Re: [Tagging] The "not-shops": industrial, industry, or business
Hi, On 09/02/2014 11:39 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote: > This is not a tagging for the render issue - we are > missing a valuable tag to describe the type of business. I wonder - and have wondered the same for the existing universes of shop= and office= - where will this end? I mean, it is not impossible to have a fork lift hire company that only rents out fork lifts in numbers of 10 or more, that on the side also has an "adventure" business arm where on the weekends, families can practice fork lifting, and also offers consulting for large fork lift operations. And bakes pretzels. Do we aim to capture every possible business model with our tags? Do we aim to be the ultimate business directory where someone who needs two fork lifts for 14 days can find out where exactly he can get two (not only one) fork lifts for 14 days (not only monthly), and so on? I'm inclined to say: let's keep it as generic as possible - but then what is the right generic term for a fork lift hire company? Is it "some kind of vehicle hire"? If they rent out earth-moving equipment, are they "some kind of vehicle hire" or rather "some kind of construction business"? Mappers will always find it easier to tag the concrete thing they see rather than make the mental abstraction to find out what the generic version is. But we can't have a catalogue of tens of thousands of business types (none of which would cover the fork hire with optional pretzels anyway), Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The "not-shops": industrial, industry, or business
2014-09-03 11:07 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > I'm inclined to say: let's keep it as generic as possible - but then > what is the right generic term for a fork lift hire company? Is it "some > kind of vehicle hire"? If they rent out earth-moving equipment, are they > "some kind of vehicle hire" or rather "some kind of construction business"? > it is indeed a problem that you have to decide in OSM. Maybe this second company is both, "construction business" and "vehicle hire"? Maybe someone looking to rent earth-moving equipment might search in both categories when in need for a new provider? > > Mappers will always find it easier to tag the concrete thing they see > rather than make the mental abstraction to find out what the generic > version is. But we can't have a catalogue of tens of thousands of > business types (none of which would cover the fork hire with optional > pretzels anyway), > so what is your suggestion? business=yes name=xy? I agree that we might not be able to capture all fine details about the offerings and services a company has put on the market, but we should IMHO have some reasonably detailed (not too generic) categories that allow for a search to create a basis on which you can then phone the individual company for more details. This is something you will probably have to do anyway, because the fork lift company might have temporarily run out of fork lifts in the size you need. Another thing that comes to my mind: maybe we could indeed create this catalogue of tens of thousands of business types - who if not us will be able to do such a work? This doesn't imply the mapper would have to scroll long lists of thousands of entries, it could be well structured from coarse to fine. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The "not-shops": industrial, industry, or business
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:39:10PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote: > 1. A fork lift truck hire company (business to business sales). > 2. A commercial bakery selling to business producing goods in their > premises and delivering them to the customer. > 3. A audio equipment company selling and hiring equipment to professional > broadcast companies. > > In all three cases shop=* doesn't seem right as these are business to > business sales (b2b) and are often delivered rather than picked up by the > customer. The trade tag might cover some of all of those cases. It covers in particular business-to-business places. It was originally used for companies like builders' merchants who often also did retail sales. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade You might extend the subtags (industrial maybe?). However, I agree that the "shop" in shop=trade may not feel quite right for the places you describe. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The "not-shops": industrial, industry, or business
Hi, On 09/03/2014 11:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > so what is your suggestion? business=yes name=xy? I would have written it if I had a good suggestion. Maybe business=yes name=xyz keywords=fork lift hire,pretzels,adventure however this seems almost a bit too inviting for our SEO friends ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The "not-shops": industrial, industry, or business
On 3 September 2014 10:07, Frederik Ramm wrote: > what is the right generic term for a fork lift hire company? It's within the realm of plant hire, so perhaps something like: business=yes business_industry=plant_hire business_product=fork_lift ensuring a hierarchy of generic -> specific tagging? Speaking more generally, there exist several taxonomies and schemas, from which we could borrow. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else
Currently in OSM we have two tags to describe some kind of slope that also get rendered in the mapnik chart and a couple of others: natural=cliff embankment (in the form man_made=embankment (feature) and embankment=yes (attribute)) Is this categorisation sufficient for any type of slope? There's the question whether "natural" is appropriate as there are also man made steep slopes. And there recvently arose the question whether the english term "embankment" only covers slopes beside a road/railroad/river etc. or a general slope. The wiki defines embankments as accompanying a line object (road/railroad/river). For these the attribute form embankment=* is foreseen. However it only defines embankment=yes, ignoring the fact that an embankment con be only one-sided (left or right). This kind of tagging is also used. There are cases where one needs to map slopes beside a line object that itself is man_made=*. So the slope should be an attribute to the line. Would embankment=yes/right/left/both be the correct tag in your opinion? Regards, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else
> Il giorno 03/set/2014, alle ore 14:25, Zecke ha > scritto: > > Currently in OSM we have two tags to describe some kind of slope that also > get rendered in the mapnik chart and a couple of others: > natural=cliff > embankment (in the form man_made=embankment (feature) and embankment=yes > (attribute)) not sure if a cliff qualifies as slope in English, but there is also cutting to define slopes. I agree that cutting and embankment are meant to be attributes for other ways they apply to (like railway or highway), and there might be room for another, more generic key to use independently to describe the terrain. My proposal would be barrier=slope (implied or maybe not, by embankment and cutting). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] The "not-shops": industrial, industry, or business
Thanks for the responses so far. I'm not suggesting a business=tag_what_ever_you_like tag. In fact I only really care about having a suitable key. I like business=* as this covers everything, but you could say that business is used as a level 1 tag and then level 2 tags would be shop=, craft=, office= plus the addition of industrial= and commercial= for everything else. Rob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
Does it have bike route signage? It's designated.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
If it's striped as a cycleway but also allows pedestrians, that'd be highway=cycleway, foot=yes. For situations like the divided parts of the Riverparks East trail, that'd be highway=cycleway (though even though this already implies foot=no, I explicitly tag as such, since pedestrians have their own highway=footway that is bicycle=no adjacent). On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:42 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)? > > > ___ > 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] Cycle lane tagging
lanes:bicycle=* and lanes:foot=* If you want to get specific, like, on a typical major thoroughfare on Portland's westside on the approach to an intersection, you'd have something like... highway=primary name=Southwest Murray Boulevard cycleway=lane lanes:forward=5 lanes:backward=3 bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|yes|yes|designated|yes motor_vehicles:lanes:forward=yes|yes|no|yes bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|yes|designated motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|yes|no turn:lanes:forward=left|none|none|through|right (bicycle lanes always have a specific arrow in Oregon, usually through, which can lead to situations where bicycles are given a through-only option at a t-intersection one-way to the left; in which people just treat the bike lane as an outside left turn lane in practice for physical practicality; your mileage and regional sanity will vary) Pepper to suit, since postal service and public transit vehicles may briefly use the bicycle lane as well to load or unload, with something like "psv:lanes:forward=yes|yes|destination". On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > > > 2014-08-02 16:00 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > > >> Do I need to use lanes tagging for this, which is completely different >> form the cycle lane tagging? >> > > I think lanes tagging is the best solution. It will be consistent with > road lane tagging so that renderers, routers and mappers won't have to > discover new schemes. We just need a few more definitions that are targeted > at pedestrians and bicycles. > > Janko > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
