Re: [Tagging] Proposal : Move "smoking" tag to active status

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 21.03.2015 01:54, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Any objection to moving:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Smoking
> because it is heavily used and obviously well established.

I object. The feature page should document actual usage, and actual usage
differs from proposed usage. smoking=outside is the second most common value
and 15x more abundant than the proposed smoking:outside=yes. By the way, I
find the proposed tag smoking:outside=separated ridiculous because you
cannot separate air masses outside.

The proposed keys smokefree=* (65 objects) and smoking_hours=* (14 objects)
should also be removed from the feature page.

-- 
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] Fuel shops

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 20.03.2015 00:48, Warin wrote:
> On 20/03/2015 9:39 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Andy Mabbett > > wrote:
>>
>> amenity=fuel
>> fuel=bottled
>>
>>
>> Which would render indistinguishable from a full service fuel station.

That's fine, because selling fuel is what makes it a fuel station.

>> fuel=bottled in addition would create some confusion if the fuel was in a
>> drum with a pump.
>>
> 
> Rendering can change.. if there is enough need. For example some renders
> look for;
>  the surface tag to render roads that are unpaved differently from those
> that are paved.
> the tags for bicycle use to determine if paths, footways are available for
> bicycle use..
> 
> 
> 
> As I said
> 
> the key fuel= is in use to distinguish the type of fuel .. CNG, diesel,
> petrol, kero etc. Not for the dispensing method.
> 
> amenity=fuel
> 
> and possibly
> dispenser= bottle, drum, pump (where pump is what Australians call a
> 'bowser' .. and what is presently used to render amenity=fuel)
> 
> or
> fuel:storage=bottle, drum,tank. Needs words to describe there things,
> particularly that the 'tank' is much larger than the drum.

I agree with amenity=fuel + a subtag like these (if needed).

-- 
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] Loomio evaluation

[Dan S]

OSM is a very large community with much accumulated knowledge and
skill - it's bound to be quite conservative, and for good reason. The
challenge is to allow experimental innovations to breathe without
disrupting the community. We'll never be able to organise a vote (ha!)
to switch to loomio all at once. But if we decide Loomio is worth
trying, maybe we can experimentally agree to use it to negotiate some
small tagging subproject, in a particular tag namespace. (indoor
tagging might be a good example?) Then inch by inch we see what works.

Dan


2015-03-23 0:18 GMT+00:00 Dave Swarthout :
> I'll second the notion that we need something better than the current
> system. It is an anachronism!
>
> My first look at Loomio was good, I was impressed, but my immediate thought
> was, it'll never get accepted into OSM
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dan S  wrote:
>>
>> It's interesting. I hadn't realised it's open-source too, so osm could
>> run its own version of it if we wanted to.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> 2015-03-20 22:38 GMT+00:00 Kotya Karapetyan :
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio
>> > has
>> > been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
>> > alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
>> >
>> > Let's take a look together:
>> > https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
>> >
>> > And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Kotya
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andreas Goss  wrote:

> It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
>> vote compared to the number of mappers.
>>
>
> STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
>
> Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody
> else it's just as mess and feels like spam.


Are you from the past?  Email is the most basic service out there; don't
expect it to go anywhere anytime soon.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
> topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
> branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode' problem, some even have a
> system of not viewing post by someone they don't like!


It's 2015 and people still struggle with how threading and filters work?
Just because someone couldn't pass a middle school basic computer skills
course is no fault of the technology.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[Kotya Karapetyan]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
>> topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
>> branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode' problem, some even have a
>> system of not viewing post by someone they don't like!
>
>
> It's 2015 and people still struggle with how threading and filters work?
> Just because someone couldn't pass a middle school basic computer skills
> course is no fault of the technology.
>
>
Paul has just emphasized an important advantage of using mailing list as
compared to forums or other moderated platforms:
Anywhere else he would have just run the risk of being banned. An open
mailing list is the most democratic discussion platform.

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

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[André Pirard]

On 2015-03-23 01:18, Dave Swarthout wrote :
> I'll second the notion that we need something better than the current
> system. It is an anachronism!
>
> My first look at Loomio was good, I was impressed, but my immediate
> thought was, it'll never get accepted into OSM
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dan S  > wrote:
>
> It's interesting. I hadn't realised it's open-source too, so osm could
> run its own version of it if we wanted to.
>
> Dan
>
> 2015-03-20 22:38 GMT+00:00 Kotya Karapetyan  >:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal
> discussions, Loomio has
> > been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
> > alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
> >
> > Let's take a look together:
> https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
> >
> > And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kotya
>
Hi,

I clicked "Login via Google", Google didn't let me choose which e-mail
address to use, it blindly used the wrong one, I obviously canceled
permission to use it and Loomio reported failure for a cryptic reason.
Back to Loomio for a new start, I'm stuck in the following welcome
dialog when trying to repeat the same.
It looks like Loomio made a subscription despite it failed and wants me
to do an impossible login.
According to Help, no subscription is needed :-D
How can I cancel that bogus subscription and go on? (I have an idea of
trickery, but I prefer the official method).

Short conclusion: it seems I won the contest by raising a bug on just a
single first click ;-)

>
>   Link up your account
>
> Log in to your Loomio account to link it up with Google.
>
> or
> Remember me
> Forgot your password? 
>
> Don't have an account? Create one now
> 
>
Cheers

André.










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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Kotya Karapetyan 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
>>> topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
>>> branches for instance), avoids the 'digest mode' problem, some even have a
>>> system of not viewing post by someone they don't like!
>>
>>
>> It's 2015 and people still struggle with how threading and filters work?
>> Just because someone couldn't pass a middle school basic computer skills
>> course is no fault of the technology.
>>
>>
> Paul has just emphasized an important advantage of using mailing list as
> compared to forums or other moderated platforms:
> Anywhere else he would have just run the risk of being banned. An open
> mailing list is the most democratic discussion platform.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal : Move "smoking" tag to active status

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-22 14:00 GMT+01:00 fly :

> +1 but please copy and archive the proposal



+1, rather than "(User moved page Proposed features/Smoking to Tag:smoking)
(undo)" the Tag definition page should be a new page, referring the
proposal page (e.g. in the "see also" section, or maybe a dedicated
"proposal" section), which should remain at its old address (this way,
history remains much more understandable).

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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 10:43 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :

> The mailing lists are moderated.



they are moderately moderated, you have to act in a very asocial way to
risk moderation, unless it's the accessibility list, maybe ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Dave Swarthout]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> I agree with amenity=fuel + a subtag like these (if needed).


This is not the way to go.

An amenity is something the *general public* might like or use or want to
visit. These little shops are definitely not that. They sell small
quantities of fuel, usually 2 or 3 liters, to local motorcycle drivers. And
the Wiki's definition of shop is: "A place selling retail products or
services."  Too brief perhaps but it does allow for a wide range of
additions.

Meanwhile, until the renderers get smart, people are going to travel to
these shops hoping to fill up their SUVs. This is exactly what I'm trying
to avoid. I do not see why there is so much resistance to adding another
value to the shop keys in existence. There are some pretty strange special
values out there:
shop=bag
shop=e-cigarette
shop=fashion  (??)

What the hell does a fashion shop sell? Fashion of course. I wonder when
the renderers will decide to deal with bag shops?


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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[Jan van Bekkum]

I can't imagine that people who are able to provide mapping input for OSM
are not able to work with forums etc. Moderation is something you have to
agree upon before. The OSM community can decide not to moderate.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2015-03-23 10:43 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :
>
>> The mailing lists are moderated.
>
>
>
> they are moderately moderated, you have to act in a very asocial way to
> risk moderation, unless it's the accessibility list, maybe ;-)
>
> 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] Fuel shops

[Jan van Bekkum]

+5
I fully agree with Dave! We need a clear differentiation between regular
filling stations with large underground containers and the shops that sell
a few liters of diesel of which you may hope that it isn't polluted and
doesn't contain water.

When I travel in countries like Malawi or Ethiopia I try to plan fuelling
in such a way that I can use "normal" fillings stations. I don't care so
much about the brand or the roof, but large quantities and protection
against manipulation are important. The "shops" I only use in emergencies.
So please use amenity=fuel for regular filling stations and extend the
existing shop=fuel with attributes to specify what fuekl is sold.


On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:05 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
>
>> I agree with amenity=fuel + a subtag like these (if needed).
>
>
> This is not the way to go.
>
> An amenity is something the *general public* might like or use or want to
> visit. These little shops are definitely not that. They sell small
> quantities of fuel, usually 2 or 3 liters, to local motorcycle drivers. And
> the Wiki's definition of shop is: "A place selling retail products or
> services."  Too brief perhaps but it does allow for a wide range of
> additions.
>
> Meanwhile, until the renderers get smart, people are going to travel to
> these shops hoping to fill up their SUVs. This is exactly what I'm trying
> to avoid. I do not see why there is so much resistance to adding another
> value to the shop keys in existence. There are some pretty strange special
> values out there:
> shop=bag
> shop=e-cigarette
> shop=fashion  (??)
>
> What the hell does a fashion shop sell? Fashion of course. I wonder when
> the renderers will decide to deal with bag shops?
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>  ___
> 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] Accepted or rejected?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 10:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> accessibility



sorry, /s/accessibility/diversity/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 11:02 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :

> I agree with amenity=fuel + a subtag like these (if needed).
>
>
> This is not the way to go.
>
> An amenity is something the *general public* might like or use or want to
> visit. These little shops are definitely not that. They sell small
> quantities of fuel, usually 2 or 3 liters, to local motorcycle drivers. And
> the Wiki's definition of shop is: "A place selling retail products or
> services."  Too brief perhaps but it does allow for a wide range of
> additions.
>
> Meanwhile, until the renderers get smart, people are going to travel to
> these shops hoping to fill up their SUVs. This is exactly what I'm trying
> to avoid. I do not see why there is so much resistance to adding another
> value to the shop keys in existence.
>


completely agree, this is NOT something that should be done with subtagging.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Jan van Bekkum]

I have renamed "commercial" to "standard" as it is the most common
campground and can include campgrounds that have all facilities of a
privately run campground, but are run by a government body (like the South
African parks). I also added details to the description of this category of
campground (definition and examples).

Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl


> 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 established, unofficial and wild campings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-20 21:59 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum :

> I have updated the proposal
>  with
> the feedback as much as possible.
>



Appearantly there are already people using this key following a different
scheme, (looks as if they used it to tag parts of camping sites rather than
using this to specify a detailed subtypology, have a look at taginfo here:
http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/camp_site . There are roughly 1,8K uses as of
now, which is not very much but maybe not so few that we can completely
ignore it. IMHO from a semantic point of view the tags in use do not make
much sense, for example a reception can occur everywhere and it seems like
a bad idea to have different tags according to which feature it provides.

It seems logical for me to use the tag camp_site=* to specify subtypes of
camp_sites, but it could also be "camp_site_type" if we wanted to avoid a
conflict. Some values are documented here in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Camp_site

I don't like the idea that a "designated" camp site has to be
non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the "fee" key.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 13:02 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> I don't like the idea that a "designated" camp site has to be
> non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the "fee" key.



to explain a bit more: we use "designated" in other parts of our tagging
(access) as a stronger "yes" (i.e. signposted/official), using it here
differently seems odd.

Another issue:
5. Informal camping (camp_site

=informal
)
- locations that are not set up to offer camping, but are more suitable for
camping than other places in the neighbourhood and therefore valuable to
know.

--> I think this should get another main tag, basically there is not camp
site, there is only a spot that is suitable to camp from the point of view
of the mapper. This should not be confusable with "official" camp sites.

6. "Areas for example in National Parks where camping is permitted camp_site

=permitted_area
."


--> see 5, these are not camp sites


Also I see a lot of overlap, because different aspects of the same thing
are packed into the same key:
1. commercial or not for profit
2. trekking or motorized campers
3. formal or informal places

My suggestion would be to have different subkeys for 1 and 2 and to have
different main keys (tourism=camp_site and new key) for 3.
The part 2 could also be further distinguished (types of vehicle)

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Dave Swarthout]

Ah, Jan, you added too many conditions! The majority of campgrounds United
States parks are not guarded, and almost never fully staffed. The larger
parks have someone at the gate to collect money, but they do not "guard"
the campers Most of the parks in Alaska work on the honor system: uoip ut
your money in the receptacle and in return get a receipt to show the
authorities. .There is usually a ranger station nearby that might send a
car out to patrol the campground, usually to check the date on your
reservation, but other than that they are almost invisible. Hot showers are
a luxury and a few camp_sites have them, most do not.

I dunno how to bridge this gap in our perceptions of these campgrounds.

Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement, let
them be mentioned as optional

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum 
wrote:

> I have renamed "commercial" to "standard" as it is the most common
> campground and can include campgrounds that have all facilities of a
> privately run campground, but are run by a government body (like the South
> African parks). I also added details to the description of this category of
> campground (definition and examples).
>
> Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
>
> *Jan van Bekkum*
> www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
>
>
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal : Move "smoking" tag to active status

[fly]

Am 23.03.2015 um 08:35 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
> On 21.03.2015 01:54, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> Any objection to moving:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Smoking
>> because it is heavily used and obviously well established.

You are right my "+1" was to fast.

> I object. The feature page should document actual usage, and actual usage
> differs from proposed usage.

+1

> smoking=outside is the second most common value
> and 15x more abundant than the proposed smoking:outside=yes. By the way, I
> find the proposed tag smoking:outside=separated ridiculous because you
> cannot separate air masses outside.

There might be different areas like front court and back court but as
these keys have only low numbers they should be only on the proposal page.

> The proposed keys smokefree=* (65 objects) and smoking_hours=* (14 objects)
> should also be removed from the feature page.

+1

cu fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[fly]

Am 23.03.2015 um 07:02 schrieb johnw:
> 
>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You can change it .. or make proposals here. Just don't change the existing 
>> values and it should be fine.
>> I'd think you'd be adding heating oils, propane and kerosene.
> 
> 
> The wiki entry is uneditable - I’ve edited quite a few wiki pages now, so I’m 
> used to going to the edit tab and seeing the text & markup in the text box to 
> edit, but  there’s only a snippet for the top of the page - the table is not 
> there to be edited (yes, I’m attempting to edit the whole page, so it should 
> be there). 
> 
> I’ve never seen an error like this before. 

Please, always include a link.

Guess you are looking for the template page of fuel types [1].


By the way, thought we use operator=* instead of tenant=*. What is the
difference or is it something we need to clean up [2] ?  Does tenant=*
with only little more than 400 appearances according to taginfo [3]
really deserve an own wiki page [4] ?

Cheers fly


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Fuel_types
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfuel#Names
[3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=tenant
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Atenant

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 23.03.2015 11:02, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> An amenity is something the /general public/ might like or use or want to
> visit. These little shops are definitely not that. They sell small
> quantities of fuel, usually 2 or 3 liters, to local motorcycle drivers.

That's why the general public might like to visit these shops - or any other
fuel station.

Ok, if it's only 2 or 3 liters, it's not really a fuel station, but rather a
shop=car_parts. Anyway, we don't need to invent a new tag.

> And
> the Wiki's definition of shop is: "A place selling retail products or
> services."  Too brief perhaps but it does allow for a wide range of additions.

Cafes, restaurants and theaters sell retail products or services as well.
You can use either of the amenity=* or shop=* keys, you just need to stick
to it.

> Meanwhile, until the renderers get smart, people are going to travel to
> these shops hoping to fill up their SUVs. This is exactly what I'm trying to
> avoid. I do not see why there is so much resistance to adding another value
> to the shop keys in existence. There are some pretty strange special values
> out there:
> shop=bag
> shop=e-cigarette
> shop=fashion  (??)

One evil cannot justify another evil. I never set the shop=fashion tag,
because it's just a useless synonym for shop=clothes.

-- 
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] Accepted or rejected?

[fly]

Am 23.03.2015 um 09:53 schrieb Paul Johnson:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andreas Goss  wrote:
> 
>> It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
>>> vote compared to the number of mappers.
>>>
>>
>> STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
>>
>> Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody
>> else it's just as mess and feels like spam.
> 
> 
> Are you from the past?  Email is the most basic service out there; don't
> expect it to go anywhere anytime soon.

+1

as long as there is no alternative for offline support we need email.

Please also have in mind the amount of traffic between plain text and html.

We did not talk about security issues and scripts, yet.

Cheers fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

[fly]

Am 22.03.2015 um 23:11 schrieb Warin:
> On 23/03/2015 1:20 AM, fly wrote:
>> Am 17.03.2015 um 07:26 schrieb John Willis:
>>> There was a big bruhaha about any mappers mapping Israeli military
>>> installations. They were deleting everything and leaving notes not to
>>> map things on that location, if I remember correctly.
>>>
>>> I don't know the details, but I imagine that OSM might get blocked in
>>> certain countries if certain things are mapped, I dunno.
>> So you need an own style for Israeli but no argument to exclude it for
>> the rest of the world or in the data base.
>>
>>
> 
> Personally I only map 'usefull' stuff.. stuff that the general public
> can use, or stuff that is usefull in an emergency.
> There is a lot to map that falls into this category that I'm not looking
> for stuff to map! Lots of roads in India for instance that are not mapped.
> 
> I'll ignore military installations unless they are historic and
> sometimes open to the public.

It should be still up to each mapper to map what she/he likes to but why
should I deny someone to map all military and secrete service areas all
over the world.

Only because some government does not like it should not be a point to
stop mapping in OSM.

Anyway, where is the border ? Which government is good and which is bad.

cu fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 14:55 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> Ok, if it's only 2 or 3 liters, it's not really a fuel station, but rather
> a
> shop=car_parts.
>


2 liters of fuel are as much car_parts as a bakery is bicycle_parts.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 14:55 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> Ok, if it's only 2 or 3 liters, it's not really a fuel station, but rather
> a
> shop=car_parts.
>


I'd prefer shop=pharmacy, dispensing=no ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Stephan Knauss]

On 23.03.2015 14:50, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

 amenity=fuel
 fuel=bottled
Which would render indistinguishable from a full service fuel station.


That's fine, because selling fuel is what makes it a fuel station.


You have missed the point of this thread. The world is not perfect. 
amenity=fuel is broken. It is so much established as a tag for "proper" 
fuel stations for cars that it's utopic to expect the tagging to change 
and people know to tag and evaluate sub-tags.


I like the idea of shop=fuel and sub-tags because it gives us the 
opportunity to make it better this time.


Legacy software and rendering still works. also legacy tagging of 
amenity=fuel still works.
But we can add advanced tagging of the fuel-types to get more (and more 
detailed) information to the database.


Exactly the small places in Asia and Africa selling fuel from bottles. 
Or the places in Japan selling kerosene for heating. Or shops sellign 
firewood and coal. Or shops selling small amounts of fuel for 
sport/fishing boats near lakes.


Stephan


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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Stephan Knauss]

On 22.03.2015 20:29, fly wrote:

some independent petrol stations are organized in associations and use
these as their brand, see e.g. here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesverband_freier_Tankstellen
So it is a brand. Maybe just small, but a brand of that association of 
fuel stations.



not being part of a mineral oil corporation doesn't necessarily mean you
don't use a brand name.


So, we need an additional tag for independent shops/petrol stations as
brand=* and operator=* might be already used.
Do we need company_chain=* or does independent=yes work ?


The wiki describes "operator=independent" as "he value has been used 
when exact details of the operator are not known, other than that they 
are a small independent firm."

Sounds like that's exactly what we are looking for.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:operator%3Dindependent

Stephan


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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 23.03.2015 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-03-23 14:55 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann  >:
> 
> Ok, if it's only 2 or 3 liters, it's not really a fuel station, but 
> rather a
> shop=car_parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 2 liters of fuel are as much car_parts as a bakery is bicycle_parts.

The definition says: "A place selling auto parts, auto accessories, motor
oil, car chemicals, etc."

That fits perfectly.

-- 
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] Fuel shops

[Dave Swarthout]

Sorry, fuel is not a car_part. And these small fuel shops are not an
amenity.

Stalemate.

@Fly - these places are operated by private individuals out of the front of
their homes primarily. It's typically a small shed with a large window thru
which the fuel is either pumped or handed over in repurposed whiskey
bottles. It barely qualifies as a shop but I want a way to make them
visible and useful for those who need them. The local Thai farmers ain't
gonna use OSM to find them. And I'm not gonna stop and interview them to
get their names.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2015-03-23 14:55 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
>> Ok, if it's only 2 or 3 liters, it's not really a fuel station, but
>> rather a
>> shop=car_parts.
>>
>
>
> I'd prefer shop=pharmacy, dispensing=no ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 15:27 GMT+01:00 Stephan Knauss :

> The wiki describes "operator=independent" as "he value has been used when
> exact details of the operator are not known, other than that they are a
> small independent firm."
> Sounds like that's exactly what we are looking for.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:operator%3Dindependent
>


no, I think he wants a tag that says: "this petrol station is not
associated with one of the big mineral oil companies". The proposed tag
operator=independent is a hack by putting something different than an
operator into the operator value, IMHO nothing we should encourage, and
this information will be lost as soon as someone adds a proper operator to
the POI.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Dave Swarthout]

I don't object to the operator=independent tag. That's an okay addition to
the scenario. However, I do object to tagging these things as amenities.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Sorry, fuel is not a car_part. And these small fuel shops are not an
> amenity.
>
> Stalemate.
>
> @Fly - these places are operated by private individuals out of the front
> of their homes primarily. It's typically a small shed with a large window
> thru which the fuel is either pumped or handed over in repurposed whiskey
> bottles. It barely qualifies as a shop but I want a way to make them
> visible and useful for those who need them. The local Thai farmers ain't
> gonna use OSM to find them. And I'm not gonna stop and interview them to
> get their names.
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2015-03-23 14:55 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>>
>>> Ok, if it's only 2 or 3 liters, it's not really a fuel station, but
>>> rather a
>>> shop=car_parts.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer shop=pharmacy, dispensing=no ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 15:30 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> > 2 liters of fuel are as much car_parts as a bakery is bicycle_parts.
>
> The definition says: "A place selling auto parts, auto accessories, motor
> oil, car chemicals, etc."
>
> That fits perfectly.
>


can you expand? Someone sitting roadside selling just a few liters of
petrol, how does he comply with this definition? Petrol is not in the list,
it is neither auto parts nor auto accessories nor motor oil nor car
chemicals. Are you after the "etc."?


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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[fly]

Am 23.03.2015 um 15:33 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2015-03-23 15:27 GMT+01:00 Stephan Knauss :
> 
>> The wiki describes "operator=independent" as "he value has been used when
>> exact details of the operator are not known, other than that they are a
>> small independent firm."
>> Sounds like that's exactly what we are looking for.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:operator%3Dindependent
>>
> 
> 
> no, I think he wants a tag that says: "this petrol station is not
> associated with one of the big mineral oil companies". The proposed tag
> operator=independent is a hack by putting something different than an
> operator into the operator value, IMHO nothing we should encourage, and
> this information will be lost as soon as someone adds a proper operator to
> the POI.

Yeah, the value of operator is a string and there might exist some
person or brand/company call Independent.

There will be always an operator so operator=independent does not work
for two reasons.

We need an additional tag for independent fuel stations. This tag is
useful for several shops aswell.

chain_independent=yes ?

Sorry, my English is AE influenced and not my mother tong, so I have
some difficulties to find some proper words.

cu fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
> 2015-03-23 11:02 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :
>>> I agree with amenity=fuel + a subtag like these (if needed).
>>
>> This is not the way to go.
>>
>> An amenity is something the general public might like or use or want to
>> visit. These little shops are definitely not that.

+1 here.  Tagging these as amenity=fuel violates the human expectation for
what a fuel shop is.
Especially if rendered, it degrades the value of the existing mapping, by
making OSM feel unreliable.
This is similar to tagging undrinkable drinking water, toilets that can't
be used, or a roadside strawberry stand as a convenience store in order to
get it render.  It makes it harder to find proper fuel on the map.

shop=fuel is semantically good, but almost certain to be confused with
amenity=fuel.

These stands are also far more volatile than a proper fuel station.  And
once they cease business
very hard to un-map.  With a proper fuel station you can hope to eventually
remove stale data via high resolution imagery.
With the* amenity=neighborhood_fuel_vendor* you have no chance of armchair
mapping it away.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal : Move "smoking" tag to active status

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> I object. The feature page should document actual usage, and actual usage
> differs from proposed usage. smoking=outside is the second most common
> value
> and 15x more abundant than the proposed smoking:outside=yes.


If you look,  I indeed adjusted the new feature page to document current
usage.  smoking=outside is 20% of the
usage, it was glaringly missing.

"smoking:outside" is not a new proposal: it's been a documented Russian and
German tag for years.  Here the English pages lag.


Beyond that "smoking:outside" is needed because with just "smoking=outside"
you can't document things like:
smoking=separated(inside)
smoking:outside=yes   (outside)
The wiki can't be just for documenting high volume tags.  The wiki has to
describe tagging *schemes* that hold together and make sense.  Else what's
the point of the wiki?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal : Move "smoking" tag to active status

[Bryce Nesbitt]

See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:smoking
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:smoking
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[AYTOUN RALPH]

Well, I guess I am also out of this. Needs me to log in to make a comment
but appears I have done something wrong because it just does not work for
me. I do not have a Google account and my Virgin email is unacceptable.

So I cannot comment.

Question:... Can you include pictures or diagrams as visual arguments to
support your reasoning?

Cheers

Ralph

On 20 March 2015 at 22:38, Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio
> has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
> alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
>
> Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
>
> And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role.
>
> Cheers,
> Kotya
>
> ___
> 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] Loomio evaluation

[Dan S]

I don't know if I need to say this, but Ralph, Andre, please could you
send report your problems to the loomio people? You do that here:
https://github.com/loomio/loomio/issues

Dan

2015-03-23 16:42 GMT+00:00 AYTOUN RALPH :
> Well, I guess I am also out of this. Needs me to log in to make a comment
> but appears I have done something wrong because it just does not work for
> me. I do not have a Google account and my Virgin email is unacceptable.
>
> So I cannot comment.
>
> Question:... Can you include pictures or diagrams as visual arguments to
> support your reasoning?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ralph
>
> On 20 March 2015 at 22:38, Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio
>> has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
>> alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
>>
>> Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
>>
>> And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kotya
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Jan van Bekkum]

Dave,

Wouldn't such campsites belong to cat. 2?

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:28 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Ah, Jan, you added too many conditions! The majority of campgrounds United
> States parks are not guarded, and almost never fully staffed. The larger
> parks have someone at the gate to collect money, but they do not "guard"
> the campers Most of the parks in Alaska work on the honor system: uoip ut
> your money in the receptacle and in return get a receipt to show the
> authorities. .There is usually a ranger station nearby that might send a
> car out to patrol the campground, usually to check the date on your
> reservation, but other than that they are almost invisible. Hot showers are
> a luxury and a few camp_sites have them, most do not.
>
> I dunno how to bridge this gap in our perceptions of these campgrounds.
>
> Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement, let
> them be mentioned as optional
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum 
> wrote:
>
>> I have renamed "commercial" to "standard" as it is the most common
>> campground and can include campgrounds that have all facilities of a
>> privately run campground, but are run by a government body (like the South
>> African parks). I also added details to the description of this category of
>> campground (definition and examples).
>>
>> Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
>>
>> *Jan van Bekkum*
>> www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
>>
>>
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>
>
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Jan van Bekkum]

Martin,

I agree with the proposal to have a different main tag for informal sites;
something like tourism=wild_camp. I guess some kind of RV/trekking
attribute would work as well, What we now are looking for is the proper
distinction between 1, 2 and 4. It should be one attribute key to
distinguish between the 3 cases. Does standard/basic/non-designated cover
what we look for?

I don't have a strong opinion about 6. In the earlier discussion people
felt it is important that is is mapped in some way.

Regards,

Jan

Regards,

Jan

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:27 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2015-03-23 13:02 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> I don't like the idea that a "designated" camp site has to be
>> non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the "fee" key.
>
>
>
> to explain a bit more: we use "designated" in other parts of our tagging
> (access) as a stronger "yes" (i.e. signposted/official), using it here
> differently seems odd.
>
> Another issue:
> 5. Informal camping (camp_site
> 
> =informal
> )
> - locations that are not set up to offer camping, but are more suitable for
> camping than other places in the neighbourhood and therefore valuable to
> know.
>
> --> I think this should get another main tag, basically there is not camp
> site, there is only a spot that is suitable to camp from the point of view
> of the mapper. This should not be confusable with "official" camp sites.
>
> 6. "Areas for example in National Parks where camping is permitted
> camp_site
> 
> =permitted_area
> ."
>
>
> --> see 5, these are not camp sites
>
>
> Also I see a lot of overlap, because different aspects of the same thing
> are packed into the same key:
> 1. commercial or not for profit
> 2. trekking or motorized campers
> 3. formal or informal places
>
> My suggestion would be to have different subkeys for 1 and 2 and to have
> different main keys (tourism=camp_site and new key) for 3.
> The part 2 could also be further distinguished (types of vehicle)
>
> 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] Fuel shops

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 23.03.2015 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > 2 liters of fuel are as much car_parts as a bakery is bicycle_parts.
> 
> The definition says: "A place selling auto parts, auto accessories, motor
> oil, car chemicals, etc."
> 
> That fits perfectly.
> 
> can you expand? Someone sitting roadside selling just a few liters of
> petrol, how does he comply with this definition? Petrol is not in the list,
> it is neither auto parts nor auto accessories nor motor oil nor car
> chemicals. Are you after the "etc."?

Petrol is similar to motor oil, both are fluids made from mineral oil.
Diesel is identical with light fuel oil. So this is clearly the same group
of products, especially when sold in equally small quantities. What else is
the "etc." supposed to mean?

-- 
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] Loomio evaluation

[Kotya Karapetyan]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:42 PM, AYTOUN RALPH 
wrote:

> Well, I guess I am also out of this. Needs me to log in to make a comment
> but appears I have done something wrong because it just does not work for
> me. I do not have a Google account and my Virgin email is unacceptable.
>
> So I cannot comment.
>

That's a shame. What do you mean by "unacceptable"? It complains about it?


>
> Question:... Can you include pictures or diagrams as visual arguments to
> support your reasoning?
>
>
Doesn't seems to be possible.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[Kotya Karapetyan]

>
>
>> Question:... Can you include pictures or diagrams as visual arguments to
>> support your reasoning?
>>
>>
> Doesn't seems to be possible.
>


I was too quick. It *is* possible. Here is an example.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[Kotya Karapetyan]

Now I am missing the "like" link :)

We'll definitely need to find a smart and soft way to attract people to a
different platform. However, though I agree that email is not the best
tool, we need a very good alternative rather than a marginally better
option first.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Dan S  wrote:

> OSM is a very large community with much accumulated knowledge and
> skill - it's bound to be quite conservative, and for good reason. The
> challenge is to allow experimental innovations to breathe without
> disrupting the community. We'll never be able to organise a vote (ha!)
> to switch to loomio all at once. But if we decide Loomio is worth
> trying, maybe we can experimentally agree to use it to negotiate some
> small tagging subproject, in a particular tag namespace. (indoor
> tagging might be a good example?) Then inch by inch we see what works.
>
> Dan
>
>
> 2015-03-23 0:18 GMT+00:00 Dave Swarthout :
> > I'll second the notion that we need something better than the current
> > system. It is an anachronism!
> >
> > My first look at Loomio was good, I was impressed, but my immediate
> thought
> > was, it'll never get accepted into OSM
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dan S  wrote:
> >>
> >> It's interesting. I hadn't realised it's open-source too, so osm could
> >> run its own version of it if we wanted to.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> 2015-03-20 22:38 GMT+00:00 Kotya Karapetyan :
> >> > Dear all,
> >> >
> >> > In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions,
> Loomio
> >> > has
> >> > been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
> >> > alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
> >> >
> >> > Let's take a look together:
> >> > https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
> >> >
> >> > And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Kotya
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Tagging mailing list
> >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >> >
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dave Swarthout
> > Homer, Alaska
> > Chiang Mai, Thailand
> > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[Kotya Karapetyan]

>
> I was *too* quick. Here is an example:
> https://www.loomio.org/d/1E3YAaz0/test-images
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[AYTOUN RALPH]

Thanks Kotya,

Being able to include pictures, etc, is at least is a great positive.

I still need to sort out what has happened to stop me from signing up for
the group. If this is going to be a common problem then it may discourage
some from getting involved. Or we need to give more accurate signing up or
log in instructions for future. Not everyone worldwide has a Google account
and gmail.

Will get back to you when I have some idea what went wrong.


On 23 March 2015 at 18:15, Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:

> I was *too* quick. Here is an example:
>> https://www.loomio.org/d/1E3YAaz0/test-images
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Loomio evaluation

[AYTOUN RALPH]

The next question is

The results of the graph are based on the response of the person when they
post their comment. This affects the result of the pie chart because it
starts to clock up how people feel before all the comments for and against
have been posted. Those later arguments could affect the earlier decisions
and change people's minds. Can they retract their earlier position and
change or reverse their input to the pie graph?

On 20 March 2015 at 22:38, Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio
> has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
> alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
>
> Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
>
> And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role.
>
> Cheers,
> Kotya
>
> ___
> 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] Loomio evaluation

[Dan S]

Yes they can. Probably best to try it out - sorry that you're stuck
outside of it at the moment!

2015-03-23 18:36 GMT+00:00 AYTOUN RALPH :
> The next question is
>
> The results of the graph are based on the response of the person when they
> post their comment. This affects the result of the pie chart because it
> starts to clock up how people feel before all the comments for and against
> have been posted. Those later arguments could affect the earlier decisions
> and change people's minds. Can they retract their earlier position and
> change or reverse their input to the pie graph?
>
> On 20 March 2015 at 22:38, Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio
>> has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
>> alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
>>
>> Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
>>
>> And let me know if you want to check the coordinator role.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kotya
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 19:07 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:


> We'll definitely need to find a smart and soft way to attract people
> to a different platform. 

I think its better than the email list. For a number of reasons. And
while the list also wins a couple of points, overall, Loomio is better.

But I don't think its better by enough to drag everyone over there to
use it. To make people abandon something they are comfortable with, it
needs to be heaps better and current system needs to have some major
problem. And I don't think that is the case.

I would be willing to move but not so much I'd pressure others to go
there as well.

David


> However, though I agree that email is not the best tool, we need a
> very good alternative rather than a marginally better option first.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Dan S 
> wrote:
> OSM is a very large community with much accumulated knowledge
> and
> skill - it's bound to be quite conservative, and for good
> reason. The
> challenge is to allow experimental innovations to breathe
> without
> disrupting the community. We'll never be able to organise a
> vote (ha!)
> to switch to loomio all at once. But if we decide Loomio is
> worth
> trying, maybe we can experimentally agree to use it to
> negotiate some
> small tagging subproject, in a particular tag namespace.
> (indoor
> tagging might be a good example?) Then inch by inch we see
> what works.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 2015-03-23 0:18 GMT+00:00 Dave Swarthout
> :
> > I'll second the notion that we need something better than
> the current
> > system. It is an anachronism!
> >
> > My first look at Loomio was good, I was impressed, but my
> immediate thought
> > was, it'll never get accepted into OSM
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dan S  +o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's interesting. I hadn't realised it's open-source too,
> so osm could
> >> run its own version of it if we wanted to.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> 2015-03-20 22:38 GMT+00:00 Kotya Karapetyan
> :
> >> > Dear all,
> >> >
> >> > In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal
> discussions, Loomio
> >> > has
> >> > been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a
> feasible
> >> > alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
> >> >
> >> > Let's take a look together:
> >> > https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
> >> >
> >> > And let me know if you want to check the coordinator
> role.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Kotya
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Tagging mailing list
> >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >> >
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dave Swarthout
> > Homer, Alaska
> > Chiang Mai, Thailand
> > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.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 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] Fuel shops

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> On 23.03.2015 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> 2 liters of fuel are as much car_parts as a bakery is bicycle_parts.
>> 
>>The definition says: "A place selling auto parts, auto accessories, motor
>>oil, car chemicals, etc."
>> 
>>That fits perfectly.
>> 
>> can you expand? Someone sitting roadside selling just a few liters of
>> petrol, how does he comply with this definition? Petrol is not in the list,
>> it is neither auto parts nor auto accessories nor motor oil nor car
>> chemicals. Are you after the "etc."?
> 
> Petrol is similar to motor oil, both are fluids made from mineral oil.
> Diesel is identical with light fuel oil. So this is clearly the same group
> of products, especially when sold in equally small quantities. What else is
> the "etc." supposed to mean?
> 


Just because they are both made from oil, and sold in similar quantities does 
not make the amenity or shop similar. 

This is about people's expectations.  

A toilet and a drinking fountain both involve fixtures that use water, yet 
tagged separately. Same with water point, tap, bidet, and other water based 
amenities - because people's *expectations* of what is present would be broken 
if I tagged a drinking fountain as a tap or toilet. 

That's the point of this is discussion.

If I saw a car parts icon listed in Africa, and I need to get parts for vehicle 
( even a single can of motor oil) - and I went to one of these shops, and there 
was an old lady selling gasoline for scooters in whiskey bottles out of a 
window in their house, I'd think the tagger had lost their mind and delete the 
shop. Similarly - if the tagger tagged this as a gas station, I'd think they 
are joking. 

I don't tag granny's roadside vegetable stand as a market nor distribution 
warehouse - but that is the same thing you are suggesting - but in some places 
it might be a permanent and expected way for some people to get vegetables - so 
how do I tag it? Do I pollute market when it is a table with 10 green onions 
and a few eggplants? They are a farmer, so is it food distribution?  Neither 
works, so a new solution should be found (for this example). 


Go look at my kerosene tagging example, and tell me what tag you would put on a 
gas station that doesn't actually sell gasoline or any fuel for cars. Should 
you like to further dilute petrol station tagging and include those too? 

If I see a gas pump icon, and thanks to the renders and data users, I would see 
a gas pump icon in both cases, it would make me very pissed to show up there 
with a car expecting 50L of gasoline.
That's what we're trying to avoid.

Javbw 


> -- 
> 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

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

Re: [Tagging] Historic tower

[John F. Eldredge]

Wouldn't it make much more sense to use start_date for the starting date, and 
completion_date for the completion date?


On March 22, 2015 10:27:00 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Am 22.03.2015 um 15:39 schrieb fly :
> > 
> > but how to handle buildings which where finished after two/three
> centuries ?
> 
> 
> start_date according to the wiki is the completion date, or the date
> when the feature became active. FWIW, buildings very often get
> extended, changed, even rebuild, especially those that lasted for
> centuries. We don't have an exact method to store this information in
> OSM (and doing it would probably go beyond our scope and methods, even
> a single wall will often be of different periods). You must see
> start_date as an approximate method to give some  indication  (I
> suggest to use the oldest start date in cases where the building has
> undergone several building phases, or maybe the most significant if
> nothing of the oldest building can be seen)
> 
> 
> cheers 
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
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] Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 15:04 +0100, fly wrote:

> as long as there is no alternative for offline support we need email.

Fly, once registered as a Loomio user, you can still choose to receive
and respond to email, maybe without ever actually logging into the
Loomio interface again (?).

> Please also have in mind the amount of traffic between plain text and html.

True, but perhaps made up for by not including long histories in each
message. And the messages seem to be RFC compliant, no long lines for
example !

> We did not talk about security issues and scripts, yet.

??

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 19:12 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> The majority of campgrounds United States parks are not guarded,
Agree, "guarded" is not a very friendly word !

>  and almost never fully staffed. 
yes, "fully staffed" implies 24/7 or thereabouts. We need to include
parks where some supervisor "calls in" from time to time. But issue here
is that there is "someone", possibly off site, possibly not around when
you need them. But they exist.

>  Hot showers are a luxury and a few camp_sites have them, most do
> not.

Gee, you pay a 'significant' fee and don't get hot showers ?  But you do
get electricity ?

> 
> Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement,
> let them be mentioned as optional
Yep.

Martin is unhappy with the word "designated". I don't think its great
but cannot suggest another. Here we say "free camps" but use the word
free as in "free speech", not "free beer" and it causes a lot of
confusion.

I am happy with "camp_site=informal" (unlike Martin), pretty much 
says what it is supposed to say. I expect it would be rendered
differently or not at all in most cases. We could make that clearer in
the text ?

David

> 




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

Re: [Tagging] Historic tower

[Warin]

start_date ? start of planning?, construction? occupation?

completion of planning? construction? occupation?

built_data ... is fairly simple. I like simple and plain. It would need more 
words for structures that have several 'additions', 'refurbishments', etc .. 
but the meaning is more apparent than start_date and completion_date.


 On 24/03/2015 8:43 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

Wouldn't it make much more sense to use start_date for the starting date, and 
completion_date for the completion date?


On March 22, 2015 10:27:00 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:





Am 22.03.2015 um 15:39 schrieb fly :

but how to handle buildings which where finished after two/three

centuries ?


start_date according to the wiki is the completion date, or the date
when the feature became active. FWIW, buildings very often get
extended, changed, even rebuild, especially those that lasted for
centuries. We don't have an exact method to store this information in
OSM (and doing it would probably go beyond our scope and methods, even
a single wall will often be of different periods). You must see
start_date as an approximate method to give some  indication  (I
suggest to use the oldest start date in cases where the building has
undergone several building phases, or maybe the most significant if
nothing of the oldest building can be seen)


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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

Just to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn book, here is a
table summarising the differences between these different camp sites.
Sorry if you are not using fixed spacing fonts, you should !

  StandardDesignated Trekking Informal 
Fee   Significant No/Nominal   ?No
Toilets   Yes Possibly No   No
Power Usually Rarely   No   No
Water Yes SometimesMaybeNo
Washing   Usually Rarely   No   No
Staff Yes Rarely   No   No
Pitches   Yes Rarely   no   No
Official  Yes Yes  Usually  No

"Toilets" should be read as "Toilets/Sanitary Dump Point"
"Staff" means someone in attendance at some time.
"Pitches" is a UK term meaning defined spaces where each individual
tent/caravan/whatever sets up.
"Washing" might mean laundry, dish washing facilities...

What have I missed, got wrong ?

My point might be that with so many factors, we are unlikely to see a
100% of campgrounds to fit into their category flawlessly every time.
Thus words like "rarely" and "usually".

David









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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Dave Swarthout]

Many questions, many answers...

First:
>My point might be that with so many factors, we are unlikely to see a
>100% of campgrounds to fit into their category flawlessly every time.
>Thus words like "rarely" and "usually".
+1 on that

You probably get hot showers in the bigger U.S. campgrounds, those in
larger parks. I'm not a camper anymore so have no direct recent experience
with the camping in the contiguous United States, what Alaskans call the
"lower 48" states.  Many Alaskan campgrounds do have showers available but
I would resist making showers a *requirement *for a certain category of
campground. Just add shower=yes/no or hot/cold, whatever.

Similar arguments apply to the toilets and dump_station. Some but not all
campsites have a dump_station (new proposed tag is sanitary_dump_station).
Let's not lump that together with toilets as a *requirement*. Use
sanitary_dump_station=yes/no as a subkey for camp_site=*

Martin says:
>I don't like the idea that a "designated" camp site has to be
non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the "fee" key.

To me, and I think others agree, designated means official. Any place where
people camp in a specially prepared environment has been "designated" at
some point, either by the government or a business owner; designated to be
a campground. To base an entire category on this term is misleading IMO.

@Jan - yes, I suppose the camping areas I'm talking about could be category
#2 if you get rid of the adjective "nominal" for the fee. Just say they
"may be free or charge a fee" because these days camping fees are anything
but nominal, at least in my opinion.

I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where
camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best.

Regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Dave Swarthout]

I agree completely with what John said in the previous reply.

Repeat: a fuel shop is not a car_parts shop. The "etc." was probably added
there as a catch all to include tools specific to cars or whatever but it
definitely, certainly does not include petrol.

Dave


On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:37 AM, John Willis  wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> >
> > On 23.03.2015 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >>> 2 liters of fuel are as much car_parts as a bakery is bicycle_parts.
> >>
> >>The definition says: "A place selling auto parts, auto accessories,
> motor
> >>oil, car chemicals, etc."
> >>
> >>That fits perfectly.
> >>
> >> can you expand? Someone sitting roadside selling just a few liters of
> >> petrol, how does he comply with this definition? Petrol is not in the
> list,
> >> it is neither auto parts nor auto accessories nor motor oil nor car
> >> chemicals. Are you after the "etc."?
> >
> > Petrol is similar to motor oil, both are fluids made from mineral oil.
> > Diesel is identical with light fuel oil. So this is clearly the same
> group
> > of products, especially when sold in equally small quantities. What else
> is
> > the "etc." supposed to mean?
> >
>
>
> Just because they are both made from oil, and sold in similar quantities
> does not make the amenity or shop similar.
>
> This is about people's expectations.
>
> A toilet and a drinking fountain both involve fixtures that use water, yet
> tagged separately. Same with water point, tap, bidet, and other water based
> amenities - because people's *expectations* of what is present would be
> broken if I tagged a drinking fountain as a tap or toilet.
>
> That's the point of this is discussion.
>
> If I saw a car parts icon listed in Africa, and I need to get parts for
> vehicle ( even a single can of motor oil) - and I went to one of these
> shops, and there was an old lady selling gasoline for scooters in whiskey
> bottles out of a window in their house, I'd think the tagger had lost their
> mind and delete the shop. Similarly - if the tagger tagged this as a gas
> station, I'd think they are joking.
>
> I don't tag granny's roadside vegetable stand as a market nor distribution
> warehouse - but that is the same thing you are suggesting - but in some
> places it might be a permanent and expected way for some people to get
> vegetables - so how do I tag it? Do I pollute market when it is a table
> with 10 green onions and a few eggplants? They are a farmer, so is it food
> distribution?  Neither works, so a new solution should be found (for this
> example).
>
>
> Go look at my kerosene tagging example, and tell me what tag you would put
> on a gas station that doesn't actually sell gasoline or any fuel for cars.
> Should you like to further dilute petrol station tagging and include those
> too?
>
> If I see a gas pump icon, and thanks to the renders and data users, I
> would see a gas pump icon in both cases, it would make me very pissed to
> show up there with a car expecting 50L of gasoline.
> That's what we're trying to avoid.
>
> Javbw
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Dave Swarthout]

Also, Bryce makes this point, a valid point I must add:

These stands are also far more volatile than a proper fuel station.  And
once they cease business
very hard to un-map.

That's true but it's also true of many other objects. Mapping the world is
a dynamic endeavor because things change: roads are built, railroads are
converted into bike paths, construction=yes becomes building=yes.

Here in Thailand, many small fuel shops now feature vending machines to
dispense gasoline and are often open 24/7. I believe the shops we're
talking about here will eventually be replaced by these. I'm tagging those
as amenity=fuel with other tags to fine tune the situation. See the Wiki
under amenity=vending_machine

There is a bigger photo of this new fueling point here

.

At these places you could fill up your SUV tank and hence they are tagged
appropriately. I add:

amenity=fuel
automated=yes
description:en=A vending machine accepting cash in notes and/or coin that
dispenses automotive fuel 24/7. Most are poorly marked and offer no other
services.
fuel:diesel=yes/no
fuel:gasohol_91=yes/no
fuel:gasohol_95=yes/no
fuel:gasoline_91=yes/no
fuel:gasoline_95=yes/no
name=*
opening_hours=24/7
payment:cash=yes
payment:credit_cards=no
source=GPS, geolocated photo
vending=fuel
vending_machine=yes

In the 5 years I've been motorcycling around Thailand I'm seeing more and
more of these. But the other type, the shops we're working with now, will
likely be around for many years. They should be mapped in some meaningful,
and useful, way.


On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I agree completely with what John said in the previous reply.
>
> Repeat: a fuel shop is not a car_parts shop. The "etc." was probably added
> there as a catch all to include tools specific to cars or whatever but it
> definitely, certainly does not include petrol.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:37 AM, John Willis  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
>> >
>> > On 23.03.2015 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> >>> 2 liters of fuel are as much car_parts as a bakery is bicycle_parts.
>> >>
>> >>The definition says: "A place selling auto parts, auto accessories,
>> motor
>> >>oil, car chemicals, etc."
>> >>
>> >>That fits perfectly.
>> >>
>> >> can you expand? Someone sitting roadside selling just a few liters of
>> >> petrol, how does he comply with this definition? Petrol is not in the
>> list,
>> >> it is neither auto parts nor auto accessories nor motor oil nor car
>> >> chemicals. Are you after the "etc."?
>> >
>> > Petrol is similar to motor oil, both are fluids made from mineral oil.
>> > Diesel is identical with light fuel oil. So this is clearly the same
>> group
>> > of products, especially when sold in equally small quantities. What
>> else is
>> > the "etc." supposed to mean?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Just because they are both made from oil, and sold in similar quantities
>> does not make the amenity or shop similar.
>>
>> This is about people's expectations.
>>
>> A toilet and a drinking fountain both involve fixtures that use water,
>> yet tagged separately. Same with water point, tap, bidet, and other water
>> based amenities - because people's *expectations* of what is present would
>> be broken if I tagged a drinking fountain as a tap or toilet.
>>
>> That's the point of this is discussion.
>>
>> If I saw a car parts icon listed in Africa, and I need to get parts for
>> vehicle ( even a single can of motor oil) - and I went to one of these
>> shops, and there was an old lady selling gasoline for scooters in whiskey
>> bottles out of a window in their house, I'd think the tagger had lost their
>> mind and delete the shop. Similarly - if the tagger tagged this as a gas
>> station, I'd think they are joking.
>>
>> I don't tag granny's roadside vegetable stand as a market nor
>> distribution warehouse - but that is the same thing you are suggesting -
>> but in some places it might be a permanent and expected way for some people
>> to get vegetables - so how do I tag it? Do I pollute market when it is a
>> table with 10 green onions and a few eggplants? They are a farmer, so is it
>> food distribution?  Neither works, so a new solution should be found (for
>> this example).
>>
>>
>> Go look at my kerosene tagging example, and tell me what tag you would
>> put on a gas station that doesn't actually sell gasoline or any fuel for
>> cars. Should you like to further dilute petrol station tagging and include
>> those too?
>>
>> If I see a gas pump icon, and thanks to the renders and data users, I
>> would see a gas pump icon in both cases, it would make me very pissed to
>> show up there with a car expecting 50L of gasoline.
>> That's what we're trying to avoid.
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Al

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> n the 5 years I've been motorcycling around Thailand I'm seeing more and more 
> of these. But the other type, the shops we're working with now, will likely 
> be around for many years. They should be mapped in some meaningful, and 
> useful, way

+1 

The same roadside tables under a tarp have been there for 10 years selling 
cucumbers and seasonal vegetables. There are tomato, egg, and vegetable 
machines here that are over 30 years old, my wives occasionally buys eggs from 
one for the past 20 years. 

These somewhat informal, yet persistent shops deserve a spot, but they should 
not pollute the tags others expect to find on a more traditional and larger 
shop. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[johnw]

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> The "etc." was probably added there as a catch all to include tools specific 
> to cars or whatever but it definitely, certainly does not include petrol. 


Car stores sell all the aftermarket stuff for cars (besides tools and parts) 
interior accessories, entertainment & GPS stuff, towing rigs, roof racks, and 
other modifications for cars, along with cleaning accessories and things for 
tires. They’ll have perfromance additives for fuels as well - but no real fuel. 

yea, Gasoline is not on that list.   


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

[Tagging] New Key:indoor wiki page

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Tagging list folks may wish to track or comment on:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:indoor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

OK, I'm struggling. I started answering Dave S's stuff (below) and
realised I was really arguing away the who catagory approach. Sigh.

Are we better saying -

tourism=camp_site
toilets=yes
sanitary_dump_station=yes
amenity=showers
fee=yes

tourism=camp_site
toilets=no
sanitary_dump_station=no
fee=no

and so on.

And just live with it like that ?  I really like the category approach
but worry that we are not going to make it work. What would need to
happen is to improve the documentation for the tourism=camp_site and,
then, maybe fill in a few missing tags. That interestingly, is where we
were some months ago and saw the spin out of sanitary_dump_station= and
waste= proposals. 

David

On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 07:43 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:


>  Many Alaskan campgrounds do have showers 

Wow, I have a picture of camping in Alaska, cold !

> Martin says:
> >I don't like the idea that a "designated" camp site has to be
> non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the "fee" key.
Yes, I agree with Martin. But silly to put dollar amounts in.
fee=nominal; fee=yes; fee=no; fee=donation

> To me, and I think others agree, designated means official. Any place
> where people camp in a specially prepared environment has been
> "designated" at some point, either by the government or a business
> owner; designated to be a campground. To base an entire category on
> this term is misleading IMO.

"This spot is designated as a camping spot, now look at the other tags
to tell you what sort of camp it is."  Maybe its fee for service, maybe
its got toilets and showers. Hmm, I'm arguing to let the other tags tell
the story, not what I want to do.
> 
> 
> @Jan - yes, I suppose the camping areas I'm talking about could be
> category #2 if you get rid of the adjective "nominal" for the fee.
> Just say they "may be free or charge a fee" because these days camping
> fees are anything but nominal, at least in my opinion.

Here, we may commonly pay between $25 and $45 a night for a powered site
expecting to find toilets and hot showers available. The ones I consider
'nominal' will be charging anything from a coin donation up to, maybe,
$10 a night. Not much overlap there.
> 
> 
> I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where
> camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best.
Yes, agree.
> 
> 




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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Jan van Bekkum]

>
> How does the tagging differ from an unstaffed filling station where you
> enter your credit card and fill up the tank of your car yourself 24/7 like
> I seem them all over the place in the Netherlands? In the situation you
> describe I really prefer shop=*.
>

Regards,

Jan

>
> At these places you could fill up your SUV tank and hence they are tagged
> appropriately. I add:
>
> amenity=fuel
> automated=yes
> description:en=A vending machine accepting cash in notes and/or coin that
> dispenses automotive fuel 24/7. Most are poorly marked and offer no other
> services.
> fuel:diesel=yes/no
> fuel:gasohol_91=yes/no
> fuel:gasohol_95=yes/no
> fuel:gasoline_91=yes/no
> fuel:gasoline_95=yes/no
> name=*
> opening_hours=24/7
> payment:cash=yes
> payment:credit_cards=no
> source=GPS, geolocated photo
> vending=fuel
> vending_machine=yes
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Jan van Bekkum]

I think the table is basically correct. I added showers, amended the
pitches and added access hours. In Europe it is very common that no pitches
are defined. Staffing=yes means that during at least defined period of the
day (say 7:00-10:00 and 16:00-20:00). Usually you are not able to register
beyond these hours. Guarded depends on the region: in Europe usually not,
in Africa definitely yes.



Standard

Designated

Trekking

Informal

Fee

Significant

No/Nominal

No/Nominal

No

Toilets

Yes

Possibly

No

No

Showers

Yes, usually hot

No

No

No

Power

Usually

Rarely

No

No

Water

Yes

Sometimes

Maybe

No

Washing

Usually

Rarely

No

No

Staff

 Yes

Rarely

No

No

Pitches

Yes/No

Rarely

No

No

Official

Yes

Yes

Usually

No

Access

Restricted hours

24/7

24/7

24/7
  ​
*To me, and I think others agree, designated means official. Any place
where people camp in a specially prepared environment has been "designated"
at some point, either by the government or a business owner; designated to
be a campground. To base an entire category on this term is misleading IMO.*
I see your point, but do we have a better phrase? Basic? Overnight?

*@Jan - yes, I suppose the camping areas I'm talking about could be
category #2 if you get rid of the adjective "nominal" for the fee. Just say
they "may be free or charge a fee" because these days camping fees are
anything but nominal, at least in my opinion.​*
OK​

*I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where
camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best.​*
​OK​

*​I am happy with "camp_site=informal" (unlike Martin), pretty much says
what it is supposed to say. I expect it would be rendered differently or
not at all in most cases. We could make that clearer in the text ?​*
​I can see Martin's point. It is like the fuel discussion: you don't want
to mix the regular filling stations and the drums.​

*​And just live with it like that ?  I really like the category
approach but worry that we are not going to make it work. What would need
to happen is to improve the documentation for the tourism=camp_site and,
then, maybe fill in a few missing tags. That interestingly, is where
we were some months ago and saw the spin out of sanitary_dump_station=
and waste= proposals.​*

​In any case I want to keep the separation between designated (in the
broader sense), non designated (not much discussed here, but for me the
most important reason to start the topic) and informal. We could decide to
recombine the current *Standard*, *Designated *and *Trekking.* Indeed we
could leave the other details to attributes.

Regards,

Jan


Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

*Jan van Bekkum*
www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging