Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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.
>


+1
unless you want to express some particular relation between some of the
members (i.e. use a role different than outer/inner).

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

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-15 8:00 GMT+01:00 johnw :
>
> PS:Basic categories of restaurants in Japan
>
> - Ramen, soba, udon
> - cutlet
> - Steak
> - Italian
> - Indian
> - “Family” restaurant (denny’s, etc)
> - Sushi / traditional Japanese
> - Chinese
> - takoyaki (octopus balls)
> - karaage  (Japanese style fried chicen)
> - conveyor belt sushi
> - bakery
> - Burger
> - Izakaiya (pub).
> - Snack (bar)
>
>
> This covers about 99% of restaurants in Japan - the first 6 cover about
> 80%
>



I think this is similar in many countries: "Italian" food might be
sufficient for Italian restaurants in Japan, but obviously isn't for
Italian restaurants (and similar places that would be restaurants for OSM)
in Italy, just as "japanese" (and maybe "sushi") seems sufficient for
japanese restaurants in Italy, but in Japan you'd want to distinguish a lot
of different subtypes.

The best way is probably locals developping a tagging scheme for "their"
field. The only problem then would be cuisine types that don't exist in the
country of which they pretend to come from ;-)

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

[Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Dmitry Kiselev]

 Hi

We have  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
 for kids areas mappings.

But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be nice to 
have amenity to map such features.

So here is mine proposal for that
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area

Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.

-- 
dkiselev
Dmitry Kiselev
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Dan S]

Hi,

The obvious question is: why not using leisure=playground? Since the
definition in the first link you give says "an area where kids can
play".

Dan

2014-12-15 10:51 GMT+00:00 Dmitry Kiselev :
> Hi
>
> We have
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
> for kids areas mappings.
>
> But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be nice
> to have amenity to map such features.
>
> So here is mine proposal for that
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area
>
> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>
> --
> dkiselev
> Dmitry Kiselev
>
> ___
> 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] Moveable objects tagged as building=*

[johnw]

One of the driving schools I went to is a permanent course laid out on a flood 
plain ( as is the soccer fields and helipads), but as it is inside a leveed 
flood canal, they are not allowed to build permanent buildings. 

So the driving school uses a bus. It has a desk, a waiting room, and 
everything.  It has parked in the same spot for years, day in and day out, 
occasionally moved to higher ground during a typhoon. It is a drivable vehicle.

I tagged that bus as a building (and named it “バス” - “bus" in Japanese) - it's 
where you need to go for the driving school, and it is always there. 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.32157/138.99813 
  


- Javbw


> On Dec 13, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Pieren  wrote:
> 
> 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

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Dmitry Kiselev]

Playgrounds are usually outdoor facilities, kids playing rooms and areas are 
usually not.

Playgrounds almost newer are supervised by any kind of stuff.
Kids areas and rooms, in most cases have employees who takes care of kids.

Also there is different kind of activities for playgrounds and such subj.
Sometimes such areas have tv-sets with cartoons, or drawing  accessories , 
sometimes there is a teacher and kids could take part in small workshops, 
crafting something.

Main point - there is difference in activities:

Playground - go and play active games with kids.
Subject - leave kids for a couple of hours in a safety and interesting place 
and do boring adults businesses.


Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:03:26 + от Dan S :
>Hi,
>
>The obvious question is: why not using leisure=playground? Since the
>definition in the first link you give says "an area where kids can
>play".
>
>Dan
>
>2014-12-15 10:51 GMT+00:00 Dmitry Kiselev < dkise...@osm.me >:
>> Hi
>>
>> We have
>>  
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
>> for kids areas mappings.
>>
>> But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be nice
>> to have amenity to map such features.
>>
>> So here is mine proposal for that
>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area
>>
>> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>>
>> --
>> dkiselev
>> Dmitry Kiselev
>>
>> ___
>> 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 of kids areas

[Tom Pfeifer]

I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:

leisure=playground
playground:supervised=yes/no
playground:outdoor=yes/no
playground:indoor=yes/no
  (btw, using "kids_area=both" in the older proposal is poor tagging since
   it is not self-explanatory and limits the list of other values)
fee=yes/no
etc.

Also there is the accepted playground=* tag for equipment,
you could add a tv area or crafts station as a value.

Dmitry Kiselev wrote on 2014-12-15 12:24:

Playgrounds are usually outdoor facilities, kids playing rooms and areas are 
usually not.

> Playgrounds almost newer are supervised by any kind of stuff.
> Kids areas and rooms, in most cases have employees who takes care of kids.

Cannot confirm these assumptions. There are lots of indoor playgrounds
nowadays, some monster jungle-gyms in halls, which are not supervised
by staff, on the other hand there are outdoor playgrounds, e.g. adventure-style,
which are supervised for pedagogical or safety reasons.
(Experiential education, DE: Erlebnispädagogkik)


Also there is different kind of activities for playgrounds and such subj.
Sometimes such areas have tv-sets with cartoons, or drawing accessories,
sometimes there is a teacher and kids could take part in small workshops, 
crafting something.


Crafts can be done indoors and outdoors. To conclude, playgrounds can scale up
and down, independently of being indoors or outdoors.


Main point - there is difference in activities:

Playground - go and play active games with kids.
Subject - leave kids for a couple of hours in a safety and interesting place 
and do boring adults businesses.


Again that varies a lot and having two different tags here make things
complicated. Better are sub-descriptions under the same catagory.


Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:03:26 + от Dan S :
The obvious question is: why not using leisure=playground? Since the
definition in the first link you give says "an area where kids can
play".


+1

tom


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

[Tagging] lanes=x vs. xxx:lanes=a|b|c

[Martin Vonwald]

Hi everyone,

As I received a lot of questions lately, I want to point something out
relating to the values of the lanes key and the number of lane-dependent
values within any xxx:lanes key.
* The number of lane-dependent values within any xxx:lanes key is equal to
the number of lanes on the road, no matter if those lanes are full- or
half-width and no matter what kind of traffic they are designated to. [1]
* The value of the lanes key is equal to the number of full-width(!)
traffic lanes which are available to motorised(!) traffic. There are even
more exceptions - please see [2].

Therefore the value of the lanes key must be equal to or less than(!) the
number of values in any xxx:lanes key.

Example:
  lanes=2
  turn:lanes=through|through|right   <- three values
  bicycle:lanes=yes|designated|yes   <- three values
This example is correct as there are only two lanes available for motorised
traffic.

I want to make clear that I'm not happy with the definition of the lanes
key. But the definition is this way for ages and I definitively will not
try to change it (current usage: 4.5 mio times).

Therefore I would like to ask everyone not to ask me to change the JOSM
style [3] to show an error in the above example or any similar situation.
It is very hard to interpret access conditions within a style, so I can not
interpret all of them within a simple drawing style and therefore the style
only shows an error if the value of lanes is larger than the number of
lane-dependent values.

Thanks,
Martin

P.S: If you want to change the definition of the lanes key and achieve
worldwide consensus, I will update the style within a minute.


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes
[3] http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Martin Vonwald]

2014-12-15 13:31 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
>
> I don't see a need for a new key here.
> The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Dave F.]

On 15/12/2014 12:31, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:


+1

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Dmitry Kiselev]

I can't agree with you guys.

All kinds of facilities where you can rent a bed for a night may be mapped as 
hotel with tons of sub-tags.
But still we have hotels, motels, guest houses, and so on. 
Even campings offers you some place to sleep and other stuff for money.

All kinds of places where you can take some alcohol for money may be tagged as 
bar with sub-tags
But still we have biergartens, pubs, bars etc.
Even night clubs may be mapped as bar with dance floor. 

We have restaurants and cafe, both offers you some food for money.
But still you looking for restaurant when you going to make an betrothal, not 
for ANY place where you can get some food for money.

When you going to go to the cinema or do some shopping and you can't take your 
kids with you, you don't looking for playground, 
you looking for place like subj. 


Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:11:54 + от "Dave F." :
>On 15/12/2014 12:31, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>> I don't see a need for a new key here.
>> The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
>
>+1
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>
>___
>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] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[Simone Savio]

Hi propose

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico


becaus I want create  a specific tag for public institutions in Italy such
as informagiovani because this concept does not exist in English.

Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[sabas88]

2014-12-15 15:31 GMT+01:00 Simone Savio :
>
> Hi propose
>
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico
> 
>
> becaus I want create  a specific tag for public institutions in Italy such
> as informagiovani because this concept does not exist in English.
>

Hi,
I know we have an unusual amount of bureaucracy in Italy, but we may not
need a custom tag for it

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building



> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>
>
Ciao,
Stefano


> ___
> 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] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[Martin Vonwald]

2014-12-15 15:42 GMT+01:00 sabas88 :
>
> I know we have an unusual amount of bureaucracy in Italy, but we may not
> need a custom tag for it
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building
>

Why is this abandoned? I just read the talk page, but it is not really
clear to me.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[sabas88]

2014-12-15 15:52 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>
>
>
> 2014-12-15 15:42 GMT+01:00 sabas88 :
>>
>> I know we have an unusual amount of bureaucracy in Italy, but we may not
>> need a custom tag for it
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building
>>
>
> Why is this abandoned? I just read the talk page, but it is not really
> clear to me.
>
>
TBH I didn't notice the message.. :-)

BUT it could make sense to me (what about different offices in same
building?) , for example replacing it with building=public +
office=government
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Dgovernment


Regards,
Stefano

___
> 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] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[Volker Schmidt]

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informagiovani does not look to me
Italy-specific
:-)


On 15 December 2014 at 15:31, Simone Savio 
wrote:
>
> Hi propose
>
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico
> 
>
> becaus I want create  a specific tag for public institutions in Italy such
> as informagiovani because this concept does not exist in English.
>
> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>
> ___
> 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] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-15 15:42 GMT+01:00 sabas88 :
>
> Hi,
> I know we have an unusual amount of bureaucracy in Italy, but we may not
> need a custom tag for it
>


from my experience it is mostly not the amount of bureaucracy but the
response times that are a real show stopper ;-)



>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building
>


this is not a really an alternative, as it is not a synonymon, it is about
a public building (and implicitly referring - how I interpret the
intentions of the tag - to public services inside the building), and would
from my interpretation include a lot of services that won't be included in
"ufficio pubblico" (e.g. libraries, museums, schools, ...).

Still I agree that amenity=ufficio_pubblico is in no way a good tag idea.
First - if we were to introduce a country-specific tag for the public
administration, what I oppose like you do - I'd expect a namespace for
this, like "it:ufficio_pubblico" (to indicate that the tag is in Italian).

Secondly, if the reason to introduce this tag was to tag "informagiovani",
and if this is their homepage: http://www.informagiovani.it/ , I wouldn't
even classify these as public administration, as they are privately run.
There are English words to express the concept of "ufficio pubblico" and
the tag - if chosen as generic as it is here - could well be in English. As
a tag proposal for this specific institution I would have expected
something on the same "specificy level", e.g. amenity=it:informagiovani
(but I wouldn't support such a specific toplevel tag either).

IMHO we should define the type of service that informagiovani is offering,
and then try to find a suitable tag. Up to now there is no actual
documentation or definition on the proposal page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Tom Pfeifer]

Dmitry Kiselev wrote on 2014-12-15 14:52:


I can't agree with you guys.

All kinds of facilities where you can rent a bed for a night may be mapped as 
hotel with tons of sub-tags.
But still we have hotels, motels, guest houses, and so on.

[...]
> We have restaurants and cafe, both offers you some food for money.

First, there are relatively clear definitions what is a
hotel vs. motel vs. guest house. For food, the discussion is
still ongoing e.g. what characterises fast food.

Second, those tags were grown historically, if you started them
from scratch you would probably go for something hierarchically,
eg. subtagging a general accommodation tag.


When you going to go to the cinema or do some shopping and you can't take

> your kids with you, you don't looking for playground,

you looking for place like subj.


Well you can look for amenity=playground and playground:supervised=yes,
so where is the problem?

As said, there is no clear distinction/definition when a place falls in
one category or the other.

When you introduce a new tag, you force the renderer either to implement
the new tag, or to ignore it. If you specify an existing tag, the general 
purpose
renderer can already show it, while the specialised one can display you the
details.

In your first post you said
> We have 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
> for kids areas mappings.

You are citing another proposal that considers itself as
"still in a brainstorming stage", and kids_area is used only 6 times so far.
Thus you cannot say we have it already.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/kids_area#overview


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

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[sabas88]

2014-12-15 17:03 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
> 2014-12-15 15:42 GMT+01:00 sabas88 :
>>
>> Hi,
>> I know we have an unusual amount of bureaucracy in Italy, but we may not
>> need a custom tag for it
>>
>
>
> from my experience it is mostly not the amount of bureaucracy but the
> response times that are a real show stopper ;-)
>
>
>
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building
>>
>
>
> this is not a really an alternative, as it is not a synonymon, it is about
> a public building (and implicitly referring - how I interpret the
> intentions of the tag - to public services inside the building), and would
> from my interpretation include a lot of services that won't be included in
> "ufficio pubblico" (e.g. libraries, museums, schools, ...).
>
> Still I agree that amenity=ufficio_pubblico is in no way a good tag idea.
> First - if we were to introduce a country-specific tag for the public
> administration, what I oppose like you do - I'd expect a namespace for
> this, like "it:ufficio_pubblico" (to indicate that the tag is in Italian).
>
> Secondly, if the reason to introduce this tag was to tag "informagiovani",
> and if this is their homepage: http://www.informagiovani.it/ , I wouldn't
> even classify these as public administration, as they are privately run.
> There are English words to express the concept of "ufficio pubblico" and
> the tag - if chosen as generic as it is here - could well be in English. As
> a tag proposal for this specific institution I would have expected
> something on the same "specificy level", e.g. amenity=it:informagiovani
> (but I wouldn't support such a specific toplevel tag either).
>

> IMHO we should define the type of service that informagiovani is offering,
> and then try to find a suitable tag. Up to now there is no actual
> documentation or definition on the proposal page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico
>

The one in my city is run by the municipality (
http://www.informagiovani.comune.genova.it/) and gives information and
assistance (mainly, but not exclusively) to young people on education and
work topics..

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] Moveable objects tagged as building=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-12 1:59 GMT+01:00 715371 :
>
> I am wondering if the building-tag should be used for moveable objects.
> I guess that this is not in the sense of the meaning of building (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building#Residential and check for
> houseboats).
>



I believe that we shouldn't focus on the wikipedia definition of building,
as in OSM the tag tends to be used in a more general way (the English term
"structure" seems to fit better).
We shouldn't focus (IMHO) whether something can be moved, but rather if it
will moved often. Being movable should be the only reason to exclude
something from being a "building". A houseboat or floating home might
qualify as a building for osm, even if it isn't for some national law on
buildings (or is for other law or in other jurisdiction).

FWIW, everything can be moved, it depends on the motivation if it will be
moved. See here for a famous building moved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdJwt12CCVo

Or here (a genuine roman temple in California):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Castle#mediaviewer/File:Hearst_Castle_pool.jpg

Or these:
http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/house-moving-3.jpg
http://www.penmachine.com/images/housemove-lg.jpg
http://www.dbhousemovers.com/i//cabela_house_033_1.jpg
...

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

Re: [Tagging] Watermill attributes

[Zecke]

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.


Thanks Volker for pointing us at that.  The citywalls are tagged 
correctly. However there was a bug in our selection mechanism which 
prevented them from being rendered as such. This should be fixed by now.


http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=14&lat=45.40335&lon=11.88057&layers=BFFFTFFFTFFFT 



Cheers,
Zecke

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

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[John F. Eldredge]

On 12/15/2014 08:31 AM, Simone Savio wrote:

Hi propose

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico


becaus I want create  a specific tag for public institutions in Italy
such as informagiovani because this concept does not exist in English.

Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.


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



What is informagiovani?  An information office?  The concept exists in 
English.


Ufficio pubblico looks like it would translate as "public office"; 
again, the concept exists in English.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



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

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

[johnw]

working on a proposal for civic landuses, and a subtag for building=civic for 
all kinds of governmental buildings and services. 

Your input is appreciated. 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic

javbw


> On Dec 16, 2014, at 7:30 AM, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> 
> On 12/15/2014 08:31 AM, Simone Savio wrote:
>> Hi propose
>> 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico
>> 
>> 
>> becaus I want create  a specific tag for public institutions in Italy
>> such as informagiovani because this concept does not exist in English.
>> 
>> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> What is informagiovani?  An information office?  The concept exists in 
> English.
> 
> Ufficio pubblico looks like it would translate as "public office"; again, the 
> concept exists in English.
> 
> -- 
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
> Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
> Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

[johnw]

> The best way is probably locals developping a tagging scheme for "their" 
> field. The only problem then would be cuisine types that don't exist in the 
> country of which they pretend to come from ;-)

Yep - I’m sure the traditional, sushi, soba, udon, and maybe even the 
imported-from-china ramen would get lumped into “Japanese” restaurant in the US.

Almost all the imported cultural foods (Sushi in the US, almost all Italian 
Dishes in Japan) are all warped and changed into something made for the locals. 
Most Japanese people (out here in rural Japan) look at me in disbelief or 
amusement when I tell them there is a sushi roll in the US with cream cheese in 
it. 

As long as the taggers stick to the local definition of what the restaurant 
would be (pizza, Italian, Chinese, etc) - then everything should sort itself 
out.  Corn, mayo, and mixed seafood is a popular pizza here, pepperoni in the 
US, and maybe a magehrita in a Italy (I imagine) - As long as it’s a pizza 
shop, it’s all cuisine=pizza, right?   

I guess a "chop suey" house (if they still exist) is what you speak of -  but 
it would still fall into “Chinese” food, I suppose.


I think we need to work out some really robust presets in the editors to 
connect the english tags back to the non-english tags, or some really detailed 
wiki pages in the languages. I don’t the data customers can parse the tags if 
the non-name data is written in Japanese.


Javbw


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