routers inteligent enough to make use of this > "uncessary stuff". > > I am talking about either removing incorrect things (things that are not parks, the just looked green when people mapped after satellite imagery without visiting the place) or consolidating information (moving the cycleway into the highway). So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). But what's the problem with aligning POIs to building edges so they don't look like they been randomly thrown out, or removing things that are wrong? A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just leave lots of useless areas... (Note also that I am talking about things in my neighborhood, I know what they look like and where they are). -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > I am currently working on cleaning up stuff in Stockholm, and I was > wondering if it was OK do to things like: > > * Remove cycleways parallel to other ways and add a cycleway=track to that > way instead. no, you should rather do the opposite: remove the preliminary track on the road and draw the cycleways where they are missing. A separate way in reality should be a separate way in OSM. Otherwise you are not able to deal with different surfaces, lane-numbers, situations at crossings, maxspeeds, access-restrictions, widths, ... > * Remove parks created from green areas on the satellite that are not really > parks (adding a tree_lined=yes tag to intersecting way if appropriate). I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park. > * Remove walkways that are just side walks. see above > * Align hole-in-the-wall ATMs to lie on the edge of the building. +1, they should IMHO be part of the building way in this case > * Aligning areas that lie directly next to each other in the real world > (park next to building with no road in between) so there is no space in > between (sharing points whenever possible). +1, when they share node in reality cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
cleway into the highway). > > So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then > draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). Well, not exactly, I draw only when I survey them on the ground, therefore I know how they are connected with each other. And for consistency - OSM is far from it - but it would be nice to have proper sidewalks everywhere, because it can and will be quite essential for walking routing. > But what's the problem with aligning POIs to building edges so they don't > look like they been randomly thrown out, or removing things that are wrong? I think no one said it's wrong. If you know that shop is somewhere more inside, move it according to your information. Cheers, Peter. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then > draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the inevitable... > A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as > fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just > leave lots of useless areas... If they aren't parks, then what are they? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park. This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as landuse, the only landuse=grass I can think of is turf farms, surface=grass is more appropriate... > +1, when they share node in reality So make a relation, they share the segment, not just the nodes... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
>> A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as >> fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just >> leave lots of useless areas... > > If they aren't parks, then what are they? > Wouldn't it be smart to tag it as fixme for surveying on the ground, and by then default on most possible variant? P. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
Re sidewalks and cycle tracks. Best bet is to put them on both the road (footway=yes; cycleway=track) AND as separate ways (maybe with a tag like micromapping=yes to boot); there's not going to be agreement any time soon on which is preferable. Richard On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg wrote: >> So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should then >> draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). > > That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the > inevitable... > >> A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as >> fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would just >> leave lots of useless areas... > > If they aren't parks, then what are they? > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > > So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should > then > > draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). > > That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the > inevitable... > > > A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as > > fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would > just > > leave lots of useless areas... > > If they aren't parks, then what are they? They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For instance; http://maps.google.se/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=sv&geocode=&q=medborgarplatsen,+stockholm&sll=61.606396,21.225586&sspn=41.151386,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Medborgarplatsen,+Stockholm&ll=59.314198,18.076335&spn=0.001299,0.00327&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=59.314194,18.076695&panoid=61og8jFQ7ZeAS1UebY-7gg&cbp=12,275.23,,0,15.04 In this case there was a park on that sidewalk. Here I am considering adding tree_lined=yes to the street. But overlapping with landuse=wood seems insane. (Sorry for using google streetview but it was the easiest way to show the problem). -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > >> A bad compromise would be to leave the park area and retag it as > >> fixme=looked_green_on_satellite or something, but that approach would > just > >> leave lots of useless areas... > > > > If they aren't parks, then what are they? > > > > Wouldn't it be smart to tag it as fixme for surveying on the ground, > and by then default on most possible variant? > > P. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > Of course I have been surveying on the ground :) Same street as in the streetview link but from my own camera: http://swimmer.se/not_a_park.jpg -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
2010/5/5 John Smith : > On 5 May 2010 23:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I suggest to change leisure=park to landuse=grass if it is not a park. > > This was covered in another thread, landcover isn't the same thing as > landuse, the only landuse=grass I can think of is turf farms, > surface=grass is more appropriate... while I understand you and generally would agree this is not OSM-reality. landuse-OSM is not landuse as you would guess by the actual meaning. As long as surface or landcover are not rendered this won't change, despite all "don't map for the renderers" appeals. >> +1, when they share node in reality > So make a relation, they share the segment, not just the nodes... this is in many case overengineered. I'm not against the use of relations but for many landuses and buildings with only 2 nodes in common a relation complicates the situation without any benefit. Even the db gets more load when using the relation I suppose. For a normal block in the city you would need 20-40 relations just because all buildings are in touch. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : >> If they aren't parks, then what are they? > > They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For > instance; use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not wrong regarding landuse-use ;-) in general. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > >> If they aren't parks, then what are they? > > > > They are trees or sometimes small areas of grass next to buildings. For > > instance; > > > use landuse=grass, that's IMHO not wrong regarding landuse-use ;-) in > general. > Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? :9 Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it is a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying over it. -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 6 May 2010 00:16, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > while I understand you and generally would agree this is not > OSM-reality. landuse-OSM is not landuse as you would guess by the > actual meaning. As long as surface or landcover are not rendered this > won't change, despite all "don't map for the renderers" appeals. There is a trac ticket to get surface=grass to render, shouldn't we be encouraging the separation of landuse and landcover as generally a good idea? > this is in many case overengineered. I'm not against the use of > relations but for many landuses and buildings with only 2 nodes in > common a relation complicates the situation without any benefit. Even > the db gets more load when using the relation I suppose. For a normal > block in the city you would need 20-40 relations just because all > buildings are in touch. Depends on the buildings, there are many types of building that don't share walls... As for DB load, it just serves up information, it doesn't process the data when serving it, so I doubt it increases load on the DB server... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On 6 May 2010 00:12, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > Of course I have been surveying on the ground :) Same street as in the > streetview link but from my own camera: > > http://swimmer.se/not_a_park.jpg surface=pavers ? Although you are also welcome to map individual trees :D ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? :9 > > Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it is > a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying > over it. I must admit I didn't look at your link at first (shame). I agree, there is no park and no grass ;-) What you could do is tag the trees as natural=tree on nodes (others might advocate tree-lined tags on the road). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
2010/5/5 John Smith : > the amenity=fast_food is the primary function of the POI, it has a > secondary functions of cafe=yes, restaurant=yes and > drive_through=yes... yes, but what do you do if all those functions are primary? Sometimes this is the case. Gruß Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On 6 May 2010 01:06, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > yes, but what do you do if all those functions are primary? Sometimes > this is the case. Multiple POIs... or one node with multiple relations... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> On 5 May 2010 23:54, Jonas Minnberg wrote: >> > So OK, I can leave sidewalks (even though to be consistent you should >> then >> > draw sidewalks next to every street in the city that has them). >> >> That's where things are headed, removing existing ones only delays the >> inevitable... >> >> >> What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed, imo. Say where things are missing, not where they are obviously authorized. Or you add "oneway=no" to all roads as well ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
OK, I think I'm beginning to understand the lay of the land. What I most wanted to get acknowledged is that data gathered first hand on street level should trump data traced from low-res satellite images. I will not remove any walkways or cycleways that are adjacent to other ways. I will align POI:s to walls or slightly inside for "storefront" shops,pubs etc. I will remove incorrect areas obviously defined from only looking at satellite images, unless I can tag them to something that fits. I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to be consensus on that. In short, I can forget about consistency but hopefully be able to remove things that are wrong - and I mean wrong when considered by a person actually looking at the thing. Concerning shops - I think that the POI should be placed just inside the door, even if the shops main area is further inside. You remember shops locations by their storefronts. (Not for shops inside malls of course.) On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:46 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > > Shouldn't you expect - you know - *grass* in areas with landuse=grass ? > :9 > > > > Seriously though, from the image of the actual street you can see that it > is > > a sidewalk. The only people who see the green surface are the ones flying > > over it. > > I must admit I didn't look at your link at first (shame). I agree, > there is no park and no grass ;-) > What you could do is tag the trees as natural=tree on nodes (others > might advocate tree-lined tags on the road). > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren wrote: > What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of > time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be > walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It > would > be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed, imo. Say > where things are missing, not where they are obviously authorized. Or you > add "oneway=no" to all roads as well ? In my area, sidewalks are most certainly NOT the norm. There are very few of them, and where they are present they are typically separated from the road by a boulevard. Other areas of my city have sidewalks that are right up against the roads. I can see the merit of representing sidewalks that are right up against the road by using an attribute on the road. However for sidewalks separated from the road by a boulevard I'd think it makes more sense to draw them in as separate paths. Just my 2c. Tyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
If the sidewalks are next to the road, and in Europe, you can probably rely on people assuming them by default (unless you advise otherwise). Clearly in other places, it may be necessary to tag them explicitly. Richard On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Tyler Gunn wrote: > > On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:55:10 +0200, Pieren wrote: >> What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of >> time. Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can > be >> walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It >> would >> be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed, imo. > Say >> where things are missing, not where they are obviously authorized. Or > you >> add "oneway=no" to all roads as well ? > > In my area, sidewalks are most certainly NOT the norm. There are very few > of them, and where they are present they are typically separated from the > road by a boulevard. Other areas of my city have sidewalks that are right > up against the roads. > > I can see the merit of representing sidewalks that are right up against > the road by using an attribute on the road. However for sidewalks > separated from the road by a boulevard I'd think it makes more sense to > draw them in as separate paths. > > Just my 2c. > Tyler > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to > be consensus on that. I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and I'll even go so far to say it is wrong if they are not connected). The open question is whether this should involve multipolygon-relations to share _ways_ as well. IMHO just in cases where it is worth it (because the problem is you augment complexity quite a bit). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:49 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > > I will not join together joining areas since there doesn't seem to > > be consensus on that. > > > I think there is consensus that the nodes should be connected (and > I'll even go so far to say it is wrong if they are not connected). The > open question is whether this should involve multipolygon-relations to > share _ways_ as well. IMHO just in cases where it is worth it (because > the problem is you augment complexity quite a bit). Well since we need space for all those thousands of sidewalks that people want to add maybe we better leave space around all roads anyway :) -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
2010/5/5 Jonas Minnberg : > Well since we need space for all those thousands of sidewalks that people > want to add maybe we better leave space around all roads anyway :) IMHO the sidewalk (and the street) are not part of the adjacent landuses anyway. I thought you were asking for landuses one to another without a road in between. Please don't connect landuses to roads, it causes trouble later and is less precise anyway. Use the border of the adjacent land instead. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
>What inevitable ?. I think that drawing sidewalks is silly and waste of time. Around here, sidewalks can be such a novelty that I recently read a request of someone looking for a map of my city with sidewalks - "Does anyone know if a map exists showing which streets have sidewalks ..." http://www.city-data.com/forum/greenville-spartanburg-area/958850-where-walkable-neighborhoods.html#post13921226 Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed, imo. Perhaps the ability to specify defaults for a admin area would help to eliminate redundant entries. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - shop:seafood (was: A shop selling fish and seafood)
Please feel free to view and comment on this proposal for shop:seafood http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/seafood_shop Claudius Am 05.05.2010 15:09, Peteris Krisjanis: > While discussing this, can we create proposal page for shop=seafood? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Use of column and period in tagging namespace design
Hi, Just wondering when the use of : of . is most appropriate with regard to namespace tags in mind. Some examples like this tree:height=20m or shop.restaurant.parking=yes is what I mean. Is the : de-facto the namespace divider of choice or does the . come into view for some reasons sometimes? Bye, Ivom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of column and period in tagging namespace design
2010/5/5 ivom : > Just wondering when the use of : of . is most appropriate with regard to > namespace tags in mind. Some examples like this tree:height=20m or > shop.restaurant.parking=yes is what I mean. > > Is the : de-facto the namespace divider of choice or does the . come into > view for some reasons sometimes? in the context of OSM I think the : is de-facto the namespave divider (although we don't have officially namespaces). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:09 AM, John Smith wrote: > > On 6 May 2010 01:06, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes, but what do you do if all those functions are primary? Sometimes > > this is the case. > > Multiple POIs... or one node with multiple relations... I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this case - certainly better than "multiple POIs", and no less supported than "multiple relations" (right?) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > >> http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1179/amenity.gif > > You are asking for black and white definitions/decisions where there's > lot's of room for grey. There's only "room for grey" (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want there to be. > What about a place that serves limited breakfast in the morning, would > classify as a cafe throughout the day, serves full meals only at noon > and becomes a bar selling cocktails at night? You can still design a flowchart to cope with this as desired, with a bit of tweaking (e.g. "Can you expect a waiter to deliver your order to your table *at lunch and/or dinner time*?"). > What you just can't do is find a precise definition that is valid > throughout the world and will be doubtless in all possible situations. I am talking about a 'stipulative' definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition). This definition cannot shown to be "valid" or "invalid" - it is simply either "useful" or "useless". To me, a useful definition for X is one that allows you to state whether something IS X OR IS NOT X, verifiably. That is, if I ask OSM to "find me a cafe", it would at least be nice to know how OSM defines a "cafe", even if (especially if!) this is different to my own subjective understanding of what a cafe is (this is incredibly obvious to me). I think I do understand your point, though, that you think it better to keep using these tags in a fuzzy, subjective, variable way throughout the world. To avoid going around in circles, maybe we can agree to disagree on that. > BTW: The flowchart is using highly subjective language > "heavily-advertised pseudo-food" which is *very* certainly not a good > way to find a concensus. Why does it try to offence junk food fans? Oh, > and the definition of "pseudo food" will very certainly differ between > people from the western world and people in africa starving right now. Hehe, this was a bit tongue-in-cheek, incorporating Greg Troxel's thoughts. Like I said, I'm happy to spend more time on the flowchart, and welcome suggestions to improve it - but only if there is demand for verifiable definitions. Otherwise, I won't bother. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
At 2010-05-05 08:55, Pieren wrote: >...Let say that 99.99% of the unclassified and residential roads can be >walked on both sides, why should we draw the sidewalks everywhere ? It >would be more clever to tag where sidewalks are missing or not allowed, >imo. Say where things are missing, not where they are obviously >authorized. Or you add "oneway=no" to all roads as well ? +1. Micromapping may be "on the rise", but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying, on administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2, maxspeed=25 mph, etc.). I currently don't tag these, but it would be useful to visitors to know them. -- Alan Mintz ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace: > There's only "room for grey" (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want > there to be. Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion. > I think I do understand your point, though, that you think it better > to keep using these tags in a fuzzy, subjective, variable way > throughout the world. Trying to "redefine" a vague definition existing for years with something more exact a lot later on is just asking for trouble. Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Am 05.05.2010 22:36, schrieb Roy Wallace: > >> There's only "room for grey" (w.r.t. the OSM definitions) if we want >> there to be. > > Following the OSM discussions for years now I would say: That's an illusion. Ok. Though I don't understand, I'll take your word for it and shut up :) >> I think I do understand your point, though, that you think it better >> to keep using these tags in a fuzzy, subjective, variable way >> throughout the world. > > Trying to "redefine" a vague definition existing for years with > something more exact a lot later on is just asking for trouble. Ok, I'll give up. But I will just point out that, while you insist it is "just asking for trouble", imagine a wiki page that says something like: "If you're not sure whether the place should be tagged as an amenity=restaurant, cafe or fast_food, this flowchart is provided as a guide. However, keep in mind that these tags have been used vaguely and subjectively for years, and may continue to be used as such into the future." That seems an improvement to me, but it appears I am alone. Bye. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On 6 May 2010 06:12, Roy Wallace wrote: > I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this > case - certainly better than "multiple POIs", and no less supported > than "multiple relations" (right?) If an app supports relations, it wouldn't matter if there is 1 or 10, however most software I've tried doesn't bother to expand multiple values separated by semicolons... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
Roy Wallace writes: > Ok, I'll give up. But I will just point out that, while you insist it > is "just asking for trouble", imagine a wiki page that says something > like: > > "If you're not sure whether the place should be tagged as an > amenity=restaurant, cafe or fast_food, this flowchart is provided as a > guide. However, keep in mind that these tags have been used vaguely > and subjectively for years, and may continue to be used as such into > the future." > > That seems an improvement to me, but it appears I am alone. Bye. You're not alone. Your flowchart was helpful to clarify how at least some people think. pgpLMpZGy8Uwv.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:41 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 6 May 2010 06:12, Roy Wallace wrote: >> I would think a semi-colon delimited value would be better in this >> case - certainly better than "multiple POIs", and no less supported >> than "multiple relations" (right?) > > If an app supports relations, it wouldn't matter if there is 1 or 10, > however most software I've tried doesn't bother to expand multiple > values separated by semicolons... You're right, actually. But it seems like a pretty nasty hack to use relations for this purpose, that is, simultaneously defining more than 1 value for a key. From the wiki: "relations are basically groups of objects in which each object may take on a specific role." ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cleaning up
> +1. Micromapping may be "on the rise", but that doesn't mean it's > necessarily a good thing. I'd still like to see a means of specifying, on > administrative boundaries, tags that are to be assumed (inherited) by > contained objects (e.g. sidewalk=yes, surface=paved, lanes=2, maxspeed=25 > mph, etc.). I currently don't tag these, but it would be useful to > visitors > to know them. I agree that it'd be nice to be able to set defaults for an area such as typical speed limits. I guess it depends what you consider micromapping... Here's an area in Google Maps: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Winnipeg,+MB&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.957536,64.951172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Winnipeg,+Division+No.+11,+Manitoba,+Canada&ll=49.823878,-97.201324&spn=0.009192,0.024033&z=16 Here's the same area in OSM; I've added a lot of detail to this shopping district including parking lots, buildings, and started to put in POIs. I think this is a HUGE improvement over what Google Maps shows: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82372&lon=-97.20104&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF Tyler ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
by discount store, i mean the largish stores like WalMart, Target, K Mart, etc. they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large for the value general. what are people typically using? richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
On 6 May 2010 11:24, Richard Welty wrote: > they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large > for the value general. what are people typically using? shop=department_store seems to fit to me: "A single large store - often multiple storeys high - selling a large variety of goods" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> by discount store, i mean the largish stores like WalMart, Target, K
> Mart, etc.
>
> they really don't quite seem to go as department_store, but also seem large
> for the value general. what are people typically using?
>
>
I would tag them as department_store. These are of the discount variety
("discount department store"), but still fit the tag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Target_Stores
Though, many Targets and Super Walmarts have large grocery sections, so they
could also get shop=supermarket, and there might be a McDonalds, Pizza Hut
or Taco Bell Express, and other things. Thus, we have the issue with how to
assign multiple values (as separate pois, with relations, or separated with
semicolons in a single poi, or other means of tagging)
-Katie
> richard
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
--
Katie Filbert
@filbertkm
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for discount stores in US
On 6 May 2010 11:59, Katie Filbert wrote: > Though, many Targets and Super Walmarts have large grocery sections, so they > could also get shop=supermarket, and there might be a McDonalds, Pizza Hut > or Taco Bell Express, and other things. Thus, we have the issue with how to > assign multiple values (as separate pois, with relations, or separated with > semicolons in a single poi, or other means of tagging) The different shops should get their own POI, the only difference is they're indoors so you would need a laser range finder or guess the position... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
