[Tagging] Tagging post-office in Sweden

[LeSve]

How should Postoffice be tagged in Sweden.

The Postoffices has disapperared and is instead a small part of
another shop (or Petrol station etc).

Should another node be created which said postoffice or
should the shop-node have another key-value telling this.

/LeSve

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging post-office in Sweden

[just . stret]

LeSve wrote, On 2010-08-28 09:46:
> How should Postoffice be tagged in Sweden.
> 
> The Postoffices has disapperared and is instead a small part of
> another shop (or Petrol station etc).
> 
> Should another node be created which said postoffice or
> should the shop-node have another key-value telling this.

More explanation. This is not called post-office.
They called it "postombud" (post office agent in English)


> 
> /LeSve
> 
> ___
> 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] RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features)

[Tom Chance]

On 28 August 2010 04:30, Alan Mintz

> wrote:

> Is there a plan to convert the existing data?
>
>
I thought about that, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Any advice is
welcome!

I could, of course, just download all data tagged with the old schema using
XAPI and update it. More time consuming, but polite, would be to contact all
the authors of that data to tell them about the new schema.

Tom

-- 
http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/28 John Smith :
> On 27 August 2010 23:34, Peter Körner  wrote:
>> why exactly do you want to convert a widely used tag (amenity=sauna, ~1000
>> uses)
>
> I wouldn't exactly say 1000 uses is widely used... A handful of
> mappers, or perhaps even a single mapper, is capable of doing more
> than that...


I disagree with you. Have a look at amenity in the planet (tagwatch):
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Planet/En/ignored_amenity.html

more than 1000 is significant.

I can hardly imagine a single mapper (or even a small group) mapping
more than 1000 saunas, but this is maybe due to the area I'm living
in, where there are few of them.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/28 John Smith :
> On 28 August 2010 03:31, Richard Welty  wrote:
>> i just found amenity=studio which will do, although i still
>> thing office=broadcasting might be helpful to identify
>> the business office side.
>
> If you want to be picky, count the rooms... Is there more offices or
> more studios in the building?


-1, that's silly. At least look at the area, the number is not
important (for tv broadcasting for instance a studio will be much
bigger than several offices). Still I disagree. Offices are
significant for businesses where the main activity is office work, but
you will find offices almost everywhere: in hotels, in factories, at
petrol stations, in museums, in shops/supermarkets, in schools and
universities, ...

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?

[John Smith]

On 28 August 2010 19:02, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> you will find offices almost everywhere: in hotels, in factories, at
> petrol stations, in museums, in shops/supermarkets, in schools and
> universities, ...

You just proved my point, the number of offices is in the minority, so
obviously that isn't the primary use.

If there is 1 or 2 studios in a 2 story building and 100s of offices
it's more office space than anything else...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna

[John Smith]

On 28 August 2010 18:58, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> I can hardly imagine a single mapper (or even a small group) mapping
> more than 1000 saunas, but this is maybe due to the area I'm living
> in, where there are few of them.

If someone had a fetish for saunas and had a GPX file full of
locations prior to finding out about OSM it wouldn't be hard for one
person to add that many.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-08-28 01:49, Tom Chance wrote:
On 28 August 2010 04:30, Alan Mintz

wrote:

Is there a plan to convert the existing data?


I thought about that, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Any advice is
welcome!
I could, of course, just download all data tagged with the old schema
using XAPI and update it. More time consuming, but polite, would be to
contact all the authors of that data to tell them about the new
schema.
IMO, when you're dealing with just changing a key name or value with a
clear 1:1 map from old to new, it makes sense to change the data yourself
- pretty straightforward using XAPI.
If there is a convenient way to do it (is there?), alerting the
creators/editors of those features to the tagging scheme change would be
good, too, since they are likely to be taggers of those feature types in
the future.

--
Alan Mintz 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/28 Anthony :
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>> if there is no footway, it shouldn't be tagged as such.
>
> Agreed.  But what is a footway?  The dictionary says it's "a narrow
> way or path for pedestrians".  I don't see anything about grass being
> disqualified.


The definition you quoted said: "way or path". In the aerial images
posted here there was neither of them. If was just grass. No way.

You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial
imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images.
Usually the grass is aside then, because grass doesn't grow where
people (or animals) walk. It disappears even if it was there before.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

[John Smith]

2010/8/28 Matthias Meißer :
> How can we improve this process?

Didn't you already ask this on one of the wiki pages?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] pool/billiards hall?

[Simone Saviolo]

I agree with using amenity=pub/bar/whatever, sports=pool. But doing a
strict classification would be often hard.

In my town ([ot] thanks, population-based classification of urban
centres, for not calling it a city! [/ot]) there's a bowling hall,
with arcade-style video games, pool and table-tennis tables; would
this be considered a pool hall? an arcade? a bowling? We usually say
"let's go to the bowling" even if we rarely actually play bowling,
it's more like "let's go to the bowling to play pool".

Also, there are a couple of bars with pool tables; you'd sometime want
to go there not because of the bar itself but to play pool. The same
applies to those bars with video-poker machines, or (more and more
rare these days) arcade videogames; if people go there mainly because
of the games, or because there's a karaoke night, what should it be
filed under?

Regards,

Simone

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?

[Simone Saviolo]

2010/8/27 Richard Welty :
> i just found amenity=studio which will do, although i still
> thing office=broadcasting might be helpful to identify
> the business office side.

Why not amenity=studio, studio=broadcasting, broadcasting=TV?

> richard

Ciao,

Simone

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sauna

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/8/28 John Smith :
> On 28 August 2010 18:58, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> I can hardly imagine a single mapper (or even a small group) mapping
>> more than 1000 saunas, but this is maybe due to the area I'm living
>> in, where there are few of them.
>
> If someone had a fetish for saunas and had a GPX file full of
> locations prior to finding out about OSM it wouldn't be hard for one
> person to add that many.


sure. Who is that?

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

[Matthias Meißer]

Yes in some way but I pointed on thinks that are in my opinion the 
problem. There might be others that I don't see, right?


You write in the wiki that it is unable to repair it and spot on a 
working group.
I think this will be a nice idea even if it might result in a discussion 
if this centralisation might gain to much power even if they are only 
janitors.
Should this group be part of the foundation? What tools will they need? 
Can we modify the wiki to be a nicer tool?


Matthias

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

[SomeoneElse]

 On 28/08/2010 10:51, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial
imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images.
Usually the grass is aside then, because grass doesn't grow where
people (or animals) walk. It disappears even if it was there before.
Your eyesight must be better than mine - often where I walk paths are 
marked by a footpath sign or just a stone squeezer stile at either side 
of a field.  Any marks left by walkers would get obliterated by cows 
going back and forth twice a day.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging post-office in Sweden

[Markus Lindholm]

On 28 August 2010 10:16,   wrote:
>
>
> LeSve wrote, On 2010-08-28 09:46:
>> How should Postoffice be tagged in Sweden.
>>
>> The Postoffices has disapperared and is instead a small part of
>> another shop (or Petrol station etc).
>>
>> Should another node be created which said postoffice or
>> should the shop-node have another key-value telling this.
>
> More explanation. This is not called post-office.
> They called it "postombud" (post office agent in English)

I tag them as two different nodes. One node with amenity=post_office
and another with e.g. shop=convenience. Not sure if the question have
a definitive answer, but for me at least it makes more sense with two
nodes.

/Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

[John F. Eldredge]

In other words, you are saving that the ground shows many paths, made by both 
humans and cows.  If the only place where the ground was trodden down enough to 
be bare or sparse were along the footpath, you would have the situation that 
M∡rtin described.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
From  :mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
Date  :Sat Aug 28 05:47:12 America/Chicago 2010


  On 28/08/2010 10:51, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> You can actually see informal footways/paths quite well in aerial
> imagery. If they are there and you have good resolution images.
> Usually the grass is aside then, because grass doesn't grow where
> people (or animals) walk. It disappears even if it was there before.
Your eyesight must be better than mine - often where I walk paths are 
marked by a footpath sign or just a stone squeezer stile at either side 
of a field.  Any marks left by walkers would get obliterated by cows 
going back and forth twice a day.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] natural protection tag new proposal comments

[Xan]

Hi,
I made a new proposal of natural_protection tag (section new proposal of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Key:natural_protection).

Can you comment it? I'm still a newbee so before making a definitive
proposed page, I want to know your opinion.

Thanks in advance,
Xan.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

[Nathan Edgars II]

There doesn't seem to be a tag on the wiki for either handicapped
parking spots in a larger lot or a dedicated handicapped lot.

Also a few more minor questions (all from the local park:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.407939&lon=-81.489194&zoom=18&layers=M):
Is there a better way to map bleachers than amenity=bench bench=bleachers?
Is building=pavilion correct for a roof with no walls?
Is there a way to distinguish an older gnarly tree suitable for
climbing from a recently-planted tree?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

[John Smith]

2010/8/28 Matthias Meißer :
> You write in the wiki that it is unable to repair it and spot on a working
> group.

Just so we're clear, I mean the current prescribed method of requiring
people to vote on proposals is broken, there is thousands of
contributors and most proposals don't get more than a dozen votes if
they are lucky, this doesn't seem to be working to me no.

> I think this will be a nice idea even if it might result in a discussion if
> this centralisation might gain to much power even if they are only janitors.

Also I didn't come up with the idea of a working group or a committee
to evaluate proposals, but others are completely against this idea as
well, however the current suggestion of a do-ocracy seems doomed to
end in endless/pointless disputes as well, take a look at the most
recent pointless thread over culverts.

On the surface this seems a complete waste of time to spend hours
argumenting over something so simple, concrete or similar pipes in the
ground or under road ways that carry water, yet it went on for days
because of slight differences of opinion, and because there is no form
of mediation in place there was no end result (that I saw) and now
there is going to be 2 groups of thought that go off and do their own
thing and be incompatible with each other, how is that actually useful
at all?

>From what I'm told this issue isn't unique to OSM, many different
government/professional bodies have been having similar debates for
decades.

> Should this group be part of the foundation? What tools will they need? Can
> we modify the wiki to be a nicer tool?

The wiki should at most be used to document decisions or outcomes or
usages, it is a very poor way to discuss things, although the mailing
list isn't always useful either.

While face to face meetings might sort things out with professional
bodies, that isn't practical for volunteers to keep funding out of
their own pockets.

Teleconferences usually won't help either, languages and even just
accents can complicate matters and that's before you even start
dealing with time zones.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

[Ross Scanlon]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:04:09 -0400
Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

> There doesn't seem to be a tag on the wiki for either handicapped
> parking spots in a larger lot or a dedicated handicapped lot.

amenity=parking
capacity:disabled=yes or number of spaces.


It's on the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking

-- 
Cheers
Ross

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

[John Smith]

On 29 August 2010 15:04, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> Is building=pavilion correct for a roof with no walls?

To me pavilions have walls, is this another cultural issue?

> Is there a way to distinguish an older gnarly tree suitable for
> climbing from a recently-planted tree?

Are some people wanting to do the tree equivalent of a pub crawl or something?

I'm trying to see the benefit in going out of my way to tag trees at
all, let alone something like this...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Ross Scanlon  wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:04:09 -0400
> Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>
>> There doesn't seem to be a tag on the wiki for either handicapped
>> parking spots in a larger lot or a dedicated handicapped lot.
>
> amenity=parking
> capacity:disabled=yes or number of spaces.

I would think the actual location of the spots would be important,
especially when there's a point of interest at each end of the parking
lot.

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:09 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 29 August 2010 15:04, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>> Is building=pavilion correct for a roof with no walls?
>
> To me pavilions have walls, is this another cultural issue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z%C3%BCrich_-_B%C3%BCrkliplatz_IMG_0525_ShiftN.jpg
(or something less fancy) is what I think of a pavilion as.
http://apps.ocfl.net/dept/cesrvcs/parks/parkdetails.asp?parkid=66
agrees that the park has "rental pavilions" (second icon in the
amenity list).
>
>> Is there a way to distinguish an older gnarly tree suitable for
>> climbing from a recently-planted tree?
>
> Are some people wanting to do the tree equivalent of a pub crawl or something?
>
> I'm trying to see the benefit in going out of my way to tag trees at
> all, let alone something like this...

It seems to be the same difference between natural=wood and
landuse=forest. In one case they left the old natural trees, while in
the other they planted new trees (usually palm trees around here). If
you have a bench next to a tree, the former is likely to provide more
shade.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] No proposal labeling

[Matthias Meißer]

Hi, John Smith showed me, that it would be good to discuss the usage of 
the {{no proposal}} template even if I thought that I allready talked 
about here 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-August/003518.html


This template should show esp. newcommers that the feature isn't very 
common or had a design process. Details here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:No_proposal

John reverted my labelings cause he says they are defacing the page and 
are irrelevant.


To me the use is to have an overview of the features that aren't ok for 
the map feature list.


So what do you think?

Matthias

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

[Eric Jarvies]

Perhaps all contributors should be required to vote one way or the other.  It 
should not be an option, and failure to do so after agreeing to such, should 
have penalty/consequence(like OSMF having right to then convert it to ODbL).

Eric Jarvies


On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:59 PM, John Smith wrote:

> 2010/8/28 Matthias Meißer :
>> You write in the wiki that it is unable to repair it and spot on a working
>> group.
> 
> Just so we're clear, I mean the current prescribed method of requiring
> people to vote on proposals is broken, there is thousands of
> contributors and most proposals don't get more than a dozen votes if
> they are lucky, this doesn't seem to be working to me no.
> 
>> I think this will be a nice idea even if it might result in a discussion if
>> this centralisation might gain to much power even if they are only janitors.
> 
> Also I didn't come up with the idea of a working group or a committee
> to evaluate proposals, but others are completely against this idea as
> well, however the current suggestion of a do-ocracy seems doomed to
> end in endless/pointless disputes as well, take a look at the most
> recent pointless thread over culverts.
> 
> On the surface this seems a complete waste of time to spend hours
> argumenting over something so simple, concrete or similar pipes in the
> ground or under road ways that carry water, yet it went on for days
> because of slight differences of opinion, and because there is no form
> of mediation in place there was no end result (that I saw) and now
> there is going to be 2 groups of thought that go off and do their own
> thing and be incompatible with each other, how is that actually useful
> at all?
> 
> From what I'm told this issue isn't unique to OSM, many different
> government/professional bodies have been having similar debates for
> decades.
> 
>> Should this group be part of the foundation? What tools will they need? Can
>> we modify the wiki to be a nicer tool?
> 
> The wiki should at most be used to document decisions or outcomes or
> usages, it is a very poor way to discuss things, although the mailing
> list isn't always useful either.
> 
> While face to face meetings might sort things out with professional
> bodies, that isn't practical for volunteers to keep funding out of
> their own pockets.
> 
> Teleconferences usually won't help either, languages and even just
> accents can complicate matters and that's before you even start
> dealing with time zones.
> 
> ___
> 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] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

[John Smith]

On 29 August 2010 16:28, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> I would think the actual location of the spots would be important,
> especially when there's a point of interest at each end of the parking
> lot.

You might want to ask on the accessibility mailing list...

>> To me pavilions have walls, is this another cultural issue?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z%C3%BCrich_-_B%C3%BCrkliplatz_IMG_0525_ShiftN.jpg
> (or something less fancy) is what I think of a pavilion as.
> http://apps.ocfl.net/dept/cesrvcs/parks/parkdetails.asp?parkid=66
> agrees that the park has "rental pavilions" (second icon in the
> amenity list).

We can sit here all day and trade links to wiki pages and images that
agree with our point of view, which is why I made the comment about
being a cultural thing:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/goyder-pavilion-to-open-at-showground/story-e6frea83-117228620

> It seems to be the same difference between natural=wood and
> landuse=forest. In one case they left the old natural trees, while in
> the other they planted new trees (usually palm trees around here). If
> you have a bench next to a tree, the former is likely to provide more
> shade.

You asked about trees suitable for climbing, not about shade trees,
you can always tag the species if you just care to distinguish between
species.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non Proposed Features

[John Smith]

On 29 August 2010 16:34, Eric Jarvies  wrote:
> Perhaps all contributors should be required to vote one way or the other.  It 
> should not be an option, and failure to do so after agreeing to such, should 
> have penalty/consequence(like OSMF having right to then convert it to ODbL).

So are you suggesting we add it into the main OSM interface?

Should there be a time limit on such votes?

Should there be a minimum time and/or amount of mapping a person has
to have completed before they start to be asked about new map
features?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:35 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 29 August 2010 16:28, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>>> To me pavilions have walls, is this another cultural issue?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Z%C3%BCrich_-_B%C3%BCrkliplatz_IMG_0525_ShiftN.jpg
>> (or something less fancy) is what I think of a pavilion as.
>> http://apps.ocfl.net/dept/cesrvcs/parks/parkdetails.asp?parkid=66
>> agrees that the park has "rental pavilions" (second icon in the
>> amenity list).
>
> We can sit here all day and trade links to wiki pages and images that
> agree with our point of view, which is why I made the comment about
> being a cultural thing:
>
> http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/goyder-pavilion-to-open-at-showground/story-e6frea83-117228620

Yes, pavilions can have walls. But do they usually? Do you have a
better suggestion for what I and the park department call a pavilion?
>
>> It seems to be the same difference between natural=wood and
>> landuse=forest. In one case they left the old natural trees, while in
>> the other they planted new trees (usually palm trees around here). If
>> you have a bench next to a tree, the former is likely to provide more
>> shade.
>
> You asked about trees suitable for climbing, not about shade trees,
> you can always tag the species if you just care to distinguish between
> species.

I asked about old gnarly trees, which will generally provide more
shade. A newly-planted tree of the same species won't. Do you have a
useful suggestion?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

[edodd]

> Hi, John Smith showed me, that it would be good to discuss the usage of
> the {{no proposal}} template even if I thought that I allready talked
> about here
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-August/003518.html
what do you think that "no proposal" means?
does it mean that it is not official?
does it mean that a tag is commonly used and its meaning is commonly
understood and still not documented?
does it mean that its not on the wiki so it doesn't mean anything?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] No proposal labeling

[John Smith]

2010/8/29 Matthias Meißer :
> Hi, John Smith showed me, that it would be good to discuss the usage of the
> {{no proposal}} template

Why do such pages need to be tagged as such?

Why is it so important that there is any proposal page?

What about proposal pages that are moved to be the main page
describing the tag, such that there is no longer any proposal page?

> even if I thought that I allready talked about here
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-August/003518.html

You discussed many things in a single post.

> This template should show esp. newcommers that the feature isn't very common

How does not having a proposal tag indicate it isn't in common usage?

Isn't that what the various pages that show how much a tag is useful for?

> To me the use is to have an overview of the features that aren't ok for the
> map feature list.

You seem to be making some fairly big subjective assumptions just
because a tag lacks a proposal page.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How do you map handicapped parking? (and other questions)

[John Smith]

On 29 August 2010 16:40, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> Yes, pavilions can have walls. But do they usually? Do you have a
> better suggestion for what I and the park department call a pavilion?

Not really, walls=yes/no ?

However I was just pointing out that not everyone will think a
pavilion doesn't have walls, maybe they didn't locally a long time ago
here either, but today the ones I'm most familiar with a big buildings
at show grounds that do have walls, the ones in parks you are thinking
off aren't common here.

> I asked about old gnarly trees, which will generally provide more
> shade. A newly-planted tree of the same species won't. Do you have a
> useful suggestion?

Didn't someone ask about mapping the canopy of trees a few weeks/months ago?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging