Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > Nathan Edgars II > wrote: > > > > Yes i understand, but own could you figure "flow=downstream" exist ? > > > You must read a "manual" to know that. > > > > By noting its presence on an already-mapped waterway. And if you don't > > know about it, at least you aren't doing anything wrong by leaving it > > off. > > Thats a good point. > > No, that's exactly the same as 'oneway=no' on two-ways roads. When the tag is not present, we assume that the road is two ways. That's it. If it's wrong, then fix it by adding the oneway tag. It is the same for waterways and the direction of the way. If it's wrong, then reverse the direction of the way with your prefered editor. We have similar conventions for the coastline, we don't have/need a tag saying which side is the land and which side is the water and nobody complains. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange > wrote: >> Yes i understand, but own could you figure "flow=downstream" exist ? >> You must read a "manual" to know that. > > By noting its presence on an already-mapped waterway. And if you don't > know about it, at least you aren't doing anything wrong by leaving it > off. Nevertheless, I don't think we need to require a tag like this. Why? Because there's an even more effective way to make a mapper aware of problems with the data: Maps that look wrong!* The problem with flow direction right now is that it isn't actually used by any popular application, so a mapper can continue to edit and not notice the issue for a long time. However, the lack of applications using it also means that errors aren't all that bad. As soon as applications using the tag become more widespread, people will notice the (then visible) errors and start to correct them. Tobias Knerr * Or any other application that behaves wrong, of course. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tall masts supported by guy wires
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > One test to apply when considering stuff like this: what would happen > if a renderer supported "man_made=tower" but none of the sub-tags. > Would it be the end of the world if a radio mast and an air traffic > control tower were rendered the same? (Answer: no, it would be > perfectly fine) Shouldn't an air traffic control tower be building=yes rather than man_made=tower? Are we saying it should be both? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] social facility
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 21:52, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Sean Horgan wrote: > > social_facility=emergency_shelter (a shelter for homeless people e.g. in > > case of a disaster) > > The description there looks horribly confusing to me. The words > "homeless shelter" leap off the page, even though that's not what it's > describing. > > Agreed, this description didn't work and that's what we're clearing up. In fact I believe kerosin just removed that from the social_facility proposal page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility > > social_facility=emergency > > That tag strikes me as not intuitive - you need an accompanying > description to have any idea what it's describing. > There is a clear distinct between homeless people during normal times and those who do not have homes during a disaster. The Humanitarian OSM tags refers to the latter group as Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs). Having thought about it some more, I don't think we should include emergency facilities into a social facilities feature as they serve different populations at different times. Here is an example of how a homeless shelter feature could be defined: amenity=social_facility + social_facility=shelter + social_facility:for=homeless + name=Loaves and Fishes Dining Room + operator=Sacramento Loaves and Fishes +building=yes + wheelchair=yes + opening hours=24/7 +Addr:Street=1321 North C Street +Addr:City=Sacramento +Addr:State=CA A newbie question I have goes beyond the definition of social_facility and into capturing more specific information about a homeless shelter, such as specific programs they provide (e.g. veterans, jail visitation, job training). Would it be appropriate to introduce a separate homeless_shelter tag for that purpose? Thanks for the help. Sean > That's my first glance reaction, which is worth what you paid for it. > > Steve > > ___ > 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] [OpenStreetMap] social facility
yup, just change 'social_facility:for=homeless' to shelter=homess' this way it's a clear sub-sub-tag cheers, sam On 9/13/10, Sean Horgan wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 21:52, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Sean Horgan wrote: >> > social_facility=emergency_shelter (a shelter for homeless people e.g. in >> > case of a disaster) >> >> The description there looks horribly confusing to me. The words >> "homeless shelter" leap off the page, even though that's not what it's >> describing. >> >> > Agreed, this description didn't work and that's what we're clearing up. In > fact I believe kerosin just removed that from the social_facility proposal > page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility > > > >> > social_facility=emergency >> >> That tag strikes me as not intuitive - you need an accompanying >> description to have any idea what it's describing. >> > > There is a clear distinct between homeless people during normal times and > those who do not have homes during a disaster. The Humanitarian OSM tags > refers to the latter group as Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs). Having > thought about it some more, I don't think we should include emergency > facilities into a social facilities feature as they serve different > populations at different times. > > Here is an example of how a homeless shelter feature could be defined: > > amenity=social_facility > + social_facility=shelter > + social_facility:for=homeless > + name=Loaves and Fishes Dining Room > + operator=Sacramento Loaves and Fishes > +building=yes > + wheelchair=yes > + opening hours=24/7 > +Addr:Street=1321 North C Street > +Addr:City=Sacramento > +Addr:State=CA > > A newbie question I have goes beyond the definition of social_facility and > into capturing more specific information about a homeless shelter, such as > specific programs they provide (e.g. veterans, jail visitation, job > training). Would it be appropriate to introduce a separate homeless_shelter > tag for that purpose? > > Thanks for the help. > > Sean > > >> That's my first glance reaction, which is worth what you paid for it. >> >> Steve >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
