Re: [Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies
No, when I looked at the code last year there was no indication that you could do that in any easy way. The taginfo import is reported to take 10 minutes for Sweden so I guess if the box isn't that big you can always try to extract it and import it to your own taginfo db. Now when we have taginfo on osm.org maybe we can put all of the local variants there. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified > geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do > this for geographies other than those listed here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Sites > > Mike > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
2013/11/25 Manuel Hohmann > > This means that by any traditional reading, the proposal has been > > rejected, even though you seem to avoid the word. > > I am not avoiding anything, I am simply stating facts. And as a matter > of fact, there are 19 positive votes, 18 negative ones, and one > partial approval. By any mathematical reading, 19 > 18. > You are "cheating" here, the voting period finished at 23 November, and by the 14th of November all 18 no-votes had already been cast, leading with this apparently clear rejection to desinterest by other potential rejecters. You are now counting post-voting-votes on the yes side in order to obfuscate the actual result. This proposal was rejected according to our rules and I now set it to rejected in the wiki. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
Am 25.11.2013 09:06, schrieb Frederik Ramm: > > On 11/24/2013 09:45 AM, Manuel Hohmann wrote: >> For this reason the status has for now been reset to "proposed", >> until there is further progress. > > That's a great idea, we simply get rid of the "rejected" status and > anything that is not accepted remains in "proposed" forever ;) Why should we give up on tweaking a proposal where most of the no-votes were about only one value of 15 proposed keys? There are proposals which are rejected with no hope of recovery, but this one is clearly not among them. 18 supporters is more than most successful proposals get. > Of course this opens the question - what if someone wanted to propose > a *different* tagging of lamps, should they then overwrite the page > with their proposal or should we simply have a ton of proposals in > parallel? With some exceptions - an author trying to slightly modify their proposal or handing it over to someone else for this purpose - new ideas should go to a separate proposal. We had a ton of very different proposals on lane tagging, for example, until one was found acceptable. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > You are "cheating" here, the voting period finished at 23 > November, and by the 14th of November all 18 no-votes had already > been cast, leading with this apparently clear rejection to > desinterest by other potential rejecters. You are now counting > post-voting-votes on the yes side in order to obfuscate the actual > result. This proposal was rejected according to our rules and I now > set it to rejected in the wiki. Just in case you did not get it the first time: - - The 14th of November does not have any relevance here - there is no counting of votes somewhere in the middle of voting. - - Everyone has been free to vote, no matter the current vote count. If someone does vote against the proposal, his vote cannot be counted. - - At the end of the voting period there were 18 yes, 18 no and one partial yes. If this in in any way a "clear" result, then it is a draw. - - Comments indicate that the dominant reason for opposing was deprecating highway=street_lamp, not the additional / new tags of the proposal. - - The positive votes, further comments and the fact that even after the official voting period someone handed in another positive vote indicate clear interest in this proposal, or at least into its continuing development. - - For the aforementioned reasons, this proposal is further being worked on. I therefore set it to "proposed", and I did this for a reason. - - I am not "obfuscating" anything, I am stating facts, and these can be found in the wiki. I hope this is finally clarified. Your opposing vote has been counted, the reasons you have given were taken into account and have been commented on. If you would like to further contribute, feel free to reply to these comments, or make further suggestions, or feel free to create your own proposal. I will continue working on this one, and take into account any constructive criticism or other contributions, including the received comments during voting, from anyone who is interested in contributing. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlIXpAAoJEPvf9RrsekSyYCAIAKSaBBbzpEpigBp2j8/8oCWj O8fIwV5p7eC8309rTMUj9C1T3v4gsjozxg80N2ZVzr/8vPyvMP22nfLni2+toAzo UUZ0p42MAkMxZwUMn3E79G5Jg2JFoIDKGaDgInfjKe1lp56dqpUjeHBXBuG+Ddym tUtOeIEp+9NfXzliSVSdwA5u/CDjFOAvGLnsbNepo6rH6cDrbGgm/G973vUTYhqL zjf2Ii3Q9DzrsQ4Av2YVLoGg72Vq2ihRb0TsNP0NE+6rLDZ/BE+d37JEiF0uxFrV 1QQQZmf8FhV8JWjaHW6z7PFSbiFo0aZDC49i3+QA3gmhrsidTXUB9dMQRQTsswM= =j6/j -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
On 26.11.2013 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > This proposal was rejected > according to our rules and I now set it to rejected in the wiki. The rules also state "All suggestions should be taken into account before a proposal is approved or rejected." The author is trying to do just that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
2013/11/26 Tobias Knerr : > On 26.11.2013 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> This proposal was rejected >> according to our rules and I now set it to rejected in the wiki. > > The rules also state "All suggestions should be taken into account > before a proposal is approved or rejected." The author is trying to do > just that. Where can I read the rules? I searched the wiki for "voting" "tag proposals" etc and couldn't find them. Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Dan S wrote: > Where can I read the rules? I searched the wiki for "voting" "tag > proposals" etc and couldn't find them. On the "Proposed_features" main page. But don't read it as "hard-coded rules" but more as recommendations. I don't like when people think that the wiki is the bible. But I also don't like people saying that the vote process should be completely ignored. Take it as a good opportunity to express verbally a maximum of feedbacks, opinions and arguments about tags in OSM. It's better than nothing. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
2013/11/26 Manuel Hohmann > - - At the end of the voting period there were 18 yes, 18 no and one > partial yes. If this in in any way a "clear" result, then it is a draw. > A draw means "rejected" as it isn't a majority for "yes". A "partial yes" like an "abstain" counts as vote that isn't "yes", so for practical reasons you can count this like a "no". At least this is what the rules had been so far. To make it clear, I am not in general against tagging lights and lamps (besides those that already get tagged), but I also do not think that all kind of light emitting objects have necessarily to go under one and the same tag. Generally substituting one tag by requiring two tags isn't desirable (IMHO). The tag "highway=street_lamp" is widely used and there is (IMHO) no reason to believe a street light/lamp isn't part of a highway. You can see it as one or the other and apparently there are not so few mappers who see it as a usable tag. Given that there is already a tag for the (supposedly) most required thing in this field to be tagged, why not invent a (or more) new tag(s) for what remains and you want to tag? And when inventing a new tag, why not do it "right" (i.e. with the correct terminology)? Just as there are different words in German (Leuchte, Strahler, Scheinwerfer, Fluter as opposed to "Lampe"), there are also in English. Why not e.g. use a tag "floodlights" for certain typology of lights, or "lantern" for another? As an analogy, we also do not use "highway=street", "street=primary" because the way stuff went has brought us this distinction already in the "main tag", and someone now trying to reinvent this wheel would most probably fail. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
2013/11/26 Pieren : > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Dan S wrote: > >> Where can I read the rules? I searched the wiki for "voting" "tag >> proposals" etc and couldn't find them. > > On the "Proposed_features" main page. Thanks. > But don't read it as "hard-coded > rules" but more as recommendations. I don't like when people think > that the wiki is the bible. But I also don't like people saying that > the vote process should be completely ignored. Take it as a good > opportunity to express verbally a maximum of feedbacks, opinions and > arguments about tags in OSM. It's better than nothing. I agree strongly. In this case, with an almost perfectly inconclusive result, I would say it is unfair to stamp the proposal as "rejected" since there was not a majority no-vote; but equally wrong to stamp it as "sort-of-accepted" (these are the two main positions in this thread so far!). The message from the voters is clear: maybe, but not in this exact form. Maybe the authors of the proposal will refine it to a stronger proposal, or maybe they won't. But it seems to me that some informal evolution is the next thing to consider, rather than repeated rounds of hyper-formalised proposing and voting. Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
2013/11/26 Dan S > I agree strongly. In this case, with an almost perfectly inconclusive > result, I would say it is unfair to stamp the proposal as "rejected" > since there was not a majority no-vote; > actually this is how things are (and were) done nonetheless. There are lots of proposals that got rejected with zero no-votes, just because they hadn't gotten enough yes votes. The rules state that you need an absolute majority of "yes" for the approval. If a proposal gets rejected in a voting, this doesn't mean you cannot repropose it (indeed this is what is done here for the second time). > but equally wrong to stamp it > as "sort-of-accepted" (these are the two main positions in this thread > so far!). The message from the voters is clear: maybe, but not in this > exact form. > +1, usually if there are a lot of "no"-votes there is something wrong, even if there is a majority of "yes"-votes. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies
Maybe Tagwatch does what you are looking for? http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/ Matthijs On Nov 25, 2013 11:34 PM, "Mike Thompson" wrote: > I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified > geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do > this for geographies other than those listed here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Sites > > Mike > > ___ > 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 - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > A draw means "rejected" as it isn't a majority for "yes". A > "partial yes" like an "abstain" counts as vote that isn't "yes", so > for practical reasons you can count this like a "no". At least this > is what the rules had been so far. A draw is a draw, it's not a majority for "no" either. You can count an "abstain" whatever you want, it neither "yes" nor "no". Here we had a "partial yes". And besides, as I explained before, I also took into account the comments and reasons for opposing in the decision to keep working on the proposal. > To make it clear, I am not in general against tagging lights and > lamps (besides those that already get tagged), but I also do not > think that all kind of light emitting objects have necessarily to > go under one and the same tag. Generally substituting one tag by > requiring two tags isn't desirable (IMHO). The tag > "highway=street_lamp" is widely used and there is (IMHO) no reason > to believe a street light/lamp isn't part of a highway. You can see > it as one or the other and apparently there are not so few mappers > who see it as a usable tag. Yes, this is the main outcome of the voting, as I said. And this will be taken into account in the further work on this proposal. The discussions here and in the forum have shown that both opinions exist - - regarding street lamps as part of the highway or not. > Given that there is already a tag for the (supposedly) most > required thing in this field to be tagged, why not invent a (or > more) new tag(s) for what remains and you want to tag? Of course one can do this as well. My aim was to unify the tagging of these objects, since they all generate light. This idea is not new - think of public_transport=stop_position, for example. But of course one can have different opinions, as always in OSM. > And when inventing a new tag, why not do it "right" (i.e. with the > correct terminology)? Just as there are different words in German > (Leuchte, Strahler, Scheinwerfer, Fluter as opposed to "Lampe"), > there are also in English. I was using the term that was attested to me by native speakers to be most commonly used, and also understandable to others. Many people, especially non-native speakers, might not even know the term "light fitting", even though it's correct UK English. > Why not e.g. use a tag "floodlights" for certain typology of > lights, or "lantern" for another? This is also possible, provided that one can easily distinguish these topologies. As a remark, "lantern" was also on my list, but as I figured out, it usually refers to portable light sources. > As an analogy, we also do not use "highway=street", > "street=primary" because the way stuff went has brought us this > distinction already in the "main tag", and someone now trying to > reinvent this wheel would most probably fail. Of course, highway=* is a key that already indicates some type of way or related feature, so one can immediately specify the type of feature in the value. "highway=street", "street=primary" would thus make no sense. This is different for man_made=*, which does not give much information on the type of object. One could of course also think of not using man_made at all, and introduce light=floodlights etc. as a new primary tag, in order to group light sources with a more unified tagging. But honestly I have no idea whether this would be better or worse. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlJ11AAoJEPvf9RrsekSyp6sIAJUD+bqj2t8h/Z2nZsO7mD1f TE/p4R8BuY5K0CN1vJvECS/gyfn4jD8g3vSHpJ3pQBDfEjncjr2o3zpZXtWD+bp+ WPfE1BXr9ZHqmMH9qqbYXsmPL3UWdFrugE2b3Ll7UhvLWLU0ZRG7NWi4Mm1atwUX Y1ia7ggiAv+qlg/lh2yreIXTjGyl3EY8EM56Xn2A76+DaM2vRNeuVbSFvgR2DJez C/4kpqEHVimiCsqCmlGnEjrC0642BkWuM/dghlgS4ZgFp4GY5vWTz/R0Bs5iJ3ee 7p+ZDMTlJ2mrKczL8BVuDDASZ167m8mTO1jC6ibFP0Ob39/Om6141iRHc+WblcQ= =Jw6I -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
2013/11/26 Manuel Hohmann > > A draw means "rejected" as it isn't a majority for "yes". > A draw is a draw, it's not a majority for "no" either. yes, rejected ;-) My aim was to unify the tagging of > these objects, since they all generate light. This idea is not new - > think of public_transport=stop_position, for example. > > a good example where it didn't work either: there are 1.2M of highway=bus_stop but only 200K public_transport platform and stop_position. > Why not e.g. use a tag "floodlights" for certain typology of > > lights, or "lantern" for another? > > This is also possible, provided that one can easily distinguish these > topologies. As a remark, "lantern" was also on my list, but as I > figured out, it usually refers to portable light sources. > there are also fixed lanterns, and there is even another use for it in architecture, probably you'll find it in this context as well (building:part etc.) fixed lantern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lanterna_cafoscari.jpg architecture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laternebap.jpg One could of course also think of not using man_made at all, and > introduce light=floodlights etc. as a new primary tag, in order to > group light sources with a more unified tagging. But honestly I have > no idea whether this would be better or worse. > You could use man_made=pole / post / mast / tower /... for the support/structure (if mapped on a node). What would be other values for this new key? Checked it, actually "light" is taken: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/light#values but "light_type" seems available (zero usage as of taginfo). There is 337 of "security:light_type" which supports the idea that "light_type" is about the type of lightning device http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/security%3Alight_type and also the "lamp_type"s support this reading: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lamp_type (they do not refer to the fixture). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > yes, rejected ;-) I'm really not sure what you don't understand about the word DRAW or about the fact that the total number of positive votes exceeds the total number of negative votes. But another fact is that your opinion does not alter any of these facts. > a good example where it didn't work either: there are 1.2M of > highway=bus_stop but only 200K public_transport platform and > stop_position. I wouldn't call an approved proposal, which hat 200K applications so far (the same order of magnitude as highway=street_lamp), "not working". > there are also fixed lanterns, and there is even another use for it > in architecture, probably you'll find it in this context as well > (building:part etc.) Yes, there are indeed, I do not doubt that. It was just a general remark that this tag may also be misinterpreted (which probably applies to many words, one needs to choose carefully in any case). > You could use man_made=pole / post / mast / tower /... for the > support/structure (if mapped on a node). Sounds reasonable to me, but also raises the question: If something is tagged as man_made=pole + light=* or the like, and there are additional tags, what do these tags apply to? This is the same problem as with tagging tourism=hotel, amenity=restaurant, and then something like wheelchair=yes all on one node - to which does the latter apply? In this example one can usually separate the hotel and the restaurant, but for a street lamp, one would probably want to attribute the pole and the light source to the same node, as they belong to a common structure. > What would be other values for this new key? I guess that would be things that I placed under "lamp:type" in my proposal. For example, just some quick ideas: - - "lantern" (which I actually like more than the lamp:type=street_lamp in my proposal, since it takes the "street" out of this name, and would be a lighting for maybe a railway, an area... or a street) - - "signal_lamp" (yes, I checked the term - see wikipedia) - - "warning" (a hazard warning lamp) - - "aviation" (like those lights at an airport runway) > Checked it, actually "light" is taken: > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/light#values but "light_type" > seems available (zero usage as of taginfo). What about light_source? This is also not used so far, and it gives a rather accurate description of the object being mapped. Something ending in _type sounds more like a subclass to me (as we don't tag highway_type=*, but highway=track, tracktype=*). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlL60AAoJEPvf9RrsekSyzZkH+wXC5f2QVbnnGj0rtW3iG3w2 NA0GpIrwmkAGtTtHCx9/wrp/ePzps6jdpAyzxSX+TosCMgeneXEKIAM6RmOx1XBa BD2PKmhWFnzJG33FGAIWv0vED2J1d250Iz22aG1zIELhlFlwzCxHnWtGUcslf9mD pxYT8uzlzAJLWfJLuhWgKkl0LEtm4qGzIQU88Turqjp84GjLxoygcw1UjB9asK+Z /SJv6ZInAo6X4VZEJV7iHwHqQWQDHETicXClJkgH3LJz6TDNdWE+ME3HRl3YrBdg at6PyW/3Mn+jMuY9TYLVVc7VqfSsT5+2K5Nb7/x1rVVYttVE19HALS5l816sw3A= =nFWp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies
Thanks for the replies. The link Mattthijs provides the information I need for now. Erik, good to know the run time to setup ones own taginfo db is reasonable. Mike On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > Maybe Tagwatch does what you are looking for? > http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/ > > Matthijs > On Nov 25, 2013 11:34 PM, "Mike Thompson" wrote: > >> I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified >> geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do >> this for geographies other than those listed here: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Sites >> >> Mike >> >> ___ >> 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
Hi, Openstreetmap has been contributing to the Bitcoin revolution with this map: http://coinmap.org/ the problem is that lots of online businesses want to get on the map, and I don't know what tags to suggest. Should we invent something like office=online? Then it could be further specified with online:shop=clothes, online=pizza_delivery, or something like that. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
Placing online businesses on a world map may be more tricky than you think ... Yves "Janko Mihelić" a écrit : >Hi, > >Openstreetmap has been contributing to the Bitcoin revolution with this >map: > >http://coinmap.org/ > >the problem is that lots of online businesses want to get on the map, >and I >don't know what tags to suggest. Should we invent something like >office=online? Then it could be further specified with >online:shop=clothes, >online=pizza_delivery, or something like that. > >Janko > > > > >___ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
On 11/26/13 4:13 PM, Yves wrote: > Placing online businesses on a world map may be more tricky than you > think ... yes. the concept of a geographic location is sometimes challenging. when the business is running a web store in the cloud and outsourcing the order fulfillment then it's hard to say exactly where they are on the map. richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 26.11.2013 22:31, Richard Welty wrote: > yes. the concept of a geographic location is sometimes challenging. > when the business is running a web store in the cloud and > outsourcing the order fulfillment then it's hard to say exactly > where they are on the map. The probably don't care where the pin is as long as it somehow increases their search engine ranking ;) Bye Frederik - -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlRR/AAoJEOx/uhGAJu9HdZQIAJIhk4bMoCxfUJGYb31LOPYi t8r5/TRLJnVxCLmBhLyJ7uAT+bjz5ENIxveumeNa3VX8F8hg4rHFEFLe0nqKE1K0 sKEAN5v6q6XY4K4c+SMQo4EkEACD4UXwXQcKz/qp+3+QuD6O37WJBtYACUq2zXCK iWyUxPcFYTTChhGLGMdkt0SixeLopMXjvGavLRrcAsDDwmljti2lVV/mOlWYPYbW Zsxb+ZHxoaFiXN/WpA7wt5Tu4EDq5k7OfuuE4bsmVuB4Fc0/GNyqhUQXXWIh9iMo 5vYp/YiqcIpTw+DCALw5iELMqz+j+Tm2/UPO17lysNz6x0iwXM5Bl4ea5EcQ5n8= =knvQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
Do we really want to delete this data? Is there any value to it? What they usually show is the website headquarters. So maybe a good tag is office=website_headquaters. 2013/11/26 Frederik Ramm > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > On 26.11.2013 22:31, Richard Welty wrote: > > yes. the concept of a geographic location is sometimes challenging. > > when the business is running a web store in the cloud and > > outsourcing the order fulfillment then it's hard to say exactly > > where they are on the map. > > The probably don't care where the pin is as long as it somehow > increases their search engine ranking ;) > > Bye > Frederik > > - -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSlRR/AAoJEOx/uhGAJu9HdZQIAJIhk4bMoCxfUJGYb31LOPYi > t8r5/TRLJnVxCLmBhLyJ7uAT+bjz5ENIxveumeNa3VX8F8hg4rHFEFLe0nqKE1K0 > sKEAN5v6q6XY4K4c+SMQo4EkEACD4UXwXQcKz/qp+3+QuD6O37WJBtYACUq2zXCK > iWyUxPcFYTTChhGLGMdkt0SixeLopMXjvGavLRrcAsDDwmljti2lVV/mOlWYPYbW > Zsxb+ZHxoaFiXN/WpA7wt5Tu4EDq5k7OfuuE4bsmVuB4Fc0/GNyqhUQXXWIh9iMo > 5vYp/YiqcIpTw+DCALw5iELMqz+j+Tm2/UPO17lysNz6x0iwXM5Bl4ea5EcQ5n8= > =knvQ > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > 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] Bitcoin and Online shops
Janko Mihelić wrote: http://coinmap.org/ The video on there didn't mention adding a main tag at all when I watched it. the problem is that lots of online businesses want to get on the map, and I don't know what tags to suggest. Ignoring the online businesses, there are plenty of real-world businesses that have been added without real tags, and iD doesn't exactly make it obvious that it's useful for a shop to have a "shop" tag. The main discussion area seems to be here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=5cbm6g9p0nsgu1ui19v8hmrf41&topic=175900.0;all Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
