Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 18 September 2013 18:44, Jonathan Bennett  wrote:
> We already tag the whole site as landuse=allotments and we just need to
> mark individual plots with allotment[s]=plot(*). This makes it clear
> it's an allotment plot we're talking about, not anything else.
>
> Each plot will probably have a "number" (not necessarily a number) of
> some kind, and I'd suggest using ref=* for this.
>
> This appears to be about as complicated as it needs to get.

+1

> (*) Although natural spoken English would suggest tagging as
> allotment=plot, I can see how using allotments=plot makes it clear it's
> a sub-division of landuse=allotments, so I'd accept the plural form in
> the tag. But that's getting into Bikeshedding again.

I'd probably favour allotments=plot for the reasons given.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[NopMap]

Just some more aspects


Matthijs Melissen wrote
> There is no consensus on what to do if votings and actual use disagree.

There is also no consensus on what constitutes a valid vote. Some times
there are questionable "votes", discussing things for a short time in remote
places, avoiding discussaion and calling it a vote. On the other hand, other
people reject votes where erverything has been done right according to the
proposal scheme.

There's some fundamental mechanics that neither a vote nor just-doing-it can
change
- changing an existing tagging scheme will always invalidate all prior work.
Never a good idea.
- some tagging schemes are not technically feasible, e.g. main tags with
lists of multiple values

bye, Nop




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/How-to-overcome-lack-of-consensus-tp556p5778060.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 Jonathan Bennett 

> ...or alternatively: it's clear a tag for an individual plot is needed,
> but after that point it got bikeshedded to death.
>


+1



>
> I will try stating what is needed as clearly as I can:
>
> A plot is the individual parcel of land within and allotment site that
> is let (rented, hired, or other synonym) to one tenant.
>
> We already tag the whole site as landuse=allotments and we just need to
> mark individual plots with allotment[s]=plot(*). This makes it clear
> it's an allotment plot we're talking about, not anything else.
>


+1, and it should be distinct from the parcel in terms of landownership,
because a plot in an allotment usually (at least in Germany) doesn't
represent a parcel in terms of ownership, but only a fraction of a real
parcel.


>
> Each plot will probably have a "number" (not necessarily a number) of
> some kind, and I'd suggest using ref=* for this.
>


+1

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[John F. Eldredge]

"Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)"  wrote:
> On 18 September 2013 18:44, Jonathan Bennett 
> wrote:
> > We already tag the whole site as landuse=allotments and we just need
> to
> > mark individual plots with allotment[s]=plot(*). This makes it clear
> > it's an allotment plot we're talking about, not anything else.
> >
> > Each plot will probably have a "number" (not necessarily a number)
> of
> > some kind, and I'd suggest using ref=* for this.
> >
> > This appears to be about as complicated as it needs to get.
> 
> +1
> 
> > (*) Although natural spoken English would suggest tagging as
> > allotment=plot, I can see how using allotments=plot makes it clear
> it's
> > a sub-division of landuse=allotments, so I'd accept the plural form
> in
> > the tag. But that's getting into Bikeshedding again.
> 
> I'd probably favour allotments=plot for the reasons given.
> 
> Robert.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I would favor allotments=plot for the same reasons.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 Janko Mihelić 

> In it we can connect meanings of various tags to wikipedia.orgdefinitions, 
> and connect tags to other tags.
>


I think it is a bad idea to connect the meaning of osm tags to definitions
in wikipedia, because the content of wikipedia articles is not something we
control. When the wikipedia article changes (e.g. it gets extended or
restrained by splitting it up) it doesn't imply that the objects with a
certain tag in osm change nature.

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

[Tagging] parking:lane tag with month of year restrictions

[Charles Basenga Kiyanda]

All,

I've contributed to osm in the past, though I tend to do edits for a 
little bit then disappear for a long while. I recently had an idea for 
an app, which required me to have street parking data for the city of 
Montréal and since it's not in osm yet I thought I would start adding 
it. [Enough of personal context.]


My question is specifically about specifying month varying parking 
restrictions. I found the following page on the wiki which describes how 
to add street parking information with time restrictions:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane

The problem is that Montréal has month specific parking restrictions. A 
typical example is:


Right side of the street:
April to October, Anytime except Tuesday between noon and 14:00
November to March, Anytime except Monday, Wednesday, Friday between 
13:00 and 17:00.


Left side of the street:
April to October, Anytime except Monday between noon and 14:00
November to March, Anytime except Tuesday and Thursday between 13:00 and 
17:00.


Is there a concensus on how to indicate restrictions that vary on 
different months. I tried searching the list archives but didn't find 
anything on that particular question. The simplest method would probably 
to use default=free and add a no_parking time_interval restriction, so 
the proper syntax would look like (for the April to October restrictions):


parking:condition:right=parallel
parking:condition:right=no_parking
parking:condition:right:time_interval=Tu 12:00-14:00
parking:condition:right:default=free

I would like to be able to specify (for the whole year):
parking:condition:right=parallel
parking:condition:right=no_parking
parking:condition:right:time_interval=Nov-Mar Mo 13:00-17:00;Nov-Mar We 
13:00-17:00; Nov-Mar We 13:00-17:00;Apr-Oct Tu 12:00-14:00

parking:condition:right:default=free

Is this already possible or does this need to be the subject of a proper 
proposal and discussion?


Cheers,

Charles

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Lukas Hornby]

Please note I have renamed the proposed tag as allotment=plot as a sub-tag
of landuse=allotments.

The page has been amended accordingly
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:allotments%3Dplot

Voting will start on the 20th September (This Friday) and finish on
Wednesday 27th September .

Thanks for all the support up to this point.

Lukas Hornby
(Developer -Grow Bradford)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] parking:lane tag with month of year restrictions

[Charles Basenga Kiyanda]

Sorry for the extra traffic. I found the answer to my own question by 
following the link to key:opening_hours.


Cheers,

Charles

On 09/18/2013 04:25 PM, Charles Basenga Kiyanda wrote:

All,

I've contributed to osm in the past, though I tend to do edits for a 
little bit then disappear for a long while. I recently had an idea for 
an app, which required me to have street parking data for the city of 
Montréal and since it's not in osm yet I thought I would start adding 
it. [Enough of personal context.]


My question is specifically about specifying month varying parking 
restrictions. I found the following page on the wiki which describes 
how to add street parking information with time restrictions:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane

The problem is that Montréal has month specific parking restrictions. 
A typical example is:


Right side of the street:
April to October, Anytime except Tuesday between noon and 14:00
November to March, Anytime except Monday, Wednesday, Friday between 
13:00 and 17:00.


Left side of the street:
April to October, Anytime except Monday between noon and 14:00
November to March, Anytime except Tuesday and Thursday between 13:00 
and 17:00.


Is there a concensus on how to indicate restrictions that vary on 
different months. I tried searching the list archives but didn't find 
anything on that particular question. The simplest method would 
probably to use default=free and add a no_parking time_interval 
restriction, so the proper syntax would look like (for the April to 
October restrictions):


parking:condition:right=parallel
parking:condition:right=no_parking
parking:condition:right:time_interval=Tu 12:00-14:00
parking:condition:right:default=free

I would like to be able to specify (for the whole year):
parking:condition:right=parallel
parking:condition:right=no_parking
parking:condition:right:time_interval=Nov-Mar Mo 13:00-17:00;Nov-Mar 
We 13:00-17:00; Nov-Mar We 13:00-17:00;Apr-Oct Tu 12:00-14:00

parking:condition:right:default=free

Is this already possible or does this need to be the subject of a 
proper proposal and discussion?


Cheers,

Charles

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 Serge Wroclawski 

> 1. We do not map land lots in OSM, for reasons that have been
> discussed many times.
>


I am not aware about a general decision not to do it, the main problem
around here is that this kind of data is not publicly available in a
compatible license. In Germany for instance, "housenumbers" are actually
plot numbers, so it would be more accurate to have a landplot to associate
them to.


2. Even if we did, land lots do not talk about land use, which is what
landuse is for.


+1, I also think that the tag is not chosen well. While I agree that a land
plot in the context of allotment gardens is something completely different
than a parcel, still I can't see how the subdivisions can be a different
landuse if the whole area is landuse=allotments, they will still be
allotments. My suggestion to mapping a single plot would be to use some
kind of "boundary" for the limits and/or another key for the single plots
like amenity, leisure, allotments or even a new key.
Here's an example of the legislative part of a German allotment, you can
see that there are few parcels for the whole area:
http://www.potsdam.de/cms/dokumente/10035211_480745/371cb86e/BP_%20P_%2074.1_Plan.pdf

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[NopMap]

Hi!


Peter Wendorff wrote
> let's tackle the "problems" you mention one by one:

That is exactly what people have been trying for years. When I see the age
of the discussions and the lack of progress, it has failed badly.

I agree that it would be necessary to try and find a general solution for
the problem. However I have given up hope on this.

There are too many people who still believe that everything is fine or will
fix itself given enough time and there is no need to do anything. There's
also many people who refuse to follow any sort of guideline, e.g. rejecting
the proposal process and its voting system that in theory would be capable
of creating compromises and documented tagging schemes.


Peter Wendorff wrote
>> - What is the difference between highway=footway and highway=path?
> IMHO:
> A footway is a footway, mainly or only dedicated to people using it by
> foot.

With this simple statement you already explain the extent of the
controversy.
Some contradictory interpretations of highway=footway are
- mainly for pedestrians vs. exclusively for pedestrians
- waymarked for pedestrians vs. apparently for pedestrians
- dedicated to pedestrians vs. narrow trail
- same as designated=foot vs. designated is more strict

See the neutral collection of concurrent interpretations on this topic in
the wiki and pay attention to the age of this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path

For me there are two groups of cases:

1. several tags for the same thing
- They  are annoying, but can be compensated with additional work.
- Somewhat confusing if a newcomer tries to read the wiki, but he'll likely
use the preset of his current editor
- Taginfo is helpful to find the most frequently used among redundant tags

2. Multiple meanings/usages for the same tag
- These are a desaster, as there is no agreement on what to use the tag for
or what a mapper actually meant when he used it.
- Worst case: A tag changes its meaning years after being used, invalidating
all previous work
- newcomers are confused
- The data is more or less useless, a renderer cannot sort it out and 
Taginfo can't help to clarify the meaning.

IMHO the latter need fixing badly, but there is not even an agreement that
the problem exists...

bye, Nop




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/How-to-overcome-lack-of-consensus-tp556p5777942.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Lukas Hornby]

Hi,

Thanks for all your comments so far, very constructive.

I've updated the comments to hopefully answer all of your concerns.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments

In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my definition is
from a British perspective.
Community garden is different in definition, both here and in the US (and
elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the ethos and values are usually
similar.

I'm aware the title is too generic. being new to OSM i'm not sure whether
hierarchical tags (in a taxonomy) are encoraged or adjectival tags?

Many thanks, Lukas Hornby
(Developer - Grow Bradford)
http://www.growbradford.org.uk/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Pieren]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM, NopMap  wrote:
> There are too many people who still believe that everything is fine or will
> fix itself given enough time and there is no need to do anything. There's
> also many people who refuse to follow any sort of guideline, e.g. rejecting
> the proposal process and its voting system that in theory would be capable
> of creating compromises and documented tagging schemes.

Big +1
We shoot ourself in the foot by keeping this chaos.

This question is also related to the single contributions debacle,
tools developers, inconsistent presets, etc
An additional WHERE statement can solve issues for the renderers but
they may fail to help other data consumers. Also you have to know that
some level of complexity is creating a new market for 'specialists' or
'experts' who can sell commercial services for interpreting the OSM
dataset. So maybe not everyone has interest to simplify the project.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[ael]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Lukas Hornby wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> For your consideration, please read and comment on my proposal to improve
> the way that allotments, particularly plots on allotments are tagged.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dplot

My initial reaction is that landuse=allotments is clear and immediately
understandable, but landuse=plot is not. One might wonder whether this
is USA usage, or a building plot or ... .

What about a subtag? Or maybe allotments becomes a relation with plot as
a role?

Removing an existing tag (allotments) from am initial survey and then
adding multiple plots on a later more detailed survey makes me
uncomfortable.

Just an initial reaction: I haven't given this more than a minute or two
of thought...

ael

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[SomeoneElse]

Lukas Hornby wrote:


In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my 
definition is from a British perspective.


Which is fine, because OSM uses British English names for things except 
in rare cases.


Community garden is different in definition, both here and in the US 
(and elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the ethos and values are 
usually similar.


In addition to the UK I've seen allotments in other places in Europe, 
but not in the US - does the concept even exist over there?


In order to see what other mappers have done, I'd be tempted to use 
taginfo .  From 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=allotments#overview you 
can use "Overpass Turbo" (the steering wheel to the right of the JOSM 
link) to search for examples of that tag in a particular area. Once you 
found them, you may see how they've been subdivided.


Another possibity would be to ask on the IRC channel #osm-gb - from 
memory I think a couple of people there may have allotments, or possibly 
on the talk-gb list, where you might get more people familiar with the idea.


Generally the OSM approach is "map all the things!" rather than "map 
some of the things, making sure that everything is categorised 
absolutely correctly".  That's not without its problems (as pointed out 
in the "lack of concensus 
" 
thread) but allowing people to add stuff local to them without 
necessarily worrying about "correct" tagging has got OSM to where it is now.


It may well be that almost no-one has mapped allotment plots before**, 
which may mean that you get to pick some scheme that works for you.  
It'll almost certainly mean that there's no existing map that renders 
the data that you're interested in, so you'll get the chance to create 
that too.


Cheers,

Andy


** Actually, a quick search finds this wiki page 
, so I'd probably 
start by asking some of the people mentioned there (mostly in the West 
Mids of England, I think).


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 SomeoneElse 

> It may well be that almost no-one has mapped allotment plots before**,




looking a bit around in Berlin, which in some areas is full of allotment
gardens, relieves that some areas are indeed mapped up to the plot. They
simply used landuse=allotments on a singular plot: e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/136844597 (didn't make an extensive
research, just something I found on the fly).

If you look around in northern Berlin you can see lots and lots of
allotment gardens, all mapped with their name and mostly with the names of
the paths inside, but hardly up to the single plot.

cheers,
Martin

btw.: the Germans and the Austrians even have a distinct law for allotment
gardens ;-)
http://www.kleingartenweb.de/60/at/obuklgg.html
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bkleingg/BJNR002100983.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Mike N]

On 9/18/2013 5:48 AM, Pieren wrote:

An additional WHERE statement can solve issues for the renderers but
they may fail to help other data consumers.


  It's been my experience that data consumers don't go deep in general 
to untangle tagging chaos.  No one goes after that leisure=slipway 
entity tagged as highway=boat_ramp .


  My personal approach is just double and triple tag to cover all bases.


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:22 AM, SomeoneElse
 wrote:
> Lukas Hornby wrote:
>
>
> In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my definition is
> from a British perspective.
>
>
> Which is fine, because OSM uses British English names for things except in
> rare cases.

The rare cases include when a word means something different in
British and American English.

Part of the problem was this proposal didn't explain the proposal
other than by using the same word as the tag, which left the reader to
use the terms that they would use in normal speech.

But just as OSM uses "soccer" instead of "football", when there's a
term conflict between British and American English, usually another
term is found that's more accurate.

> Community garden is different in definition, both here and in the US (and
> elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the ethos and values are usually
> similar.

I still have yet to find a definition of "lot". Can someone point me
to one that is unabigious, from Wikipedia or a dictionary?

Wikipedia's definition of lot is the same as my own:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_lot
(that is what comes up when you type land plot into wikipedia)

And the term in usage:
http://www.scoutingny.com/?p=3034

Despite searching the web, I can't find a definition to match your usage.

> In addition to the UK I've seen allotments in other places in Europe, but
> not in the US - does the concept even exist over there?

We can't say until we know what the definition is, but my experience
is that with a country that's as large and diverse as the US, it
probably exists somewhere, whatever it is.

> Generally the OSM approach is "map all the things!" rather than "map some of
> the things, making sure that everything is categorised absolutely
> correctly".  That's not without its problems (as pointed out in the "lack of
> concensus" thread) but allowing people to add stuff local to them without
> necessarily worrying about "correct" tagging has got OSM to where it is now.

Yes. That's the right way.

> It may well be that almost no-one has mapped allotment plots before**, which
> may mean that you get to pick some scheme that works for you.  It'll almost
> certainly mean that there's no existing map that renders the data that
> you're interested in, so you'll get the chance to create that too.

I've seen community gardens mapped. It may make sense, if they're
similar, to hang off that tag.

- Serge

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[François Lacombe]

2013/9/18 Pieren 

>
> Big +1
> We shoot ourself in the foot by keeping this chaos.
>
> This question is also related to the single contributions debacle,
> tools developers, inconsistent presets, etc
> An additional WHERE statement can solve issues for the renderers but
> they may fail to help other data consumers. Also you have to know that
> some level of complexity is creating a new market for 'specialists' or
> 'experts' who can sell commercial services for interpreting the OSM
> dataset. So maybe not everyone has interest to simplify the project.
>

+1

Renderers aren't the only kind of data consumers in OSM...


*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
http://www.infos-reseaux.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:41 +0200, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

> 
> - Should we use shop=betting or shop=bookmaker?
> - Should we use shop=fishmonger or shop=seafood?

Actually I think this provides an insight into where problems are seen,
and damaging mass edits occur, when in reality there is no problem and
separate tags are in fact correct.

In British English seafood generally refers to shellfish. So a seafood
shop will be a shop, usually at the seaside, where you buy prawns,
mussels, cockles and things that are ready to eat, with vinegar, as you
walk along the front. To tag this a fishmonger would be misleading.

A fishmonger on the other hand, sells fresh fish that you take home to
cook. Cases do occur, where a shop does both.

Again, and I am no expert on betting, but my understanding is that a
bookmaker is someone who can agree bets and set odds. A Betting shop is
a place where you place a bet with odds set elsewhere.



Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Pieren]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> In British English seafood generally refers to shellfish. So a seafood
> shop will be a shop, usually at the seaside, where you buy prawns,
> mussels, cockles and things that are ready to eat, with vinegar, as you
> walk along the front. To tag this a fishmonger would be misleading.
> A fishmonger on the other hand, sells fresh fish that you take home to
> cook. Cases do occur, where a shop does both.

Sounds clear. Unfortunately, the wiki discourages the use of "fishmonger":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfishmonger

Separate tags seems correct here but the wiki should link the
alternative, explain the differences like you did and provide a
solution when a shop does both.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 Philip Barnes 

> Actually I think this provides an insight into where problems are seen,
> and damaging mass edits occur, when in reality there is no problem and
> separate tags are in fact correct.
>


+1



>
> In British English seafood generally refers to shellfish. So a seafood
> shop will be a shop, usually at the seaside, where you buy prawns,
> mussels, cockles and things that are ready to eat, with vinegar, as you
> walk along the front. To tag this a fishmonger would be misleading.
>


What you write makes sense, but the problem is that who wrote the wiki for
these shops didn't know about these distinctions, see here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dseafood  a fishmonger is
explicitly given as synonym (and btw. it was Harry Wood adding this
synonym, AFAIK a British fellow)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfishmonger  shellfish seems
to be included in the definition and seafood is given as synonym. But this
page was created just 4 days ago.

There was also a proposal (formally rejected because of missing votes):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/seafood_shop

IMHO a place selling (only) prepared seafood ready to eat would be better
called an amenity=fast_food with appropriate cuisine-tag.

Seems also to be a problem of American vs. British English.



Also your definitions for bookmaker and betting are appealing (me is
neither an expert in this kind of business), and again the definition for
betting like that for betting is 5 days old:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dbetting&action=historyand
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dbookmaker&action=historyand
were written by the same person and contain the same text.

I really appreciate people trying to improve the wiki by writing
definitions for tags in use, but it isn't helpful at all if these
definitions are given by single mappers without any consultation on the
tagging list about what is the intended meaning of these tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 16 September 2013 19:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> If you want to solve ambiguities it would be better to start new threads
> for every tag or type of tag and set an appropriate subject.
>

I am planning to do that (at least for the shop key), but before doing
that, I am first trying to get clarity on the procedure.


>  - Should the wiki be adapted to actual usage (Taginfo) and/or to votings?
>>>
>>

> Don't change the wiki definitions of established tags without discussion,
> even less if its a very widespread tag. Many of these edits are part of the
> problem.
>

Do you also see a problem with changing the wiki to reflect actual usage,
or are you just warning against changing the wiki away from current use?

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Philip Barnes]

Harry Wood is, I believe a Londoner. I am a Midlander, there are certainly 
cultural differences, regarding shellfish between the two regions.

Phil (trigpoint)
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 18/09/2013 14:15 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



2013/9/18 Philip Barnes 

Actually I think this provides an insight into where problems are seen,
and damaging mass edits occur, when in reality there is no problem and
separate tags are in fact correct.



+1




In British English seafood generally refers to shellfish. So a seafood
shop will be a shop, usually at the seaside, where you buy prawns,
mussels, cockles and things that are ready to eat, with vinegar, as you
walk along the front. To tag this a fishmonger would be misleading.




What you write makes sense, but the problem is that who wrote the wiki for 
these shops didn't know about these distinctions, see here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dseafood  a fishmonger is 
explicitly given as synonym (and btw. it was Harry Wood adding this synonym, 
AFAIK a British fellow)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfishmonger  shellfish seems to be 
included in the definition and seafood is given as synonym. But this page was 
created just 4 days ago.


There was also a proposal (formally rejected because of missing votes): 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/seafood_shop


IMHO a place selling (only) prepared seafood ready to eat would be better 
called an amenity=fast_food with appropriate cuisine-tag.


Seems also to be a problem of American vs. British English.





Also your definitions for bookmaker and betting are appealing (me is neither an 
expert in this kind of business), and again the definition for betting like 
that for betting is 5 days old: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dbetting&action=history
 and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dbookmaker&action=history
 and were written by the same person and contain the same text.


I really appreciate people trying to improve the wiki by writing definitions 
for tags in use, but it isn't helpful at all if these definitions are given by 
single mappers without any consultation on the tagging list about what is the 
intended meaning of these tags.


cheers,

Martin






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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

Thanks for all the answers. It seems that there is consensus about some
points:

- To know how to tag, it is necessary to look at both actual use, taginfo,
and the wiki.
- It is important to document the way tags are used on the wiki.
- The wiki should be adapted to the outcome of votings and to actual use
(not the other way around).
- If actual use and the outcome of votings agree, but the wiki does not
reflect this, then the wiki should be adapted.

There is no consensus on what to do if votings and actual use disagree. In
particular, there is no clear answer to the following questions:
- If the outcome of votings and actual use disagree, what should mappers
follow?
- If the outcome of votings and actual use disagree, what should the wiki
reflect?
- How should new tagging schemes be introduced?

If the mappers (and the wiki) should always follow the current use, then it
is difficult to implement new tagging schemes.
On the other hand, if mappers (and the wiki) should always follow the
outcome of votings, this might cause problems with people who don't agree
with the outcome of the voting (including people who did not vote at all),
and with existing tagging.

The solution for now seems that if actual use and the outcome of voting
disagree, then both should be included on the wiki. In other words:
- One tagging scheme, two meanings: mention which meaning has been voted
for, and mention the meaning that is actually used as well.
- Two tagging schemes, one meaning: document both the tagging scheme that
has been voted for, and the tagging scheme that is actually used, and let
the pages explaining both tagging schemes link to each other.

There are still different ways how this can be implemented, which reflect
different viewpoints on the taginfor/voting debate. Consider the following
examples based on a hypothetical 'two tagging schemes, one meaning'
controversy between pet=wildebeest and pet=gnu. Assume that pet=gnu is used
more often, but pet=wildebeest has been selected by voting. Which format
would be preferred?

1.
- (No page for pet=wildebeest)
- pet=gnu is used for pet shops focused on gnus.

2.
- pet=wildebeest is discouraged. Use pet=gnu instead, as it is more
commonly used.
- pet=gnu is used for pet shops focused on gnus. Although voting has
selected pet=wildebeest, pet=gnu is used more often.

3.
- pet=wildebeest is used for pet shops focused on selling wildebeests.
Related tags: Consider using pet=gnu instead, which is used more often.
- pet=gnu is used for pet shops focused on selling gnus. Related tags:
Voting has selected pet=wildebeest, but the tag pet=gnu is used more often.

4.
- pet=wildebeest is used for pet shops focused on selling wildebeests.
Related tags: Voting has selected pet=wildebeest, but the tag pet=gnu is
used more often.
- pet=gnu is used for pet shops focused on selling gnus. Related tags:
Voting has selected pet=wildebeest, but the tag pet=gnu is used more often.

5.
- pet=wildebeest is used for pet shops focused on selling wildebeests.
Related tags: The tag pet=gnu is used more often, but voting has selected
pet=wildebeest.
- pet=gnu is used for pet shops focused on selling gnus. Related tags:
Consider using pet=wildebeest instead, which has been selected by voting.

6.
- pet=wildebeest is used for pet shops focused on selling wildebeests.
Related tags: pet=gnu, which is discouraged.
- pet=gnu is discouraged. Use pet=wildebeest instead, as this tag is more
often used.

7.
- pet=wildebeest is used for pet shops focused on selling wildebeests.
- (No page for pet=gnu)

Or or course any other option...

This is a relatively simple example where wildebeests and gnus are exactly
the same animal. Things will of course become more complicated in case of
subtle meaning differences. However, I suppose we should start with easy
examples.

-- Matthijs


On 16 September 2013 16:41, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> There are some OpenStreetMap features for which there is no consensus on
> how to tag them. It does not seem like consensus will arise soon. The lack
> of consensus does cause problems for the Openstreetmap community, though.
> Therefore, it would be good to have ideas or procedures on how to create
> consensus.
>
> There are currently quite a lot of OpenStreetMap features for which there
> is no consensus on how to tag them. Some examples (but I'm sure there are
> many more):
> - What is the difference between highway=footway and highway=path?
> - What is the right scheme for tagging public transport?
> - Is an unsurfaced residential road a track?
> - Should we use shop=betting or shop=bookmaker?
> - Should we use shop=fishmonger or shop=seafood?
> - Should we use office=estate_agent or shop=estate_agent?
> - Should we use shop=tailor or craft=tailor?
>
> The lack of consensus becomes clear by the fact that there are
> discrepancies between documentation on the wiki, the outcome of a voting,
> actual use (as documented on Taginfo, for example), and what ed

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Paul Churchley]

I think that the "seafood" example is a classic case of why this will
always be an issue and why there can never be concensus. A "seafood shop"
to me, a Brit all my life, not only sells shellfish but other kinds of
seafood. The difference to me is that a "fishmonger" only sells raw fish
whereas a seafood shop would sell raw fish and also sell seafood ready to
eat such as the shellfish Phil describes. Who is right? Surely we both are?
To me, theses kinds of subtle differences in meaning are often local and it
is incorrect to consider one anymore correct than the other. Both tags
should be available and people should tag them as they see fit. If someone
looks at an item that is tagged as seafood and believes they are a
fishmonger then why not tag it as both?

I am a newcomer to OSM but as a newcomer I do not see the so called "lack
of concensus" as any kind of issue. People call things by different names
and whereas it is of benefit to have concensus on the framework items I can
see no issue regarding the use of locally accepted tags for items in
general.

The bookmaker/betting shop example is easily resolved because one is a
person (bookmaker) the other is a location, usually a building. I see no
confusion in that case. You would expect that a betting shop would have a
bookmaker inside it! On the otherhand, at a race track it is possble that a
bookmaker could have a stall out in the open without having a shop.


On 18 September 2013 13:53, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 16:41 +0200, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>
> >
> > - Should we use shop=betting or shop=bookmaker?
> > - Should we use shop=fishmonger or shop=seafood?
>
> Actually I think this provides an insight into where problems are seen,
> and damaging mass edits occur, when in reality there is no problem and
> separate tags are in fact correct.
>
> In British English seafood generally refers to shellfish. So a seafood
> shop will be a shop, usually at the seaside, where you buy prawns,
> mussels, cockles and things that are ready to eat, with vinegar, as you
> walk along the front. To tag this a fishmonger would be misleading.
>
> A fishmonger on the other hand, sells fresh fish that you take home to
> cook. Cases do occur, where a shop does both.
>
> Again, and I am no expert on betting, but my understanding is that a
> bookmaker is someone who can agree bets and set odds. A Betting shop is
> a place where you place a bet with odds set elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 Matthijs Melissen 

> Don't change the wiki definitions of established tags without discussion,
>> even less if its a very widespread tag. Many of these edits are part of the
>> problem.
>>
>
> Do you also see a problem with changing the wiki to reflect actual usage,
> or are you just warning against changing the wiki away from current use?
>


I see a problem in determining actual usage. Are you suggesting to visit
all these places/features that have a certain tag in order to see what it
was used for? IMHO if there is a definition in the wiki and someone then
tags something with this tag you have to believe that he followed that
definition, at least until you can find a consensus to change this
definition. The most you should do is add a hint to the wiki that there is
a similar tag in use and link to it, but you shouldn't imply that the
similar tag has the exact same meaning as long as you don't know it for
sure.

As you can see from this thread, it is not useful to add definitions to the
wiki without consulting on the actual usage (see betting / bookmaker).

One issue in this context is also OSM definitions that rely on external
definitions (e.g. "see Wikipedia: foo"), because these external definitions
might change without that OSM will be taken into account ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[David Earl]

I am a newcomer to OSM but as a newcomer I do not see the so called "lack
of concensus" as any kind of issue. People call things by different names
and whereas it is of benefit to have concensus on the framework items I can
see no issue regarding the use of locally accepted tags for items in
general.


The problem is that it is almost impossible to write, and more 
importantly, keep up-to-date a data consumer (like a specialized map of 
shops, in the examples people have been talking about) in an anarchic 
free-for-all where tags come and go and people invent their own.


In effect the only data consumer that can reasonably makes sense of it 
all is a human reader (and even then, if is open to misinterpretation, 
as you are all saying, then them may also be unable to consume the data).


David




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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Matthijs Melissen]

The wiki pages for bookmaker, betting, and fishmonger have been added by
me. After adding a couple of such pages, I realized writing proper
documentation is harder than it seems (i definitely agree with the
criticism about these pages), so that's why I decided to start a broader
discussion on this list, before continue working on the documentation. I
will adapt the pages again after this discussion has resulted in some
outcomes.

 In British English seafood generally refers to shellfish. So a seafood
>> shop will be a shop, usually at the seaside, where you buy prawns,
>> mussels, cockles and things that are ready to eat, with vinegar, as you
>> walk along the front. To tag this a fishmonger would be misleading.
>>
>
> What you write makes sense, but the problem is that who wrote the wiki for
> these shops didn't know about these distinctions, see here
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dseafood  a fishmonger is
> explicitly given as synonym (and btw. it was Harry Wood adding this
> synonym, AFAIK a British fellow)
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfishmonger  shellfish seems
> to be included in the definition and seafood is given as synonym. But this
> page was created just 4 days ago.
>

In creating shop=fishmonger, I followed the accepted proposal (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/seafood_shop ), and
actual use (from the names of the shops tagged with seafood, one can deduce
that seafood is also used for shops selling sweet water fish). But I agree
that I should perhaps not have used the term 'Discouraged' only because of
the outcome of a vote.


> Also your definitions for bookmaker and betting are appealing (me is
> neither an expert in this kind of business), and again the definition for
> betting like that for betting is 5 days old:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dbetting&action=historyand
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dbookmaker&action=historyand
>  were written by the same person and contain the same text.
>
> There has not been voted about these proposals, so in documenting I could
only follow actual use. Both betting and bookmaker seem to be used for the
same kind of shops:
jxapi.openstreetmap.org/xapi/api/0.6/*[shop=bookmaker]
jxapi.openstreetmap.org/xapi/api/0.6/*[shop=betting]
In particular, the major chains Ladbrokes, Coral and William Hill seem to
be tagged both ways. I believe that documenting both tags is better than
document no tag at all. Moreover, I believe that I have made clear in both
pages that the difference between both type of shops is not clear. I
understand that Philip sees the two shops as different, and I would welcome
a proposal along that line, but for the moment, it seems that taggers are
not using such a distinction.

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 Paul Churchley 

> I think that the "seafood" example is a classic case of why this will
> always be an issue and why there can never be concensus. A "seafood shop"
> to me, a Brit all my life, not only sells shellfish but other kinds of
> seafood. The difference to me is that a "fishmonger" only sells raw fish
> whereas a seafood shop would sell raw fish and also sell seafood ready to
> eat such as the shellfish Phil describes. Who is right? Surely we both are?
> To me, theses kinds of subtle differences in meaning are often local and it
> is incorrect to consider one anymore correct than the other. Both tags
> should be available and people should tag them as they see fit. If someone
> looks at an item that is tagged as seafood and believes they are a
> fishmonger then why not tag it as both?
>


because then you would have to use a multiple value for the same key, which
isn't very helpful if you intend your mapped data to be used by many data
consumers. Actually it would be helpful to get good definitions in the wiki
that describe the necessary aspects of something in order to merit a
certain tag, but without exxagerating into specifics that would exclude
objects that should be included. Also examples aren't helpful in tag
definitions, but on the contrary facilitate misunderstandings. Currently we
don't have a good description neither of fishmongers nor of seafood, and
therefor everybody silently invents his own criteria.


The bookmaker/betting shop example is easily resolved because one is a
> person (bookmaker) the other is a location, usually a building. I see no
> confusion in that case. You would expect that a betting shop would have a
> bookmaker inside it!
>


no, from what I know here in Italy (and what Phil described above) a place
tagged shop=betting won't have a bookmaker inside, it would be a place
(usually a branch) where you could place bets (usually / mostly on the
outcome of sport events) for fixed rates. These rates will be transmitted
from a central instance and won't be negotiable in the place (because there
are no bookmakers present) and you will only be able to place bets on fix
stuff that they tell you, you won't be able to propose a bet on something
else.


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[fly]

Am 18.09.2013 11:26, schrieb Lukas Hornby:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for all your comments so far, very constructive. 
> 
> I've updated the comments to hopefully answer all of your
> concerns. 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments
> 
> In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my definition
> is from a British perspective.
> Community garden is different in definition, both here and in the US
> (and elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the ethos and values are
> usually similar.
> 
> I'm aware the title is too generic. being new to OSM i'm not sure
> whether hierarchical tags (in a taxonomy) are encoraged or adjectival tags?

First thing to consider would be that your intension is to map
alloments' plots.

As already mentioned this does not fit under landuse.

Second; Should/Could this tag be used besides alloments ? There is
ammenity=parking_space but I think it is the only tag describing
"parcels/lots".

If you decide to only use it for alloments a simple alloment:lot=yes
would work as areas within landuse=alloment.

Lots of alloments I know have fences between the single lots so be
prepared to find lots of multipolygons as you would need one for each
lot to proper define the ref=*.

My 2 ct
fly




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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[John Sturdy]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, David Earl  wrote:

> The problem is that it is almost impossible to write, and more importantly,
> keep up-to-date a data consumer (like a specialized map of shops, in the
> examples people have been talking about) in an anarchic free-for-all where
> tags come and go and people invent their own.

I think it could improve things if we could have a file of tag
synonyms, in a machine-readable format, somewhere on the web site, and
provide libraries for parsing and using it, in some widely-used
programming languages.

I suggest dividing such a file into blocks (e.g. blank line separated
stanzas), with each block identifying a context in which it applies
(typically country=); the first block would apply globally.

__John

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[John F. Eldredge]

On 09/18/2013 09:17 AM, fly wrote:

Am 18.09.2013 11:26, schrieb Lukas Hornby:

Hi,

Thanks for all your comments so far, very constructive.

I've updated the comments to hopefully answer all of your
concerns. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments

In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my definition
is from a British perspective.
Community garden is different in definition, both here and in the US
(and elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the ethos and values are
usually similar.

I'm aware the title is too generic. being new to OSM i'm not sure
whether hierarchical tags (in a taxonomy) are encoraged or adjectival tags?

First thing to consider would be that your intension is to map
alloments' plots.

As already mentioned this does not fit under landuse.

Second; Should/Could this tag be used besides alloments ? There is
ammenity=parking_space but I think it is the only tag describing
"parcels/lots".

If you decide to only use it for alloments a simple alloment:lot=yes
would work as areas within landuse=alloment.

Lots of alloments I know have fences between the single lots so be
prepared to find lots of multipolygons as you would need one for each
lot to proper define the ref=*.


Note that the word under discussion is "plot", not "lot".


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Colin Smale]

What is the essential difference between plot and lot in an OSM context?
Dictionaries often seem to treat them as synonyms when applying to a
"patch of land". But I'm a Brit... What's the US/AUS/CDN/NZ/etc view on
this? 

Colin 

On 2013-09-18 16:35, John F. Eldredge wrote: 

> On 09/18/2013 09:17 AM, fly wrote:
> Am 18.09.2013 11:26, schrieb Lukas Hornby: Hi, Thanks for all your comments 
> so far, very constructive. I've updated the comments to hopefully answer all 
> of your concerns. 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments
>  [1] In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my definition 
> is from a British perspective. Community garden is different in definition, 
> both here and in the US (and elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the ethos 
> and values are usually similar. I'm aware the title is too generic. being new 
> to OSM i'm not sure whether hierarchical tags (in a taxonomy) are encoraged 
> or adjectival tags? First thing to consider would be that your intension is 
> to map alloments' plots. As already mentioned this does not fit under 
> landuse. Second; Should/Could this tag be used besides alloments ? There is 
> ammenity=parking_space but I think it is the only tag describing 
> "parcels/lots". If you decide to only use it for alloments a sim!
 ple
alloment:lot=yes would work as areas within landuse=alloment. Lots of alloments 
I know have fences between the single lots so be prepared to find lots of 
multipolygons as you would need one for each lot to proper define the ref=*.

Note that the word under discussion is "plot", not "lot".

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]



Links:
--
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Janko Mihelić]

When I think about making sense of tags, I always come back to the idea to
use our version of Wikidata, maybe OSMdata, which can be installed as an
extension of osm mediawiki.

In it we can connect meanings of various tags to wikipedia.org definitions,
and connect tags to other tags.

For example, we could say that OSMdata item with tag amenity=fastfood is a
subset of item with tag amenity=restaurant, which is a subset of item
"places where you can get food for money". That item doesn't have tags, but
can be useful to data miners who want to get places where you can buy food,
whatever they are. It can be a fishmonger, or a seafood place, or anything
that has a food=yes tag.

That way we can invent as much tags as we want, without losing data
comprehensibility for data users. A Chinese mapper could invent a tag that
cannot be described by western terms, but if he adds it to a category
"places where you can buy food", all renderers can render it with a fork
and spoon.

This solution can also be beneficial for big changes in tagging, like the
recent talk of changing power=tower to man_made=pole. If renderers were
connected to the category "poles that carry electricity wires", instead of
key-value pairs and we just added new tags to the category, no big changes
would be necessary.

We could also translate all those categories to different languages (which
wikidata supports) and that way a Chinese data consumer could write in his
language what data he wants.

The best thing is that the infrastructure is already here, we just have to
install it. So if it doesn't work out, not much time would be wasted.

Janko



2013/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer 

>
>
>
> 2013/9/18 Paul Churchley 
>
>> I think that the "seafood" example is a classic case of why this will
>> always be an issue and why there can never be concensus. A "seafood shop"
>> to me, a Brit all my life, not only sells shellfish but other kinds of
>> seafood. The difference to me is that a "fishmonger" only sells raw fish
>> whereas a seafood shop would sell raw fish and also sell seafood ready to
>> eat such as the shellfish Phil describes. Who is right? Surely we both are?
>> To me, theses kinds of subtle differences in meaning are often local and it
>> is incorrect to consider one anymore correct than the other. Both tags
>> should be available and people should tag them as they see fit. If someone
>> looks at an item that is tagged as seafood and believes they are a
>> fishmonger then why not tag it as both?
>>
>
>
> because then you would have to use a multiple value for the same key,
> which isn't very helpful if you intend your mapped data to be used by many
> data consumers. Actually it would be helpful to get good definitions in the
> wiki that describe the necessary aspects of something in order to merit a
> certain tag, but without exxagerating into specifics that would exclude
> objects that should be included. Also examples aren't helpful in tag
> definitions, but on the contrary facilitate misunderstandings. Currently we
> don't have a good description neither of fishmongers nor of seafood, and
> therefor everybody silently invents his own criteria.
>
>
> The bookmaker/betting shop example is easily resolved because one is a
>> person (bookmaker) the other is a location, usually a building. I see no
>> confusion in that case. You would expect that a betting shop would have a
>> bookmaker inside it!
>>
>
>
> no, from what I know here in Italy (and what Phil described above) a place
> tagged shop=betting won't have a bookmaker inside, it would be a place
> (usually a branch) where you could place bets (usually / mostly on the
> outcome of sport events) for fixed rates. These rates will be transmitted
> from a central instance and won't be negotiable in the place (because there
> are no bookmakers present) and you will only be able to place bets on fix
> stuff that they tell you, you won't be able to propose a bet on something
> else.
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/18 Colin Smale 

> What is the essential difference between plot and lot in an OSM context?
> Dictionaries often seem to treat them as synonyms when applying to a "patch
> of land". But I'm a Brit... What's the US/AUS/CDN/NZ/etc view on this?




taking into account that this is about a subdivison of landuse=allotments
and not applotments it sounds reasonable to use "lot" ;-)

btw.: applotment seems to be an unmodern synonymon for allotment=division
of land into (p)lots.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[David Earl]

On 18/09/2013 15:36, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, David Earl  wrote:

The problem is that it is almost impossible to write, and more importantly,
keep up-to-date a data consumer (like a specialized map of shops, in the
examples people have been talking about) in an anarchic free-for-all where
tags come and go and people invent their own.


I think it could improve things if we could have a file of tag
synonyms, in a machine-readable format, somewhere on the web site, and
provide libraries for parsing and using it, in some widely-used
programming languages.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2010_session:_Tag_Central:_a_Schema_for_OSM 
!




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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Paul Churchley]

Yes, I can see what you mean and I can see why having a standard set of
tags would help in mapping etc.

However, isn't it accepted within OSM that tags are open. In fact, I
attended the State of the Map conference a couple of weeks ago and I raised
this very point. I asked, as a newcomer, what should I do if I have doubts
about the tag I should be using. I was advised on several occasions by
different experienced mappers that if I can't find anything suitable then
just invent a sensible one myself.

So, unless creating new tags is banned this situation will always be a bit
of a free-for-all no matter how much we don't like it. It is the very
nature of the beast in my opinion.

The only real solution that would prevent this free-for-all situation
occuring is to only allow approved tags and to have a process of approval
prior to use and I get the feeling that would also be very much against the
open nature of the project.

As a newcomer I always search, search and search again, both on the wiki
and on ItoWorld, for tags to use and so far I have not had to invent any
myself but I can imagine other newcomers, less determined to only use
existing tags whenever possible, doing a cursory search, not finding
anything suitable, and then just investing new tags when existing tags do
exists if only they had found them.

Not sure what the answer is... if there is one.

Paul



The problem is that it is almost impossible to write, and more importantly,
> keep up-to-date a data consumer (like a specialized map of shops, in the
> examples people have been talking about) in an anarchic free-for-all where
> tags come and go and people invent their own.
>
> In effect the only data consumer that can reasonably makes sense of it all
> is a human reader (and even then, if is open to misinterpretation, as you
> are all saying, then them may also be unable to consume the data).
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> __**_
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[John F. Eldredge]

Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> 
> What is the essential difference between plot and lot in an OSM
> context?
> Dictionaries often seem to treat them as synonyms when applying to a
> "patch of land". But I'm a Brit... What's the US/AUS/CDN/NZ/etc view
> on
> this? 
> 
> Colin 
> 
> On 2013-09-18 16:35, John F. Eldredge wrote: 
> 
> > On 09/18/2013 09:17 AM, fly wrote:
> > Am 18.09.2013 11:26, schrieb Lukas Hornby: Hi, Thanks for all your
> comments so far, very constructive. I've updated the comments to
> hopefully answer all of your concerns.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments
> [1] In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my
> definition is from a British perspective. Community garden is
> different in definition, both here and in the US (and elsewhere) but a
> useful comparison, as the ethos and values are usually similar. I'm
> aware the title is too generic. being new to OSM i'm not sure whether
> hierarchical tags (in a taxonomy) are encoraged or adjectival tags?
> First thing to consider would be that your intension is to map
> alloments' plots. As already mentioned this does not fit under
> landuse. Second; Should/Could this tag be used besides alloments ?
> There is ammenity=parking_space but I think it is the only tag
> describing "parcels/lots". If you decide to only use it for alloments
> a sim!
>  ple
> alloment:lot=yes would work as areas within landuse=alloment. Lots of
> alloments I know have fences between the single lots so be prepared to
> find lots of multipolygons as you would need one for each lot to
> proper define the ref=*.
> 
> Note that the word under discussion is "plot", not "lot".
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> --
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments
> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Well, in American usage, a lot refers to a larger piece of land, such as you 
might buy to build your house upon; a plot refers to a smaller piece, such as a 
gardener might plant vegetables in.

I know that allotment refers to a tract of land in which multiple people rent 
smaller sections to grow vegetables or flowers for their own use.  Since a 
garden in British usage refers to all of the land surrounding one's residence, 
what would Britons call the portion of one own's land in which one grows 
vegetables, what Americans would refer to as a garden?  It wouldn't logically 
be an allotment, since you are doing it on your own property., 

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[SomeoneElse]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



taking into account that this is about a subdivison of 
landuse=allotments and not applotments it sounds reasonable to use 
"lot" ;-)


I note the smiley, but FWIW they're a different root, apparently:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allot

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lot

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Dan S]

2013/9/18 John F. Eldredge :
> Colin Smale  wrote:
>>
>> What is the essential difference between plot and lot in an OSM context?
>> Dictionaries often seem to treat them as synonyms when applying to a "patch
>> of land". But I'm a Brit... What's the US/AUS/CDN/NZ/etc view on this?
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> On 2013-09-18 16:35, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>>
>> On 09/18/2013 09:17 AM, fly wrote:
>>
>> Am 18.09.2013 11:26, schrieb Lukas Hornby:
>>
>> Hi, Thanks for all your comments so far, very constructive. I've updated
>> the comments to hopefully answer all of your concerns.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments
>> In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my definition is
>> from a British perspective. Community garden is different in definition,
>> both here and in the US (and elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the
>> ethos and values are usually similar. I'm aware the title is too generic.
>> being new to OSM i'm not sure whether hierarchical tags (in a taxonomy) are
>> encoraged or adjectival tags?
>>
>> First thing to consider would be that your intension is to map alloments'
>> plots. As already mentioned this does not fit under landuse. Second;
>> Should/Could this tag be used besides alloments ? There is
>> ammenity=parking_space but I think it is the only tag describing
>> "parcels/lots". If you decide to only use it for alloments a simple
>> alloment:lot=yes would work as areas within landuse=alloment. Lots of
>> alloments I know have fences between the single lots so be prepared to find
>> lots of multipolygons as you would need one for each lot to proper define
>> the ref=*.
>>
>> Note that the word under discussion is "plot", not "lot".
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> Well, in American usage, a lot refers to a larger piece of land, such as you
> might buy to build your house upon; a plot refers to a smaller piece, such
> as a gardener might plant vegetables in.
>
> I know that allotment refers to a tract of land in which multiple people
> rent smaller sections to grow vegetables or flowers for their own use. Since
> a garden in British usage refers to all of the land surrounding one's
> residence, what would Britons call the portion of one own's land in which
> one grows vegetables, what Americans would refer to as a garden? It wouldn't
> logically be an allotment, since you are doing it on your own property.,

"vegetable patch" for a simple area, or if more designed/architected,
"kitchen garden"

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Steve Doerr]

On 18/09/2013 12:04, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

I still have yet to find a definition of "lot". Can someone point me 
to one that is unabigious, from Wikipedia or a dictionary? Wikipedia's 
definition of lot is the same as my own: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_lot (that is what comes up when you 
type land plot into wikipedia) And the term in usage: 
http://www.scoutingny.com/?p=3034 Despite searching the web, I can't 
find a definition to match your usage.

In addition to the UK I've seen allotments in other places in Europe, but
not in the US - does the concept even exist over there?

We can't say until we know what the definition is, but my experience
is that with a country that's as large and diverse as the US, it
probably exists somewhere, whatever it is.



From the Oxford English Dictionary...

'plot' = 'A fairly small piece of ground, esp. one used for a specified 
purpose, such as building or gardening, etc.'. Also: 'orig. N. Amer. = 
"burial plot" n. [...] Freq. in "family plot".'


'allotment' = 'A share, portion, or amount of something that has been 
allotted to someone.' Hence:
'A share or portion of land assigned to a person, or appropriated for a 
particular purpose; a plot.' And more specifically:
'orig. Brit. A small plot of land rented, typically from a local 
authority, by an individual for growing vegetables or flowers or for 
keeping small livestock, such as hens and rabbits.
'Allotments are usually associated with urban locations, although the 
earliest examples relate to the letting of land to agricultural 
labourers as a measure to relieve their poverty after land enclosure 
(cf. allotment system n. at Compounds 2). Each allotment should not 
exceed a quarter of an acre and produce must be solely for the 
consumption of the allotment holder, as specified in the Allotments Act 
of 1922. Allotments became especially popular in Great Britain during 
the world wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45, as a means of alleviating food 
shortages.'


Derived from the verb 'allot' ('To give or assign (something) to someone 
authoritatively, without the recipient having any control; to distribute 
(shares, duties, etc.) among a number of people; to apportion.'), which 
in turn derives from:


'lot' = 'An object (app. usually a piece of wood) used in a widely 
diffused ancient method of deciding disputes, dividing plunder or 
property, selecting persons for an office or duty, etc., by an appeal to 
chance or the divine agency supposed to be concerned in the results of 
chance.' Hence:
'What falls to a person by lot. a. That which is assigned by lot to a 
person as his share or portion in an inheritance, or in a distribution 
of property; a division or share of property made by lot.' Hence:
'(Now chiefly U.S.) A plot or portion of land assigned by the state to a 
particular owner. Hence, any piece of land divided off or set apart for 
a particular purpose, e.g. for building or pasture.'
Also: 'One of the plots or portions in which a tract of land is divided 
when offered for sale. Also, land round a film studio where outside 
filming may be done.'


--
Steve


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[fly]

Am 18.09.2013 19:15, schrieb Lukas Hornby:

> In terms of procedure, should I rename the proposal, or abandon it and
> start a new?

Renaming should be Ok as it was not tagged much and is only a few days
old. Maybe right a note about landuse=* and why renaming.

cu
fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Chris Hill]

On 18/09/13 18:15, Lukas Hornby wrote:

HI,

Having studied all of the comments, we seem to agree that a tag is 
needed, that it is worth tagging. However the ambiguity over plot 
(which was the word I used in my proposal and lot (which has been read 
into plot) seems to be a sticking point.


I am moved to resubmit this proposal under the name 
allotments:allotment_garden. This seems to be as close to universal as 
can be achieved. Where the concept of allotments doesn't exist, then 
the tag is not useful in that region.




Why? Everyone who has an allotment would call the individual rented area 
a 'plot' or their 'allotment', but never an allotment garden. An 
allotment site is made of plots, probably with tracks or paths between 
the plots and possibly with shared areas such as parking, a communal 
store or shed and water tanks or taps.


This also paves the way for another useful sub-divison of allotments, 
allotments:community_garden. A previous proposal was made here 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Community_food_growing 
which made the same mistakes I did in using 'landuse' incorrectly. 
This tag would apply to allotment areas used by the community rather 
than the individual and is consistent with the concept of an allotment 
in the US.


In terms of procedure, should I rename the proposal, or abandon it and 
start anew?



--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Pieren]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Paul Churchley  wrote:

> As a newcomer I always search, search and search again, both on the wiki and
> on ItoWorld, for tags to use and so far I have not had to invent any myself
> but I can imagine other newcomers, less determined to only use existing tags
> whenever possible, doing a cursory search, not finding anything suitable,
> and then just investing new tags when existing tags do exists if only they
> had found them.

I'm not sure what ItoWorld is doing here but the wiki is the right
place to document tags. It's open to create new tags. But if someone
creates a duplicate tag because he's not looking the documentation,
then he fails and his tag will never be "used" (the OSM database is
full of undocumented and "never used" tags). If the documentation is
unclear or incomplete, then we all fail.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Murry McEntire]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> ... IMHO if there is a definition in the wiki and someone then tags
> something with this tag you have to believe that he followed that
> definition, at least until you can find a consensus to change this
> definition. The most you should do is add a hint to the wiki that there is
> a similar tag in use and link to it, but you shouldn't imply that the
> similar tag has the exact same meaning as long as you don't know it for
> sure.
>
>
After some experience with OSM maps, my first assumption on seeing a tag
used is that the tagger used the meaning most in line with their personal
experience. When tagging something, if a term comes up in the presets that
has a meaning to the tagger, they use it - skipping terms that may be more
accurate that are unfamiliar to them - and no consulting of the wiki. The
tagger may look at another already tagged feature of the same type and
reuse the tag. As a secondary measure, they scan the features page of the
wiki, until they find an agreeable term and use it. As a last effort, they
may read the wiki page and the "OSM definition". The number of taggers that
have read the wiki page for every tag before use they've ever used is
likely minuscule.

Unfortunately, personal experience is often incorrect or very localized.
For all the words in a person's vocabulary, very few definitions were
formally checked with a dictionary; most are (sometimes incorrect)
interpretations for observed usage. . I have seen meanings for tags
defended on the mailing list they were quite different from any dictionary,
wikipedia, or other formal or common reference. "I grew up with these and
this is what it means." Relying o personal experience is dicey as members
of the same immediate family can have different definitions for the same
word.

The use of localized meanings and terms results in a map not useful to
those outside the locale when visiting - surely a poor state of affairs
when one trusts OSM for local use, but switches to Google or other maps
when outside your own locale because those maps have consistent meaning
across locales. Some uniformity makes OSM that much more useful. Please do
not sneeze at some need for consensus on tagging. Imagine an OSM that had
200 terms in use for similar entities and this existing for every tag in
OSM; where traveling 50 miles meant looking up a new set of tags and
definitions to use the map. Having 2 terms for the same entity is simply a
smaller version of the problem.

This points to the importance of attempting to pick terms that have a
primary meaning on first glance that  go with what it being tagged as
opposed to a term where the intended meaning for the tag is deep in the
multiple meanings of the word. "Plot" is a good example of a word that will
mean different things to different taggers, so should be avoided.

Given the convention of using British English, consulting the Oxford
English dictionary (or Collins or other suitable British sourced
dictionary) would be the conscientious methodology. Look at synonyms for
less ambiguous terms. I would also look at American dictionaries to see if
another term avoids British/American ambiguities (not always possible).
Translation dictionaries are poor sources of definitions as they often
loose the more common meanings of words or pick a little used meaning in
trying to provide a concise definition.

Some of the wiki pages give an "OSM definition" that varies form the more
common and/or formal definition. In my view a weakness of OSM (but
sometimes necessary). The comment was made of the problem of definitions
that refer to outside sources that may change. I suspect when meaning
changes outside OSM, the new meaning is more likely to be used by new
taggers than the OSM definition. Users of OSM are unlikely to consult the
wiki, many will be unaware of the wiki, so will use current common meaning
for the tag. Language evolves, words come and go in popularity. Assuming
OSM should not also adapt will result in OSM maps that read for future
users like Chaucerian-English does now for current English readers (for
those unfamiliar with Chaucer'ian English, it can only be read currently by
experts or those with a dictionary). We do not want an OSM where as a
casual user you not only need a legend of tags, but a definition for each.

There is a bit of intransigence by some that limits changes that improve
OSM. I think management of change and consensus building will be important
to prevent (further) balkanization of OSM or it becoming irrelevant.

OSM also trains the repeat user, so the OSM conventions can not be ignored.
My expectation in searching OSM for a place that primarily sells
ready-to-eat food is it will be found under
amenity=restaurant,cafe,fast_food and I'll overlook businesses tagged
another way. If I'm visiting and you want me to patronize your ready-to-eat
seafood business, it should use one of the above amenity tags.

Murry
_

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[John F. Eldredge]

On 09/18/2013 11:45 AM, Dan S wrote:

2013/9/18 John F. Eldredge :

Colin Smale  wrote:

What is the essential difference between plot and lot in an OSM context?
Dictionaries often seem to treat them as synonyms when applying to a "patch
of land". But I'm a Brit... What's the US/AUS/CDN/NZ/etc view on this?

Colin

On 2013-09-18 16:35, John F. Eldredge wrote:

On 09/18/2013 09:17 AM, fly wrote:

Am 18.09.2013 11:26, schrieb Lukas Hornby:

Hi, Thanks for all your comments so far, very constructive. I've updated
the comments to hopefully answer all of your concerns.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:landuse%3Dplot#Comments
In particular defnition seems to be key and I can confirm my definition is
from a British perspective. Community garden is different in definition,
both here and in the US (and elsewhere) but a useful comparison, as the
ethos and values are usually similar. I'm aware the title is too generic.
being new to OSM i'm not sure whether hierarchical tags (in a taxonomy) are
encoraged or adjectival tags?

First thing to consider would be that your intension is to map alloments'
plots. As already mentioned this does not fit under landuse. Second;
Should/Could this tag be used besides alloments ? There is
ammenity=parking_space but I think it is the only tag describing
"parcels/lots". If you decide to only use it for alloments a simple
alloment:lot=yes would work as areas within landuse=alloment. Lots of
alloments I know have fences between the single lots so be prepared to find
lots of multipolygons as you would need one for each lot to proper define
the ref=*.

Note that the word under discussion is "plot", not "lot".


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







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


Well, in American usage, a lot refers to a larger piece of land, such as you
might buy to build your house upon; a plot refers to a smaller piece, such
as a gardener might plant vegetables in.

I know that allotment refers to a tract of land in which multiple people
rent smaller sections to grow vegetables or flowers for their own use. Since
a garden in British usage refers to all of the land surrounding one's
residence, what would Britons call the portion of one own's land in which
one grows vegetables, what Americans would refer to as a garden? It wouldn't
logically be an allotment, since you are doing it on your own property.,

"vegetable patch" for a simple area, or if more designed/architected,
"kitchen garden"

Would such an area of land, used for cultivating flowers, then be 
classed as a flower garden?  American usage is to refer to vegetable 
gardens, flower gardens, and (collectively) to gardens.  We sometimes 
see the term "kitchen garden" used for growing vegetables, but 
"vegetable garden" is more common.


I remember seeing, on trips to Europe in 1969 and 1974, many small 
allotment gardens tucked into railroad yards in Germany and Switzerland, 
probably for use by railroad employees.  Any section of land of more 
than a few square meters, that wasn't covered by tracks, seemed to be 
under cultivation.  I did wonder about how healthy it would be to eat 
vegetables grown in land contaminated by oil, metallic dust, and 
untreated human waste (the train toilets discharged directly onto the 
tracks below).



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Lukas Hornby]

HI,

Having studied all of the comments, we seem to agree that a tag is needed,
that it is worth tagging. However the ambiguity over plot (which was the
word I used in my proposal and lot (which has been read into plot) seems to
be a sticking point.

I am moved to resubmit this proposal under the name
allotments:allotment_garden. This seems to be as close to universal as can
be achieved. Where the concept of allotments doesn't exist, then the tag is
not useful in that region.

This also paves the way for another useful sub-divison of allotments,
allotments:community_garden. A previous proposal was made here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Community_food_growingwhich
made the same mistakes I did in using 'landuse' incorrectly. This tag
would apply to allotment areas used by the community rather than the
individual and is consistent with the concept of an allotment in the US.

In terms of procedure, should I rename the proposal, or abandon it and
start anew?

Thanks,
Lukas Hornby
(Developer -Grow Bradford)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 18/09/2013 18:15, Lukas Hornby wrote:
> HI,
> 
> Having studied all of the comments, we seem to agree that a tag is
> needed, that it is worth tagging. However the ambiguity over plot (which
> was the word I used in my proposal and lot (which has been read into
> plot) seems to be a sticking point. 


...or alternatively: it's clear a tag for an individual plot is needed,
but after that point it got bikeshedded to death.

I will try stating what is needed as clearly as I can:

A plot is the individual parcel of land within and allotment site that
is let (rented, hired, or other synonym) to one tenant.

We already tag the whole site as landuse=allotments and we just need to
mark individual plots with allotment[s]=plot(*). This makes it clear
it's an allotment plot we're talking about, not anything else.

Each plot will probably have a "number" (not necessarily a number) of
some kind, and I'd suggest using ref=* for this.

This appears to be about as complicated as it needs to get.

I know this because not only do I *have* an allotment, I am the Warden
of our allotment site and am responsible for administering the tenancies
on that site, and that's all I need to map, barring a track or two.


J.

(*) Although natural spoken English would suggest tagging as
allotment=plot, I can see how using allotments=plot makes it clear it's
a sub-division of landuse=allotments, so I'd accept the plural form in
the tag. But that's getting into Bikeshedding again.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus

[Paul Churchley]

ItoWorld provide a simple way to interogate the OSM database for tag use.

That is really my point I think. Anyone can add any tags they wish and all
the time that is permitted, or even encouraged as I have found, then there
will be no concensus in the way that I think this thread is discussing.

I believe that rather than trying to find concensus in an environment where
consensus is never going to be possible, perhaps we should be looking
towards finding a way to look for the true meaning behind the various tags
so that maps and other interpretations can truly understand what the mapper
was intending. That is never going to be a 100% accurate task but it stands
more of a chance of succeeding than looking for concensus in a worldwide
project that allows completely open tagging?

One way might be to have a set of "approved" tags and a translation table
to translate any non-approved tags to the closest approved one. Then there
could be a process of approval to bring more unapproved tags to being
approved. Obviously then, the OSM advice would be to use one of the
approved tags where possible but if people do not do so then at least when
they are discovered a translation could be added to the translation table.
This way mapping projects could use the translation table to make sure that
a map is rendered using the approved tags only.

Just me thinking aloud!

Paul


On 18 September 2013 18:39, Pieren  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Paul Churchley 
> wrote:
>
> > As a newcomer I always search, search and search again, both on the wiki
> and
> > on ItoWorld, for tags to use and so far I have not had to invent any
> myself
> > but I can imagine other newcomers, less determined to only use existing
> tags
> > whenever possible, doing a cursory search, not finding anything suitable,
> > and then just investing new tags when existing tags do exists if only
> they
> > had found them.
>
> I'm not sure what ItoWorld is doing here but the wiki is the right
> place to document tags. It's open to create new tags. But if someone
> creates a duplicate tag because he's not looking the documentation,
> then he fails and his tag will never be "used" (the OSM database is
> full of undocumented and "never used" tags). If the documentation is
> unclear or incomplete, then we all fail.
>
> Pieren
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging