Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Mateusz Konieczny]

"usually, the purpose of visiting a playground is to, um, visit the
playground."

"The purpose of a play area is (AFIK) a place to deposit the kids while
(one of) the adults do something else"

It is not so simple. Some more interesting play areas also may be target of
visit (for example - nearby IKEA have a ball pit, my sister liked to visit
it).

I think that I would tag this kind of object as leisure=playground. And
something that has only loop of Pokemon playing on a TV
my be just not tagged or marked as leisure=tv.


2014-12-18 7:03 GMT+01:00 johnw :
>
> usually, the purpose of visiting a playground is to, um, visit the
> playground.
>
> The purpose of a play area is (AFIK) a place to deposit the kids while
> (one of) the adults do something else, or as a amenity to a more serious or
> boring place place where the kids can have their attention taken away.
>
> I know there is a place like this in large facilities that have groups of
> parents who need to park or placate a kid for a while (while adults rest or
> eat), so knowing where the amenity is sounds good. Some of them are
> supervised by the employees, so the parents can shop (like ikea does),
> though I don’t know if that’s considered daycare or babysitting or whatever.
>
> And whoever suggested the kindergarten tag, I hope they were being
> sarcastic.
>
>
> If there was a new amenity tag, and the data customers ignored it, we
> wouldn’t be losing any kindergartens or playgrounds, so that’s a good
> thing, right? I don’t want playgrounds or kindergartens popping up in what
> turns out to be a corner of the mall filled with bright vinyl cubes and a
> loop of Pokemon playing on a TV.
>
> Javbw
>
> > On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Andreas Goss  wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > I agree in general, but the main issue with tagging like this is that I
> bet most data consumers will just look for leisure=playground and that's it.
> > __
> > openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
> > wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Introducting power=terminal and power=connection for power transmission

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

I wanted to introduce some updates on power transmission proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement

Two values for power=* had been suggested on talk page :
- power=terminal : To map wall supports for power lines, especially to
connect them to indoor substations
- power=connection : To map free-air connection between overhead power
lines.

They both aren't yet approved and must be used with caution.

Feel free to come on proposal talk page to give your feedbacks.


Finally and recently, the two line=* and cable=* keys, dedicated to feature
utility had been merged in usage=*.


Cheers

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Introducting power=terminal and power=connection for power transmission

[Martin Vonwald]

Just want to thanks François for his very professional approach in
introducing new tags and cleaning up existing ones. Thumbs up. That's hard
work and it's not always fun ;-)

2014-12-18 10:44 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
>
> They both aren't yet approved and must be used with caution.
>

Tags doesn't have to be approved to be used by everybody. But caution is
necessary with new tags: meaning might change or the majority might decide
on other tags. But still: this is OSM and you're free to use any tags you
want as long as you don't harm other taggings. We should never forget this.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 17.12.2014 22:08, Andreas Goss wrote:
> So what do you do with Berlin? State? City? "Stadtstaat" (Citystate)?

As far as I can see, Berlin is a Bundesland and a Gemeinde. So you should
have one boundary relation for each level. If you decide to use a boundary
relation for the top level only, admin_title=Bundesland seems correct
(matching the admin_level), although semicolon notation may also be possible.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-17 20:11 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> On 17.12.2014 16:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > isn't this already covered by name and its variants?
> > e.g.
> > name="Bezirk Zwettl"
> > short_name="Zwettl"
> >
> > or
> > name="Zwettl"
> > official_name="Bezirk Zwettl" ?
>
> No, because the official name is just "Zwettl". But in most cases when you
> talk about Bezirk Zwettl (district of Zwettl), you say "Bezirk Zwettl", in
> order to make it clear that you are not talking about the city of Zwettl.
>


actually for this example you're wrong, the official name is
"Zwettl-Niederösterreich", you can see this for instance here:
http://www.statistik.at/blickgem/gemDetail.do?gemnr=32530
or in this law:
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/LgblNO/LRNI_2011122/LRNI_2011122.pdf



>
> > And another question, is this also aiming at city titles, e.g.
> > "Universitätsstadt", "Freie und Hansestadt"?
>
> No. There are plenty of these bogus titles for each city.



I don't think "bogus" is the correct term here, have a look at the
constitution of the "Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg", Art. 1 (name):
http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/1604280/data/verfassung-2009.pdf

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

Re: [Tagging] Introducting power=terminal and power=connection for power transmission

[François Lacombe]

2014-12-18 11:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>
> Just want to thanks François for his very professional approach in
> introducing new tags and cleaning up existing ones. Thumbs up. That's hard
> work and it's not always fun ;-)
>

Thank you Martin for these kind compliments.


> Tags doesn't have to be approved to be used by everybody. But caution is
> necessary with new tags: meaning might change or the majority might decide
> on other tags. But still: this is OSM and you're free to use any tags you
> want as long as you don't harm other taggings. We should never forget this.
>

No problem to see any tag used by anybody, I agree

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-18 13:52 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> On 17.12.2014 22:08, Andreas Goss wrote:
> > So what do you do with Berlin? State? City? "Stadtstaat" (Citystate)?
>


the official name AFAIK is "Land Berlin"


>
> As far as I can see, Berlin is a Bundesland and a Gemeinde.



The term "Bundesland" is of mostly colloquial use, the official term is
"Land", so it is "Land Berlin" for the admin level 4 entity. At the same
time, it is also "Stadt" (city), and the respective public responsibilities
are not separated (the precise legal term is "Einheitsgemeinde"). You can
see this in Art. 1 of its constitution:
http://gesetze.berlin.de/default.aspx?vpath=bibdata%2Fges%2FBlnVerf%2Fcont%2FBlnVerf.A1.htm
I had some years ago proposed to have both entities mapped in OSM ("Land
Berlin" and "Stadt Berlin", with identical territory), but this was
rejected by the time ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 17.12.2014 23:23, Colin Smale wrote:
> In the UK "designation=" is in wide usage for this. I don't know if it is
> typically a UK thing (it wouldn't surprise me) but local governments
> sometimes have the right to change their "style" - for example a "civil
> parish" can choose autonomously to call itself a "community council". It can
> also choose to call itself a "town council" although I suspect this needs
> cooperation from its parent authority. And a council can become a "city
> council" basically only through a central decision.

I think that the name of the council does not matter.

> Some "districts"
> (admin_level=8) have the status of "borough." All this doesn't change the
> legal powers and responsibilities of the council, it's all about what they
> are "called". There's a lot of snobism involved as well...
> 
> I have tried to summarise a tagging scheme for UK local authorities here: 
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries

So far we have destination=* for the UK, official_status=* for Russia, and
name:prefix for other countries. That diversity makes the tags essentially
unusable for applications. It's a pity that every national OSM community
make up their own tags, without caring what others do, as if there were
berlin walls around each country.

Personally I don't care if the key is admin_title=*, designation=*, or
official_status=*. We just should decide for one.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Colin Smale]

On 2014-12-18 14:42, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:


On 17.12.2014 23:23, Colin Smale wrote:

In the UK "designation=" is in wide usage for this. I don't know if it 
is typically a UK thing (it wouldn't surprise me) but local 
governments sometimes have the right to change their "style" - for 
example a "civil parish" can choose autonomously to call itself a 
"community council". It can also choose to call itself a "town 
council" although I suspect this needs cooperation from its parent 
authority. And a council can become a "city council" basically only 
through a central decision.


I think that the name of the council does not matter.


Exactly, that's my point. A simple civil parish and Salisbury City 
Council are administratively equivalent and are both tagged 
designation=civil_parish. This tagging should not, however tempting or 
logical some people might think it, be based on the name, but on the 
legal/constitutional status.




Some "districts" (admin_level=8) have the status of "borough." All 
this doesn't change the legal powers and responsibilities of the 
council, it's all about what they are "called". There's a lot of 
snobism involved as well... I have tried to summarise a tagging scheme 
for UK local authorities here: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries [1]


So far we have destination=* for the UK, official_status=* for Russia, 
and
name:prefix for other countries. That diversity makes the tags 
essentially
unusable for applications. It's a pity that every national OSM 
community

make up their own tags, without caring what others do, as if there were
berlin walls around each country.


Finding the right balance between universal, world-wide tagging and 
local conventions (at whatever level) is one of the biggest challenges 
we have. Usually any attempt at formalisation gets either shot down in 
flames by a vociferous minority or ignored by the silent majority.




Personally I don't care if the key is admin_title=*, designation=*, or
official_status=*. We just should decide for one.


+1 from me, good luck with getting the consensus, and then getting the 
"loser" to retag everything...


Links:
--
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=public_bookcase

[Andreas Goss]

Really prefer a tag like this over amenity=reuse. Reuse will just be 
used for everything in the end and nobody knows what it exactly stand for.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=public_bookcase

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

for reference, there have been discussions on this previously:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-August/014401.html

and this tag amenity=public_bookcase was indeed discussed. I also think it
is a good tag and far better than amenity=reuse.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 49

[Ulrich Lamm]

Am 18.12.2014 um 05:04 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:

> On 11/08/2014 04:47 PM, Pee Wee wrote:
>> We are writing to you for advice on what steps we should or could take
>> next. The situation is best summarized as:
> 
> [...]
> 
> After some consideration I have today asked user ulamm to refrain from
> making any edits to wiki pages unless he has first proposed the edit on
> the matching talk page and found broad support.
> 
> Any edit activity not conforming to this rule will lead to an account ban.
> 
> Data Working Group does not usually get involved in wiki edit wars but
> in this case the wiki edit war has a direct connection to disputed edits
> going on in our database,

@ Frederik
Everybody shall know that I've asked for your moderation several times this 
year, myself.
Unfortunately, your citation of  PeeWee's mail does not tell, who really had 
complained of which of my edits.
• Most of them were not at all inovative, but the elimination of errors (shared 
lane vs. suggestiestrook vs. Schutzstreifen) and the conversion of the 
DE-articles on bicycle featuires from a labyrinth of partliy contradicting 
guidelines into a consistant manual.
• An important subject was the explanation of what kinds of cycling facilities 
exist in reality. If people have wrong ideas on them they cannot map them 
correctly.
• Before started to edit in Wiki articles, I had edited in talks.
• With my main edits, I've invited everybody to improve them, such as 
[[DE_talk:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Gründe für meine Überarbeitung]]
• On PeeWee32 favourite subject, the tag bicycle=sidepath, I had constrictive 
discussions with him, Mateusz Konieczny and Jgpacker between 12:09, 8 October 
2014 and 08:48, 18 November 2014‎
•• Before my edtis on that article, part of the illustrations were misleading, 
as most German optional cycletracks have no sign at all, and  bicycle=no as a 
counterpart of bicycle=use sidepath affords a photo of a discriminative cycling 
ban, not of a pedestrian zone.

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

[Tagging] User:Ulamm/Mappers, evaluators and feedback

[Ulrich Lamm]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Mappers,_evaluators_and_feedback

This article is an attempt to write down basic rules of/for OSM
that had been forgotten to fix in the very beginning. 

I had started that page with an invitation on the discussion page to do the 
move now done by Frederik Ramm, if anybody would disagree.
As you can see, there was a considerable discussion.

Therefore I dared to remove the original invitation after a month.

If now still somebody considers  anything of this short text wrong, please tell 
it.

Ulrich



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Tom Pfeifer]

Andreas Goss wrote on 2014-12-17 22:41:

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


I agree in general, but the main issue with tagging like this is that

> I bet most data consumers will just look for leisure=playground and that's it.

Yes, and that is the good thing. The general purpose map will just show
you a playground icon, without further implementation, and special-purpose
maps give you the ability to filter for specific ones.

Look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dclimbing
where I'm happy enough if a general map shows me the sport in general,
while special-purpose layers can be added for all these details:

http://openclimbingmap.bstegmaier.de/#14/48.3899/9.7589
http://martinkoeller.github.io/ClimbingMap/example1.html

There you have them all, outdoor, indoor, fees, supervision ...
And overpass allows the fast creation of them.

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 18.12.2014 14:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> the official name AFAIK is "Land Berlin"

Sounds good. So it's admin_title=Land, then.

> As far as I can see, Berlin is a Bundesland and a Gemeinde.
> 
> The term "Bundesland" is of mostly colloquial use, the official term is
> "Land", so it is "Land Berlin" for the admin level 4 entity. At the same
> time, it is also "Stadt" (city), and the respective public responsibilities
> are not separated (the precise legal term is "Einheitsgemeinde"). You can
> see this in Art. 1 of its constitution:
> http://gesetze.berlin.de/default.aspx?vpath=bibdata%2Fges%2FBlnVerf%2Fcont%2FBlnVerf.A1.htm

AFAIK, Stadt only means some privilege (Stadtrecht), it's not an
administrative devision.

> I had some years ago proposed to have both entities mapped in OSM ("Land
> Berlin" and "Stadt Berlin", with identical territory), but this was rejected
> by the time ;-)

It's not too late to change it, but it's probably not that important, except
for generating lists of Gemeinden. Berlin will be missing in those lists.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Tom Pfeifer]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-12-17 15:39:


I also know a place that might fall into this category:
indoor streetview: 
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8462111,12.4869449,3a,75y,151.95h,69.96t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sq3Z8vG9t0TkAAAQfCNjLlg!2e0!3e2
some pics: http://lnx.gommolandiaroma.it/portal/galleriafoto


Perfect indoor playground.

leisure=playground
(playground:)indoor=yes
fee=yes/no


On the other hand, it might maybe also qualify as theme park? What is the 
distinction?


Lack of a theme, I'd say, besides playing.

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-18 16:42 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> > As far as I can see, Berlin is a Bundesland and a Gemeinde.
> >
> > The term "Bundesland" is of mostly colloquial use, the official term is
> > "Land", so it is "Land Berlin" for the admin level 4 entity. At the same
> > time, it is also "Stadt" (city), and the respective public
> responsibilities
> > are not separated (the precise legal term is "Einheitsgemeinde"). You can
> > see this in Art. 1 of its constitution:
> >
> http://gesetze.berlin.de/default.aspx?vpath=bibdata%2Fges%2FBlnVerf%2Fcont%2FBlnVerf.A1.htm
>
> AFAIK, Stadt only means some privilege (Stadtrecht), it's not an
> administrative devision.
>



In Berlin there is no such thing like a "Gemeinde" there are the "Bezirke"
divided into "Ortsteile", and while the first do correspond roughly to
Landkreisen (regarding the number of inhabitants) they don't have the power
(they are indeed not even "Kommunen", the term is
"Selbstverwaltungseinheiten Berlins ohne Rechtspersönlichkeit").
Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen are also called "Stadtstaat". Between the
"Gemeinde" and the "Land" there is typically the "Landkreis" or "Kreisfreie
Stadt" (and in some cases the "Regierungsbezirk"), have a look at this
illustration for an overview of the German administrative system:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Administrative_Gliederung_Deutschlands.svg

Looking at Berlin in OSM, I have also found this tag which seems to have
the same intentions as your proposal and is used more than 50k times:
name:prefix="Land und Kreisfreie Stadt"
http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/name%3Aprefix

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-18 16:31 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
>
>
>  On the other hand, it might maybe also qualify as theme park? What is the
>> distinction?
>>
>
> Lack of a theme, I'd say, besides playing.



well, this one might be "squirrels on LSD"
http://lnx.gommolandiaroma.it/portal/system/files/C1.JPG ;-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] User:Ulamm/Mappers, evaluators and feedback

[Mateusz Konieczny]

This advocates adding [oneway=no; toll=no] to nearly all roads (just
because some are with toll and oneway).
I consider this as a bad idea.

2014-12-18 15:28 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm :
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Mappers,_evaluators_and_feedback
>
> This article is an attempt to write down basic rules of/for OSM
> that had been forgotten to fix in the very beginning.
>
> I had started that page with an invitation on the discussion page to do
> the move now done by Frederik Ramm, if anybody would disagree.
> As you can see, there was a considerable discussion.
>
> Therefore I dared to remove the original invitation after a month.
>
> If now still somebody considers  anything of this short text wrong, please
> tell it.
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 18.12.2014 16:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> In Berlin there is no such thing like a "Gemeinde" there are the "Bezirke"
> divided into "Ortsteile", and while the first do correspond roughly to
> Landkreisen (regarding the number of inhabitants) they don't have the power
> (they are indeed not even "Kommunen", the term is
> "Selbstverwaltungseinheiten Berlins ohne Rechtspersönlichkeit").
> Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen are also called "Stadtstaat". Between the
> "Gemeinde" and the "Land" there is typically the "Landkreis" or "Kreisfreie
> Stadt" (and in some cases the "Regierungsbezirk"), have a look at this
> illustration for an overview of the German administrative system:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Administrative_Gliederung_Deutschlands.svg

Whatever. I am sure that there is some correct name of the administrative
division type. It is up to the german community to find out.

> Looking at Berlin in OSM, I have also found this tag which seems to have the
> same intentions as your proposal and is used more than 50k times:
> name:prefix="Land und Kreisfreie Stadt"
> http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/name%3Aprefix

This has some serious drawbacks, see the rationale in my proposal. That's
why I started the proposal in the first place.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-18 17:38 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> Whatever. I am sure that there is some correct name of the administrative
> division type. It is up to the german community to find out.
>


yes, legally it's "Einheitsgemeinde", but that's maybe not a title...
The "Land" has the title "Stadtstaat", and of course it's also
"Bundeshauptstadt".

Which one should go into "admin_title" and why?

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

Re: [Tagging] User:Ulamm/Mappers, evaluators and feedback

[David Bannon]

I am not really sure what this article is trying to say. Like Mateusz, I
object to the line -

... "Important is that every mapper does not only note if the object or
quality he has searched for is there, but also has to note if it is not
there."

There is wide agreement that many objects have default values, Mateusz
mentions Oneway and Toll on ways. Lets not make the database any bigger
than it need be to specify data that has a default.

I don't understand what sort of "structural element" might exist on one
side or the other of a road and a mapper cannot determine which ?

I agree that "tagging for the renderer" is not always inherently evil
(but can very easily be so). Certainly, exercising our rights to make up
tags can be fun but unproductive and I generally agree with that block
of text. And what follows.

So, is it fair to say that this article is urging better interaction
between mappers and renders ?  I'd support that but I am afraid I don't
find the article clearly leads me there. Problem is, IMHO, in the early
parts of the article, its a distraction.

David 




On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 15:28 +0100, Ulrich Lamm wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ulamm/Mappers,_evaluators_and_feedback
> 
> This article is an attempt to write down basic rules of/for OSM
> that had been forgotten to fix in the very beginning. 
> 
> I had started that page with an invitation on the discussion page to do the 
> move now done by Frederik Ramm, if anybody would disagree.
> As you can see, there was a considerable discussion.
> 
> Therefore I dared to remove the original invitation after a month.
> 
> If now still somebody considers  anything of this short text wrong, please 
> tell it.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen kartieren

[Ulrich Lamm]

Hi!

By the revert of  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
from19 Dec 2014 18:06,
a lot of essential inormations were swept away.

To cope the criticism of lacking consense,
I have now revised it in a way that nobody can compliain of omitted variants, 
see

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren/korrigiert_und_harmonisiert

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Никита]

> leisure=playground
> playground:supervised=yes/no
> playground:outdoor=yes/no
> playground:indoor=yes/no

kids_area=* is not about these 4 tags. kids_area=* is disjoint to
leisure=playgrounds. Please read proposal.

http://www.imenno.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HD_08.jpg-940x626.jpg -
leisure=playground
http://www.realkidfriendly.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/161.jpg -
kids_area=yes
http://goidapark.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/12.jpg -
leisure=playground
http://alpindustria.ru/UserFiles/Image/News/Novosib_kidsplace/01.jpg -
kids_area=yes
http://planeta-sh.by/Image/Uploaded/0.jpg - kids_area=yes
http://www.labirint-bookstore.ru/images/upl/tinymce/pages_6_1281101285.jpg
- kids_area=yes in shop=books
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6001/vincentventa.c/0_508b4_38a3aef3_XL -
kids_area=yes inside leisure=stadium

Do you have tags for playground=pony? playground=pencils? playground=books?
playground=table? playground=horses? If not, there no reason to talk about
it in kids_area proposal

I will not use over 70 tags to simply map single kids_area=*.

2014-12-18 19:46 GMT+04:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
> 2014-12-18 16:31 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
>>
>>
>>  On the other hand, it might maybe also qualify as theme park? What is
>>> the distinction?
>>>
>>
>> Lack of a theme, I'd say, besides playing.
>
>
>
> well, this one might be "squirrels on LSD"
> http://lnx.gommolandiaroma.it/portal/system/files/C1.JPG ;-)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging