Re: [Tagging] Moveable objects tagged as building=*

[Pieren]

Perhaps the attribute of 'moveable' or not should be specified in a
separate tag (without significant deconstruction efforts or
foundations because basically all buildings can be moved
theoritically). I also don't see a problem to keep "building" for
permanent structures, floating on water or on wheels (caravan).

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Pipeline Extension)

[Rainer Fügenstein]

oh well, couldn't have done it with the valuable input from members on
this mailing list and the guys on the proposals talk page.

also a big thanks to Imagic, who tutored the very beginnings of the
proposal, among other things.

cu

f> Am 11.12.2014 um 23:25 schrieb François Lacombe:
>> This is actually a great work.
>> Thank you for the time spent to setup this document !
>> 
>> Good luck for this vote :)

f> +1
f> Another nice example how it can work.

f> Thanks for your effort.

f> fly


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



--- NOT sent from an iPhone


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

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

[Martin Vonwald]

2014-12-12 17:28 GMT+01:00 fly :
>
> Am 05.12.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Paul Johnson:
> > How about site relations?  Seems like a good use of a site relation.
>
> As long as it possible to draw the whole site as a single polygon, there
> is no need of a site relation.


Correct.

I would like to ask everyone to keep in mind that OSM data is usually
stored in some kind of spatial database. On core feature of any spatial
database is the ability to determine what features overlap others or what
feature(s) contain(s) specific other feature(s).

In short: a relation is never necessary if you simple want to know what
features are contained within an area. Just draw the area.

And never forget the biggest advantage of a simple area compared to a
relation: if you want to add a new feature and you used an area, you simply
add the new feature and you're done. If you used the relation, you need to
add the new feature also to the relation. If different mappers are
involved, it is very likely that one or the other forgets this - or doesn't
even know about it - and therefore breaks the relation.

The site relation is a good example of a often misused relation. It is only
necessary if the features of the "site" are spread over different places. I
seriously doubt that this would be true for most - if not all - gas
stations world wide.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Pipeline Extension)

[Martin Vonwald]

2014-12-12 22:32 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein :
>
> also a big thanks to Imagic, who tutored the very beginnings of the
> proposal, among other things.
>

Did I? This is so long ago, it isn't even true already ;-)

You did a fine job there, I merely pushed you a little in the right
direction at the beginning, nothing more.

Keep it up!
Best regards,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Watermill attributes

[Volker Schmidt]

I like watermills and I would like to be able to find the "nice" ones on
the map.
Has anyone looked into tagging of:

   - presence and number of waterwheels
   - for working mills: waterwheel or turbine
   - for historic mills: conservation state, in particular if the mill
   works are still present (even if not working).

I have not found anything on the wiki, but may have overlooked something. I
have also looked at the tagging of some watermills in Europe, but not found
any additional tags of the type mentioned above.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Watermill attributes

[Zecke]

Am 13.12.2014 12:44, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
I like watermills and I would like to be able to find the "nice" ones 
on the map.



Have a look here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Historical_Objects/Karteneigenschaften#Wassermuehle

The corresponding map:
http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/

Cheers,
Zecke

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

Re: [Tagging] Watermill attributes

[Volker Schmidt]

Compliments for the map. In fact I knew it already.

That is the type of map that would profit from additional tagging for
watermills, like number of wheels.

A comment on the map: it seems that it only shows city walls if they carry
somehow the label "historic", whereas in fact most city walls in my area
are tagged without "historic" (as per wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dcity_wall).
The problem with the "historic" tag is that it is also used with the
meaning of "this object was present in the past" or "this object was used
in the past in that function" but not necessarily in the present. See for
example:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts for
the item "historic:"
The problem is that the definition of the terms is not clear. There are
plenty of real Roman bridges around that are still being used today (we
have two or three here in Padova). They would have to be tagged historic
and still-in-use.
The other way round there re plenty of "historic" items in OSM that are not
historic in the sense of old, like many modern wayside crosses and shrines.
To be clear, the problem is the mapping not the rendering.
Coming back to city walls. Our walls in Padova are massive, were built mid
1500 and are still there. They are at present not tagged "historic" and
hence don't show up on the history map.

I have no constructive suggestion to make, just noting the problem.

Volker

PS:
I just created a site relation for the 16th century city walls in Padova,
putting the historic=yes tag on the relation. That should do the trick,
shouldn't it?


On 13 December 2014 at 12:52, Zecke  wrote:
>
> Am 13.12.2014 12:44, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
>
>> I like watermills and I would like to be able to find the "nice" ones on
>> the map.
>>
>>  Have a look here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Historical_Objects/
> Karteneigenschaften#Wassermuehle
>
> The corresponding map:
> http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/
>
> Cheers,
> Zecke
>
> ___
> 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] Watermill attributes

[Zecke]

Am 13.12.2014 16:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt:

Compliments for the map. In fact I knew it already.

That is the type of map that would profit from additional tagging for 
watermills, like number of wheels.


Fell free to invent taggings. If there should be enough use by the 
mappers we might add different symbols. However I have the feeling that 
it should be sufficient to map one symbol for watermills and show the 
details in the "details" popup tab.


As for citywalls:
We interprete the term historic=* as "being of historic relevance" in 
contrast to "former".  Sometimes  it cannot be separated clearly and we 
are aware of the different  types of usage of "historic" in the OSM 
community. We have to live with it. So we see no problem in having an 
existic roman bridge tagged as historic. In fact we recommend to do so.


I remember the discussion came up for citywalls recently whether we 
should render them even if they aren't tagged as historic. Have to check 
on that.


Cheers
Zecke

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

Re: [Tagging] Watermill attributes

[André Pirard]

  
  
On 2014-12-13 16:23, Volker Schmidt
  wrote :


  
On 13 December 2014 at 12:52, Zecke 
  wrote:
  Am
13.12.2014 12:44, schrieb Volker Schmidt:
  
I like watermills and I would like to be able to find
the "nice" ones on the map.
  


  

Several, if not many, places in Belgium are called "hoûte s'i ploût"
or similar names.
That's walloon for "listen if it rains".
It's related to the need for water of an old watermill.
There are various explanations: passerby's mockery, father asking
son ...
One
  of the best known place is here.
It looks like the mill should be on the map, but
  it might be just ruins. (turn on aerial in upper right tab).
Anyway, my idea is that you could look at this
  article  (oder
  das),  look
  at these pictures,  open the
  sites, follow the links like veins or is it streams, hopping
down to France or elsewhere, and most of all search for all the
spellings.
I'm not sure if you would find such nice ones as you've shown, but
if your passion is mills, you might like to make that way
discoveries that are not in the catalogs.  Otherwise, you will have
a story.

Good luck,
Cheers



  

  André.

  



  


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