date:20140818

On 18 August 2014 07:20, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> Some minor objects may have category/image on Wikimedia Commons but have no
> wikidata and never will have -
> see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability

In which case, pick the best/ most representative image, and use the format:

   https://wikimedia_commons=File:St Paul Birmingham from south PP.jpg

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> > Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett <
> a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:
> >
> > OK, how's this :
> >
> >   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
> >
> > as a start?
>
>
> +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it is
> not in use...


+1, and now it is in use.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

2014-08-18 10:15 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> On 18 August 2014 07:20, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> > Some minor objects may have category/image on Wikimedia Commons but have
> no
> > wikidata and never will have -
> > see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
>
> In which case, pick the best/ most representative image, and use the
> format:
>
>https://wikimedia_commons=File:St Paul Birmingham from south PP.jpg
>

Or category, there is no notability requirement for commons categories. It
is not affecting directly this proposal, but some
object will have this tag, without any real chance for wikidata (how many
highway crossings passed notability threshold?).

I mentioned it on wiki.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

2014-08-18 Thread Simone Saviolo

2014-08-14 10:40 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :

> Hi,
>
> On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and
> > shop keys is not documented) -> amenity=ice_cream (4053)
>
> amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't imagine a lot of
> people actually coming up with that themselves - can it be a mass edit
> or an editor preset gone wrong?
>
> I mean, the amenity consists not in there being ice cream, but there
> being a place where you can get ice cream.
>
> That would like tagging amenity=bed for a hotel or amenity=food for a
> restaurant...


Not really. A gelateria is a very different thing from a bar, and it's not
"a shop that sells ice cream". At most you could use "ice cream parlour",
but amenity=ice_cream_parlour seems worse to me than the current tag.

Ciao,

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

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

I'm not sure what is a gelateria.
Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ?


2014-08-18 8:23 GMT-03:00 Simone Saviolo :

> 2014-08-14 10:40 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :
>
> Hi,
>>
>> On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> > shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and
>> > shop keys is not documented) -> amenity=ice_cream (4053)
>>
>> amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't imagine a lot of
>> people actually coming up with that themselves - can it be a mass edit
>> or an editor preset gone wrong?
>>
>> I mean, the amenity consists not in there being ice cream, but there
>> being a place where you can get ice cream.
>>
>> That would like tagging amenity=bed for a hotel or amenity=food for a
>> restaurant...
>
>
> Not really. A gelateria is a very different thing from a bar, and it's not
> "a shop that sells ice cream". At most you could use "ice cream parlour",
> but amenity=ice_cream_parlour seems worse to me than the current tag.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Simone
>
> ___
> 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] Commons: mixed purposes

Perhaps such a category should only be tagged exactly when it's not linked
on a wikidata page.
Otherwise it seems unnecessary.

As Andreas mentioned, if people can add this tag even when it's linked on
the wikidata page, eventually people will start adding wikiquote=*
wikivoyage=* and so on.

Indeed, in most cases wikipedia=* can be redundant when there is already a
wikidata=* key, but wikipedia=* is a well-established key, which is not the
case of wikimedia_commons=*

In other words, don't need to fix what ain't broken.



2014-08-18 3:20 GMT-03:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
>
>
> 2014-08-17 20:45 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :
>
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Andy Mabbett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What should we sue to link to Wikimedia commons categories like:
>>>
>>>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:St_Paul,_Birmingham
>>>
>>> I've previously used Wikimedia_Commons=, but that's verbose; and I
>>> seem to be alone in doing so.
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't linking using the wikidata=* tag be better as the Wikidata entry
>> for St Paul's Church in Birmingham should link to the appropriate page or
>> category on Wikimedia Commons?
>>
>> So I would tag the OSM object representing St Paul's Church as
>> wikidata=Q915614
>>
>
> Some minor objects may have category/image on Wikimedia Commons but have
> no wikidata and never will have -
> see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
>
> ___
> 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] problem with bicycle=designated

bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated&redirect=no
is just redirect, to page that describes hopelessly inclusive rules "It
may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport (i.e. normally
a
vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed), or may be just a
suggested
route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some
particular streets are recommended and signed as such.)".

According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial
=designated "often includes ways that have no legal
dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club" - maybe
"often"
is not correct, but such tagging would not be against what is described on
wiki.

bicycle=designated is described as standard for tagging of official
cycleways, but
AFAIK it is not defined on wiki that it should be used exclusively for this
purpose.

So how one should tag in following situations?

1) official cycleway
2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal
3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but
usually nobody
bothers to enforce this rule
4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal
5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other
rules
change this
6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal
7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to
enforce this rule
8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced

I would use

1) [highway=cycleway] (bicycle=designated is implied) or [highway=path;
bicycle=designated]
2) nothing iff bicycle=yes is implied, bicycle=yes otherwise
3) nothing iff bicycle=no is implied, bicycle=no otherwise
4) see above
5) bicycle=yes
6, 7, 8) tag route as relation, with bicycle access tagged as above

but according to wiki

1) may be tagged also using bicycle=official
5) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("normally a vehicle is banned,
but in
this case it is allowed")
6, 7, 8) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("a suggested route")

What more, there are people interested in different tags for situation 3)
and 4)
(usually they want to use bicycle=designated for 3).

I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about

I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official
II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official
III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official
IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to
bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status

I and II are not solving "I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes"
II in addition would mean that say horse=designated and bicycle=designated
follows different logic
III would mean that multiple data consumers need to follow tagging change
IV is an ugly hack that would be sooner or later followed by III
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

Am 18.08.2014 10:15, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer  >:
> 
> 
> 
> > Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett
> mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> ha
> scritto:
> >
> > OK, how's this :
> >
> >   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
> >
> > as a start?
> 
> 
> +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it
> is not in use...
> 
> 
> +1, and now it is in use.

Come one, some few uses are no argument for an established tag in common
use. Please, move it under the proposal name space.

Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main
name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and
it would ease administration.

cu fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

2014-08-18 Thread Simone Saviolo

2014-08-18 13:41 GMT+02:00 John Packer :

> I'm not sure what is a gelateria.
> Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ?
>

Pretty much the same way as a pub could be tagged amenity=restaurant +
cuisine=burgers + alcohol=yes.

Regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Volker Schmidt

> So how one should tag in following situations?
>
> 1) official cycleway
>
bicycle=designated or official
This implies in many countries the obligation to use the cycleway if
running parallel to a road

2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal
>
bicycle=yes

3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but
> usually nobody bothers to enforce this rule
>
I use bicycle=permissive for the frequent situation here in Italy that a
road is signed to be closed for all vehicles, but in reality bicycles were
simply not considered in the decision to put the sign. This approach is a
personal solution for the dilemma that the official sign is contradictory
to the reality.


> 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal
>
If it's implicit in some other tagging, nothing. Otherwise bicycle=no

5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other
> rules
> change this
>
bicycle=yes if not implicit in some other tagging

6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal
>

nothing. A signed cycle route is defined by a corresponding relation


> 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to
> enforce this rule
>
I would put bicycle=permissive ot he way. Then a router can use the way if
it wants to give precedence to cycle routes (by evaluating relations)

8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced
>
The illegality is implicit or explicit in the tagging of the way. I would
normally not include such ways in a bicycle route relation. However,
sometimes it makes sense to include a short footway or a short piece of
road against its oneway direction. In this case the router can route over
it, but at a penalty equivalent to bicycle=dismount.


>
>
> I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about
>
> I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official
>
I thought they are already eqivalent


> II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official
>
I thought they are already eqivalent


> III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official
>
No

> IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to
> bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status
>
No

>
> I and II are not solving "I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes"
>

"Popular cycling routes" are anyway not objects that should be tagged in
OSM unless they are signposted on the ground. If signposted, use relations
for tagging.

Volker
(Italy, but expressing personal views that are not necessarily shared by
other mappers)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

2014-08-18 Thread phil

cuisine = crisps in a pub :)

The nearest in English for gelateria is ice cream parlour.

Phil (trigpoint )

On Mon Aug 18 2014 14:00:07 GMT+0100 (BST), Simone Saviolo wrote:
> 2014-08-18 13:41 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
> 
> > I'm not sure what is a gelateria.
> > Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ?
> >
> 
> Pretty much the same way as a pub could be tagged amenity=restaurant +
> cuisine=burgers + alcohol=yes.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simone
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

Am 18.08.2014 14:38, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated&redirect=no
> is just redirect, to page that describes hopelessly inclusive rules "It
> may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport (i.e.
> normally a
> vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed), or may be just a
> suggested
> route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some
> particular streets are recommended and signed as such.)".
> 
> According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial
> =designated "often includes ways that have no legal
> dedication like e.g. recommended routes of a local bicycle club" - maybe
> "often"
> is not correct, but such tagging would not be against what is described
> on wiki.
> 
> bicycle=designated is described as standard for tagging of official
> cycleways, but
> AFAIK it is not defined on wiki that it should be used exclusively for
> this purpose.
> 
> So how one should tag in following situations?
> 
> 1) official cycleway
> 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal
> 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but
> usually nobody
> bothers to enforce this rule
> 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal
> 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other
> rules change this
> 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal
> 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to
> enforce this rule
> 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced
> 
> I would use
> 
> 1) [highway=cycleway] (bicycle=designated is implied) or [highway=path;
> bicycle=designated]
> 2) nothing if bicycle=yes is implied, bicycle=yes otherwise
> 3) nothing if bicycle=no is implied, bicycle=no otherwise
> 4) see above
> 5) bicycle=yes
> 6, 7, 8) tag route as relation, with bicycle access tagged as above
> 
> but according to wiki
> 
> 1) may be tagged also using bicycle=official
> 5) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("normally a vehicle is
> banned, but in
> this case it is allowed")
> 6, 7, 8) should be tagged as bicycle=designated ("a suggested route")
> 
> What more, there are people interested in different tags for situation
> 3) and 4)
> (usually they want to use bicycle=designated for 3).
> 
> I am not sure what would be the best solution of situation. I thought about
> 
> I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official
> II) defining bicycle=designated to be like =official
> III) retagging bicycle=designated on official cycleways to bicycle=official
> IV) creation of new tag official_cycleway=yes/no that may be applied to
> bicycle=designated ways that would clarify status
> 
> I and II are not solving "I want to tag illegal but popular bicycle routes"
> II in addition would mean that say horse=designated and bicycle=designated
> follows different logic
> III would mean that multiple data consumers need to follow tagging change
> IV is an ugly hack that would be sooner or later followed by III

In Germany "designated" is equal to "official". Everything else is "yes"
if legal or "no" if illegal.

As addition we have bicycle=use_sidepath if the official cycleway is
tagged as separated way.

I would not take the relations in count but tag the access of the highways.

My problem with official is/was that:
1. the original proposer stepped back
2. the only software, I know, that is supporting the value is JOSM
3. Last but least many mappers did change it back cause of 2.

I am still in favour of "official" as stricter term of "designated" but
only if you have a con-sense in meaning and usage.

My 2 ct

fly
Some

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

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 15:20 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :

> I) redefining =designated to the definition of =official
>>
> I thought they are already eqivalent
>

There are differences. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

For example according to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
bicycle=designated may be tagged
on "suggested route", in general conditions are unclear and really
inclusive.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Richard Welty

On 8/18/14 9:20 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> So how one should tag in following situations?
>
> 1) official cycleway
>
> bicycle=designated or official
> This implies in many countries the obligation to use the cycleway if
> running parallel to a road
official is not in the wiki here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
designated is in the wiki, i suggest that it is therefore preferable.

i have seen a different interpretation of official, which indicates that
it is
for "official" vehicles. perhaps this ambiguity is another reason to
steer clear
of it.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Andre Engels

I myself, and I think more Dutch mappers, are using bicycle=designated
(along with highway=residential or perhaps highway=unclassified) for a
so called "fietsstraat" ("cyclestreet"). It's a road that has been set
up for bicycles, but has access for all road users. Often they have a
board like 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Fietsstraat.JPG/207px-Fietsstraat.JPG
(text: "Cyclestreet - Cars are guests").

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> So how one should tag in following situations?
I would tag as follows:

> 1) official cycleway
highway=cycleway

> 2) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is legal
highway=footway/path, bicycle=yes

> 3) road/footway/path widely used by cyclists, cycling is illegal but usually
> nobody
> bothers to enforce this rule
highway=footway/path, bicycle=permissive

> 4) road/footway/path not used widely by cyclists, cycling is illegal
highway=footway (bicycle=no implied) or highway=/path, bicycle = no

> 5) road where normally cyclists are banned but special signs/some other
> rules
> change this
bicycle=yes

> 6) signed cycle route, cycling is legal
Whichever of the above applies

> 7) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal but usually nobody bothers to
> enforce this rule
Idem

> 8) signed cycle route, cycling is illegal and this rule is enforced
Idem

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] horse=designated for recommend routes?

2014-08-12 3:06 GMT+02:00 fly :

> Am 11.08.2014 13:44, schrieb Simon Poole:
> >
> > Unluckily http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> > includes
> >
> > "or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most
> > jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are
> > recommended and signed as such.) "
> >
> > Which I personally consider a holdover from days long past which has
> > been replaced by actually mapping routes (which clearly do have a
> > "recommended" character). Naturally adding *=offical (which is
> > essentially a German tag), hasn't made the confusion any less.
>
> Especially, as official was/is not supported by a lot of software and as
> the author of the proposal did step back.
>
> Myself did change quite a lot back to designated as other mappers did
> already revert parts of my changes.
>
> cu fly
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:access%3Ddesignated I added
proposal to remove "or may be just a suggested route
(e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some
particular streets are recommended and signed as such.) ".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

Am 18.08.2014 15:36, schrieb Andre Engels:
> I myself, and I think more Dutch mappers, are using bicycle=designated
> (along with highway=residential or perhaps highway=unclassified) for a
> so called "fietsstraat" ("cyclestreet"). It's a road that has been set
> up for bicycles, but has access for all road users. Often they have a
> board like 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Fietsstraat.JPG/207px-Fietsstraat.JPG
> (text: "Cyclestreet - Cars are guests").

This is ok, but note there exists bicycle_road=yes [1].

cu fly



[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_road


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

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels :

> > 1) official cycleway
> highway=cycleway
>

What about something that is both footway and cyleway (segregated or not
segregated)?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Richard Welty

On 8/18/14 9:42 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-08-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels  >:
>
> > 1) official cycleway
> highway=cycleway
>
>
> What about something that is both footway and cyleway (segregated or
> not segregated)?
>
these are common around here (upstate NY) and my preference has been to
tag like this:

highway=path
foot=yes
bicycle=yes

(or maybe designated.)

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

Am 18.08.2014 15:42, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-08-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels  >:
> 
> > 1) official cycleway
> highway=cycleway
> 
> 
> What about something that is both footway and cyleway (segregated or not
> segregated)?

highway=path
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
segregated=yes/no
(vehicle=no) implied by path

cu fly


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

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Tobias Knerr

On 18.08.2014 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> For example according to
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
> bicycle=designated may be tagged
> on "suggested route", in general conditions are unclear and really
> inclusive.

I believe that part of the "designated" wiki page is wrong, at least
based on my regionally biased experience. There is also no reason for
using an access tag to map routes because we have route relations for that.

So imo we should remove that section about routes, and ideally we would
also deprecate the now redundant "official" value.

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

[Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

Hey

On the English wiki page [1] "comma" is the proposed separator for
several values of addr:housenumber.

This contradicts our rule of using "semi-colon" as separator of values
and I do not have a clue why.

I propose to deprecate "comma" and use "semi-colon" instead to harmonize
our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values.

What do you think ?

Cheers fly


[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers

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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

I believe comma is used instead of semi-colon because the key
addr:housenumber frequently gets rendered, and comma is the common
separator symbol for end users.


2014-08-18 11:04 GMT-03:00 fly :

> Hey
>
> On the English wiki page [1] "comma" is the proposed separator for
> several values of addr:housenumber.
>
> This contradicts our rule of using "semi-colon" as separator of values
> and I do not have a clue why.
>
> I propose to deprecate "comma" and use "semi-colon" instead to harmonize
> our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values.
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Cheers fly
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers
>
> ___
> 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] separator for addr:housenumber=*

2014-08-18 Thread Dan S

2014-08-18 15:04 GMT+01:00 fly :
> Hey
>
> On the English wiki page [1] "comma" is the proposed separator for
> several values of addr:housenumber.
>
> This contradicts our rule of using "semi-colon" as separator of values
> and I do not have a clue why.

Probably led by what users are already doing, and probably because
renderers produce natural-looking results for places where commas are
conventional. This could be considered tagging-for-the-renderer, if it
weren't already an established micro-convention. I agree with you it's
out of step with convention for other tags.

> I propose to deprecate "comma" and use "semi-colon" instead to harmonize
> our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values.
>
> What do you think ?

I don't mind. I'm happy with your proposal, if there's enough support for it.

To prevent the tagging-for-the-renderer, it would help if the main
styles would automatically convert "1;3" to "1, 3" when rendering -
I'd be surprised if they already do that, but it would help your
proposal actually happen!

Dan

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

[Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects

2014-08-18 Thread Dan S

Hi taggers,

When mapping recently, I encountered many addresses which contain
multiple housenumbers behind single entrances. I've used interpolation
before, and used it in the "traditional" sense to map a range along a
row of houses. But here we have an interpolated range on a single
object, not spread across a spatial extent.

I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a
single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a
building:

  addr:housenumber=100-126
  addr:interpolation=even
  addr:street=Malmesbury Road

Please note that:
 * These house numbers are _not_ flat numbers. That is clear on the ground.
 * From the outside of the block there's no spatial distribution of
those numbers 100-126 so they can't sensibly be represented as a
"traditional" interpolation from one addr to another.

Today (thanks to Fly's email about something else) I noticed that the
wiki says this tagging shouldn't be used. It says:

> You may also add a short way and use addr:interpolation=*. Don't specify the 
> range (e.g., "10-95") directly in the addr:housenumber=* tag. It is 
> impossible to distinguish such ranges from house numbers that officially 
> contain a dash.

I beg to differ. it _is_ possible to distinguish such ranges, because
of the addr:interpolation tag. I certainly understand that software
doesn't currently know that an addr:interpolation tag indicates it may
parse addr:housenumber as a range, but this tagging seemed so
plausible to me that I didn't question it.

Adding a short fake way so that there are addr endpoints seems like a
total hack to me.

How would you tag it?

Best
Dan

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

Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects

2014-08-18 Thread Janko Mihelić

Maybe the cleanest solution is the proposed node relation:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Node

Although that wouldn't give the entrance an attribute with all those
addresses, it would just pile the addresses on top of the entrance. I'm not
sure. Interpolation tag sounds hacky, but maybe that's better because it
gives the entrance an attribute of all those addresses.


2014-08-18 16:29 GMT+02:00 Dan S :

> Hi taggers,
>
> When mapping recently, I encountered many addresses which contain
> multiple housenumbers behind single entrances. I've used interpolation
> before, and used it in the "traditional" sense to map a range along a
> row of houses. But here we have an interpolated range on a single
> object, not spread across a spatial extent.
>
> I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a
> single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a
> building:
>
>   addr:housenumber=100-126
>   addr:interpolation=even
>   addr:street=Malmesbury Road
>
> Please note that:
>  * These house numbers are _not_ flat numbers. That is clear on the ground.
>  * From the outside of the block there's no spatial distribution of
> those numbers 100-126 so they can't sensibly be represented as a
> "traditional" interpolation from one addr to another.
>
> Today (thanks to Fly's email about something else) I noticed that the
> wiki says this tagging shouldn't be used. It says:
>
> > You may also add a short way and use addr:interpolation=*. Don't specify
> the range (e.g., "10-95") directly in the addr:housenumber=* tag. It is
> impossible to distinguish such ranges from house numbers that officially
> contain a dash.
>
> I beg to differ. it _is_ possible to distinguish such ranges, because
> of the addr:interpolation tag. I certainly understand that software
> doesn't currently know that an addr:interpolation tag indicates it may
> parse addr:housenumber as a range, but this tagging seemed so
> plausible to me that I didn't question it.
>
> Adding a short fake way so that there are addr endpoints seems like a
> total hack to me.
>
> How would you tag it?
>
> Best
> Dan
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

2014-08-18 Thread Pieren

I'm afraid that the main problem here is not the use "location" or
"layer" or "cave" but "highway=path". This tag was created for
multiple vehicles ways, not exclusive to a transportation like
footways or cycleways. Currently the wiki tries to reflect this in the
"path" definition:

"A route open to the public which is not intended for motor vehicles,
unless so tagged separately. This includes snowmobile trails, ski
trails, hiking trails, horse trails, bike trails and paths, mountain
bike trails as well as combinations of the above and other modes of
transportation. "

Unfortunatelly, this tag was abusively (impov) reused later for
climbing routes. And now for caving. But none of these activities are
open to the main public, requires special skills and equipments (incl.
for survey) and, as already mentionned, needs a better handling of
elevation data which is not easy in our model. I'm afraid that the
main reason to not create new "highway" tags was/is to see them
immediately on the rendered maps...

That's why I would prefer something new like "highway=cave" (or
whatever you like) without any additional mandatory tags like
"location=underground" (correct me if I'm wrong but a cave is always
underground). That would not be immediately visible on the map but
data consumers requesting "all highway path in Poland" could also
safely ignore this creation.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects

Am 18.08.2014 16:29, schrieb Dan S:
> Hi taggers,
> 
> When mapping recently, I encountered many addresses which contain
> multiple housenumbers behind single entrances. I've used interpolation
> before, and used it in the "traditional" sense to map a range along a
> row of houses. But here we have an interpolated range on a single
> object, not spread across a spatial extent.
> 
> I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a
> single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a
> building:
> 
>   addr:housenumber=100-126
>   addr:interpolation=even
>   addr:street=Malmesbury Road
> 
> Please note that:
>  * These house numbers are _not_ flat numbers. That is clear on the ground.
>  * From the outside of the block there's no spatial distribution of
> those numbers 100-126 so they can't sensibly be represented as a
> "traditional" interpolation from one addr to another.
> 
> Today (thanks to Fly's email about something else) I noticed that the
> wiki says this tagging shouldn't be used. It says:
> 
>> You may also add a short way and use addr:interpolation=*. Don't specify the 
>> range (e.g., "10-95") directly in the addr:housenumber=* tag. It is 
>> impossible to distinguish such ranges from house numbers that officially 
>> contain a dash.
> 
> I beg to differ. it _is_ possible to distinguish such ranges, because
> of the addr:interpolation tag. I certainly understand that software
> doesn't currently know that an addr:interpolation tag indicates it may
> parse addr:housenumber as a range, but this tagging seemed so
> plausible to me that I didn't question it.
> 
> Adding a short fake way so that there are addr endpoints seems like a
> total hack to me.
> 
> How would you tag it?

Alternatively, you could tag the housenumbers as a list. (

Thought addr:interpolation is only defined for ways but your definition
for nodes seems fine to me and it is useful for nodes or areas with
multiple housenumbers

When used on ways you should use the start/end node to define the range
and  not tag it on the way that is why it is mentioned on the wiki.

cu fly



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

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined.

I didn't understand bicycle=designated until I visited Germany for the first
time earlier this year. Now I realise why it's used... though I still
strongly disagree with it.

bicycle=designated exists so that (German) cycleways with the standard sign
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Zeichen_237.svg/120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png)
can be tagged:
highway=path
bicycle=designated

This is distinct from "footpath but bikes are permitted", which is indicated
in Germany by a sign like
http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/bicycle-muenster/bicycle-free.gif, and which would
be tagged:
highway=path
foot=designated
bicycle=yes

Of course, this is yet more nonsense that only exists because of the
accursed 'highway=path' tag.

The first scenario can simply be tagged 'highway=cycleway' and the second
one 'highway=footway, bicycle=yes'. More concise, more clear. But that's
'highway=path' for you.

The "recommended routes" stuff appears to be a recent addition and is wrong
in any case. Routes that are recommended with route signs should be in route
relations. Routes that are only recommended in someone else's book or map
shouldn't be in OSM at all.

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/problem-with-bicycle-designated-tp5814781p5814821.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] problem with bicycle=designated

Am 18.08.2014 19:00, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
> Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> bicycle=designated is widely used but it not well defined.
> 
> I didn't understand bicycle=designated until I visited Germany for the first
> time earlier this year. Now I realise why it's used... though I still
> strongly disagree with it.
> 
> bicycle=designated exists so that (German) cycleways with the standard sign
> (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Zeichen_237.svg/120px-Zeichen_237.svg.png)
> can be tagged:
> highway=path
> bicycle=designated
> 
> This is distinct from "footpath but bikes are permitted", which is indicated
> in Germany by a sign like
> http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/bicycle-muenster/bicycle-free.gif, and which would
> be tagged:
> highway=path
> foot=designated
> bicycle=yes
> 
> Of course, this is yet more nonsense that only exists because of the
> accursed 'highway=path' tag.
> 
> The first scenario can simply be tagged 'highway=cycleway' and the second
> one 'highway=footway, bicycle=yes'. More concise, more clear. But that's
> 'highway=path' for you.

No, highway is not part of the problem except of shared ways (segregated
or not).

The problem is the access definition which excludes other modes from
usage and has even legal impact on using parallel road next to it.

Cheers fly


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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

2014-08-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



> Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 16:04, fly  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> I propose to deprecate "comma" and use "semi-colon" instead to harmonize
> our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values.


+1

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

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



> Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 19:00, Richard Fairhurst 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Of course, this is yet more nonsense that only exists because of the
> accursed 'highway=path' tag.
> 
> The first scenario can simply be tagged 'highway=cycleway' and the second
> one 'highway=footway, bicycle=yes'. More concise, more clear. But that's
> 'highway=path' for you.l


I think the main reason for introducing the path key were ways which don't have 
explicit signage (neither foot nor bicycle or horse), the key was originally 
proposed by someone with his focus on horse riding.

Another point was that ways with signs like this
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png

are neither cycleways nor footways, they are both at the same time (especially 
the segregated=no version). Before path was introduced the "rule" was to use 
the preferred means of transport or the "higher" one, what didn't make a lot of 
sense neither. The real "mess" was that the highway=footway and cycleway tags 
weren't deprecated when path was introduced (too much resistance was expected), 
but contributors have gotten used to it.

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

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread SomeoneElse


On 18/08/2014 20:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Another point was that ways with signs like this 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png 
are neither cycleways nor footways, they are both at the same time 
(especially the segregated=no version).


They _exactly_ fit the British English definition of a cycleway, 
actually (in fact, most places that I've been apart from Germany) - you 
can both walk and cycle on them.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

2014-08-18 Thread Janko Mihelić

What happens when the same entrance has two housenumbers, each from its own
street? I'm sure this exists somewhere.


2014-08-18 21:29 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> > Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 16:04, fly 
> ha scritto:
> >
> > I propose to deprecate "comma" and use "semi-colon" instead to harmonize
> > our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values.
>
>
> +1
>
> 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] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Volker Schmidt

You mean the British legal definition of cycleway.

Just to ad another bit of legal aspects in this. In Italy, on ways signed
like like this
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png, the
pedestran has priority over he cyclist.



On 18 August 2014 22:00, SomeoneElse  wrote:

> On 18/08/2014 20:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Another point was that ways with signs like this
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/120px-Zeichen_241.svg.png
>> are neither cycleways nor footways, they are both at the same time
>> (especially the segregated=no version).
>>
>
> They _exactly_ fit the British English definition of a cycleway, actually
> (in fact, most places that I've been apart from Germany) - you can both
> walk and cycle on them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 22:45 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :

> You mean the British legal definition of cycleway.
>
> Just to ad another bit of legal aspects in this. In Italy, on ways signed
> like like this
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png, the
> pedestran has priority over he cyclist.
>

This is true also for Poland, and cyclist may not use road next to route
like this that would lead in the same direction.
And there is a separate name for ways signed like this (ciąg
pieszo-rowerowy).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

2014-08-18 Thread Janko Mihelić

Commons is getting its own Wikibase installation, in addition to being
present in Wikidata. So every photograph, video or audio is going to have
it's own Commons Wikibase ID, with structured properties about that item.
Each category will probably have it's own ID as well. The problem is, this
won't come out for another year, more or less.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikidata_for_media_info
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Structured_Data
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2014-August/004332.html


2014-08-18 14:43 GMT+02:00 fly :

> Am 18.08.2014 10:15, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer  > >:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett
> > mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> ha
> > scritto:
> > >
> > > OK, how's this :
> > >
> > >   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
> > >
> > > as a start?
> >
> >
> > +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it
> > is not in use...
> >
> >
> > +1, and now it is in use.
>
> Come one, some few uses are no argument for an established tag in common
> use. Please, move it under the proposal name space.
>
> Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main
> name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and
> it would ease administration.
>
> cu fly
>
>
> ___
> 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] Commons: mixed purposes

> Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main
> name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and it
> would ease administration.
>
I think that's the closest to what you want:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/taginfo/apidoc#api_4_keys_all


2014-08-18 9:43 GMT-03:00 fly :

> Am 18.08.2014 10:15, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer  > >:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett
> > mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> ha
> > scritto:
> > >
> > > OK, how's this :
> > >
> > >   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
> > >
> > > as a start?
> >
> >
> > +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it
> > is not in use...
> >
> >
> > +1, and now it is in use.
>
> Come one, some few uses are no argument for an established tag in common
> use. Please, move it under the proposal name space.
>
> Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main
> name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and
> it would ease administration.
>
> cu fly
>
>
> ___
> 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] interpolated housenumbers on single objects

2014-08-18 Thread Holger Jeromin

fly wrote on 18.08.2014 17:40:
> Am 18.08.2014 16:29, schrieb Dan S:
>> I intuitively re-used the addr:interpolation tag, but applied it to a
>> single object. For example we might have this on a single node or a
>> building:
>>   addr:housenumber=100-126
>>   addr:interpolation=even
>>   addr:street=Malmesbury Road

exactly what i have done in some buildings in Aachen. The sign/reality
(ground truth :) is exactly represented and additionally housenumber 101
is not searched here by interpolation.

>> How would you tag it?
> Alternatively, you could tag the housenumbers as a list. (

But the list could be long (and ugly *duck*) and es not representing
reality.

You do not want to expand w159099798 to
addr:housenumber=15,17,19,21,23,25,27

-- 
regards
Holger Jeromin


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

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

On 18 August 2014 13:43, fly  wrote:

> Please, move it under the proposal name space.

To what end?

Is there a counter proposal that means this might not be used?

Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used?

Or is this just needless bureaucracy?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

On 18 August 2014 22:00, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Commons is getting its own Wikibase installation, in addition to being
> present in Wikidata. So every photograph, video or audio is going to have
> it's own Commons Wikibase ID, with structured properties about that item.
> Each category will probably have it's own ID as well. The problem is, this
> won't come out for another year, more or less.

At which point a script can be used to flip existing tags to the new structure.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

Andy,

Usually there is no problem in creating a page documented the key or tag
you want to use.
I don't think this case is an exception.

The only thing is that a key/tag documented without a proposal is more
likely to have a future merge/redefinition/deprecation/etc.


2014-08-18 18:57 GMT-03:00 Andy Mabbett :

> On 18 August 2014 13:43, fly  wrote:
>
> > Please, move it under the proposal name space.
>
> To what end?
>
> Is there a counter proposal that means this might not be used?
>
> Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used?
>
> Or is this just needless bureaucracy?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Commons: mixed purposes

2014-08-18 Thread Tobias Knerr

On 18.08.2014 23:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used?

The key itself is probably relatively uncontroversial, but the details
need some discussion.

For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of
the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there
will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace
commons links or whether they should coexist.

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

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

>
> For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of
> the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there
> will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace
> commons links or whether they should coexist.

+1

2014-08-18 19:38 GMT-03:00 Tobias Knerr :

> On 18.08.2014 23:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used?
>
> The key itself is probably relatively uncontroversial, but the details
> need some discussion.
>
> For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of
> the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there
> will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace
> commons links or whether they should coexist.
>
> ___
> 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] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

2014-08-18 Thread Heiko Wöhrle

 

Hi everybody,

i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted
but is nevertheless in use.

Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism

Best regards, 
Heiko
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

On 18 August 2014 23:38, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> The key itself is probably relatively uncontroversial, but the details
> need some discussion.

I guess that's why we use a wiki, not tablets of stone. Be my guest.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

Heiko,

You added the key naturism=* to the proposal.
Is this also being voted on, or is the proposal just mentioning there are
some uses of this other key ?


2014-08-18 20:08 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle :

>  Hi everybody,
>
> i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but is 
> nevertheless in use.
>
> Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism
>
> Best regards,
> Heiko
>
>
> ___
> 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] problem with bicycle=designated

2014-08-18 Thread Pee Wee

In The Netherlands we more or less have agreement on this scheme
for
tagging cycleways, cycle streets. I've also noticed this is totally
different from the schemes used in Germany and other countries. During the
discussion on the proposal use_cycleway

(now accepted tag=  use_sidepath
) we've seen
there are many (legal) differences between countries.  There is no
agreement on how to tag different kind of cycleways. That's been a reason
for me to start tagging the traffic_sign tag on cycleways
.
Once we get to an agreement on how to explicitly tag these we can easily
change that based on the traffic_sign tag.

My 2 cents
PeeWee32


2014-08-18 22:51 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
>
>
> 2014-08-18 22:45 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
> You mean the British legal definition of cycleway.
>>
>> Just to ad another bit of legal aspects in this. In Italy, on ways signed
>> like like this
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png, the
>> pedestran has priority over he cyclist.
>>
>
> This is true also for Poland, and cyclist may not use road next to route
> like this that would lead in the same direction.
> And there is a separate name for ways signed like this (ciąg
> pieszo-rowerowy).
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

2014-08-18 Thread phil

Naturism is the preferred term for nudism, as naturist is the preferred term 
for a nudist.

Nudust/nudism are not normally used terms for clubs or beaches.

The proposal should be changed to Naturism.

Phil (trigpoint )

On Tue Aug 19 2014 00:18:04 GMT+0100 (BST), John Packer wrote:
> Heiko,
> 
> You added the key naturism=* to the proposal.
> Is this also being voted on, or is the proposal just mentioning there are
> some uses of this other key ?
> 
> 
> 2014-08-18 20:08 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle :
> 
> >  Hi everybody,
> >
> > i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but 
> > is nevertheless in use.
> >
> > Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Heiko
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

2014-08-18 Thread Heiko Wöhrle

 

Hi John, 

yes i would like to bring that to vote.It is an attempt to unify the
tagging for this purpose. 

I just changed the status to proposed and set a voting date. 

Best regards, 

Heiko 

Am 19.08.2014 01:18, schrieb John Packer: 

> Heiko,
> 
> You added the key naturism=* to the proposal. Is this also being voted on, or 
> is the proposal just mentioning there are some uses of this other key ? 
> 
> 2014-08-18 20:08 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle :
> 
>> Hi everybody,
>> 
>> i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but 
>> is nevertheless in use.
>> 
>> Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal:
>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism
>> 
>> Best regards, 
>> Heiko
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]

-- 
Heiko Wöhrle

Lierstrasse 20
80639 München
m 0176 56202550
 

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

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes