Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial
On Fri Nov 07 2014 07:30:30 GMT+ (GMT), Colin Smale wrote: > > > I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ > to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will > have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably > leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same. > Just the shareholders of the company would different. > > So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be > applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic > administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages, > highways,. i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in > law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are > not "landuse=civic" to my mind. +1 I totally agree Colin, it would be equally ridiculous to tag schools or parks as civic. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial
Yes I agree we should not include them, for two main reasons: - landuse should not describe ownership, by any means. Ownership is not publicly verifiable, they remain closed source. Even when land registries (fr/cadastre de/Kataster) now publish property boundaries, the owner remains closed. No other landuse tag describes ownership, and this proposal should not establish a precedent. - transportation is sufficiently covered by existing landuse tags, there is landuse=railway and aeroway=aerodrome for the major infrastructure. Their headquarters can stand on landuse=commercial as there is usually some usage fee involved. Who operates them should be described in the operator= tag. tom p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote on 2014-11-07 10:04: On Fri Nov 07 2014 07:30:30 GMT+ (GMT), Colin Smale wrote: I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same. Just the shareholders of the company would different. So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages, highways,. i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are not "landuse=civic" to my mind. +1 I totally agree Colin, it would be equally ridiculous to tag schools or parks as civic. Phil (trigpoint ) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial
2014-11-07 8:30 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ to > change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will have > changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably leased from > a property company anyway, even that would stay the same. Just the > shareholders of the company would different. > +1, that's also what I see here as problematic > So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be > applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic > administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages, > +1, the tag should reflect this, it should not be "civic" but "civic_administration" (or similar). "civic" - as has been noted before - is too generic and not self explaining, at least not for non-native English speakers. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial
2014-11-07 11:02 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > Yes I agree we should not include them, for two main reasons: > > - landuse should not describe ownership, by any means. Ownership > is not publicly verifiable, they remain closed source. > for publicly owned land it is often possible to get ownership information. Private ownership is often protected by privacy laws and may not be disclosed (often). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
2014-11-05 20:32 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan : > It looks like the best solution would be to have amenity=water, > drinkable=*, type=fountain|tap|water_well. not sure if this is "best". Water that is not drinkable is not an amenity in my book ;-) As a sidenote, the key "type" is reserved for relations and should not be used (you can overcome this by renaming). Please also note that "fountain" and "tap" are not excluding themselves, you can have both (around here there are lots of drinking fountains, of which some have (accessible) tap-controlled flow, other have continuous flow (there is a tap, but it is locked and can be closed/opened only by authorized people). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] place=island wiki page - coastline
2014-11-07 0:02 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge : > The Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, and the Great Salt Lake are all landlocked > bodies of salt water. There are other salt lakes around the world, plus > various brackish bodies of water (of an intermediate degree of saltiness). > The Sea of Galilee is fresh water. Language is imprecise. +1, these are the exceptions I mentioned. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-11-05 20:32 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan : > >> It looks like the best solution would be to have amenity=water, >> drinkable=*, type=fountain|tap|water_well. > > That does not sound best at all, especially as most maps render based on the primary key only. It also ignores an important attribute: is it water I can use for my purpose (e.g. fill my bottle, drink directly, give to my dog, give to my horse, water the flowers, etc)? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] hitch rack for horses
How should one tag a hitch rack? This is a place to tie horses. For example, at a location where a rider may want to dismount and continue on foot because the way ahead is not suitable for horses. I searched the wiki, but didn't find a suitable tag. Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
