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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 20/ott/2013 um 22:22 schrieb Dan S :
> 
> we should
> have a separate no-pushing-bicycles tag that's not part of bicycle=*
> ("bicycle:pushed=*"...? or is there anything in actual use?)


not sure about actual use, but I'd prefer bicycle_pushing=no or 
pushing_bicycle=no or sth. different for bringing your bicycle (object) 
somewhere, and NOT a subtag of cycling, i.e. not bicycle:*

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Tyrfing OSM]

2013/10/19 Christoph Hormann 

> 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.


Yes, changing the definition of a tag is a problem.

Like Kytömaa points out it seems like the jumping distinction has become
stricter during the years: "Maybe you can just jump over it" (2007), "An
active person should be able to jump over it" (2009), "an active,
able-bodied person is able to jump over it" (2013).

Also it seems like different people has interpreted the distinction between
river and stream differently. At least according to posts in this thread.

So I'm not too sure that the data already in the database is coded
consistently according to your interpretion.


> 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).
>

Something like crossable=* might be a good idea. Also some sort of tag for
amount of water flow might be an idea (like waterflow=high/low/42 m^3 /s).
Using a new uniform primary tag still leave open the distinction between
the (then new) secondary tag waterway=river/stream. But then of course, we
might not even have to bother about it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Vote result - shop=musical_instrument

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

The tag shop=musical_instrument has been accepted. There have been 12
people who voted, of which 11 voted in favour of the proposal and 1
against.

Thanks everyone who voted.

(Announcing the results of votes seems not common practice, but I
think it would be a good habit.)

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> 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


By that standard, a few hundred miles of the Arkansas River at normal stage
would be a stream, including nearly everything from the Zink Weir downtown
to where the Verdigris River meets the Arkansas near Muskogee.  That's just
silly.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 21 October 2013, Tyrfing OSM wrote:
>
> Yes, changing the definition of a tag is a problem.
>
> Like Kytömaa points out it seems like the jumping distinction has
> become stricter during the years: "Maybe you can just jump over it"
> (2007), "An active person should be able to jump over it" (2009), "an
> active, able-bodied person is able to jump over it" (2013).

This is probably due to the increased awareness among mappers that 
verfiability of the tagging is of fundamental importance.  The 
verifiability page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability) 
has been initially created in 2009.

> Also it seems like different people has interpreted the distinction
> between river and stream differently. At least according to posts in
> this thread.
>
> So I'm not too sure that the data already in the database is coded
> consistently according to your interpretion.

Probably not - and more importantly there are tons of data from imports 
with no informed decision on river vs. stream for the individual way at 
all.

This does not mean of course that there is no value in keeping this 
information in the database, especially if for the future there is a 
clearly verifiable rule.

> Something like crossable=* might be a good idea. Also some sort of
> tag for amount of water flow might be an idea (like
> waterflow=high/low/42 m^3 /s).

Practically this will be next to impossible to determine except at a 
measurement station where it would make more sense to tag the node.

If someone has an idea for a practically measurable quantity that has a 
clear relation to the discharge of a river that would be useful to tag 
of course.

Greetings,

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

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

[Tagging] Automatic edit - RFC - Musical instrument

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

# Proposal

I propose to automatically change all objects tagged with
shop=musical_instruments into shop=musical_instrument.

# Rationale

Currently, some shops for music instruments are tagged with the
singular form shop=musical_instrument, while others are tagged with
the plural form shop=musical_instruments. Having only one form makes
life easier for both mappers and data consumers.

I realize that automatic edits are often undesirable. When badly
executed, automatic edits can easily introduce additional mistakes,
especially when executed by mappers without local knowledge. Automatic
edits can also have undesired side-effects. Moreover, automatic edits
might offend mappers who do not agree with the edit.

In particular, I recognize that it is important that:

1. automatic edits have wide community support;
2. automatic edits do not introduce mistakes or otherwise destroy the
work of local mappers.

I believe that in this case, both of these requirements are satisfied.

There is wide community support for the singular form, both by actual
mappers (1356 instances of the singular versus 126 instances of the
plural), and by members of the tagging mailing list (a vote shows that
the singular is preferred by 11 out of 12 voters).

Moreover, the difference is only grammatical, so there is no risk that
mistakes will be introduced.

In addition, I will take the following measurements to minimize the
risk of negative side effects:

- I will follow, of course, the Automated Edits code of conduct and
the Mechanical Edit Policy.
- I have created a page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Math1985/Musical_instrument
documenting this automatic edit.
- I will discuss this edit at the tagging mailing list. Although not
formally required, in order to guarantee community support, I will
invite list members to vote on this automatic edit (in a later stage).
I will not proceed without either 8 unanimous approval votes or 15
total votes with 2/3 approval.
- Although not a formal requirement either, I will ask the Data
Working Group for permission before carrying out this edit.

# Technical implementation

- I will use JOSM combined with Overpass.
- I will do this edit within one changeset with tags "mechanical=yes"
and "description=Rename shop=musical_instruments to
shop=musical_instrument, see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mechanical_Edits/Math1985/Musical_instrument";.
- This will be a one-time edit.
- I allow users to opt-out. If users want me not to touch some
objects, please leave the relevant object id's on the linked page, or
contact me by e-mail.

-- Matthijs

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

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

[Eckhart Wörner]

Hi André,

Am Sonntag, 20. Oktober 2013, 19:19:35 schrieb André Pirard:
> […loads of quoted text…]
please do not quote an entire conversation on top of your reply, otherwise 
people have a hard time finding your actual reply.

> No, that is completely wrong. 24/7 is *not* meant to be used as a building 
> block.
> Where is that explained and is it correctly explained if readers understand 
> it "completely wrong"?

The wiki states "If it is 24 hours 7 days a week [opening_hours] has a specific 
value: 24/7. this way it can render a specific icon."

> IMHO, the first thing in this discussion is to define what "off" means.

The first thing in this discussion is to *grasp* the meaning of "off", not 
*define* it. "off" has been in use for quite some time already.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Time_domains explains 
quite well how the overall opening_hours syntax works.

> Before I added my diagram, the only things one could find is vague things 
> like that a weekday off is wd off.
> After adding my diagram, one can at last read a definition of "off" to which 
> everyone agreed:

who is "everyone"?

Eckhart

___
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]

On 2013-10-21 19:07, Eckhart Wörner wrote :
> Hi André,
>
> Am Sonntag, 20. Oktober 2013, 19:19:35 schrieb André Pirard:
>> No, that is completely wrong. 24/7 is *not* meant to be used as a building 
>> block.
>> Where is that explained and is it correctly explained if readers understand 
>> it "completely wrong"?
> The wiki states "If it is 24 hours 7 days a week [opening_hours] has a 
> specific value: 24/7. this way it can render a specific icon."

I had understood that 24/7 doesn't allow exceptions and I wrote my
diagram accordingly. Someone said it can (in the quote that you
removed), nobody denied that so I changed my diagram accordingly. And
then I was told that *I am* completely wrong instead of that I was right.

>> IMHO, the first thing in this discussion is to define what "off" means.
> The first thing in this discussion is to *grasp* the meaning of "off", not 
> *define* it. "off" has been in use for quite some time already.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Time_domains explains 
> quite well how the overall opening_hours syntax works.
A precise definition is always needed, especially when different people
are "grasping" differently, especially to the point of saying that "off"
is optional and 24/7 a building block.  You may notice that, precisely,
"off" overrides what is preceding it and not what is following it.
The definitions need to be where they're needed, not in other documents
or in people's head.
You're absolutely right that "Time domain" explanation is quite well. 
The only problem is that it should be at the beginning of
Key_opening_hours but that the latter does not even link to it. I have
added a sentence to draw the reader's attention on two key documents I
was lucky to find before he tackles decoding this one.
Fuzzy rules are unfortunately a spread disease of OSM, especially
traffic rules tags sending cars where they shouldn't go or
pedestrians/bicycles on a needless 3 km detour. I'm having a hard,
disappointing time with that.
Computers using tags do not "grasp".  They follow well defined rules.
I hope that the JOSM/Plugins/OpeningHoursEditor
 bug
will be corrected and that it will be improved because it's what taggers
jump on instead of reading (nice making a button to switch between
adding and subtracting mode).
I hope that my fast-to-read diagram will be appreciated.
I have to move on to those other concerns now.

Cheers,

André.





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

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

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Eckhart Wörner wrote:
> The wiki states "If it is 24 hours 7 days a week [opening_hours] has a
> specific value: 24/7. this way it can render a specific icon."

There are quite a few Starbucks locations that Starbucks themselves
consider 24 hour stores, but which actually have stated hours of
04:30-03:15. Is this close enough to 24/7 that perhaps it should still
get the 24/7 icon? If not, how about a new icon for "effectively but not
literally 24/7"?

-- 
  Shawn K. Quinn
  skqu...@rushpost.com

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