Re: [Tagging] Tagging of "local" produce

[Georg Feddern]

Am 03.07.2013 05:43, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
Some farm stands actually sell in-season produce direct off the 
adjacent farm.  Others, which look the same from the road, sell 
imported goods only.

A third type offers the goods from various local farms.
How could I tag the difference?



May be something like offer=* with
- on-site
- local
- retail
?

Georg

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - reference_point

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 03/07/2013 05:46, Felix Delattre a écrit :

Dear community,

please vote for this feature proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point

This is needed to get proper route-planning working in all Central
American countries.

Thank you for all the feedback given and special thanks to Brycenesbitt
[1] for reviewing the English language and cleaning up the proposal to
provide only concrete, understandable and necessary information.

If you wish you can have a look into prior communication logs:
Initial conversation:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-March/009613.html
Request for comments:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-June/013791.html

Cheers,
Felix


Sorry, I add not followed the discussion in the past.

In my point of view, before creating a new key, we must see if no 
available key is suitable.
It is easier to develop the use of existing, and well established, keys, 
by adding a new value, than creating a new key for just one specific use.
Each time we create a new key, we must adapt the tools to take it in 
account especially osm2psql must be adapted to create one column more 
the the tables.

Creating a new key is heavier than creating a new value.

And there is an existing key that seems to be suitable, with a new value 
: place=reference_point
The "place" key is already taken in account by a lot of tools, it is 
already widely used.


And the object to be tagged as place=reference_point could be a church, 
a gas station in a cross, a particular house, a tree...


I know several places in France where this kind of "natural" or 
descriptive routing would apply, e.g. :
"Prendre la route après la pharmacie puis le chemin à droite à la Maison 
Verte" (take the road after the pharmacy and then the path at right hand 
at the Green House" in a village where I lived in Provence
The house was no more green for long, but white. And there is now no 
more house but ruins. But we still say "La Maison Verte".
I would have tagged it with a "place" key, first as isolated_dwelling, 
and latter as location, and in fact "place=reference_point" would fit...

--
FrViPofm

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of "local" produce

[Philip Barnes]

I am not sure shop is right in this case, a farm shop is usually a more 
permanent building, these are more stalls or even the word you used originally, 
stand.

There are many places like this on the UK, mainly selling eggs from 
smallholdings, but selling seasonal produce too. Most have an honesty box.

It could be useful to tag whether they are staffed our not. Nothing worse than 
not having the right change when there is an honesty box.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 03/07/2013 4:43 Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

When traveling, I enjoy stopping at farm stands, where freshly grown produce 
can be purchased.
I tag them http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfarm


Some farm stands actually sell in-season produce direct off the adjacent farm.  
Others, which look the same from the road, sell imported goods only.
A third type offers the goods from various local farms.
How could I tag the difference?


This is similar to the difference between an on-site bakery, an outlet shop for 
a local bakery, and a retail store that sells bread baked in a faraway place.
Here "U-Pick" adds even another dimension.

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

Re: [Tagging] Observations on use of the diet: tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 03/lug/2013, at 05:14, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> The
> real votes happen when people choose to use one set of tags vs
> another. In other words, I will follow taginfo before I will follow
> the wiki.


problem is that taginfo doesn't tell you at all what a tag is used for.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Observations on use of the diet: tag

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> My experience with mapping has been that after talking on the tagging
> list, and being voted down, when I just went ahead and used my tags,
> they were adopted by the community, on more than one occassion.

Yeah, you can just ignore the feedbacks. Then we end up with the mess
of tags like power=substation or shop=bakery or designation=* which
are completely misinterpreted in different countries. Then it takes
years until we can clarify the situation (if it will happen ever),
thanks for the guys ignoring the talks or "votes" (which are more
opinion polls)...

Pieren

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

[Tagging] The value of the list (was Observations of the use of the diet: tag)

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Pieren  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
>
>> My experience with mapping has been that after talking on the tagging
>> list, and being voted down, when I just went ahead and used my tags,
>> they were adopted by the community, on more than one occassion.
>
> Yeah, you can just ignore the feedbacks. Then we end up with the mess
> of tags like power=substation or shop=bakery or designation=* which
> are completely misinterpreted in different countries. Then it takes
> years until we can clarify the situation (if it will happen ever),
> thanks for the guys ignoring the talks or "votes" (which are more
> opinion polls)...

OSM data is a key/value store. What people decide to put in those
key/value pairs is up to them.

What I've found, over years of participating, is that:

1. This list is a small subset of OSMers. It doesn't represent many of
the supermappers, and it doesn't include editor authors or renderer
people either.

In other words, it's a small, self-selected group of people who are
spending a lot of time talking, or arguing, in an echo chamber.

2. This list's idea of "good tags" differs from the OSM community at large.

Most OSMers dislike complex schemes, and will avoid relations when
they can. But relations are quite common here. The same goes for colon
tags, which are heavily proposed (such as in the "diet" proposal) but
not often used by the public except in very limited circumstances
(addr).

3. This list often ignores usage

If two proposals are up for discussion, there seems to be little or no
weight placed on existing usage vs this list's idea of "correctness".


There is value in having a place to discuss issues of a tagging
question, or problem, but I fear that this list isn't it.

If people on this list wanted to do more community work that wasn't
mapping, there would be tremendous value in going in to the wiki,
finding the tags that are in use but not documented well, and
expanding, or translating those pages.

That would be a useful exercise, and I would participate. But right
now, my view, and my advice to others, is generally to go out and
map.[1]

- Serge

[1] This is my advice to individuals doing individual mapping via
manual survey. As it relates to imports or automated edits, I have
very different views.

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

Re: [Tagging] The value of the list (was Observations of the use of the diet: tag)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/7/3 Serge Wroclawski 
>
> OSM data is a key/value store. What people decide to put in those
> key/value pairs is up to them.
>


yes, up to the point that they are using duplicate values for well
established keys. As we can only put one value for a key, the well
established one should be used when it comes to tagging something for what
there is already a convention.



> What I've found, over years of participating, is that:
>
> 1. This list is a small subset of OSMers. It doesn't represent many of
> the supermappers, and it doesn't include editor authors or renderer
> people either.
>
> In other words, it's a small, self-selected group of people who are
> spending a lot of time talking, or arguing, in an echo chamber.
>


every one is invited to take part in tagging discussions. If you decide not
to do so, you shouldn't complain afterwards that your ideas aren't
integrated.



> 2. This list's idea of "good tags" differs from the OSM community at large.
>


don't agree.


Most OSMers dislike complex schemes, and will avoid relations when
> they can. But relations are quite common here.



actually my experience is that relations aren't very common here. Most
mappers have understood that something that can be expressed without a
relation should be done so.



> The same goes for colon
> tags, which are heavily proposed (such as in the "diet" proposal) but
> not often used by the public except in very limited circumstances
> (addr).
>


colon tags have the advantage of creating kind of a namespace that helps
distinguishing and avoiding misinterpretations and the disadvantage that
you have to type more text (not a real problem with autocompletion, but
yes, it is a disadvantage).



> 3. This list often ignores usage
>
> If two proposals are up for discussion, there seems to be little or no
> weight placed on existing usage vs this list's idea of "correctness".
>


Personally I don't share this observation (I think usage numbers play a
role in the discussions here), but you'll also have to see "usage" numbers
in the context of how many of these features potentially exist in the real
world, and how many are already mapped. If there a 2 tags for the exact
same thing and one is used 1 times, the other 23 times, it seems clear
(as long as there aren't serious problems with these 1 tags), but when
one tag is used 120 times and the other 40 times (for a feature that occurs
"often") it is a good idea to look at the semantics and implications of
both ways of doing it, without giving too much importance to the actual
(small) use numbers. Another problem with usage numbers is, that one single
import can distort heavily the statistics, so looking at how many different
people have used a tag also makes sense.



> There is value in having a place to discuss issues of a tagging
> question, or problem, but I fear that this list isn't it.
>


do you know a good alternative? In my experience tags are often developed
on a national level (on national mailing lists) and when there is some
agreement the proposal will be pushed to [tagging] to get comments from the
international community.



> If people on this list wanted to do more community work that wasn't
> mapping, there would be tremendous value in going in to the wiki,
> finding the tags that are in use but not documented well, and
> expanding, or translating those pages.
>


how could they do the expansion? How would they know what definition a
mapper had in mind when using a specific tag that is not or not
sufficiently documented? How could they even know what is a sufficient
definition? OK for translations, but unilateral amendments?


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

Re: [Tagging] The value of the list (was Observations of the use of the diet: tag)

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> 1. This list is a small subset of OSMers. It doesn't represent many of
> the supermappers, and it doesn't include editor authors or renderer
> people either.

True. But you forget one important point : most of the contributors
simply don't care about creating, defining, documenting new tags. If
it's not in the editor presets or the huge "map features" wiki page,
they don't tag or just write their "blabla=wow" special tag and they
don't care if it will be recognized later or not.
And today, this list is mostly

> 2. This list's idea of "good tags" differs from the OSM community at large.
> But relations are quite common here.

Not true. Go back in archives or "votes" and you will see plenty of
messages against unnecessary complexity (incl. relations).

> The same goes for colon
> tags, which are heavily proposed (such as in the "diet" proposal) but
> not often used by the public except in very limited circumstances
> (addr).

The semi-colon multiple values is an old "practice" (or
recommandation) in OSM. It seemed to be a good idea and practical for
contributors in the past but today, with our experience, it's not the
case for data consumers neither in editors.

> 3. This list often ignores usage

Again, most of the map features tags are today well defined and
documented. Now we come to a point where discussions are about
non-geographic features like diet or specialized features like power
voltage, type of beers or amount of bridge pillars. Such discussions
are also implying a very small subset of the community.
Anout tags usage. check the list of "designation" values and you will
see that eventhough it's widely used, it can be massively incorretly
used.

> That would be a useful exercise, and I would participate. But right
> now, my view, and my advice to others, is generally to go out and
> map.[1]

But this list is about finding consensus about controversial or new
tags and put the result on the wiki. The "vote" is a good point in
this way that we call feedbacks from a wider audience ("only wiki"
users, local lists). If you find that this list is not reflecting the
real community, then call for more players. List is open and no one
will complain.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] Observations on use of the diet: tag

[fly]

Am 03.07.2013 05:14, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
>   On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM, fly  wrote:
> 
>> I have no problem in reverting my changes but please give me one reason
>> why you can not live with diet:gluten_free=*. I do not want to revert my
>> changeset now only to have a bot redo it in a week.
> 
> I don't know how long you've been with the project, or in what form,
> but something that always concerns me is this question of the role of
> the tagging list, and wiki. Is the wiki descriptive or proscriptive-
> that is does the wiki reflect the mapping that's done, or some idea of
> what should be done?

Both, but in proper name space.

> My experience with mapping has been that after talking on the tagging
> list, and being voted down, when I just went ahead and used my tags,
> they were adopted by the community, on more than one occassion.
> 
> And eventually, when enough people used them in practice, the wiki
> reflects the usage of the tags, because by that time, editors already
> used them, despite the issue of voting.
> 
> If someone chooses a different tagging scheme than you, or a different
> one than what's been "voted on"[1], they're free to do so. Time bears
> out those differences.

You should not just use a different name for the same thing cause you do
not like the first name and not even talk about it.

We use categories the whole time in OSM.
1. many keys are categories
2. prefixes like wheelchair

Think this structure has some advantages.

> You asked what I don't like about the diet tags, and my feeling about
> them is that they're complex. I don't see the value in using
> "diet:gluten_free" where "gluten_free" works just fine. And I'll
> continue to tag objects that way. And others will tag items the way
> they like, and eventually, one of those ways will have a clear
> majority in the OSM database, and then it will be obvious which one is
> accepted by the community. If people love diet:gluten_free, then I'll
> switch.
> 
> But we're not there yet.

I do not wonna argue about this change and gonna revert it unless you do
not ask for it anymore. It is a kind of automatically edit.

Anyway, most of the time the support of keys in editors will decide
weather a key is used by majority and taginfo does not make any
differences between automatically edits/imports and "normal user".
We do not have any checks against these automatically edits. How often
does it happen and how many talk about it ?


Cheers
fly

> [1] And it's important to realize that the votes on the wiki are a
> subset of the list, and the list is a subset of the OSM community. The
> real votes happen when people choose to use one set of tags vs
> another. In other words, I will follow taginfo before I will follow
> the wiki.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: toilets=yes, toilets:disposal, toilets:position and incoporating toilets:wheelchair

[Tobias Knerr]

On 03.07.2013 03:10, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Discussion seems to have died down.  Any last comments on
> toilets:disposal and toilets:position before I open it up for vote?

"byop" is not self explanatory. Wouldn't "paper_available" or something
be more easily understood?

You also list male/female/unisex as keys for use on entrances, but right
now they are documented for use on the amenity=toilets itself. Would
that still remain a valid use (say for male/female/unisex only toilets,
or those mapped as a single node rather than as an outline with
entrances) or do you intend to replace that tagging entirely?

And finally, what is your suggestion if some attributes only apply to
the male or female part of a toilet? I don't think that necessarily
needs to be part of the proposal, mind you - it's already more detailed
than most toilets will likely end up being tagged - but I still wonder.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - image=http://example.com/image_license_page

[Tobias Knerr]

On 02.07.2013 19:17, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Tobias Knerr  > wrote:
> 
> * I feel that it should be stated that *only* images under a free
> license should be linked, i.e. images that offer the same freedoms as
> OpenStreetMap data.
> 
> The license of both images and the OSM database may evolve or change
> from time to time. I feel it is up to the agent using the image to determine
> compatibility. [...]

The license of the OSM database may change, but not arbitrarily - our
Contributor Terms limit the choice to licenses considered free and open
according to such definitions as http://opendefinition.org/okd/

My opinion is that we should subject images selected for the image tag
to the same constraints. But it seems we simply disagree here.

> [...] Image description pages may not actually be
> machine-readable. On the other had, some sites may indeed offer
> machine-readable data, but through different means [...]
> 
> As I understand it:
> The German historical map solves this by parsing the specific wikimedia
> commons format.
> If it does not recognize the format, it won't show the image.
> 
> While this puts the burden on the display agent, the agent needs to do
> that anyway.  [...]

I'm not sure this fully addresses my point. Yes, for Wikimedia Commons
it makes sense. Yes, the display agent needs some intelligence in order
to obtain and validate license information.

But that intelligence may not involve an "index page" at all for some
image repositories, as each site works differently. For example, the
historical map supposedly also recognizes declarations in robots.txt. Or
there may be a repository out there that only accepts public domain
content and as such does not provide license information for each
individual image. Therefore, I would prefer a more abstract requirement
instead of specifically demanding an "index page".

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture

[Volker Paul]

This proposal intends to resolve the ambiguous use of landuse=meadow.
Currently, landuse=meadow is for grassland used for mowing or grazing...


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - reference_point

[Felix Delattre]

On 07/03/2013 01:26 AM, Vincent Pottier wrote:
> Le 03/07/2013 05:46, Felix Delattre a écrit :
>> Dear community,
>>
>> please vote for this feature proposal:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/reference_point
>>
>> This is needed to get proper route-planning working in all Central
>> American countries.
>>
>> Thank you for all the feedback given and special thanks to Brycenesbitt
>> [1] for reviewing the English language and cleaning up the proposal to
>> provide only concrete, understandable and necessary information.
>>
>> If you wish you can have a look into prior communication logs:
>> Initial conversation:
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-March/009613.html
>> Request for comments:
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-June/013791.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Felix
>>
> Sorry, I add not followed the discussion in the past.
>
> In my point of view, before creating a new key, we must see if no
> available key is suitable.
> It is easier to develop the use of existing, and well established,
> keys, by adding a new value, than creating a new key for just one
> specific use.
> Each time we create a new key, we must adapt the tools to take it in
> account especially osm2psql must be adapted to create one column more
> the the tables.
> Creating a new key is heavier than creating a new value.
>
> And there is an existing key that seems to be suitable, with a new
> value : place=reference_point
> The "place" key is already taken in account by a lot of tools, it is
> already widely used.
>
> And the object to be tagged as place=reference_point could be a
> church, a gas station in a cross, a particular house, a tree...
>
> I know several places in France where this kind of "natural" or
> descriptive routing would apply, e.g. :
> "Prendre la route après la pharmacie puis le chemin à droite à la
> Maison Verte" (take the road after the pharmacy and then the path at
> right hand at the Green House" in a village where I lived in Provence
> The house was no more green for long, but white. And there is now no
> more house but ruins. But we still say "La Maison Verte".
> I would have tagged it with a "place" key, first as isolated_dwelling,
> and latter as location, and in fact "place=reference_point" would fit...
> -- 
> FrViPofm

I understand your point. And I agree that it could live eventually
inside place=reference_point but I am not sure if this is a good solution:

Of course using an existing tag is far better than defining a new one.,
but reference points are really something very abstract and on a micro
level. The "place=*" tag seems to have a more descriptive propose for
bigger areas (as far as I can see on the wiki page).

Further I'm not sure if place=* should be used to mark reference points
that have no physical evidence (anymore). And using the more general
place=* tag we could be driven in some situations that would make sense
to use two place=* tags on the same object.

Thank you!
Felix

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - reference_point

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Vincent Pottier  wrote:

> I would have tagged it with a "place" key, first as isolated_dwelling, and
> latter as location, and in fact "place=reference_point" would fit...


Could it simultaneously be a place=reference_point and place=hamlet?  Would
we be overloading this key and leading to place=reference_point;hamlet?

I agree that most "reference points" are also something else.  In your
example of the (no longer green) house it is currently a historic=ruin.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of "local" produce

[Murry McEntire]

I am watching with interest to see whether a good set of tags for both
these stands and bakery can be created. Bakery has had  commercial_outlet
vs local_outlet vs. produced_on_site proposed or an origin tag proposed (so
far)
One problem I see in tagging farm stands (also a problem for farmer's
markets) is the source of produce often changes during the year. I see
produce stands open with the tourist season, often carrying produce from
out of the area (since it is not mature locally) then changing to all local
produce as it becomes available. Not sure how one would mark this.

Murry


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> I am not sure shop is right in this case, a farm shop is usually a more
> permanent building, these are more stalls or even the word you used
> originally, stand.
>
>
> There are many places like this on the UK, mainly selling eggs from
> smallholdings, but selling seasonal produce too. Most have an honesty box.
>
>
> It could be useful to tag whether they are staffed our not. Nothing worse
> than not having the right change when there is an honesty box.
>
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> --
>
>
>
> Sent from my Nokia N9
>
>
>
> On 03/07/2013 4:43 Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> When traveling, I enjoy stopping at farm stands, where freshly grown
> produce can be purchased.
> I tag them http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfarm
>
> Some farm stands actually sell in-season produce direct off the adjacent
> farm.  Others, which look the same from the road, sell imported goods only.
> A third type offers the goods from various local farms.
> How could I tag the difference?
>
> This is similar to the difference between an on-site bakery, an outlet
> shop for a local bakery, and a retail store that sells bread baked in a
> faraway place.
> Here "U-Pick" adds even another dimension.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging of "local" produce

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

>  There are many places like this on the UK...
>

Honesty box is a good tag idea: that's a definite category.

These farm stands or farm shops range from a box of eggs tucked under a
fence, to
air conditioned buildings indistinguishable from a green grocer or small
supermarket.
But I don't see a clean distinction to divide tagging based on... and thus
my focus
on the location of the produce.  Did it come right from the farm?  Or is
this just a regular retail location?  A mix?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture

[Volker Paul]

Sorry, forgot to add the discussion link.

I made this proposal because
currently, the tag landuse=meadow is for grassland used for mowing or 
grazing.

I often find that a meadow is really for grazing, i.e. a pasture,
but I could not provide this information with the currently official tags.
Should landuse=pasture be introduced for this?

Here is the link to the proposal page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pasture

Please discuss on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/pasture

Regards,

Segatus


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture

[yvecai]

To refine mowing & grazing, it would be better to separate the two.
Whatever tagging form it take, something like mow=yes/no , graze=yes/no

Yves

On 07/03/2013 07:24 PM, Volker Paul wrote:

Sorry, forgot to add the discussion link.

I made this proposal because
currently, the tag landuse=meadow is for grassland used for mowing or 
grazing.

I often find that a meadow is really for grazing, i.e. a pasture,
but I could not provide this information with the currently official 
tags.

Should landuse=pasture be introduced for this?

Here is the link to the proposal page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pasture

Please discuss on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/pasture

Regards,

Segatus


___
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 - Voting - image=http://example.com/image_license_page

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> But that intelligence may not involve an "index page" at all for some
> image repositories, as each site works differently. For example, the
> historical map supposedly also recognizes declarations in robots.txt. Or
> there may be a repository out there that only accepts public domain
> content and as such does not provide license information for each
> individual image. Therefore, I would prefer a more abstract requirement
> instead of specifically demanding an "index page".


The image tag is widely used today, in some sense this approval effort is
limited to codifying and standardizing the image= tag as it exists today.

The historical map solves the tricky license issue by accepting only a
subset of images tagged with image=.  I think that's a pretty good
"interim" solution, until some true OSM linked image host shows up and
starts taking over.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Volker Paul  wrote:

> Sorry, forgot to add the discussion link
> I made this proposal because
> currently, the tag landuse=meadow is for grassland used for mowing or
> grazing.
> I often find that a meadow is really for grazing, i.e. a pasture,


This is tough.  On my family's ranch there are areas that looked "natrually
growing meadow" most
of the year, but cows do get turned in there, and it might get mowed every
so often.

A protected meadow (grazing prohibited) is a more clear distinction.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Observations on use of the diet: tag

[Bryce Nesbitt]

I tend to use taginfo to see which tag is "more popular", and generally
follow it. If taginfo counts were built into editors it could help swing
the needle more quickly in a particular direction (more popular tags get
more popular).

The hope though is that we can *design* tags properly so they are
*robust*over time.
And that takes discussion: the only good place for that discussion is right
here.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: toilets=yes, toilets:disposal, toilets:position and incoporating toilets:wheelchair

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> "byop" is not self explanatory. Wouldn't "paper_available" or something
> be more easily understood?
>

Like many tags that would benefit from a set of local translations.  "Bring
Your Own" is rather English centric.



> You also list male/female/unisex as keys for use on entrances, but right
> now they are documented for use on the amenity=toilets itself.
>

If you tag an entire outline as female=yes, I think the meaning is clear.
If just the entrances are tagged, the meaning is also clear.




> And finally, what is your suggestion if some attributes only apply to
> the male or female part of a toilet?


I would suggest that if you wish to map to that level of detail, you create
separate outlines for the male and female facilities.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Relevant to this discussion, I just noticed in the wild:
http://www.tappenbeck.net/osm/maps/deu/index.php?id=1029

Which has:
aed:note im Schrank hinter dem Empfangstresen
lastcheck 2012-10-02
medical aed
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1944153202
See also
http://www.aedlocator.org/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: toilets=yes, toilets:disposal, toilets:position and incoporating toilets:wheelchair

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 03.07.2013 20:12, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> 
>> "byop" is not self explanatory. Wouldn't "paper_available" or something
>> be more easily understood?
>>
> 
> Like many tags that would benefit from a set of local translations.  "Bring
> Your Own" is rather English centric.
But "bring_your_own" can be translated easily, while byop may be an
abbreviation or not - who knows? ;) and even if you guess it's one, you
have to know the long term to translate it, as "byop" is not
self-explaining AND nevertheless English centric.

Gruß
Peter

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Are you sure it is a meadow and not "unimproved pasture"?  We have a field 
locally that has a variety of grass types, flowers etc.  Horses generally graze 
in it but sometimes there are cows but only for a few weeks in the year.  It 
would seem to fit into the definition of a meadow used by some mappers but when 
I queried this with a landscape expert they told be it was "unimproved pasture" 
and not a meadow. 

Regards

Dudley   



> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 19:37:57 +0200
> From: yve...@gmail.com
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture
> 
> To refine mowing & grazing, it would be better to separate the two.
> Whatever tagging form it take, something like mow=yes/no , graze=yes/no
> 
> Yves
> 
> On 07/03/2013 07:24 PM, Volker Paul wrote:
> > Sorry, forgot to add the discussion link.
> >
> > I made this proposal because
> > currently, the tag landuse=meadow is for grassland used for mowing or 
> > grazing.
> > I often find that a meadow is really for grazing, i.e. a pasture,
> > but I could not provide this information with the currently official 
> > tags.
> > Should landuse=pasture be introduced for this?
> >
> > Here is the link to the proposal page:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pasture
> >
> > Please discuss on
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/pasture
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Segatus
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 - landuse=pasture

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Dudley Ibbett wrote:

> Are you sure it is a meadow and not "unimproved pasture"?  We have a field
> locally that has a variety of grass types, flowers etc.  Horses generally
> graze in it but sometimes there are cows but only for a few weeks in the
> year.  It would seem to fit into the definition of a meadow used by some
> mappers but when I queried this with a landscape expert they told be it was
> "unimproved pasture" and not a meadow.
>

In the case I discussed, It is privately owned rangeland that happens to be
irrigated and fenced.

In the American West there is private pastureland.
There is a huge amount of land that is owned by BLM or USFS but grazing or
timber rights have been leased.
There's grassland in a protected status, unavailable for lease.
There are also rules in the margin of creeks, where grazing even on private
land is discouraged, banned or subject to binding agreements.
In general, heavily grazed fields look far different from lightly or not
grazed fields, no matter how deep the grass is at the moment.

But what do you hope to represent in OSM?  What it looks like?  The
conservation status?  The permission to enter?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: toilets=yes, toilets:disposal, toilets:position and incoporating toilets:wheelchair

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:

>  > Like many tags that would benefit from a set of local translations.
>  "Bring
> > Your Own" is rather English centric.
> But "bring_your_own" can be translated easily, while byop may be an
> abbreviation or not - who knows? ;)


Can anyone suggest something shorter than:
toilets:bring_your_own_paper=yes

But keep in mind "byop" is not even part of the proposal.  The proposal on
the table are the tags toilets:disposal and toilets:position.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: toilets=yes, toilets:disposal, toilets:position and incoporating toilets:wheelchair

[John F. Eldredge]

You could always spell it out as bring_your_own_paper.

Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Tobias Knerr 
> wrote:
> 
> > "byop" is not self explanatory. Wouldn't "paper_available" or
> something
> > be more easily understood?
> >
> 
> Like many tags that would benefit from a set of local translations. 
> "Bring
> Your Own" is rather English centric.
> 
> 
> 
> > You also list male/female/unisex as keys for use on entrances, but
> right
> > now they are documented for use on the amenity=toilets itself.
> >
> 
> If you tag an entire outline as female=yes, I think the meaning is
> clear.
> If just the entrances are tagged, the meaning is also clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > And finally, what is your suggestion if some attributes only apply
> to
> > the male or female part of a toilet?
> 
> 
> I would suggest that if you wish to map to that level of detail, you
> create
> separate outlines for the male and female facilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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