Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream. Was [Imports] [NUUG kart] kartverket imports to OpenStreetMap

[Tyrfing]

Having a river run into a stream seems strange (unless something (like a
drain or evaporation) reduce the amount of water in the river), or the river
is split into several streams.

I'm repeating some of my arguments from the import list, hopefully to get
some discussion on how to use these tags from the tagging list:

I have considered that the main difference between a waterway=river and a
waterway=stream is the scale/size of the waterway, i.e. a river is more
massive than a stream. A local classification/name may often reflect this
difference. In order to determine the size of a waterway also other aspects
than the width could be considered (like e.g. depth, length, average
discharge (volume rate of water flow), size of the drainage basin, how easy
it is to cross (which would depend on discharge and width) or relative size
compared to other streams in an area (which then of course might depend on
any of the other aspects)).

Currently I am using local classification/name and my best judgement on how
easy it is to cross at foot to distinguish between a river and a stream. How
easy it is to cross is of course subjective (and might differ during the
year), but this information offers a clue to whether a waterway has been
considered as a potential blocking feature or not.

E.g. a short waterway that is 5 m wide, but 5 cm deep and is slow streaming
I probably would tag as a stream (it is easy to cross). However a waterway
that is 2 m wide, but is roaring it's way I probably would tag as a river
(it's difficult/dangerous to cross).

The width of a waterway could be tagged using the width or est_width tags.

Using "if an able person can jump it" as the rule has some issues. How far
does an able person jump? The current WR is 8.95 m. Also this seems a bit
like tagging for the renderer.

And lastly, the width of a natural waterway may not be that easy to verify
because it might change considerably on a very short distance (from 1 to 5 m
width on a 10 m run is without doubt not unusual). So at which point should
it be measured/verified?




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Imports-NUUG-kart-kartverket-imports-to-OpenStreetMap-tp5782126p5782191.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] Waterway river vs stream. Was [Imports] [NUUG kart] kartverket imports to OpenStreetMap

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/19 Tyrfing 

> Using "if an able person can jump it" as the rule has some issues.



+1, it also depends heavily on the surroundings (surface, steepness,
solidity of the riverbank, ...) if you can effective jump over it, just a
small width doesn't tell you anything if this is a barrier to a hiker or
not.

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream. Was [Imports] [NUUG kart] kartverket imports to OpenStreetMap

[fly]

On 19.10.2013 14:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2013/10/19 Tyrfing mailto:tyrfing...@gmail.com>>
> 
> Using "if an able person can jump it" as the rule has some issues. 
> 
> 
> 
> +1, it also depends heavily on the surroundings (surface, steepness,
> solidity of the riverbank, ...) if you can effective jump over it, just
> a small width doesn't tell you anything if this is a barrier to a hiker
> or not.

by no doubt the distinction is a problem and width does not work. Best
would be the volume on averaged water flow.

I wonder why we do not have waterway=stem though.

But this does not change the fact that either the river is the result of
some other waterways, fed by some water body (water=*,glacier) or it
will start as something smaller than river.

At least in the last case a relation might be useful.

Cheers fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Christoph Hormann]

I think the whole issue should be split into two separate questions: The 
verifiability of the rule and the rule itself.

As far as verifiability is concerned - it seems the question how far an 
able person can jump is not an issue here.  As i said before i would 
interpret the rule from a practical standpoint, i.e. tag as stream if i 
generally would assume crossing this waterway with dry feet would be 
considered feasible on a hike by most people without disabilities.  Of 
course there will be borderline cases but there always are, even if a 
quantative rule exists.

The question of changing width of a waterway can also be answered from a 
practical perspective - it is sufficient for the waterway to have 
occasional points where it can be crossed to qualify.

This interpretation of course also means that the tagging of a waterway 
does not only depend on the properties of the waterway itself - a 1 
meter wide 'stream' running in a steep walled gorge 10 meter wide on 
top cannot practically be jumped across.

Which leads me to the rule itself which - as noted previously - does not 
make much sense as a mandatory top level distinction for waterways.  
But it has been around for a long time and a lot of data has been 
tagged based on it.  This in my opinion means changing the meaning of 
the existing river/stream distinction - even if there was a practically 
verifiable alternative rule - would serve no purpose except devaluing 
existing data as well as newly entered information.  The only sensible 
way to change things would be to move the distinction into a secondary 
tag (something like crossable=* for example, that would also allow 
tagging the possibility to wade through) and to re-tag all waterways 
with a uniform primary tag (natural=waterway would be an obvious choice 
although it could be useful to make the distinction natural/artificial 
waterway indeed mandatory).

Greetings,

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Jonathan]

As ever this is an interesting question, when is a river not a river, 
when it's a stream?  Or when is a stream not a stream, when it's a river?


Reading some articles: http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html#Stream 
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream and 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River I get the feeling that all 
watercourses are streams however some become large enough to be called 
rivers, but they are still streams.


It seems a river is something that has a source and a mouth (either 
where it joins the sea, lake or a larger river).  So I would say that 
only streams that have been named "River " or "The River ..." should 
ever be tagged as a river, everything else is a stream.


The are 1st order streams and 12 order streams, as per 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahler_Stream_Order.


Also, bear in mind, a watercourse can be named "The River ..." and yet 
be tagged as a stream at its lower orders!


One option might be to tag every natural watercourse water=stream and 
strahler=[1...12] and then let the renderer choose how to display it 
based on the strahler order?  Any watercourse that is already "named" as 
a river should be so named?


Yet again, I feel that as mappers we spend too much time trying to 
define the world around us when we should just be describing it, let the 
renderer and the user define based on their viewpoint. I don't think it 
is for us to decide when a river is a river and not a stream?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 19/10/2013 17:03, Christoph Hormann wrote:

I think the whole issue should be split into two separate questions: The
verifiability of the rule and the rule itself.

As far as verifiability is concerned - it seems the question how far an
able person can jump is not an issue here.  As i said before i would
interpret the rule from a practical standpoint, i.e. tag as stream if i
generally would assume crossing this waterway with dry feet would be
considered feasible on a hike by most people without disabilities.  Of
course there will be borderline cases but there always are, even if a
quantative rule exists.

The question of changing width of a waterway can also be answered from a
practical perspective - it is sufficient for the waterway to have
occasional points where it can be crossed to qualify.

This interpretation of course also means that the tagging of a waterway
does not only depend on the properties of the waterway itself - a 1
meter wide 'stream' running in a steep walled gorge 10 meter wide on
top cannot practically be jumped across.

Which leads me to the rule itself which - as noted previously - does not
make much sense as a mandatory top level distinction for waterways.
But it has been around for a long time and a lot of data has been
tagged based on it.  This in my opinion means changing the meaning of
the existing river/stream distinction - even if there was a practically
verifiable alternative rule - would serve no purpose except devaluing
existing data as well as newly entered information.  The only sensible
way to change things would be to move the distinction into a secondary
tag (something like crossable=* for example, that would also allow
tagging the possibility to wade through) and to re-tag all waterways
with a uniform primary tag (natural=waterway would be an obvious choice
although it could be useful to make the distinction natural/artificial
waterway indeed mandatory).

Greetings,




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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/19 Jonathan 

> It seems a river is something that has a source and a mouth (either where
> it joins the sea, lake or a larger river).  So I would say that only
> streams that have been named "River " or "The River ..." should ever be
> tagged as a river, everything else is a stream.


+1, this is also how I do it, if it is called "River" its a river,
regardless of any jumping. If it is something else (like a German "Bach",
Italian "torrente"/"ruscello") it's a stream.

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Richard Mann]

Ah, but in England we have some Streams that are bigger than Rivers.

Stream is sometimes used when a river divides into a number of channels,
and some Rivers retain that name even in their upper reaches when they are
pretty small (and easily jumpable). So you can't always rely on the name.


On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2013/10/19 Jonathan 
>
>> It seems a river is something that has a source and a mouth (either where
>> it joins the sea, lake or a larger river).  So I would say that only
>> streams that have been named "River " or "The River ..." should ever be
>> tagged as a river, everything else is a stream.
>
>
> +1, this is also how I do it, if it is called "River" its a river,
> regardless of any jumping. If it is something else (like a German "Bach",
> Italian "torrente"/"ruscello") it's a stream.
>
> 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] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Frank Little]

As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers to 
exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what 
people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no 
cycling').


I looked to the wiki for clarity on usage, but the Bicycle page under "Bicycle 
restrictions" only refers explicitly to cycling in the entries for 
bicycle=dismount and oneway:bicycle=yes/no . Other entries refer simply to 
bicycles and specifically bicycle:no is defined as "Where bicycles are not 
permitted". So I can't see justification for assuming that people will have 
only interpreted the bicycle=no tag to mean "no cycling". Maybe they did, 
maybe not.


The wiki page Key:access does refer to "bicycle=* (cyclists)" but the page for 
country defaults (OSM tags for routing/Access-Restrictions) just refers to 
bicycles not cyclists or cycling.


BTW: The country access defaults page shows that in 16 of the countries for 
which defaults are given, pedestrians can walk on the cycleways (sometimes, 
only if there is no adjacent sidewalk). So it is unclear why the OSM 'default' 
for a cycleway is said to be foot=no. Related to this: the 
Tag:highway=cycleway page says "In most countries foot access on cycleways is 
not allowed per default (see default access restrictions)." This is incorrect. 
The first line on that page "The highway=cycleway tag indicates a separate way 
which is mainly or exclusively used by cyclists." could probably better read 
"mainly used or sometimes exclusively used ..." .




- Original Message - 
From: "Jonathan" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways


Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We don't 
have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning pedestrians 
as well.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote:

Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly used to
start this thread, and a few of us in the UK have pointed out that
there is indeed a difference between two situations, both of which
occur often:
* cycling AND pushing a cycle are forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=no)
* cycling BUT NOT pushing a cycle is forbidden (which, UK-based, I
consider bicycle=dismount)



___
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] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

[Frank Little]

+1 to that. Just returned from a week's stay in a short-let apartment in 
Brussels, which was certainly completely different from the hotels, guest 
houses or bed & breakfast places I could have stayed in (and I chose it 
specifically for that reason). This was a single apartment; I've often stayed 
in an 'aparthotel' but that should also be classed as =apartment not =hotel. 
It would also help to have sub-keys showing the number of apartments and 
whether there is a reception, facilities, etc. These are relevant distinctions 
for someone using the data to search for appropriate accommodation.


I'm not so sure about tourism=* (I was there for work; most short-term 
apartment lets in Brussels are work-related,as was mine.) But since all these 
accommodations are so classed, it will have to do.


- Original Message - 
From: "Dudley Ibbett" 

To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?


As a humble surveyor and editor I would ask that we have tourism=apartment at 
the first level.  An apartment is quite distinct from a hotel and a 
guest_house and we already separate out these along with motel, hostel and 
chalet at this level.   The only debate for myself would be is at to whether 
it should be tourism=apartment or tourism=apartments.  In many cases you will 
have a number of apartments for rent in a apartment building block but not 
necessarily all.  In which case I presume it would be most appropriate to put 
a node in the building area rather than tagging the building area.  Would you 
therefore need to put in a node for each apartment if it was 
tourism=apartment?


Regards

Dudley



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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 19 October 2013, Jonathan wrote:
>
> It seems a river is something that has a source and a mouth (either
> where it joins the sea, lake or a larger river).  So I would say that
> only streams that have been named "River " or "The River ..."
> should ever be tagged as a river, everything else is a stream.

Be careful here - different languages use different distinctions and 
even in English use of the terms might differ by country or region.  
And of course duplicating information that is already in the name tag 
is not necessary.

> One option might be to tag every natural watercourse water=stream and
> strahler=[1...12] and then let the renderer choose how to display it
> based on the strahler order?

No, first of all this kind of topological measure is not possible to 
determine locally by the mapper since it depends on the whole river 
system upstream from the point in question (and even more: it requires 
complete data of it).  Second it is not suited for use in map rendering 
from a cartographic viewpoint.

I explained the requirements for an importance rating for rendering of 
rivers in:

http://www.imagico.de/map/water_generalize_en.php

The only really important thing for allowing good rendering of the 
waterways is to have correct orientation and connectivity of all ways - 
which is a huge problem in the OSM data, in my opinion one of the most 
severe we have (together with the notoriously broken boundary relations 
maybe).

Greetings,

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

[Frank Little]

Presence or absence of a kitchen for the traveller does not define for me 
whether it is a guest house or not.
I've stayed in places in Egypt and Pakistan which our company certainly called 
'the guest house' which had kitchens.
They did not have live-in owners or staff (but did have people to prepare 
lunch; we used it in the evening).
I've stayed in guest houses which were like a bed & breakfast place with a 
live in owner.

And even ones which were more like small hotels.

I use hotels, apartments and an occassional B&B a lot and in many different 
countries.

The name people use for their accommodation is inconsistent at best.
I think the best way to tackle this is to use sub-keys to define the 
facilities on offer.


- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Koppenhoefer" 

To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?



2013/10/17 Dudley Ibbett 


From a tourists perspective it is quite important to know whether it is
self catering accommodation or not.  It is also important to know whether
it is a single building unit (i.e. house,cottage,chalet) as opposed to a
number of units in a building (i.e. apartments).  I would be inclined to
use tourism=apartments for the latter.




+1, an appartment would have a kitchen, while a guest house wouldn't
(often) have a kitchen at disposition for the tourist, nor would a bed and
breakfast typically. I also agree with the distinction chalet/cottage/hut
and apartment.

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

[Tagging] opening-hours: how to code "always but..."? Syntax diagram.

[André Pirard]

Hi,

I've had multiple difficulties described here
 coding a simple
opening-hours "always except one period".
OpeningHoursEdit bugs and not finding how to represent "always" after
reading the whole lot several times.
Normally, always is 24/7 but I suspect protest against 24/7 + "off" time.
So, I bet that nothing preceding "period off" means always.
And, as you probably noticed that I don't take OSM as a betting game,
I'm asking confirmation.

As it takes much time "reading the whole lot several times", I added a
more conventional syntax diagram as a synoptic.
Please check it and see what must remain of the rest and how.
Feel free to add as many (n) references as needed behind any diagram
line to text below it.
But please do not crowd the diagram with the text itself again, thanks.

Cheers,

André.


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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 22:13 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Saturday 19 October 2013, Jonathan wrote:
> >
> > It seems a river is something that has a source and a mouth (either
> > where it joins the sea, lake or a larger river).  So I would say that
> > only streams that have been named "River " or "The River ..."
> > should ever be tagged as a river, everything else is a stream.
> 
> Be careful here - different languages use different distinctions and 
> even in English use of the terms might differ by country or region.  
> And of course duplicating information that is already in the name tag 
> is not necessary.

Just in the UK I can think of Brook, Clough and Beck. And thats just the
Midlands and some of the North of England.

> 
> > One option might be to tag every natural watercourse water=stream and
> > strahler=[1...12] and then let the renderer choose how to display it
> > based on the strahler order?
> 
> No, first of all this kind of topological measure is not possible to 
> determine locally by the mapper since it depends on the whole river 
> system upstream from the point in question (and even more: it requires 
> complete data of it).  Second it is not suited for use in map rendering 
> from a cartographic viewpoint.
> 
> I explained the requirements for an importance rating for rendering of 
> rivers in:
> 
> http://www.imagico.de/map/water_generalize_en.php
> 
> The only really important thing for allowing good rendering of the 
> waterways is to have correct orientation and connectivity of all ways - 
> which is a huge problem in the OSM data, in my opinion one of the most 
> severe we have (together with the notoriously broken boundary relations 
> maybe).
> 
+1
 
Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] opening-hours: how to code "always but..."? Syntax diagram.

[Janko Mihelić]

I think the best solution for your problem is:

24/7;Fr 00:00-14:00,22:00-24:00

I wouldn't use "off", I'm not sure a lot of data consumers consider it.

Janko


2013/10/19 André Pirard 

>  Hi,
>
> I've had multiple difficulties described 
> herecoding a simple opening-hours 
> "always except one period".
> OpeningHoursEdit bugs and not finding how to represent "always" after
> reading the whole lot several times.
> Normally, always is 24/7 but I suspect protest against 24/7 + "off" time.
> So, I bet that nothing preceding "period off" means always.
> And, as you probably noticed that I don't take OSM as a betting game, I'm
> asking confirmation.
>
> As it takes much time "reading the whole lot several times", I added a
> more conventional syntax diagram as a synoptic.
> Please check it and see what must remain of the rest and how.
> Feel free to add as many (n) references as needed behind any diagram line
> to text below it.
> But please do not crowd the diagram with the text itself again, thanks.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   André.
>
> ___
> 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] opening-hours: how to code "always but..."? Syntax diagram.

[Charles Basenga Kiyanda]

If I understand the opening_hours  wiki page correctly you're missing a 
semicolon and the correct input should be:

opening_hours=24/7; Fr 14:00-22:00 off

Does that work?

Alternatively, omitting the 24/7 part would be correct as it's implied if the 
off range is not preceded by anything

opening_hours=Fr 14:00-22:00 off

Personally I'm a fan of explicit rules.

Charles

André Pirard  wrote:

>___
>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] Waterway river vs stream

[André Pirard]

On 2013-10-19 22:37, Philip Barnes wrote :
> On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 22:13 +0200, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> On Saturday 19 October 2013, Jonathan wrote:
>>> It seems a river is something that has a source and a mouth (either
>>> where it joins the sea, lake or a larger river).  So I would say that
>>> only streams that have been named "River " or "The River ..."
>>> should ever be tagged as a river, everything else is a stream.
>> Be careful here - different languages use different distinctions and 
>> even in English use of the terms might differ by country or region.  
>> And of course duplicating information that is already in the name tag 
>> is not necessary.
> Just in the UK I can think of Brook, Clough and Beck. And thats just the
> Midlands and some of the North of England.
>
And in French a rivière that flows to the sea is called a fleuve.
I don't think I would call that a stream.

The main factor of importance is the flow (m^3 /s), or rather the mean flow.
Divided by the section, m^2 , roughly depth × width, that yields the
speed (m/s)..
And if you divide the flow by the speed and depth, you get the width and
you know if you can jump ;-)

But, indeed, I prefer spending time on precise traffic tagging so that a
GPS does not send a car onto a path or into a river !

Cheers,

André.







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

Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/19 Frank Little 

> I use hotels, apartments and an occassional B&B a lot and in many
> different countries.
> The name people use for their accommodation is inconsistent at best.
>


yes, that's why we are defining what the osm tags are about...

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

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/10/19 Frank Little 

> As others have pointed out, bicycle=no may have also been used by mappers
> to exclude bicycles not just to exclude cycling; I'd say we can't know what
> people meant (though I imagine mostly it will have had the meaning of 'no
> cycling').
>


shall we really question the meaning of well established tags every 2 years
because in the meantime some mappers might have used it for stuff it wasn't
intended for?

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

Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

[Frank Little]

You miss the point, Martin.

"I use hotels, apartments and an occassional B&B a lot and in many different 
countries.

The name people use for their accommodation is inconsistent at best.
I think the best way to tackle this is to use sub-keys to define the 
facilities on offer."


In other words, trying to define whether it 'is' a guest house or a bed & 
breakfast (or a small hotel) won't work.
Different people will name the same thing differently. So we need to define 
the facilities offered, not the name.

(IMHO.)

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
To: "Frank Little" ; "Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools" 

Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?



2013/10/19 Frank Little 


I use hotels, apartments and an occassional B&B a lot and in many
different countries.
The name people use for their accommodation is inconsistent at best.




yes, that's why we are defining what the osm tags are about...

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] opening-hours: how to code "always but..."? Syntax diagram.

[André Pirard]

Hi,

Thanks for your replies.

On 2013-10-19 22:54, Janko Mihelić wrote :
> I think the best solution for your problem is:
>
> 24/7;Fr 00:00-14:00,22:00-24:00
>
> I wouldn't use "off", I'm not sure a lot of data consumers consider it.
>
OK, I changed the diagram to accept 24/7 that way.
But not using "off" means that the period is open, not closed.

On 2013-10-19 22:54, Charles Basenga Kiyanda wrote :
> If I understand the opening_hours wiki page correctly you're missing a
> semicolon and the correct input should be:
>
> opening_hours=24/7; Fr 14:00-22:00 off
>
> Does that work?
Ouch, the missing semicolon is a typo in my report, it was in the tag.
"working"? That's a convention.
Regarding OpeningHoursEdit, it first complains about "24/7;" and if I
remove it,  about the rest. 2 bugs.
> Alternatively, omitting the 24/7 part would be correct as it's implied
> if the off range is not preceded by anything
>
> opening_hours=Fr 14:00-22:00 off
I finally chose to be kind reveal a single bug that way.
I prefer this also because fear the rendered to display a 24/7 icon even
if the hours are shortened as above.

Cheers,

André.


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