Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[SomeoneElse]

On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote:
Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site 
and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take 
caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY 
type of place.


Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether 
they appear to be "mostly" for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer 
motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans).  
Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part 
of.  If it's "The Caravan Club" it's more likely to be mostly for 
caravans than tents.  However there seems to be more overlap between 
camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to 
be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-05 23:35 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

> The core question is: should this be a top level tag:
>
>leisure=camp_site
>leisure=communal_activity_camp
>leisure=caravan_site
>
> Or subtags:
>leisure=camp_site
>caravans=dedicated
>tents=yes
>communal_activity_camp=no
>sanitary_dump_station=no
>



Why do you think we should question the established tagging? Isn't this
"core question" already answered?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[phil]

On Wed May 6 08:23:34 2015 GMT+0100, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote:
> > Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site 
> > and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take 
> > caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY 
> > type of place.
> 
> Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether 
> they appear to be "mostly" for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer 
> motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans).  
> Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part 
> of.  If it's "The Caravan Club" it's more likely to be mostly for 
> caravans than tents.  However there seems to be more overlap between 
> camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to 
> be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally.
> 
+1

One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between 
tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite,  when the vast majority of 
commercial sites cater for both.

Phil (trigpoint )
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 :

> One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between
> tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite,  when the vast majority of
> commercial sites cater for both.



this is a non-issue, simply tag everything as tourism=camp_site and
eventually add caravan=yes/no, and use tourism=caravan_site for
caravan-only sites.

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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[phil]

On Wed May 6 00:08:17 2015 GMT+0100, David Bannon wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
> > 
> >  It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover
> > camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be
> > leisure=vacation_camp. 
> 
> I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of
> people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on
> vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers.  These grounds are
> 'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world.
> 
> tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that
> excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey 
It also excludes a lot of hotels :)

> Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ?
> 
> > ... very specific British connotations associated with 
> >  holiday_camp. 
> 
> Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called
> resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. 
-1

A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort is not 
operated by a single company,  and access is not restricted.  

 
> > 
> > In general I would use any derivative of "resort" : it is a word which
> > has far too many meanings. 
> 
> Did you mean to say "avoid the use of " there ?
> 
> So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing
> tourism=camp_site ?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[phil]

On Wed May 6 11:49:39 2015 GMT+0100, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

> > 
> > > ... very specific British connotations associated with 
> > >  holiday_camp. 
> > 
> > Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called
> > resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. 
> -1
> 
> A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort is not 
> operated by a single company,  and access is not restricted.  
>
Sorry,  sent that before I was ready. 

Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings between BE 
and AE.

Phil (trigpoint )
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

Lets be quite clear.
I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a different 
issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks, travellers sites etc.) 
are a form of residential landuse.
Jerry
   From: David Bannon 
 To: Jerry Clough - OSM ; "Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools"  
 Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 0:08
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps
   
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
> 
>  It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover
> camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be
> leisure=vacation_camp. 

I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of
people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on
vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers.  These grounds are
'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world.

tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that
excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey 
Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ?

> ... very specific British connotations associated with 
>  holiday_camp. 

Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called
resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. 




> 
> In general I would use any derivative of "resort" : it is a word which
> has far too many meanings. 

Did you mean to say "avoid the use of " there ?

So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing
tourism=camp_site ?

David




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[John Willis]

There are several "RV" based camps in the mountains of San Diego that are large 
camps with amenities, stores, fishing pond, and other things. Yes, there is 
tent camping, but the major focus is the people staying (longer than a day) in 
their RV and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever around them - they are 
places where city people can park for a weekend or so. 

The Morelia almost exactly like a U.S. Forestry park , but private and more 
vehicle centric. 

I believe it's a chain "thousand trails" if I remember correctly - so there is 
much more to RV camping some places than just an asphalt lot and a pit toilet. 

Between us all talking here, we span continents, experiences, and have seen 
different ways camps are organized -the flexibility with the proposed system 
seems good enough to adapt to them all.

Javbw


> On May 6, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:17 PM, David Bannon  
>> wrote:
>> > I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground 
>> 
>> There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent pages
>> a problem, maybe operator/owner just wants self contained campers.
>> 
>> I'd suggest for this purpose we treat them as the same, #define
>> caravan_site = camp_site. There are other tags to tell the difference.
> 
> 
> The amenity=caravan_site was indeed invented for what amounts to a parking 
> lot for
> overnight use by RV's.  These are just a parking lot, and perhaps 
> toilets/dump station.
> No lake.  No trees.  No recreation.  Just parking for people exploring a 
> nearby town,
> or en-route elsewhere.
> 
> That's different from a liesure=camp_site that happens to allow RV's.
> ___
> 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 of pitches within a campsite

[John F. Eldredge]

I am using K-9, an open-source Android app.


On May 5, 2015 6:35:40 PM CDT, David Bannon  wrote:
>On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my
>> experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered
>> poles marking each campsite, a grassy area for pitching a tent, and a
>> charcoal grill mounted on a steel pole. You weren't allowed to cut
>> brush or to have a fire on the ground, only one in the charcoal
>grill,
>> as a precaution against wildfires. There was a wooden outhouse (pit
>> toilet) shared by multiple campsites.
>> 
>Similar here in some Australian National Parks but also have more
>Caravan Park like ones and some National Parks where you can camp where
>you find a bit of clear ground. We need to cover the lot.
>
>P.S. Hey John, your emails arrive with each paragraph one long line
>requiring scrolling miles to the right to read. What email client do
>you
>use ?
>
>David 
>> 
>
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> If people choose not to (or are "not bothered to") comment, that's an
> abstention.
>
> Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment
> on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the
> proposal.

It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on
[tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact
mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. OSM doesn't have a
policy that interested contributors have to participate on this or
that dicussion medium. I've joined [tagging] very late in my OSM life
(and can't afford the time to read it all), but I've always been very
interested in any change to the data I've contributed.

It may be a PITA, but it's a fact. The closest thing we have to
officially contacting mappers (and filing them under
abstain/uninterested if they don't answer) is the private messages on
osm.org. But using that for a large number of users is frowned uppon.

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

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
> It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on
> [tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact
> mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. OSM doesn't have a
> policy that interested contributors have to participate on this or
> that dicussion medium. I've joined [tagging] very late in my OSM life
> (and can't afford the time to read it all), but I've always been very
> interested in any change to the data I've contributed.

Unfortunately, contacting mappers individually has a very low response rate.

For my bookmaker changes, I contacted 20 mappers individually through
the OSM messaging system. All of them were frequent mappers (17 of
them had more than 1000 changesets). I only received a response from
three of them. This was to ask me help with retagging, but I'd guess
asking them for their opinion would give a similar low response rate.
With less frequent mappers, I'd expect the response rate to be even
lower. So asking every single mapper of a certain tag for their
opinion is not really an option, I think.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[pmailkeey .]

On 6 May 2015 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 :
>
>> One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between
>> tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite,  when the vast majority of
>> commercial sites cater for both.
>
>
>
> this is a non-issue, simply tag everything as tourism=camp_site and
> eventually add caravan=yes/no, and use tourism=caravan_site for
> caravan-only sites.
>
>
-1

That's '-ist' - we should aim for something equal such as:

Tourism=site

caravan=yes
tents=yes
static=yes
RV=yes  [=motorhome]

swimming_pool=yes [etc. inc. other facility=*]




I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves
and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ?

The main tag should not favour type at all but type tags should be added as
necessary in whatever combination is appropriate

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

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

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[Andy Mabbett]

On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
> On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

>> If people choose not to (or are "not bothered to") comment, that's an
>> abstention.
>>
>> Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment
>> on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the
>> proposal.
>
> It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted.

You'll note my use of the word "choose".

You've neglected to quote the post to which I was replying; it said:

>>> pretty hard to tell when not all mappers were questioned or bothered to 
>>> reply, not ?

which includes the scenario where some editors "were not bothered to reply".

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[pmailkeey .]

On 6 May 2015 at 10:56, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2015-05-05 23:35 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt :
>
>> The core question is: should this be a top level tag:
>>
>>leisure=camp_site
>>leisure=communal_activity_camp
>>leisure=caravan_site
>>
>> Or subtags:
>>leisure=camp_site
>>caravans=dedicated
>>tents=yes
>>communal_activity_camp=no
>>sanitary_dump_station=no
>>
>
>
>
> Why do you think we should question the established tagging? Isn't this
> "core question" already answered?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site
>
>
Where's RV and static ?

I'd suggest

leisure=site then follow with subtags for caravan, tent, RV, static caravan
and then more subtags relating to the facilities available at the site such
as swimming_pool, play_area etc.

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . :
> 
> 
> I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and 
> rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ?


if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for 
vacation.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[pmailkeey .]

On 6 May 2015 at 20:40, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . :
> >
> >
> > I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only
> themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ?
>
>
> if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for
> vacation.
>
>

As in 'alpine_hut' ?


-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 12:45 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:

> I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a
> different issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks,
> travellers sites etc.) are a form of residential landuse.

Jerry, I suspect the distinction might be a bit US centric. Here, AU, we
have a large number of what we call Caravan Parks. They usually provide
mainly for tourists in caravans, motorhomes, tents. They usually have
some fixed "cabins" for hire to people without their own gear. Some
provide for 'permanent' residents, ranging from just a caravan that
stays there right through to standard sites (or pitches) for owner
occupied cabins, maybe with a nice little picket fence and tiny garden !

Now, I don't consider the permanent occupants are "camping" (nor
tourists) but we cannot exclude the Caravan Park itself from our
deliberations just because a few sites are used for that purpose.

Itinerant people use the Caravan Park in an almost identical way as do
tourists, the only difference is they are following the work (often
fruit picking etc) instead of the sun.

But Jerry, my real question was why are we talking about leisure= when
we were talking about tourism= ?  There is a large usage of tourism=
already there, almost no leisure=. 

David
> 
> 
> Jerry
>   
> 
> __
> From: David Bannon 
> To: Jerry Clough - OSM ; "Tag discussion,
> strategy and related tools"  
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 0:08
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
> > 
> >  It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover
> > camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be
> > leisure=vacation_camp. 
> 
> I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of
> people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on
> vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers.  These grounds are
> 'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world.
> 
> tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think
> that
> excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey 
> Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ?
> 
> > ... very specific British connotations associated with 
> >  holiday_camp. 
> 
> Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called
> resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > In general I would use any derivative of "resort" : it is a word
> which
> > has far too many meanings. 
> 
> 
> Did you mean to say "avoid the use of " there ?
> 
> So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing
> tourism=camp_site ?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
> 
>  A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort
> is not operated by a single company,  and access is not restricted.  
>  Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings
> between BE and AE.
> 
OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference.  So that leaves us wonder
what to call those UK Holiday Camps ?  Leave it to the UK people I
guess.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 7, 2015, at 7:21 AM, David Bannon  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
>> 
>> A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort
>> is not operated by a single company,  and access is not restricted.  
>> Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings
>> between BE and AE.
> OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference.  So that leaves us wonder
> what to call those UK Holiday Camps ?  Leave it to the UK people I
> guess.
> 

A resort can be a multipurpose tourism Place - one that offers food, lodgings, 
and accomidations in a single, privately operated place

Tokyo Disneyland resort is a good example. 

As well as those carribbian (sp) beach-spa-amusement park- hotel places like 
"sandals" and what not. 

It is not a town. A town is made up of many resorts (like aspen) .

Maybe this is a BE vs AE thing. 

Javbw.  



> David
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 06/05/2015, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
>> On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
>>> If people choose not to (or are "not bothered to") comment, that's an
>>> abstention.
>>>
>>> Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment
>>> on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the
>>> proposal.
>>
>> It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted.
>
> You'll note my use of the word "choose".
>
> You've neglected to quote the post to which I was replying; it said:
>
 pretty hard to tell when not all mappers were questioned or bothered to
 reply, not ?
>
> which includes the scenario where some editors "were not bothered to reply".


We agree on the "not bothered to reply, therefore treat it as abstain" scenario.

But that original quote also mentioned the "not all mappers were
questioned" scenario, which is much more common. As Matthijs said,
contacting mappers individually has a very low response rate. So
instead, people use wiki votes and mailing list or forum threads as a
measure of the general opinion. That's practical but heavily biased.
Please don't think that it's the same thing as contacting mappers (and
then being able to assume that they agree if they don't respond).

Sorry for labouring the point if only replying to the "mappers were
contacted" scenario was intentional.

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

[Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org)
will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon.

There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as
historic=monument.

The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki:
'A memorial object, especially large (one can go inside, walk on or
through it) and made of stone, built to remember, show respect to a
person or group of people or to commemorate an event'.

Note that this tag should not be used for national heritage buildings
(called listed buildings in some countries). The word 'monument' does
not have this meaning in English. Instead, historic=yes, the heritage
key, or the listed_status key could be used for such buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage

It would be good to correct as many incorrectly tagged objects as
possible before the tag is rendered. This map can be helpful for that:
http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html

See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1532
for the discussion on Github.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Bryce Nesbitt]

The problem may relate in part to Germany, where a natural monument is a
thing.

Also in the USA the tag is ambiguous.
historic=memorial perhaps better fits the definition.
But even then there are many small memorials and roadside plaques that
could reasonably be tagged historic=memorial or historic=monument,
but don't seem to match your definition well.

It would help if the agency certifying the monument were identified per
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage
For example:

heritige=2
historic=memorial
heritage:operator=nhrp
ref:nrhp=nhrp=07001063
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

[jgpacker]

I call people to review the wiki page Why OSM and not another collaborative
mapping service?.
link: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_OSM_and_not_another_collaborative_mapping_service%3F

It was written by a single user as a generic page to compare other
collaborative mapping services to OSM.
My issue with this page is that it's not generic at all.

Am I the only one that thinks this?

I didn't want to bother with this until it started being recommended
elsewhere in the wiki as official.

Cheers,
John




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wiki-Talk-Why-OSM-and-not-another-collaborative-mapping-service-tp5843604.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

[Mike Thompson]

Some of the parts about OSM seems to be in the spirit of the project,
although I would word some of it a bit differently.

To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid
negative statements about other projects, or over generalizations about
those projects.  For example "Your mapping service is a closed system" is
both negative and a generalization.  There may be some other mapping system
service that is also open like OSM that the reader is part of. Perhaps just
title that box "Closed Mapping Systems"

re:
"There multiple collaborative mapping services. Each of them is a direct
rival to OpenStreetMap in terms of competing for contributors and map
editing contributions. OpenStreetMap is better than any other competitor
for one simple and very fundamental reason"
This is not necessarily true.  For example, a project may capture data that
OSM is not interested in, and therefore it is not a direct rival.

Mike

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:59 PM, jgpacker  wrote:

> I call people to review the wiki page Why OSM and not another collaborative
> mapping service?.
> link:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_OSM_and_not_another_collaborative_mapping_service%3F
>
> It was written by a single user as a generic page to compare other
> collaborative mapping services to OSM.
> My issue with this page is that it's not generic at all.
>
> Am I the only one that thinks this?
>
> I didn't want to bother with this until it started being recommended
> elsewhere in the wiki as official.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wiki-Talk-Why-OSM-and-not-another-collaborative-mapping-service-tp5843604.html
> Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.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] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

[Ineiev]

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:29:48PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid
> negative statements about other projects,

Why not, if they are true?

> or over generalizations about
> those projects.  For example "Your mapping service is a closed system" is
> both negative and a generalization.  There may be some other mapping system
> service that is also open like OSM that the reader is part of. Perhaps just
> title that box "Closed Mapping Systems"

Of course there may be, but can you list any other projects aiming
to make free maps? on the other hand, wiki could enumerate particular
well-known services producing nonfree maps.

> re:
> "There multiple collaborative mapping services. Each of them is a direct
> rival to OpenStreetMap in terms of competing for contributors and map
> editing contributions. OpenStreetMap is better than any other competitor
> for one simple and very fundamental reason"
> This is not necessarily true.  For example, a project may capture data that
> OSM is not interested in, and therefore it is not a direct rival.

Again, it _may_; are there any counterexamples?

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

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:41 AM, moltonel 3x Combo 
wrote:

> On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> > Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment
> > on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the
> > proposal.
>
> It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on
> [tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact
> mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes.


One approach is to look up the most frequent mappers of the feature of
interest.

There are several ways to do this, including a new proposed feature in JOSM:



That's a list of people who edited amenity=bicycle_repair_stand

The full expression of that might be the concept of a community of people
who "edit things like I edit". If I start editing campgrounds for example,
perhaps the editor shows a chat window open to other people editing
campgrounds.

---

The echo chamber of the tagging list, and the wiki process, does not fully
represent the OSM community.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Marc Gemis]

sorry I overlooked the same link in Matthijs email.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> They is a "project"+map that shows all those "monuments" with the request
> to retag them: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/
>
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Matthijs Melissen <
> i...@matthijsmelissen.nl> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org)
>> will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon.
>>
>> There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as
>> historic=monument.
>>
>> The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki:
>> 'A memorial object, especially large (one can go inside, walk on or
>> through it) and made of stone, built to remember, show respect to a
>> person or group of people or to commemorate an event'.
>>
>> Note that this tag should not be used for national heritage buildings
>> (called listed buildings in some countries). The word 'monument' does
>> not have this meaning in English. Instead, historic=yes, the heritage
>> key, or the listed_status key could be used for such buildings:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage
>>
>> It would be good to correct as many incorrectly tagged objects as
>> possible before the tag is rendered. This map can be helpful for that:
>> http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html
>>
>> See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1532
>> for the discussion on Github.
>>
>> -- Matthijs
>>
>> ___
>> 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 of historic=monument

[Marc Gemis]

They is a "project"+map that shows all those "monuments" with the request
to retag them: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/


regards

m.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Matthijs Melissen 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org)
> will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon.
>
> There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as
> historic=monument.
>
> The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki:
> 'A memorial object, especially large (one can go inside, walk on or
> through it) and made of stone, built to remember, show respect to a
> person or group of people or to commemorate an event'.
>
> Note that this tag should not be used for national heritage buildings
> (called listed buildings in some countries). The word 'monument' does
> not have this meaning in English. Instead, historic=yes, the heritage
> key, or the listed_status key could be used for such buildings:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage
>
> It would be good to correct as many incorrectly tagged objects as
> possible before the tag is rendered. This map can be helpful for that:
> http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html
>
> See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1532
> for the discussion on Github.
>
> -- Matthijs
>
> ___
> 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 of historic=monument

[Warin]

There is confusion between monument and memorial ... suggest follow the 
definitions under the OSM tag historic .. where

monument is large ... as in you can walk inside it, over it.
memorial is small .. say a plaque

I have re-tagged some of the 'monuments' to 'memorials' where I am 
familiar with them. They became eveident due to my use of OAMand that 
renders these tags.
If other renders were to do the same then more mappers would be aware of 
the problem and it would be corrected with local knowledge.
So rendering these without any correction will lead to corrections 
taking place as required with the best knowledge - that of the locals.



- Off topic
On 7/05/2015 11:18 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:


It would help if the agency certifying the monument were identified per
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage


That proposal has no listings for  Australia (possibly 
www.*nationaltrust*.org.au/ ?) and ignores British 
www.*nationaltrust*.org.uk/ ?
I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples, 
it does not look like it has any explanation of how to determine this.
It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more explanation. At 
the moment I cannot use the heritage tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That proposal has no listings for  Australia (possibly  www.
> *nationaltrust*.org.au/  ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust*.
> org.uk/ ?
> I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples,
> it does not look like it has any explanation of how to determine this.
> It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more explanation. At
> the moment I cannot use the heritage tag.
>

I thought "level" should correspond to the admin level of the institute
that lists the object. E.g. when it is done on country level -> 2. In
Belgium it is done on regional level  (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) -> 4.

regards

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

Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 6, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> The full expression of that might be the concept of a community of people who 
> "edit things like I edit". If I start editing campgrounds for example, 
> perhaps the editor shows a chat window open to other people editing 
> campgrounds.
> 
+1 Not sure how that might be implemented but I really like the idea.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Warin]

On 7/05/2015 3:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:


On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


That proposal has no listings for  Australia (possibly
www.*nationaltrust*.org.au/  ?) and ignores
British www.*nationaltrust*.org.uk/  ?
I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some
examples, it does not look like it has any explanation of how to
determine this.
It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more
explanation. At the moment I cannot use the heritage tag.


I thought "level" should correspond to the admin level of the 
institute that lists the object. E.g. when it is done on country level 
-> 2. In Belgium it is done on regional level  (Flanders, Brussels, 
Wallonia) -> 4.


regards

m



If taken that way then the British and Australian National Trusts would 
level 2.


If it is not clear (as in very obvious) to me .. then it probably is not 
clear to others
Stating how the level is determine would be more usefull than the table 
as the table will never cover all instances.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Marc Gemis]

It's under "Tagging", it's mentioned twice, once under "Main tag", once
under "Secondary tags"



On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 7/05/2015 3:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That proposal has no listings for  Australia (possibly  www.
>> *nationaltrust*.org.au/  ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust*.
>> org.uk/ ?
>> I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples,
>> it does not look like it has any explanation of how to determine this.
>> It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more explanation. At
>> the moment I cannot use the heritage tag.
>>
>
> I thought "level" should correspond to the admin level of the institute
> that lists the object. E.g. when it is done on country level -> 2. In
> Belgium it is done on regional level  (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) -> 4.
>
>  regards
>
>  m
>
>
> If taken that way then the British and Australian National Trusts would
> level 2.
>
> If it is not clear (as in very obvious) to me .. then it probably is not
> clear to others
> Stating how the level is determine would be more usefull than the table as
> the table will never cover all instances.
>
>
> ___
> 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] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

[Volker Schmidt]

I would remove such a page from the wiki.

It is more suitable as a publicity pamphlet.
But even in that case it needs some more structuring. The individual pros
and cons have to be juxtaposed. The summary statements are not correct in
all aspects and therefore open to criticism.

On 7 May 2015 at 06:35, Ineiev  wrote:

> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:29:48PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote:
> > To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid
> > negative statements about other projects,
>
> Why not, if they are true?
>
> > or over generalizations about
> > those projects.  For example "Your mapping service is a closed system" is
> > both negative and a generalization.  There may be some other mapping
> system
> > service that is also open like OSM that the reader is part of. Perhaps
> just
> > title that box "Closed Mapping Systems"
>
> Of course there may be, but can you list any other projects aiming
> to make free maps? on the other hand, wiki could enumerate particular
> well-known services producing nonfree maps.
>
> > re:
> > "There multiple collaborative mapping services. Each of them is a direct
> > rival to OpenStreetMap in terms of competing for contributors and map
> > editing contributions. OpenStreetMap is better than any other competitor
> > for one simple and very fundamental reason"
> > This is not necessarily true.  For example, a project may capture data
> that
> > OSM is not interested in, and therefore it is not a direct rival.
>
> Again, it _may_; are there any counterexamples?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging