Re: [Tagging] length=

[Florian Lohoff]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:18:57PM +0100, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2015-01-27 16:13 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
> 
> > I personally recommend to use the length key while mapping street cabinets
> > as nodes.
> > 
> 
> On a node it makes perfect sense. At least as long as it is not
> possible/wanted/allowed to provide the geometry.

Does it ? I cant think of any application where this makes sense.
A node does not have an orientation so why can it have a length?

If it has a length it does not make sense to use a node.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] length=

[François Lacombe]

2015-01-28 8:58 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff :

>
> Does it ? I cant think of any application where this makes sense.
> A node does not have an orientation so why can it have a length?
>
> If it has a length it does not make sense to use a node.
>
> Flo
>

Since OSM editing tools aren't AutoCAD you can't be 100% precise on the
geometry.
Some small features can actually be summarized as nodes when drawing their
shape sounds irrelevant regarding the cluttering it introduces.

I'm sorry that was trivial for me.
I won't draw a circle for a 5cm diameter pole and so on...

That's why tags are intended for several kind of primitives instead of only
one sometimes.


*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 




> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>  We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIVAwUBVMiWjJDdQSDLCfIvAQqozA//RWmbcfF8bn9jj9PIKsI8Br3ThbNBP6ts
> sZeDwxfLH2z2y0Mi7Ogw0W93vuOZ7OQqKvtfabjxqZ+Fup/aXgF+TVxxwO3XtuWG
> GOhxKejOYlPa13YUEn/FxBOMpkdIZxBRKW6oAPNdqOnxWTVupj0hHdZzTANKzCN7
> iGa2OUONJdum8v1HEmuqrEJ8424OkmMSF7SEJqLe/zNvIjCcXwoSJnajkY109WXe
> lZiBXuM9bSKLN5CSJXhxnqErh8tv0HDasTV0uWg7a3RLSHpq3tvRlmkYbzyWiHeW
> tzaCA0PQYxfnMFNrjyTlmF/JW5PxeHgaQgUrLPljACWCqFqV1WTdBVFTiK+Q7Ry+
> UVFaeFyp7e6MI1Q9Dtz/+QqGNyHyKBccawoo6cbPhN/uzW2bVNi6C/n7Dof82qf5
> IbFarjgFhxfelceSQosRUCLzpPmElv+0E1X4WdWVjyynlx0xKnYJUn0FTdNhFCgs
> tlETht/tikO3Ak/Bt9go1KrUD7sV385q8yehkmmOdLJiwX06pDu6jV0HGpPaVrvC
> qTBArMvYL0xsEM2hsPHXs0/aBlckJYcpozYOfLAlq3gvdhqmREw4CEiOSwljHZiD
> cMmoBz6lPnRDZMhQ2/NMnARpCPorMOQ+cmutp+M30MIbhdmCnZjaWQebswBzHR5X
> B3IFa+v54s4=
> =TyUa
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> 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] length=

[Martin Vonwald]

2015-01-28 8:58 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff :

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:18:57PM +0100, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> > 2015-01-27 16:13 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
> >
> > > I personally recommend to use the length key while mapping street
> cabinets
> > > as nodes.
> > > 
> >
> > On a node it makes perfect sense. At least as long as it is not
> > possible/wanted/allowed to provide the geometry.
>
> Does it ? I cant think of any application where this makes sense.
> A node does not have an orientation so why can it have a length?
>
> If it has a length it does not make sense to use a node.
>

Read my second sentence again. Some mappers do not want to draw geometry
for some small feature. See e.g. man_made=street_cabinet. There you have a
length and width. Together with the key direction one can determine the
geometry. I don't see why anyone would want to do it that way instead of
simply drawing a box, but I accept the fact, that some users do, so it's
fine for me.

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

Re: [Tagging] length=

[François Lacombe]

2015-01-28 9:14 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :

>  I don't see why anyone would want to do it that way instead of simply
> drawing a box, but I accept the fact, that some users do, so it's fine for
> me.
>

It's more precise to use tools like compass or meters to get the cabinet's
(or any other small feature) dimensions and put in tags value instead of
drawing a box.
Drawing a box isn't really precise and there will be a kind of data loss.

It's only a scale matter and such thought only apply to prismatic shapes.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[Warin]

On 28/01/2015 6:53 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote:

Hi!

2015-01-28 8:48 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


I note that"if the medium of a pipeline you are tagging is not
listed here, please choose a meaningful value at your own
discretion."However that will lead to multiple values all meaning
the same thing or be too restrictive.


From this and many other comments from you, I have to tell you, that - 
in my opinion - you have not understood OpenStreetMap.


Should this be a 'RFC' as in a request for comment?
According to taginfo the values in decreasing use are water (30%),
gas, heat, sewrage, oil, hot water (20%), electricity (should be
'cable' according to the wiki), sewage (3%), oxygen, coal, lng, fuel.


Choose one, use it, document it.

I note This tag has a status "unspecified' .. that probaly means
it has not been voted on here.


See what I mean?


No offence intended.



No offence taken I can assure you!!! :)

I do understand OSM is a conglomerate .. all pulling in different 
directions. I think that is a good thing .. but the end result needs to 
be coordinated so the output can be used. I'm trying to point out that 
what one person or group thinks is not necessarily what is 'best' what 
ever that may mean. And I'm pulling my way .. feel free to pull another. 
In fact do so. Only that way will OSM get 'better'.


I casting about for the value to use for non-potable water .. for 
eventual use in the tap tag.  I'll get on to the 'substance' tag author 
and see what they think .. together with something on the voltage of the 
cable when used with pipeline, oh and hot water.



Be warned .. I'll need a new tag for the handle on the tap .. some of 
them around here are 'tamper proof .. meaning you need a 'special tool'  
(a portable handle/key to fit) that prevents public use.



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

Re: [Tagging] length=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-01-27 17:13 GMT+01:00 Mike Thompson :

> > The way in OSM is only a (sometimes not precise) drawing of an existing
> feature and can be different from the reality.
>
> How precise is the value of the "length" tag? From what is the value
> derived?
>



to make sense on ways, I'd expect it to represent either a measurement in
the real world (e.g. with tape) or the indication you can get from a sign
(e.g. length of a bridge). Measuring e.g. in JOSM or GIS from the
cartography or from imagery or calculating it from the coords does not make
sense (but I doubt people do it like this).

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

Re: [Tagging] length=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-01-28 9:13 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :

> Some small features can actually be summarized as nodes when drawing their
> shape sounds irrelevant regarding the cluttering it introduces.
>
> I'm sorry that was trivial for me.
> I won't draw a circle for a 5cm diameter pole and so on...
>
>
>


while for a pole (especially a quite small one) geometry does indeed not
give you a great gain, it does provide additional information for other
small shapes even if they are on the limit of what we can represent, e.g. a
telephone booth, a bench, a street cabinet, etc., because the geometry
gives you orientation information and also other positioning information
relative to close by objects (e.g. adjacent or with a gap, in line or
shifted) and allows for further details like the position of the
door/entrance, etc.

I admit this is hardcore micromapping and mostly I don't do it like this
myself but use a node, just wanted to point out that there are situations
where more detailed geometry does make sense also in the case of tiny
objects.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[Rainer Fügenstein]

Hello Warin,

Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 8:48:16 AM, you wrote:

W> Request For Discussion
W> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:substance

thanks for picking up thus topic. I have to leave in a few minutes for
a 6 week assignment, therefore only just a few words:

- my intention & impression was that - as of now - substance=* is a
tag to be chosen wisely (cough) by whoever needs it, but more
definition & structure is definitely a goal.

- I was thinking of a kind of "main type, sub type" scheme, i.e.

substance=fuel
substance:detailed=kerosine

substance=fuel
substance:detailed=diesel

substance=water
substance:detailed=drinking_water

etc.

cu


--- Je Suis Charlie


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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[Warin]

On 28/01/2015 8:41 PM, Rainer Fügenstein wrote:

Hello Warin,

Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 8:48:16 AM, you wrote:

W> Request For Discussion
W> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:substance

thanks for picking up thus topic. I have to leave in a few minutes for
a 6 week assignment, therefore only just a few words:

- my intention & impression was that - as of now - substance=* is a
tag to be chosen wisely (cough) by whoever needs it, but more
definition & structure is definitely a goal.

- I was thinking of a kind of "main type, sub type" scheme, i.e.

substance=fuel
substance:detailed=kerosine

substance=fuel
substance:detailed=diesel

substance=water
substance:detailed=drinking_water

etc.

cu


--- Je Suis Charlie


Have a good trip. In the mean time ...
More organisation with sub tags as I call them?
At a base physics level substance = solid, liquid, gas .. Don't know if 
that level of reduction is needed? And it would need the addition of 
slurry anyway! And I don't know of 'multiphase' (as in how to fit it in)?


So for natural gas worked out to that basic level, as one example, that 
would be

substance = gas
gas=fuel
fuel=natural_gas

None of this colon/semicolon business that has got people so worked up :)
And it may reduce the errors of tagging things like

substance=fuel
substance:detailed=drinking_water

And it too gets around drinking_water as that becomes
substance = liquid
liquid=water
water=drinking (or potable?)
Other ideas?  Kick them around guys.. brainstorm it.

Oh.. 'multiphase' is a mixture of gas, fuel and water as it comes out of 
some well heads (as stated on the wiki). Interested to see any ideas on 
a good tag for that .. nice puzzle that one. Maybe it is the physics tag 
of multiphase as in containg all the states of gas, liquid and solid. 
Fits... anyone know?



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

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

[Andy Mabbett]

On 25 January 2015 at 16:29, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> patron saints.
> E.g. the Basilica Sancti Petri (Saint Peter's Basilica) in Vatican City is
> obviously dedicated to Sanctus Petrus (Saint Peter).

There are sometimes more than one saint with the same name, This is
where Wikidata tags provide useful disambiguation.

You can either tag with:

   wikidata = Q12512 (resolves to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12512
; the item for Saint Peter's Basilica)

from which you can determine that the patron saint (P417) is Q33923 (
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33923 ; equivalent the articles on St
Peter in various languages, such as,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter )

Or you could tag more explicitly, with

   patron-saint:wikidata = Q33923

You can find the Wikidata ID from a Wikipedia article, in any
language, in its left-hand column, as a link labelled "Wikidata item".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-01-28 8:48 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> Unfortunately this does not have a tag for non drinking water .. possible
> values could be
>
> non-potable_water
>
> grey_water
>


I like grey_water



>
> According to taginfo the values in decreasing use are water (30%), gas,
> heat, sewrage, oil, hot water (20%), electricity (should be 'cable'
> according to the wiki), sewage (3%), oxygen, coal, lng, fuel.
>


http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/substance#values
at least "heat" and "electricity" are no substances at all, "gas" isn't a
substance either but a state of aggregation, lng and H2S are abbreviations
or chemical codes (rather than British English words), IMHO you don't have
to take these usage numbers too seriously, as this key has a total usage of
only 430 and there don't seem reasonable semantics to be in use.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-01-28 12:01 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> So for natural gas worked out to that basic level, as one example, that
> would be
> substance = gas
> gas=fuel
> fuel=natural_gas
>



I believe this is pointlessly complicated and semantically incorrect, why
not tag:

substance=natural_gas



> None of this colon/semicolon business that has got people so worked up :)
> And it may reduce the errors of tagging things like
>
> substance=fuel
>


"fuel" is not a substance but describes a purpose (stuff to provide heat
and/or power by combustion). You might see this as a common informal way to
refer to gasoline / petrol but I wouldn't advocate something like this for
a tagging scheme.



substance = liquid
> liquid=water
> water=drinking (or potable?)
> Other ideas?  Kick them around guys.. brainstorm it.
>


substance=water
drinkable=yes


if you want the "liquid" information, use
aggregate_state=liquid
IMHO for pipelines it would be more interesting to tag the pressure and the
inner diameter of the tube.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[SomeoneElse]

On 28/01/2015 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-01-28 8:48 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>:


Unfortunately this does not have a tag for non drinking water ..
possible values could be

non-potable_water

grey_water



I like grey_water


"grey water" has a specific meaning (waste water that isn't sewage and 
can be further used for e.g. irrigation).  If that's what you mean - 
great.  If you just mean water that you can't drink, then just use 
something that describes it, like "water".


Although http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:substance says "water == 
fresh water for drinking purposes" that doesn't match the real world.  
Mappers adding e.g. irrigation pipes aren't going to check the wiki; 
they'll just say "that's a water pipe", so data consumers can't assume 
that "substance=water" == "fresh water for drinking purposes".


Cheers,

Andy



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

[Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I just stumbled over this in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

*removed:*

   - (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly
   seen on other sources)


I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed". If people
want to tag easter eggs or errors from other maps in the OSM db they should
use a distinct tag for it.


cheers,

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

Re: [Tagging] length=

[François Lacombe]

I understand your point.

Nevertheless, using a compass + indicating direction=* will be more precise
and exact than drawing the box according to aerial pictures (often
according where you think the box is)
Same for length=* or any other physical properties.

I've no problem with hardcore micromapping. OSM is a meaningful project for
that.
But sometimes, the precision and scale issues force us tu use simpler
primitives.

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2015-01-28 10:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2015-01-28 9:13 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :
>
>> Some small features can actually be summarized as nodes when drawing
>> their shape sounds irrelevant regarding the cluttering it introduces.
>>
>> I'm sorry that was trivial for me.
>> I won't draw a circle for a 5cm diameter pole and so on...
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> while for a pole (especially a quite small one) geometry does indeed not
> give you a great gain, it does provide additional information for other
> small shapes even if they are on the limit of what we can represent, e.g. a
> telephone booth, a bench, a street cabinet, etc., because the geometry
> gives you orientation information and also other positioning information
> relative to close by objects (e.g. adjacent or with a gap, in line or
> shifted) and allows for further details like the position of the
> door/entrance, etc.
>
> I admit this is hardcore micromapping and mostly I don't do it like this
> myself but use a node, just wanted to point out that there are situations
> where more detailed geometry does make sense also in the case of tiny
> objects.
>
> 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] patron saints

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-01-27 11:42 GMT+01:00 Simone Saviolo :

> Speaking of Vatican, i.e. Roman Catholic Church, Mary is Blessed, not
> Saint. Her title is Beata Virgo Maria (Beata Vergine Maria in Italian,
> Blessed Virgin Mary in English). She is an unordinary Blessed, as she and
> her feasts are more important than those of the Saints; anyway, "Saint
> Mary" is nothing but a popular name :-)



Are you sure about this? Because I have heard about "Santissima Madre di
Dio" (holiest mother of God)

There are also several other St. Marys, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goretti

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Richard Welty]

On 1/28/15 7:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I just stumbled over this in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

*removed:*

  * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are
commonly seen on other sources)


I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen 
on other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed". If 
people want to tag easter eggs or errors from other maps in the OSM db 
they should use a distinct tag for it.




+1

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Tom Pfeifer]

maybe "fiction:" and an explanation in the note tag.

Richard Welty wrote on 2015-01-28 13:46:

On 1/28/15 7:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

I just stumbled over this in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

*removed:*

  * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen 
on other sources)


I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources", 
because this has nothing to do with "removed". If people want to tag easter eggs or 
errors from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it.



+1



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

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

[Steve Doerr]

On 28/01/2015 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-01-27 11:42 GMT+01:00 Simone Saviolo >:


Speaking of Vatican, i.e. Roman Catholic Church, Mary is Blessed,
not Saint. Her title is Beata Virgo Maria (Beata Vergine Maria in
Italian, Blessed Virgin Mary in English). She is an unordinary
Blessed, as she and her feasts are more important than those of
the Saints; anyway, "Saint Mary" is nothing but a popular name :-)



Are you sure about this? Because I have heard about "Santissima Madre 
di Dio" (holiest mother of God)


There are also several other St. Marys, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goretti




Describing someone as 'holy' is not the same as giving them the title 
'saint'. The very fact that the superlative is used ('santissima') 
somewhat suggests that this is not the regular title meaning 'saint'. 
Nevertheless, there are many Church of England churches dedicated to 'St 
Mary the Virgin', so she seems to have been promoted to sainthood by the 
Anglican church! In Catholic circles, 'Our Lady' or its equivalent is 
also a common dedication.


The confusion in the use of Saint is noted by the Oxford English Dictionary:

'†3. Prefixed to various common nouns (in collocations taken over from 
Latin and French), esp. Charity, Cross, Spirit, Trinity. Obs.

'Sometimes abbreviated as in A. 1.

'In dedications of churches there occur St. Cross, St. Faith, St. 
Saviour, St. Sepulchre.'


--
Steve


---
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] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Richard Welty]

On 1/28/15 7:51 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

maybe "fiction:" and an explanation in the note tag.

back in the 1960s, there were a bunch of proposals for motorways
in the Albany, NY area that were never built (for good reason). a mapper
added those as proposed maybe two years ago, which wasn't good
because the default mapnik stylesheet renders them.

i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.

some sort of generic tagging for such situations would be nice.

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[SomeoneElse]

On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote:


i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.



I guess that that makes sense here in a "fix the mapper" kind of way 
(I've certainly done similar things), but generally I wouldn't have 
thought that things that were once proposed but are now never going to 
be built belonged in OSM at all.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

[Andy Mabbett]

On 26 January 2015 at 00:39, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> maybe using Wikidata should be considered through an
>> additional tag such as dedication:wikidata=Q33923 for Saint Peter
>> 
>
> I dislike these numbers. They are not human readable, and typos will not be
> noticed.

So have editing software fetch the title from Wikidata; it has an open
and free API.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 28.01.2015 05:01, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> On 01/25/2015 10:29 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>> Probable all christian churches (buildings) and most chapels are dedicated
>> to patron saints.
>> E.g. the Basilica Sancti Petri (Saint Peter's Basilica) in Vatican City is
>> obviously dedicated to Sanctus Petrus (Saint Peter). As in this example, the
>> patron saint is often part of the common name of a church. But this example
>> also shows that an automated extraction is almost impossible.
> 
> This depends upon which branch of Christianity you are talking about. Many
> Protestant denominations do not recognize the existence of saints in the
> Roman Catholic sense of no-longer-living humans who serve as intermediaries
> between living humans and God.  We colloquially refer to some of the early
> church leaders as saints, referring to Saint Peter or Saint Paul, but feel
> that prayers should be directed to God, not to any lesser being.

That's interesting, because I always thought of christianism as a
polytheistic religion.

Now there seems to be a consensus to use a dedication=* key, which certainly
works for monotheists as well.

-- 
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] patron saints

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 28.01.2015 12:34, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> There are sometimes more than one saint with the same name, This is
> where Wikidata tags provide useful disambiguation.
> 
> You can either tag with:
> 
>wikidata = Q12512 (resolves to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12512
> ; the item for Saint Peter's Basilica)
> 
> from which you can determine that the patron saint (P417) is Q33923 (
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q33923 ; equivalent the articles on St
> Peter in various languages, such as,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter )
> 
> Or you could tag more explicitly, with
> 
>patron-saint:wikidata = Q33923

The reference to wikidata has already been suggested elsewhere in this thread.

It currently comes down to dedication=* for the full name(s) in local
language, dedication:en=* etc. for translations, and dedication:wikidata=*
for the wikidata code(s).

-- 
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] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Richard Welty]

On 1/28/15 8:09 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:

On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote:


i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.



I guess that that makes sense here in a "fix the mapper" kind of way 
(I've certainly done similar things), but generally I wouldn't have 
thought that things that were once proposed but are now never going to 
be built belonged in OSM at all.

i wouldn't either, it's a measure taken to end what otherwise
might turn into something that looks like an edit war.

richard

--
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[althio]

> removed:
>
> (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen
> on other sources)
>
> I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
> other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed". If people want 
> to tag easter eggs or errors
> from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it.


Only it was simpler with only one tag to remove a feature from a
ground survey but without first-hand knowledge of the full history or
if it is mentioned still in other sources (imagery, pictures,
cadastre, ...).
If something is mapped on OSM, but you are sure that it doesn't
exist... Do you know for sure if it doesn't exist *anymore* or if it
*never* existed in the first place? Using a distinct tag for absolute
correctness may prevent a simple and worthwhile improvement.

I propose

error:
(features that do not exist but may be seen on other sources)
[generic, catchall for the two cases + leave a trace of the feature to
prevent edit war]

removed:
(features that do not exist anymore but may still be seen on other sources)
[@Martin: leave a mention to the other sources]

eventually a third tag for:
(features that never existed but may be seen on other sources)
but two above may be enough.

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also
agreed and has changed the description.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-01-28 13:06 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse :

> "grey water" has a specific meaning (waste water that isn't sewage and can
> be further used for e.g. irrigation).  If that's what you mean - great.  If
> you just mean water that you can't drink, then just use something that
> describes it, like "water".
>


thanks for pointing this out. If you are interested in the details, you can
have a deeper read here: EN 12056-1  ;-)



> Although http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:substance says "water ==
> fresh water for drinking purposes" that doesn't match the real world.
>


+1



>   Mappers adding e.g. irrigation pipes aren't going to check the wiki;
> they'll just say "that's a water pipe", so data consumers can't assume that
> "substance=water" == "fresh water for drinking purposes".
>


+1

I also take back my suggestion above, which was "drinkable=yes/no", because
in the case we are discussing here, we are talking about a pipeline. We'd
need a tag referring to the water in the pipeline, because it is not the
pipeline itself which is drinkable. Maybe water:drinkable=yes/no could do
it. Btw.: if you follow this argumentation, this issue is also occurring
for other features like water taps or fountains (on a semantic level,
amenity=fountain, drinkable=yes doesn't make sense).

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Quay

[fly]

Am 28.01.2015 um 02:51 schrieb Warin:
> On 27/01/2015 9:29 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
>> (This discussion originated on talk - crossposted to tagging on
>> Malcolm's suggestion)
>>
>> On 26/01/2015 21:16, Malcolm Herring wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2015 19:23, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Harbour#Quay
 mentions that "a quay will normally be tagged as part of the
 coastline natural=coastline". Apart from that I found no clue
 anywhere else about how a quay should be tagged... Am I missing
 something ? Considering how well-used man_made=pier is, I am
 surprised that quays get such scant attention. man_made=quay anyone ? 
>>> To quote the IHO dictionary: "quay. A WHARF approximately parallel to
>>> the SHORELINE and accommodating ships on one side only, the other
>>> side being attached to the SHORE. It is usually of solid
>>> construction, as contrasted with the open pile construction usually
>>> used for PIERS."
>>>
>>> So yes, your reasoning is correct & that section of the coastline
>>> that forms the quay could indeed be tagged "man_made=quay".
>>
>> Yes, this is about what I had in mind:
>> - Either take a section of natural=coastline and overload it with
>> man_made=quay
>> - Or draw a dedicated man_made=quay way on top of a natural=coastline
>>
>> I have no idea which one would be best. I lean towards the first one
>> for easier editing - ways exactly on top of each other are difficult
>> to select.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> Off topic.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Harbour#Quay .. is
> dated .. 2008 or before .. 8 years ? proposed? Ridiculous! Abandoned ..
> why? And what is used in its place? Very poor documentation - nothing
> directly on why it failed.

Sadly, all proposal without a change within some time period where set
to abandoned some time ago. Please feel free to take over and reactivate it.

> 
> 
>  One could also use waterway=quay or waterway=wharf. This would
> associate it with a waterway, might be a natural feature (think of a
> solid sandstone bank used as a wharf), or man made so why not waterway? 
> Does not sit with man_made=pier .. but those don't occur as natural
> features? My thinking is to follow highway=* tagging where traffic
> lights are tagged hightway=traffic_lights rather than
> man_made=traffic_lights. This groups things together for a more logical
> system of things that would be associated all in the one main tag.

Actually, I am in favour of creating more keys in stead of too much
grouping. We already get conflicts with highway=traffic_lights vs.
highway=crossing and imagine traffic_calming=* to be under
highway=traffic_calming.

I would propose to use man_made=quay analog to pier and guess that there
are not many natural quays.
Still waterway=quay is used a little more often [1], so documentation
and some con-sense is needed.

> ---
> As the coastline in some places is man made .. I'd much rather see
> coastline as waterway=coastline rather than natural=coastline. This
> comes back to my thoughts on OSM tagging philosophy/thinking/order 

waterways are all linear objects and it contradicts to your
waterway=quay/wharf

I would not take all keys literally and we will always have a discussion
about natural=* I guess.

Cheers fly


[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=quay#values

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

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

[André Pirard]

On 2015-01-28 13:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
> 2015-01-27 11:42 GMT+01:00 Simone Saviolo  >:
>
> On 2015-01-27 11:25, André Pirard wrote :
>> You should urgently warn the Vatican
>> 
>> 
>> ! 
> Speaking of Vatican, i.e. Roman Catholic Church, Mary is Blessed,
> not Saint. Her title is Beata Virgo Maria (Beata Vergine Maria in
> Italian, Blessed Virgin Mary in English). She is an unordinary
> Blessed, as she and her feasts are more important than those of
> the Saints; anyway, "Saint Mary" is nothing but a popular name :-)
>
>
>
> Are you sure about this? Because I have heard about "Santissima Madre
> di Dio" (holiest mother of God)
My reply was of course kidding. That, in Simone's terms, the Vatican use
a popular language ;-)
The fact is that in French, we use no such words as "Blessed".
We use "saint(e)" as a noun or as an adjective.
"La sainte Vierge Marie" (adjective) means "blessed Mary".
"Sainte Marie" (noun) is normally not said (except in the "Hail Mary..."
prayer ;-)  , in which it's an adjective) and would mean that "Mary is a
saint".
"Un saint" (noun) is someone who has been canonized
.
"Un saint homme" (adjective) was not (necessarily), he is virtuous.

Santissima is an adjective.
"Holy Mary" was never canonized (it would be seen as a joke).
But what about "Saint Joseph", sort of half one, Simone (no (more)
comment from me ;-) ).

Bless you,

André.


> There are also several other St. Marys, e.g.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goretti
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>

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

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

[Jo]

2015-01-28 17:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard :

>  On 2015-01-28 13:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
>
>  2015-01-27 11:42 GMT+01:00 Simone Saviolo :
>
>> On 2015-01-27 11:25, André Pirard wrote :
>>
>> You should urgently warn the Vatican
>> 
>> !
>>
>> Speaking of Vatican, i.e. Roman Catholic Church, Mary is Blessed, not
>> Saint. Her title is Beata Virgo Maria (Beata Vergine Maria in Italian,
>> Blessed Virgin Mary in English). She is an unordinary Blessed, as she and
>> her feasts are more important than those of the Saints; anyway, "Saint
>> Mary" is nothing but a popular name :-)
>
>
>
>  Are you sure about this? Because I have heard about "Santissima Madre di
> Dio" (holiest mother of God)
>
> My reply was of course kidding. That, in Simone's terms, the Vatican use a
> popular language ;-)
> The fact is that in French, we use no such words as "Blessed".
>

What about sacré-coeur?

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

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

[Steve Doerr]

On 28/01/2015 16:12, André Pirard wrote:


The fact is that in French, we use no such words as "Blessed".


The French equivalent is 'Bienheureux/se'. I don't suppose it's ever 
used of the Virgin Mary, though.


--
Steve

---
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] patron saints

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-01-28 17:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard :

> Speaking of Vatican, i.e. Roman Catholic Church, Mary is Blessed, not
>> Saint. Her title is Beata Virgo Maria (Beata Vergine Maria in Italian,
>> Blessed Virgin Mary in English). She is an unordinary Blessed, as she and
>> her feasts are more important than those of the Saints; anyway, "Saint
>> Mary" is nothing but a popular name :-)
>
>
>
>  Are you sure about this? Because I have heard about "Santissima Madre di
> Dio" (holiest mother of God)
>
> My reply was of course kidding. That, in Simone's terms, the Vatican use a
> popular language ;-)
> The fact is that in French, we use no such words as "Blessed".
>


the correct term in French is "bienheureux ou bienheureuse, le qualificatif
donné à une personne qui a été béatifiée"
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9atification

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01/28/2015 01:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> *removed:*
> 
>   * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are
> commonly seen on other sources) 
> 
> I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
> other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed". 

Frankly, a feature that does not exist anymore has no place in OSM in my
opinion.

If there used to be a castle and now there's a ruin, then we tag that as
a ruin (with potential add-on info about its former castle status).

If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the
forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a
lifecycle tag of "removed".

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] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Paul Johnson]

Several freeways that were designed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the
Baghdad, IQ area got tagged similarly to that (highway=unbuilt or
similar).  No idea if they were later built by some authority.  Also didn't
know if it was inside knowledge by a returning soldier past the end of
whatever applicable NDA was in play or someone pulled a big-ass FOIA
request and found 'em.  Or if Sam Baldock (the same one for which segments
of Iraq Highway 1 (prior to and once again after Hussein's rule) and a long
section of Interstate 5 in Oregon were named after; he was a prolific civil
engineer in both regions) had designed 'em and they were never built after
the 1968 Ba'ath Revolution.  Normally not a fan of source tags on anything
smaller than a whole changeset, but in this case, it would save a whole lot
of research trying to find where a strange but plausible edit came from.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

> On 1/28/15 7:51 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
>> maybe "fiction:" and an explanation in the note tag.
>>
> back in the 1960s, there were a bunch of proposals for motorways
> in the Albany, NY area that were never built (for good reason). a mapper
> added those as proposed maybe two years ago, which wasn't good
> because the default mapnik stylesheet renders them.
>
> i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
> that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.
>
> some sort of generic tagging for such situations would be nice.
>
> richard
>
> --
> rwe...@averillpark.net
>  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
>  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
>  Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
> ___
> 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] Ethnic shops

[Eric SIBERT]

I started modifying the wiki following our recent discussion.

For cuisine=*, I added:
"May also apply to other services that deliver food, like convenience."

For shop=convenience, I added (in Tags used in combination):
"Stores selling specific type of food or with ethnic origin may use 
{{tag|cuisine}} to indicate it."



And latter go on with culture=* for nonfood services?

Eric

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

Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops

[Dan S]

2015-01-28 18:52 GMT+00:00 Eric SIBERT :
> I started modifying the wiki following our recent discussion.
>
> For cuisine=*, I added:
> "May also apply to other services that deliver food, like convenience."
>
> For shop=convenience, I added (in Tags used in combination):
> "Stores selling specific type of food or with ethnic origin may use
> {{tag|cuisine}} to indicate it."
>
>
> And latter go on with culture=* for nonfood services?

Hi - my 2p: yes sounds fine. I agree with others who said that
culture=* seems a decent choice (since more flexible and less awkward
than ethnicity=*)

Best
Dan

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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[Rainer Fügenstein]

hi,

first, I wouldn't use the value of substance=* as key for the detailed
level, because in this case we would introduce a new key (i.e. fuel=)
whenever a new substance is introduced (i.e. substance=fuel).

second, I'd stick with two levels (general, detailed), otherwise we'd
eventually end up with a substance having 8 levels, down to the molecular
structure.

cu

> So for natural gas worked out to that basic level, as one example, that
> would be
> substance = gas
> gas=fuel
> fuel=natural_gas
>
> None of this colon/semicolon business that has got people so worked up :)
> And it may reduce the errors of tagging things like
>
> substance=fuel
> substance:detailed=drinking_water
>
> And it too gets around drinking_water as that becomes
> substance = liquid
> liquid=water
> water=drinking (or potable?)
> Other ideas?  Kick them around guys.. brainstorm it.
>
> Oh.. 'multiphase' is a mixture of gas, fuel and water as it comes out of
> some well heads (as stated on the wiki). Interested to see any ideas on
> a good tag for that .. nice puzzle that one. Maybe it is the physics tag
> of multiphase as in containg all the states of gas, liquid and solid.
> Fits... anyone know?
>
>
> ___
> 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] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:22:51PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also
> agreed and has changed the description.

thank you all for the unexpected attention, the problematic text snippet
was cut&paste from [[Comparison of life cycle concepts]] where it must 
have been lurking for some time.

Its a bit early for the first April, but maybe someone will find my new
proposal for the fictional:mythical:{dead,undead}:{zombie,...} namespace
interesting.

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
is only proposed has no place in OSM.

With possible caveat that features that are extremely likely to be added
(recently destroyed building visible on aerial images etc) element with note
explaining situations makes sense.

But not a full tagging scheme!


2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm :

> Hi,
>
> On 01/28/2015 01:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > *removed:*
> >
> >   * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are
> > commonly seen on other sources)
> >
> > I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
> > other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed".
>
> Frankly, a feature that does not exist anymore has no place in OSM in my
> opinion.
>
> If there used to be a castle and now there's a ruin, then we tag that as
> a ruin (with potential add-on info about its former castle status).
>
> If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the
> forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a
> lifecycle tag of "removed".
>
> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[John F. Eldredge]

On January 28, 2015 7:09:01 AM CST, SomeoneElse  wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote:
> >
> > i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
> > that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.
> >
> 
> I guess that that makes sense here in a "fix the mapper" kind of way 
> (I've certainly done similar things), but generally I wouldn't have 
> thought that things that were once proposed but are now never going to
> 
> be built belonged in OSM at all.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Well, you also have the status "proposed, but no start date set", which would 
fit some subdivision maps I have seen. I am not sure how one would tag that.


-- 
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." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops

[johnw]

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:57 AM, Dan S  wrote:
> 
> 2015-01-28 18:52 GMT+00:00 Eric SIBERT :
>> I started modifying the wiki following our recent discussion.
>> 
>> For cuisine=*, I added:
>> "May also apply to other services that deliver food, like convenience."
>> 
>> For shop=convenience, I added (in Tags used in combination):
>> "Stores selling specific type of food or with ethnic origin may use
>> {{tag|cuisine}} to indicate it."
>> 
>> 
>> And latter go on with culture=* for nonfood services?
> 
> Hi - my 2p: yes sounds fine. I agree with others who said that
> culture=* seems a decent choice (since more flexible and less awkward
> than ethnicity=*)
> 

+1 

(my 2¥)

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Warin]

On 29/01/2015 12:28 AM, althio wrote:

removed:

(features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen
on other sources)

I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed". If people want 
to tag easter eggs or errors
from other maps in the OSM db they should use a distinct tag for it.



I propose

error:
(features that do not exist but may be seen on other sources)
[generic, catchall for the two cases + leave a trace of the feature to
prevent edit war]

How about
phantom: .. ? Some of these may be deliberate so the copyright holder 
can easily identify copies of their data. As such they are not errors 
but deliberate.


removed:
(features that do not exist anymore but may still be seen on other sources)
[@Martin: leave a mention to the other sources]
I see no harm in leaving them in OSM. Untill something is built there or 
the landuse/cover changes. Leave it there so no one re adds it. Remove 
it only when new features take its place, so the new features are not 
confused by the past.

eventually a third tag for:
(features that never existed but may be seen on other sources)
but two above may be enough.


Same as phantom?

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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[SomeoneElse]

On 28/01/2015 21:57, John F. Eldredge wrote:


Well, you also have the status "proposed, but no start date set", 
which would fit some subdivision maps I have seen. I am not sure how 
one would tag that.


Again, I probably wouldn't add that, until it has got a projected start 
date (and a budget!).  In the UK at least, local authorities often 
propose all sorts of pie-in-the-sky schemes for bypasses etc. for 
political reasons.  Until they've got funding it makes no sense to 
assume that they're going to happen.


To me it makes sense for something like HS2 phase 2*1 (the new high 
speed rail lines north of Birmingham) to be in OSM, despite the 
necessary act of parliament not having been passed yet*2, because there 
is funding and considerable political will behind it.  The Lincoln 
Eastern Bypass*3, not so much*4.


Cheers,

Andy

*1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4124756

*2 
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9P3WYTZTWRkJ:http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06624.pdf%2B%22hs2+phase+2%22+act+of+parliament&tbs=li:1&hl=en&&ct=clnk


*3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167220760/history

*4 
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2014/07/lincoln-eastern-bypass-rejected-public-inquiry/



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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 22:42 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
> is only proposed has no place in OSM.

So you want to get rid of proposed roads, too?

Having a proposed road on the map is good to see what has been planned
for the future. Now, after it is obvious the proposed road will never be
built, that's a different story, it should be removed.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

[johnw]

> On Jan 28, 2015, at 8:01 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Oh.. 'multiphase' is a mixture of gas, fuel and water as it comes out of some 
> well heads 


if this is the proper term used for pipelines, then this would be the right 
one, 

Otherwise, =multi (like sports) would be the best. 

but you would not need such a tag, since it would be 

substance=gas
substance:detailed=multiphase_gas

if you keep it at two levels of detail (water, gas, oil,  fuel, sewage, heat, 
coolant, etc), include a catch-all like “other”, so if someone has a maple 
syrup pipeline (for instance - one can only dream) it can get thrown into 
other.  There might also need to be an “industrial” one, in case someone is 
moving some industrial chemical that wouldn’t fit into the scheme either, 
though I’m not sure how exactly that would be worded. micro-mapping certain 
industrial facilities would require something like this. 

> 
> substance=fuel
> substance:detailed=drinking_water

isn't it just as error prone as  

substance=fuel
fuel=drinking_water

?

using the colon separator would keep from making additional tags (everything 
would be kept in the substance tagspace) - especially generic tags like fuel= 
water= gas= which might have uses elsewhere (like the water_tap discussion here 
earlier) or be confused for other uses (like not a subkey, but a straight key 
by itself), someone could stick fuel=unleaded_87 onto a gas station. Or does 
that already exist?

Javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Yes, my opinion is that all highway=proposed should be removed.

OSM should map current situation - not what was there or what will be.

"after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built" sounds nice but
always there will be somebody convinced that proposal is real. For example
my city has multiple proposed roads - that are in official planes for
decades
(one since at least 1960s), with start of construction "within 25 years"
since
initial proposal.


2015-01-29 0:53 GMT+01:00 Shawn K. Quinn :

> On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 22:42 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
> > is only proposed has no place in OSM.
>
> So you want to get rid of proposed roads, too?
>
> Having a proposed road on the map is good to see what has been planned
> for the future. Now, after it is obvious the proposed road will never be
> built, that's a different story, it should be removed.
>
> --
> Shawn K. Quinn 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging