Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time

[Martin Vonwald]

2012/10/17 Eric Sibert :
> I don't find the last sentence very clear. "This" refers to what?

All together:
The following lanes should be included:
..
* Other lanes such as spitsstrooken in the Netherlands or temporäre
Standstreifen in Austria, Germany and Switzerland which are available
to GENERAL traffic (I.E. NOT LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC
KIND OF VEHICLES) at certain restricted times, for example during the
rush hour. This also applies to lanes which
are usually excluded, e.g. emergency shoulder lanes.
..

Understandable?


I would also include your example in the Examples section, but with
fixed times instead of "traffic_jam":

lanes=2
lanes:condtional = 3 @ sometime
lanes:psv:conditional = 1 @ sometime


Any comments?

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Lane dividers

[Martin Vonwald]

2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
> You can distinguish at most 4 types of dividers with two pairs of yes/no
> - but there are a lot more types out there. That's a big part of the
> original divider proposal, which even includes values like "dots".
> For example, how do you reconstruct the distinction between one or two
> solid lines from a "crossing:lanes=...no|no..."? Besides the different
> visual appearance, there are also subtly different legal meanings here.

I also thought about more values but I'm not sure if they would help
or unnecessarily complicate things. I'm asking myself if we really
need to tag how the divider looks like or if it is enough to tag the
effect (like for one-ways).


> Another possible idea (= not the same as a finished solution) would be
> to introduce something like this:
>
> type:divider = solid_line|double_solid_line|dashed_line|kerb
>
> Basically, use the idea of lanes, but a different suffix - and
> consequently a different number of values. This has the advantage to
> allow multiple tags for a divider (e.g. colour:divider to distinguish
> white and yellow markings).

Hm... not too bad. But introduces another suffix that has to be
supported. On the other hand that's not really an argument against,
because any applications has to support a new divider key no matter
how we solve it. So again: not too bad.

Two issues I see here:
* type:divider - this key doesn't seem very intuitive to me. No, I
don't have a better one right now but I'll start thinking ;-)
* values: if we tag the way the divider looks, any application has to
understand all values in all countries. I'll ask again: do we really
gain important information to justify this? Of course I know the
counter-argument to my own argument: if we only tag the effect a
renderer which really renders lanes has to know how to render each
effect in each country. So no matter how we solve this, one kind of
application has a problem.

All together I think your idea is something worth exploring. I'll hope
we get some more comments on this.

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] destination_ref vs. dest_ref vs. destination:ref

[Martin Vonwald]

Any more comments/opinions on this?

2012/10/15 Martin Vonwald :
> Hi!
>
> Up to now I usually used the tag destination_ref to specify the ref of
> the road where a link-road is heading, in analogy with the destination
> key. Now I've seen the key dest_ref in use and also destination:ref.
> Of course none is documented in the wiki ;-)
>
> What should we do? I could write a proposal but what for what tag?
> Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Lane dividers

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/17 Tobias Knerr :
> Another possible idea (= not the same as a finished solution) would be
> to introduce something like this:
>
> type:divider = solid_line|double_solid_line|dashed_line|kerb
>
> Basically, use the idea of lanes, but a different suffix - and
> consequently a different number of values. This has the advantage to
> allow multiple tags for a divider (e.g. colour:divider to distinguish
> white and yellow markings).


I'd suggest to make it the other way round:
divider:type  (which could maybe also be shortened to "divider")
divider:colour
...

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] What is and what isn't a valid type=multipolygon relation for osm ?

[Gerhard Hermanns]

Am 13.10.2012 20:02, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
* "Exactly two unclosed ways belonging to a role, and no more should 
share an endpoint (eg. the most extreme nodes of a way represented by 
the black dot in the images). If an endpoint is shared by less than 
two unclosed ways, the polygon can't be closed and is ill formed. 
invalid example 1 If an endpoint is shared by more than two unclosed 
ways, it's ill formed and a closed polygon can't be reconstructed 
unambiguously. invalid example 2"


Since the "Valid Multipolygon conditions" section is at the top of the 
page, new mappers are reading this first. And if you don't give examples 
about what that means (or at least provide appropriate links), many will 
stop reading here, bercause they simply can't follow.


I'm in OSM for over a year now and I still shy away from anything 
containing multipolygons because I'm not sure I understand them 
correctly. So, in my opinion there can't be too many examples (both for 
correct and incorrect use of multipolygons).



Seoman


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

Re: [Tagging] What is and what isn't a valid type=multipolygon relation for osm ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/18 Gerhard Hermanns :
> Am 13.10.2012 20:02, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>> * "Exactly two unclosed ways belonging to a role, and no more should share
>> an endpoint (eg. the most extreme nodes of a way represented by the black
>> dot in the images). If an endpoint is shared by less than two unclosed ways,
>> the polygon can't be closed and is ill formed. invalid example 1 If an
>> endpoint is shared by more than two unclosed ways, it's ill formed and a
>> closed polygon can't be reconstructed unambiguously. invalid example 2"
>
>
> Since the "Valid Multipolygon conditions" section is at the top of the page,
> new mappers are reading this first. And if you don't give examples about
> what that means (or at least provide appropriate links), many will stop
> reading here, bercause they simply can't follow.


actually I was critizicing this paragraph. IMHO it would be OK on a
subpage or at the end, but not at the beginning of the general
multipolygon-page. I agree that it is tech-speech. There are already
examples for many (all?) cases on these pages.


> I'm in OSM for over a year now and I still shy away from anything containing
> multipolygons because I'm not sure I understand them correctly. So, in my
> opinion there can't be too many examples (both for correct and incorrect use
> of multipolygons).


I think it also depends which editor you use. Some widely used editors
do not support all valid multipolygon variants, and therefor it
happens from time to time that mappers destroy MPs with these without
even noticing it, at least in my area.

This said, the thing is really easy:
the outer ring must be closed. If there is more than one, all must be
closed. The inner ring must be closed, if there is more than one, all
must be closed. The inner rings must be all inside outer rings and
must not intersect with them nor touch them.
a ring is one or more ways which together form a closed way.
Every multipolygon must have at least one outer member (and 0 inner
members as minimum).
All tags that apply to the "object with holes" (=the area that is
represented by the multipolygon-relation) should go on the relation.

I suggest to use the automatic sorting in JOSM (be sure to download
missing parts, it is a button in the relation editor) to check for
non-closed rings.

This is the basic concept. Then there are some odd exceptions which we
still carry aroung with us, but which might not be kept forever, and
which you can basically ignore as long as you are not coding a
converter or investigating strange rendering problems (e.g. there is a
strange inheritance from the outer way to the multipolygon relation in
the case that the relation misses tags and some tags on inner ways are
ignored if the same tags are on the multipolygon relation)

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Simone Saviolo
 wrote:
> 2012/10/12 Eugene Alvin Villar 
>>
>> However, I personally don't think your example of putting the URLs to
>> a place's webpage on foursquare, Google+, Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. is
>> the way to go.
>>
>> OSM is not a link directory so adding many such links on the OSM
>> database doesn't seem appropriate. One or two is maybe OK.
>
>
> I don't agree. If we follow that reasoning consistently, we may conclude
> that tagging a bar on OSM is wrong, because OSM is not a bar directory, and
> its name may change, and it may close, etc.

The difference between a link directory and a bar directory is that
bars have physical locations and make them amenable to be included in
the OSM database.

That is not the case with links to third-party websites.

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Simone Saviolo]

2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar 

> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Simone Saviolo
>  wrote:
> > 2012/10/12 Eugene Alvin Villar 
> >>
> >> However, I personally don't think your example of putting the URLs to
> >> a place's webpage on foursquare, Google+, Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. is
> >> the way to go.
> >>
> >> OSM is not a link directory so adding many such links on the OSM
> >> database doesn't seem appropriate. One or two is maybe OK.
> >
> >
> > I don't agree. If we follow that reasoning consistently, we may conclude
> > that tagging a bar on OSM is wrong, because OSM is not a bar directory,
> and
> > its name may change, and it may close, etc.
>
> The difference between a link directory and a bar directory is that
> bars have physical locations and make them amenable to be included in
> the OSM database.
>
> That is not the case with links to third-party websites.
>

Ok, then what about their opening hours? What about their operator, or
their cuisine?

Regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Simone Saviolo
 wrote:
> 2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar 
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Simone Saviolo
>>  wrote:
>> > 2012/10/12 Eugene Alvin Villar 
>> >>
>> >> However, I personally don't think your example of putting the URLs to
>> >> a place's webpage on foursquare, Google+, Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. is
>> >> the way to go.
>> >>
>> >> OSM is not a link directory so adding many such links on the OSM
>> >> database doesn't seem appropriate. One or two is maybe OK.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't agree. If we follow that reasoning consistently, we may conclude
>> > that tagging a bar on OSM is wrong, because OSM is not a bar directory,
>> > and
>> > its name may change, and it may close, etc.
>>
>> The difference between a link directory and a bar directory is that
>> bars have physical locations and make them amenable to be included in
>> the OSM database.
>>
>> That is not the case with links to third-party websites.
>
>
> Ok, then what about their opening hours? What about their operator, or their
> cuisine?

There's actually a case for not including these things into the OSM
database. It should be possible to create an OpenAmenityDatabase for
these things and to interlink them with the OSM database for location.

That said, most people expect to include information like opening
hours and operators into the OSM database as these are intrinsic
properties of these amenities. Links to web pages *about* the amenity
on third-party websites are not intrinsic properties.

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 18.10.2012 16:25, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar >


On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Simone Saviolo
mailto:simone.savi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2012/10/12 Eugene Alvin Villar mailto:sea...@gmail.com>>
>>
>> However, I personally don't think your example of putting the
URLs to
>> a place's webpage on foursquare, Google+, Yelp, TripAdvisor,
etc. is
>> the way to go.
>>
>> OSM is not a link directory so adding many such links on the OSM
>> database doesn't seem appropriate. One or two is maybe OK.
>
>
> I don't agree. If we follow that reasoning consistently, we may
conclude
> that tagging a bar on OSM is wrong, because OSM is not a bar
directory, and
> its name may change, and it may close, etc.

The difference between a link directory and a bar directory is that
bars have physical locations and make them amenable to be included in
the OSM database.

That is not the case with links to third-party websites.


Ok, then what about their opening hours? What about their operator, or 
their cuisine?
Cuisine often is essential even for the basic map stuff: a map about 
pizzarias vs. a map about chinese restaurants, or a map that has 
distinct icons for different food and drink facilities.
The operator might be interesting, too, e.g. to get all parking spaces 
operated by a specific company, all bus stops operated by a particular 
public transport operator and so on, again e.g. as a map.


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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Simone Saviolo]

2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar 

> opening hours and operators [...] are intrinsic
> properties of these amenities. Links to web pages *about* the amenity
> on third-party websites are not intrinsic properties.
>

I think this is exactly what we disagree about. If I, the owner of a shop,
create a Facebook page to keep in touch with potential customers, then that
is a part of my business just like my shop is. Of course, I would oppose
adding the link to a page about that shop in a shop directory, but if the
web page is maintained by the company itself I don't see what's the
difference between the opening hours and the web page. Does the shop need
to put on a sign in the window with the URL to the site, just like it does
for opening hours?!

Notice that I'm not talking about *any* page in the internet where that
amenity is advertised. I'm talking about a (social) activity by the amenity
owners or managers themselves.

Ciao,

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Simone Saviolo]

2012/10/18 Peter Wendorff 

>  Cuisine often is essential even for the basic map stuff: a map about
> pizzarias vs. a map about chinese restaurants, or a map that has distinct
> icons for different food and drink facilities.
> The operator might be interesting, too, e.g. to get all parking spaces
> operated by a specific company, all bus stops operated by a particular
> public transport operator and so on, again e.g. as a map.
>

Good explanation, I like this. However there is still the opening hours.
How would you use it on a map? Would you make a dynamic map in which only
amenities that are open *now* are drawn? If data like this was wrong, it
would be a disaster! Amenity visibilty would be tampered with by simply
editing its opening hours!

Now I'm probably exaggerating, but the point is that opening hours is the
same kind of "OpenAmenityDirectory" information as links to web pages are.
You can't use it geographically to make a map about opening hours.

Ciao,

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Simone Saviolo
 wrote:
> 2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar 
>>
>> opening hours and operators [...] are intrinsic
>>
>> properties of these amenities. Links to web pages *about* the amenity
>> on third-party websites are not intrinsic properties.
>
>
> I think this is exactly what we disagree about. If I, the owner of a shop,
> create a Facebook page to keep in touch with potential customers, then that
> is a part of my business just like my shop is. Of course, I would oppose
> adding the link to a page about that shop in a shop directory, but if the
> web page is maintained by the company itself I don't see what's the
> difference between the opening hours and the web page. Does the shop need to
> put on a sign in the window with the URL to the site, just like it does for
> opening hours?!
>
> Notice that I'm not talking about *any* page in the internet where that
> amenity is advertised. I'm talking about a (social) activity by the amenity
> owners or managers themselves.

We agree on this. Please note the very first paragraph of my very
first reply in this thread.

What I am saying is that it's not productive linking to what you say
"*any* page in the internet". An example of not being productive is
the POI given as an example by the original poster:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/905883257

Do you find tags like these very useful to be put in the OSM database?
(And storing these tags take much more space than the other
"legitimate" tags.)

link:berlin.de =
http://www.berlin.de/restaurants/1646837-1622830-zu-mir-oder-zu-dir.html
link:facebook = http://www.facebook.com/pages/_/325001280021
link:foursquare = https://foursquare.com/v/a/4adcda7af964a520e84621e3
link:google+ = https://plus.google.com/106569062506348263598
link:myspace = http://www.myspace.com/zumiroderzudir_bar
link:partyearth = http://www.partyearth.com/berlin/lounges/zu-mir-oder-zu-dir-2/
link:qype = http://www.qype.co.uk/place/645
link:tip-berlin.de =
http://www.tip-berlin.de/essen-und-trinken/restaurants-und-bars/zu-mir-oder-zu-dir
link:tripadvisor = http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/187323-d942801
link:yelp = http://www.yelp.de/biz/zu-mir-oder-zu-dir-berlin

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Simone Saviolo
 wrote:
> Good explanation, I like this. However there is still the opening hours. How
> would you use it on a map? Would you make a dynamic map in which only
> amenities that are open *now* are drawn? If data like this was wrong, it
> would be a disaster! Amenity visibilty would be tampered with by simply
> editing its opening hours!

There's a particular value for opening hours that would be useful to
map: opening_hours=24/7. I actually add this particular tag and don't
bother at all with the normal type of values such as
opening_hours=Mo-Sa 08:00-21:00

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Peter Wendorff]

Hi Simone.
If the facebook page is the only - or primary website, I would agree to 
use it as website.
That is sometimes the case, and I agree, that this should be in OSM as 
any website at a dedicated domain or whatever.

But:
A facility that has it's own website, most likely linking to the other 
ones, and uses platforms like facebook, twitter and much more for 
communication or advertising means, I don't think it's valuable to add 
all these to osm.


That leads to trillians of URLs in osm with hundrets of different tags, 
and as a result neither the osm data consumer nor another mapper has an 
idea about where to look to find crucial information about the facility 
in the web.


regards
Peter

Am 18.10.2012 16:49, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar >


opening hours and operators [...] are intrinsic
properties of these amenities. Links to web pages *about* the amenity
on third-party websites are not intrinsic properties.


I think this is exactly what we disagree about. If I, the owner of a 
shop, create a Facebook page to keep in touch with potential 
customers, then that is a part of my business just like my shop is. Of 
course, I would oppose adding the link to a page about that shop in a 
shop directory, but if the web page is maintained by the company 
itself I don't see what's the difference between the opening hours and 
the web page. Does the shop need to put on a sign in the window with 
the URL to the site, just like it does for opening hours?!


Notice that I'm not talking about *any* page in the internet where 
that amenity is advertised. I'm talking about a (social) activity by 
the amenity owners or managers themselves.


Ciao,

Simone


___
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] Standard for external links to location based services

[John F. Eldredge]

Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Simone Saviolo
>  wrote:
> > Good explanation, I like this. However there is still the opening
> hours. How
> > would you use it on a map? Would you make a dynamic map in which
> only
> > amenities that are open *now* are drawn? If data like this was
> wrong, it
> > would be a disaster! Amenity visibilty would be tampered with by
> simply
> > editing its opening hours!
> 
> There's a particular value for opening hours that would be useful to
> map: opening_hours=24/7. I actually add this particular tag and don't
> bother at all with the normal type of values such as
> opening_hours=Mo-Sa 08:00-21:00
> 

If you can generate a custom rendering of a particular geographical area, 
opening (and closing) hours could be useful.  For example, if you are 
scheduling an all-day business meeting that includes a lunch break, it would be 
useful to give attendees a map that showed all restaurants that are within a 
certain radius from the meeting, and would be open at lunchtime.

-- 
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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Simone Saviolo]

Peter, Eugene, I think we've reached consensus here (have these words ever
been said in an OSM mailing list? :-D ). Of the tags Eugene listed about
the restaurant in Berlin, I'd only tentatively keep link:facebook and
link:google+, but I am not able to judge how much of the content is
relevant and how much of it is just customers reviews.

Peter, I am just a little bit dubious about the guideline you described. A
good marketing campaign would include (if multiple social services are
used) a website with the main content and regular posts on the social
networks about instant news. Usually the website would have a link to those
social networks, so tagging the website alone would be all that's needed.
However, suppose the website of a restaurant shows one type of information
(maybe something static like the menu) and all the "important" news is on
the restaurant's Facebook page, which is not linked to from the site. Or
suppose that different services (the website, the Facebook page, and the
Twitter stream) provided different kinds of information and contact. Would
you be for or against tagging them all, in that case?

Regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 18.10.2012 16:54, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
2012/10/18 Peter Wendorff >


Cuisine often is essential even for the basic map stuff: a map
about pizzarias vs. a map about chinese restaurants, or a map that
has distinct icons for different food and drink facilities.
The operator might be interesting, too, e.g. to get all parking
spaces operated by a specific company, all bus stops operated by a
particular public transport operator and so on, again e.g. as a map.


Good explanation, I like this. However there is still the opening 
hours. How would you use it on a map? Would you make a dynamic map in 
which only amenities that are open *now* are drawn?
that's one possible, and I remember at least one map where exactly that 
was done (but I don't know the link currently).
A student community at my university operates a page with delivering 
restaurants including "open", "opening soon", "closed", "closing soon". 
It allows to find a currently open pizza delivery to place your order.
Currently there isn't a map and they don't use osm data for that, but 
it's useful for students who forget to buy something for dinner while 
sitting in the university and learning ;)

If data like this was wrong, it would be a disaster!

That's the beat-all argument to stop operating osm as a whole.
It's a similar disaster if your garmin fails to find the destination 
point and much more. That's not different here.
Amenity visibilty would be tampered with by simply editing its opening 
hours!
Now you're talking about vandalism? wrong data because of people 
willingly adding wrong opening hours to e.g. hide competitors?
That's nothing due to opening hours, without it would be as easy to 
delete the restaurant as a whole.
Now I'm probably exaggerating, but the point is that opening hours is 
the same kind of "OpenAmenityDirectory" information as links to web 
pages are. You can't use it geographically to make a map about opening 
hours.

That's true for every tag to a certain degree.
As described above: I can do a (e.g. web) map that marks restaurants as 
open or closed. I can do a map that shows the website of the object.


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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Simone Saviolo]

2012/10/18 John F. Eldredge 

> If you can generate a custom rendering of a particular geographical area,
> opening (and closing) hours could be useful.  For example, if you are
> scheduling an all-day business meeting that includes a lunch break, it
> would be useful to give attendees a map that showed all restaurants that
> are within a certain radius from the meeting, and would be open at
> lunchtime.
>

Ideally yes - but keep in mind that not all amenities are mapped, and not a
lot (<-- euphemism) of them have the opening hours. Of course, this
shouldn't stop us from thinking about tagging that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Janko Mihelić]

2012/10/18 Simone Saviolo 

>
> Ideally yes - but keep in mind that not all amenities are mapped, and not
> a lot (<-- euphemism) of them have the opening hours. Of course, this
> shouldn't stop us from thinking about tagging that.
>

Mapping all 24/7 pharmacies, bakeries, convenience stores or fuel stations
is the best opening_hours data you can map in your city. There are not
many, but they are the most valuable for a user.

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Simone Saviolo]

2012/10/18 Janko Mihelić 

> 2012/10/18 Simone Saviolo 
>
>>
>> Ideally yes - but keep in mind that not all amenities are mapped, and not
>> a lot (<-- euphemism) of them have the opening hours. Of course, this
>> shouldn't stop us from thinking about tagging that.
>>
>
> Mapping all 24/7 pharmacies, bakeries, convenience stores or fuel stations
> is the best opening_hours data you can map in your city. There are not
> many, but they are the most valuable for a user.
>

+1 to that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Tobias Knerr]

On 18.10.2012 16:54, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> However there is still the opening hours.
> How would you use it on a map? Would you make a dynamic map in which
> only amenities that are open *now* are drawn?

One possible implementation for opening hours is to change icon color
based on whether the amenity is open right now. OsmAnd does this afaik.
Openlinkmap does something similar, by including a colored text such as
"currently open" in the popup for a facility.

These two examples are interesting because they do something with
opening hours beyond merely displaying the value.

There is also a map that specifically highlights open amenities, but it
appears to be a proof of concept (only available for Germany):
http://www.netzwolf.info/kartografie/osm/time_domain/map_opening?filter=open

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar :
>>> >> However, I personally don't think your example of putting the URLs to
>>> >> a place's webpage on foursquare, Google+, Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. is
>>> >> the way to go.
> That said, most people expect to include information like opening
> hours and operators into the OSM database as these are intrinsic
> properties of these amenities. Links to web pages *about* the amenity
> on third-party websites are not intrinsic properties.


I think we have to differentiate here. Some of these services have
pages *about* an object (like foursquare, TripAdvisor, ...) and others
have pages maintained *by* the "object" (company etc.) itself, e.g.
facebook, myspace, twitter, ...

If we allow "website" as link out of OSM it'd like to allow links to
the second group above as well, as long as the content is freely
accessible (i.e. no registration or login required to view the
content). We might also think of allowing links to the first group,
but it should be restricted to open data databases/content (e.g. we
already link to wikipedia).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Eckhart Wörner]

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2012, 17:32:06 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> One possible implementation for opening hours is to change icon color
> based on whether the amenity is open right now. OsmAnd does this afaik.
> Openlinkmap does something similar, by including a colored text such as
> "currently open" in the popup for a facility.
> 
> These two examples are interesting because they do something with
> opening hours beyond merely displaying the value.

another example: when searching for a location, only display locations that 
will be open when you'll arrive there (based on routing). That would be awesome.

Eckhart

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Tobias Knerr]

On 18.10.2012 17:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I think we have to differentiate here. Some of these services have
> pages *about* an object (like foursquare, TripAdvisor, ...) and others
> have pages maintained *by* the "object" (company etc.) itself, e.g.
> facebook, myspace, twitter, ...
> 
> If we allow "website" as link out of OSM it'd like to allow links to
> the second group above as well, as long as the content is freely
> accessible (i.e. no registration or login required to view the
> content). We might also think of allowing links to the first group,
> but it should be restricted to open data databases/content (e.g. we
> already link to wikipedia).

+1, this sounds like a good rule of thumb. So we would include

- content about the object maintained by its operator, if publicly
visible to any internet user without login, payment or other barriers.
- open/free/libre third party content about the object.

Unlike attempting to include any link somehow related to the object,
this could actually keep the number of links to a manageable amount.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 18.10.2012 17:16, Simone Saviolo wrote:

A good marketing campaign would include


[...]


Would you be for or against tagging
them all, in that case?


Let me just say that I am very sensitive to "OpenStreetMap" and 
"marketing campaign" being mentioned together.


OSM certainly attempts to describe things as they are, whereas marketing 
often has the explicit purpose to distort reality for the benefit of a 
certain brand or product.


A restaurant might describe itself as "spacious", but a look at the map 
might tell you that it can hardly be spacious in the building it occupies ;)


Placing links to, for example, Facebook and Google+ is also an 
endorsement of these services; by linking to a Facebook page we (OSM) 
make the statement that this page has worthwhile additional information 
about the location.


Just because someone *has* a Facebook or Google+ page, we should perhaps 
not automatically link to that; I would certainly oppose any attempt at 
wholesale-adding of Facebook links to anything that has a page there. 
However if an individual mapper feels that the facebook link is a 
valuable addition then I'd accept that.


Bye
Frederik

PS: I'm not entirely familiar with the access restrictions on these 
pages. Any link to an external service that you can only use if you are 
a member of that external service would be wholly inappropriate in my 
opinion; it would definitely have to be freely viewable content.


--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Lane dividers

[Alberto]

>Two issues I see here:
>* type:divider - this key doesn't seem very intuitive to me. No, I don't
have a better one right now but I'll start thinking ;-)
>* values: if we tag the way the divider looks, any application has to
understand all values in all countries. I'll ask again: do we really gain
important information to justify this? Of course I know the counter-argument
to my own argument: if we only tag the effect a renderer which really
renders lanes >has to know how to render each effect in each country. So no
matter how we solve this, one kind of application has a problem.

I think that tagging the effect is more important than the actual behavior
of the sign.
If you are in an unknown country, what would you like from your GPS, that it
gives you correct navigation instructions or correct rendering?
The rendering can be adjusted country by country, if needed.
Regards
Alberto


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

Re: [Tagging] destination_ref vs. dest_ref vs. destination:ref

[Johan C]

Since I love consistency: this page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination shows destination fully
written with a colon. So I prefer destination:ref

I'm looking forward to your proposal, you've got my vote for introducing it
:-)


2012/10/18 Martin Vonwald 

> Any more comments/opinions on this?
>
> 2012/10/15 Martin Vonwald :
> > Hi!
> >
> > Up to now I usually used the tag destination_ref to specify the ref of
> > the road where a link-road is heading, in analogy with the destination
> > key. Now I've seen the key dest_ref in use and also destination:ref.
> > Of course none is documented in the wiki ;-)
> >
> > What should we do? I could write a proposal but what for what tag?
> > 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] Lane dividers

[Tobias Knerr]

On 18.10.2012 21:56, Alberto wrote:
> I think that tagging the effect is more important than the actual behavior
> of the sign.
> If you are in an unknown country, what would you like from your GPS, that it
> gives you correct navigation instructions or correct rendering?

Both. ;)

In either case, a country-dependent translation needs to happen, but
translating from appearance to legal effect should be a bit more
straightforward than the other way around. After all, that's what human
drivers do - so it *has* to be possible to do the translation in this
direction. In the other, not so much, there can easily be ambiguity.

I would also like to point out that tagging the effects may require
multiple tags rather than just one, and that mappers don't necessarily
even know all the effects. Identifying how the divider looks doesn't
require that knowledge.

> The rendering can be adjusted country by country, if needed.

This wouldn't help. Martin's original idea ("crossable") simply does not
contain enough information to reverse-engineer the appearance from the
effect.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways (2nd Part)

[Johan C]

I today got the following response by joedalton85 (tags a lot of motorways
in France):

pour ma part, je prefere mettre les _link dés qu'elle commence ou
finnissent pour plusieurs raisons.

   - Ca permet d'avoir une longueur de voirie plus proche de la réalité
   - Ca permet d'avoir une occupation du sol plus proche de la réalité
   - Ca permet au GPS de prevenir " prenez à droite" au bon moment
   - En france on doit se tourner à droite des que possible

Translated (and based on viewing some of joedalton's edits):

For my part, I prefer to put the _link where the deceleration lane starts
or where the acceleration lane finishes for several reasons.

   - a long road is closer to reality
   - It provides a land closer to reality
   - It allows the GPS to show "turn right" at the right time
   - In France one must turn to the right when possible.

(translations welcome, both French and English are not my native language)


2012/10/18 Paul Johnson 

>
> On Oct 17, 2012 5:35 PM, "Johan C"  wrote:
> >
> > good thing to have this discussion. Too often I've seen OSM discussions
> end up in 'everything is possible' which in the long run will prevent OSM
> to ever grow-up and eventually become competitive to the commercial boys
> and girls. (why the f... are millions of Android users using G.. maps and
> not OSMAND, Navfree or Mapfactor?)
>
> I haven't tried Mapfactor or Navfree yet, but OSMand is pretty godawful.
> It's ugly and cluttered, doesn't support MapDust and the voice guidance is
> annoying.  If I'm going to recommend something that supports OSM, it needs
> to be easy to use, visually inviting and have a pleasant voice that says
> something descriptive at an interval that isn't obnoxious.  Bonus points if
> it has a good Mapdust interface and does lane guidance and speed alerts.
>
> I would love to know if it's possible to get lane guidance and speed
> limits into a gmapsupp.img.  If so, then Garmin brings everything but the
> bug reporting interface.
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Obstacle

[Konfrare Albert]

Thanks Martin for your support,

I've been working to clean up the page, and I changed the page to modify it
according your proposal. This is the result:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle

I think that the proposal is nearly finished, and it's similar to something
that we can vote in a short time ;)

ALBERT


2012/10/17 Martin Koppenhoefer 

> 2012/10/17 Konfrare Albert :
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle
> > Any suggestions?
>
>
> looks nice now.
>
> One thing I noticed: you asume that the general "obstacle" applies to
> pedestrians, while you propose subkeys for all other means of
> transport (obstacle:motorcar, obstacle:bicycle, obstacle:hgv etc.).
> There are obstacles like a falling tree which are an obstacle to all
> these means of transport, while a heap and also most holes won't be
> for pedestrians. My guess is that there is no strict hierarchy though
> (there might be obstacles to pedestrians which are not for motorcars
> or sth. like this). Therefore I'd add an "obstacle:foot"-key for the
> specific case pedestrians and let the general "obstacle" key be for
> general use (not specific to one means of transport).
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
*KONFRARE ALBERT*
La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma
WEB:http://www.konfraria.org
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria
FACEBOOK:
http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/11918952076
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging