Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Janko Mihelić]

It maybe controversial, but I think we don't want "everyone" editing the
map. I think we need some barriers to filter out people who are "good"
mappers. Good mappers have to understand this is not a service for them,
but a community. They have to understand this is not a drawn map but a
database. They have to appreciate the effort of others, and so on.

Of course, not everyone is a good mapper from the start, and starting to
map should be easy and fun. And I think it is. But if you want to go to the
next step and become a regular mapper, something not being rendered
shouldn't be an obstacle for you to continue mapping it.

Janko

sub, 16. svi 2015. 05:03 André Pirard  je napisao:

> On 2015-05-16 01:40, Frederik Ramm wrote :
>
> Hi,
>
> On 05/16/2015 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
>  I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
>
>
> Often.
>
>
>  Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
> disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
> appear on the map.
>
>
> Thing is, there is no "THE" map. There's tons of maps in various colour
> schemes and designs, as well as tons of non-map uses of our data, and
> this is one of the super strenghts of OSM - we record that there's a
> motorway, and the map maker can define how they want the motorway drawn.
>
>  Yes, there is "THE" ("main") map at OSM.org but indeed I don't remember
> having ever read what it is for.
> Tentatively it's a tourism, traveler's  etc. *general* map like those one
> finds in bookshops on paper, but ecologic.
> But lately, under "Is what we're doing useful?", I reported a reply from
> Tom Hughes
> 
> seeming to say that THE map is not for the general public and refusing to
> set a help page for it (plus saying that the documentation we make amounts
> to being crap).  So, every tagger is invited to make and publish his own
> rendering and to pay Google so that it were advertised better than the
> others.
>
>  Your suggestion would kill that flexibility, and everyone would have to
> adhere to that one colour scheme set up by the mapper or editor. It
> would totally run against everything we hold dear.
>
>  I understand that what pmailkee suggests is basically similar to what I
> once suggested: lessen tagging for the renderer by finding means to make
> rendering simpler to implement so that every specific tiny feature is not a
> hassle to render and that the tagger finds "legal" ways to tag with
> rendering (making visible) the features *he* holds dear. The proposed
> solutions may well not be the best ones but...
> Just like what you write here, all the answers were "NOT".  Even stupidly
> laughing at what I wrote.
> There was *not a single* attempt to suggest alternative solutions to the
> problem.
> Consequently, the consensus was "we prefer tagging for the renderer".
>
> An alternative is for example using something like a rendered
> "landuse=tourism" for features more specifically defined with Logical
> Structured tagging attributes like tourism:leisure=maze,
> tourism:leisure=miniature_golf, tourism=camp_site, etc., any feature that
> fits on an area with a name for touristic purpose. Other purposes alike.
> That tag would fill an otherwise empty area with any plain color the
> render chooses and write a name on it unless some more specific rendering
> exists.  And the tagger would be glad that not only the feature found by
> search are made visible (and back to invisible when the search pane is
> closed).
> I called that "generic rendering" and even that was refused (the examples
> above are generalized existing tags).
> So, the general consensus answer is clearly "please do tag for the
> renderer".
>
> Cheers
>
>   André.
>
>  What you are talking about is essentially "MS Paint with multi-user
> capability". That's certainly an interesting project in itself but not
> something that we should remotely consider in OSM.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>
>
>  ___
> 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 FOR the renderer

[Frederik Ramm]

André,

   you're obviously bearing some grudge against "whoever makes decisions
in OSM" because your suggestions have been ignored. That's fine, you can
do that, but please don't run around and claim that just because you are
unhappy with things,

> Consequently, the consensus was "we prefer tagging for the renderer".

This is silly and you know it; no such consensus exists for any
definition of the word consensus.

> An alternative is for example using something like a rendered
> "landuse=tourism" for features more specifically defined 

...

> I called that "generic rendering" and even that was refused (the
> examples above are generalized existing tags).

I don't recall at the moment but probably you made a suggestion that
went "hey let's change everything to my cool new idea" and people went
"nah" and now you're miffed. In fact such "generic rendering" as you
call it does already exist in many places in OSM, here's a three-level
example of a lake:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264574966

Of course using such tagging for everything would greatly increase the
amount of redundant data in the database; the information that a
turlough is a kind of lake, and a lake is a water feature, would be
replicated thousands of times across our database (along with the
theoretical liberty to tag a few turlough that are swamps instead if
someone so desired). This is one of the main counter arguments to this
style of tagging; it makes retrieving and processing information easier
because more information is intrinsic to the database, but at the same
time increases the data volume.

> So, the general consensus answer is clearly "please do tag for the
> renderer".

You argue like a child who has been denied candy and now runs around
telling everyone that obviously the "consensus" was that they should
starve.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 23:03 +0100, pmailkeey . wrote:
> I therefore want to air the view that 'mapping for the renderer' is no
> longer 'wrong' by actually adding a good set of basic tags for areas,
> lines and points ("simple English" as opposed to technical English of
> 'nodes' and 'ways') so that when a mapper invents something new, they
> can add tags for colour, opacity, line colour, line width, line
> opacity - for areas and similar attributes for lines and points
> (colour, opacity, size etc.) and obviously tags for name and
> description etc. What do people think to this ?
> 
Read up on the history of HTML 3.2 and why all the presentational
garbage that was put into it was deprecated in HTML 4.0 and is nowhere
to be seen in XHTML 1.1 and HTML 5.

What you are proposing is the mapping equivalent of the  tag in
HTML 3.2 when we have had something far better than that for years. No
thanks.


-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Tagging] Maxspeed

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2015-05-15 at 16:13 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> I have seen some tight intersections, with buildings directly
> adjoining the roadway at all four corners, where a "maxlength" tag
> would also be useful. A passenger car or a delivery truck would be
> able to turn the corner, but a tractor-trailer rig (heavy goods
> vehicle) or bus would get wedged in place.
> 
> 
It would be unusual for that to not be accompanied by some sort of legal
restriction signs, maybe no hgv, no buses or a plain maximum length
sign. 

Like maxspeed, maxlength should be the legal length, as signed.

Phil (trigpoint)

> On May 13, 2015 6:15:22 AM CDT, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Colin Smale
>  wrote:
> Don't agree with this... there have been discussions
> in the past about whether the "width" of a "way"
> includes the pavements etc... Where a road goes under
> a bridge, where do you measure the "height" of the
> road? The highest point (not good enough for vehicles)
> or the "lowest highest point" or "in the middle of the
> road"? I would expect maxheight:physical to apply to a
> "normal vehicle", of maybe 2.5m width.
> 
> 
> There are cases where maxheight:physical and maxwidth:physical
> may be different from the legal definitions and significantly
> affect the viability.  A standout problem regularly occurs in
> Oregon where you can have human powered vehicles up to about 3
> feet wide legally, but many cycleways, particularly older ones
> built before the 1990s, have barriers that make all but the
> 10-speeds with drop bars impractical as negotiating the
> barriers that keep motorists out also prevent longer or wider
> bicycles from fitting.  Similar issues exist on Oklahoma
> turnpikes, which commonly allow vehicles up to 11'6" wide, but
> the typical cash toll booth is only capable of fitting a 9'5"
> wide vehicle.  Go figure.
> 
> __
> 
> 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] On appointment restaurant

[Robin `ypid` Schneider]

On 16.05.2015 02:03, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2015-05-15 10:09, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote :
>> On 14.05.2015 23:17, André Pirard wrote:
>>> On 2015-05-13 16:49, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote :
 Hi

 This can already be done, no problem. It is even described on the key page 
 [1].
 Just search for "on appointment".
>>> Typical of that page, you discover "on appointment" by chance in an
>>> example dealing with fallback.
>>> I have read that page throughout 36 times, that's what one must do for
>>> each question.
>>> And you make me discover a very fundamental rule I didn't notice after
>>> 36 readings: that the tokens can be literal strings. And I wonder how
>>> software supposed to tell whether it's open can understand strings.
>>> Thanks.
>> Software is not supposed to evaluate comments in opening_hours (although 
>> there
>> has been an discussion about this [2]). I just added an explanation for the 
>> use
>> of comments [3]. I hope this helps.
> The amazing is that I was told that opening_hours supports (just search)
> "on appointment" and that after coding it I learn that what I have added
> is a comment. And that the "fallback" '|| "on appointment" ' would in
> fact be '||'.

They are supported as comments. I am not sure if there is a use case that goes
beyond displaying "on appointment" to the user (see below) that would require
this to be directly supported by the syntax. If there is, here is a discussion
about it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#women.2Fmen-only_days

>> About the complexity:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/23332#comment27468
>> You are welcome to write good documentation/tutorials for normal mappers.
> It's far from the first time that I read "if you don't understand, write
> the documentation".
> On the other hand, I did write a simplified syntax
>  of
> what I think I understand and which was applauded by the "normal
> mappers" but someone had removed it and almost insulted me for doing that.

When it helps the average mappers why not. I (un)fortunate am too much involved
in the opening_hours syntax to speak for the average mapper in that regard.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#.22Some_people_don.27t_fully_agree_with_the_following_simplified_diagram.22_-_what_is_the_problem.3F

>> The thing which really helped me to understand opening_hours in OSM was the
>> syntax specification [4]. I would recommend everyone to try to wrap your head
>> around it.
>>
>> [2]:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#women.2Fmen-only_days
>> [3]:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification#explain:comment
>> [4]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification
> Thanks for any improvement.
> I suggest (generally) that documentation said something like "anything
> in quotes is a comment that can be considered as removed from the tag"
> and only then gave examples.
> This is because explaining syntax almost only with comments like the
> opening_hours  page does may have the reader believe that comments mean:
> the text in quotes may be displayed on the user screen if the preceding
> part of the rule is true or something like that.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> André.

I always understood comments in opening_hours as comments intended for the end
users. It is true that currently most services or programs that evaluate
opening_hours do not display them but I consider that as a bug of that service
or program which eventually gets fixed. http://openingh.openstreetmap.de/ does
display comments to the end user for example.

-- 
Live long and prosper
Robin Schneider



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

[Tagging] Map Labs mapping development? (was: Re: Tagging FOR the renderer)

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 16.05.2015 5:01, André Pirard napisał(a):


 But lately, under "Is what we're doing useful?", I reported a reply
from Tom Hughes [1] seeming to say that THE map is not for the general
public and refusing to set a help page for it (plus saying that the
documentation we make amounts to being crap).  So, every tagger is


It's sad for me. Also that Andy Allan does not see how powerful is his 
informal position as an owner of a style for The Map. But I don't think 
it's a personal thing, indeed: rather that we all - as a project - just 
got too much into details and loose the view of a bigger picture.


Don't get me wrong - I think it's natural for established projects to 
start being more conservative and detailed, but at the same time there 
needs to be a way to reinvent itself every now and then. I don't think 
the addressing is the "next big thing" we should focus on now (in Poland 
it's quite mainstream these days), but at least I am very happy Steve 
Coast still thinks in terms of bigger picture. Somebody has to, if we 
want to stay relevant in the future, and leader/founder is supposed to 
do that.


But not just him alone! I hope some kind of OSM R&D think tank ("Map 
Labs" maybe? - just like Mozilla Labs) would emerge, so the people can 
propose, discuss and test new ideas somewhere, even if they may sound 
crazy, because every project needs a fresh air to evolve. It's sure 
thing that only a fraction of those ideas will be valuable, but we need 
also many other, even plain wrong ones, to help find the best ones and 
implement them in the OSM practice in the end.



 I understand that what pmailkee suggests is basically similar to what
I once suggested: lessen tagging for the renderer by finding means to
make rendering simpler to implement so that every specific tiny
feature is not a hassle to render and that the tagger finds "legal"
ways to tag with rendering (making visible) the features HE holds
dear. The proposed solutions may well not be the best ones but...


That's also what I think. I guess dropping some hard-to-decide features 
and allowing for using more general categories instead of inventing 
"cases" for every object is the way to go. I also actively learn to make 
more icons rendered on a default map. My attempts may be also misguided 
here and there, but it's very important for us to try.


Maybe that's not enough to make local changes and we should have 
"development" style rendered somewhere else, before pushing new features 
into general "stable" map? Is it possible to have such a testing 
sandbox? Would it be just a technical problem to set it or we need some 
more formal background, like maybe Foundation help and decisions?


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.05.2015 19:35, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


yes, it is planned to have a real area datatype, sooner or later.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas [1]


Great, that'd be even better! However I guess this technical step will 
be a simple transition and we may still make area=* first class citizen 
in the meantime.


Do you have any idea when could it be done (or any other details 
regarding this) or is it only on our wishlist and the truth is nobody 
knows?


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.05.2015 14:52, Daniel Koć napisał(a):


And note, that it's hard for us, advanced mappers! But I guess this
project has a long tail - that means advanced users are just a tiny
(even if important) part of community. So most of the work is done by
casual mappers. They have iD as a tool and that's great, but if


My "long tail" intuition are now supported by a scientific study called 
"Characterizing the Heterogeneity of the OpenStreetMap Data and 
Community", and we know even how much advanced users are there! The 
abstract says:


"All three aspects (users, elements, and contributions) demonstrate 
striking power laws or heavy-tailed distributions. The heavy-tailed 
distributions imply that there are far more small elements than large 
ones, far more inactive users than active ones, and far more lightly 
edited elements than heavy-edited ones. Furthermore, about 500 users in 
the core group of the OSM are highly networked in terms of 
collaboration."


[ http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/4/2/535 ]

So, we should really take care of casual mappers!

--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[pmailkeey .]

On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw  wrote:

>
> On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey .  wrote:
>
> area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get
> landuse=building even.
>
>
>
>
> Uhhh.  *What?*  This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then.
> Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor
> designated nor segregated for a specific use.
>
> I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful
> alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and
> amenities contained within….  then it is not a landuse. There is no
> landuse=glacier for a reason.
> Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to
> have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and
> it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?)
>  That would be a great "oceanuse" tag- there are plenty of floating,
> manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world.
>
> They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no
> man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but
> those are not “on the ground” in reality  (like a fish farm or a oyster
> farm).
>
> I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse.   land… *used*
> for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or
> “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag.
>
> However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing
> the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as
> such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but
> not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that
> “school."
>
> That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which
> currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to be a school ground…
> and has an *area easily defined*… as a school… should be “*landuse*
> =school”
>
> The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level
> amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as
> amenities IMO -
>
> or should we have a tny little 30x30cm squares marked as
> landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher?  It’s
> just as asinine as landuse=glacier.
>
>
> Which leads us to this statement:
>
>
> So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in
> tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does.
>
>
> ??
>
> when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks
> spilled across the map.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087
>
> Even without naming, and using only a single landuse across multiple
> areas, gives a much clearer idea of what is there.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950
>
>
> Landuse ties them together int he way we already spatially identify them -
> this is a “school” this is an “apartment complex”… This is a “university” -
>
> The building+landuse for individual facilities gives you so much more
> together than just one by itself.
>
> The land and non-building amenities contained within the landuse are as
> important as the building.
>
> And… the name=* belongs to the landuse for all larger facilities. A big
> school (or mall or business complex) with many named buildings, pools,
> parking, seating, pitches, walkways, and wahatnot…
>
> is currently amenity=school + name=FooBar School. (I feel it should be
> landuse=school). same as landuse=retail name=FooBar OutDoor Mall. Or
> landuse=industrial  name=FooBar Works.
>
> No single building is actually named the name of the facility - and often
> is named something else! - so the name=* for the facility doesn’t belong to
> it.
>
> Even tiny schools. My school has two buildings. Both have the same number
> of students.  Which is named for the school?  Neither.
>
> The ground has the name - out on the wall.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257
>
> The name goes on the landuse, which includes the school’s parking, bike
> racks, hedges, walkways, water tanks, tress, and stairways.
>
> The wall around our perimeter is an an easily mapped and easily defined
> area boundary. Everything inside is landuse=school - as all of those
> amenities not only belong to the school, but support the operation of the
> school.
>
> Are the parking lots around a stadium not part of the stadium? Are the
> lawns, walkways, quads, and roadways not part of a business complex? What
> about a hospital with multiple buildings?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=16/36.3295/139.1009
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Andreas Goss]

On 5/15/15 23:10 , pmailkeey . wrote:

Why ?

I don't do it with car parks. There's often a section for disabled,
parent/toddler, staff - and general use. Each gets marked for its own
purpose even if they abut.



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

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[pmailkeey .]

On 16 May 2015 at 15:44, Andreas Goss  wrote:

> On 5/15/15 23:10 , pmailkeey . wrote:
>
>> Why ?
>>
>> I don't do it with car parks. There's often a section for disabled,
>> parent/toddler, staff - and general use. Each gets marked for its own
>> purpose even if they abut.
>>
>>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space
>

I wasn't tagging parking spaces!
It's rare that I'd even want to !

Tell you what, I'll do ONE now !

-- 
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] Sector, section, and cemetery

[pmailkeey .]

Changed my mind. I see no point in tagging a single parking area any
different from amenity=parking, capacity=1.

On 16 May 2015 at 16:28, pmailkeey .  wrote:

>
>
> On 16 May 2015 at 15:44, Andreas Goss  wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/15 23:10 , pmailkeey . wrote:
>>
>>> Why ?
>>>
>>> I don't do it with car parks. There's often a section for disabled,
>>> parent/toddler, staff - and general use. Each gets marked for its own
>>> purpose even if they abut.
>>>
>>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space
>>
>
> I wasn't tagging parking spaces!
> It's rare that I'd even want to !
>
> Tell you what, I'll do ONE now !
>
> --
> 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 
>



-- 
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] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Andreas Goss]

Changed my mind. I see no point in tagging a single parking area any
different from amenity=parking, capacity=1.


Let's say you use a navigation system that shows nearby parking. Then if 
you tag the individual spaces with amenity=parking it will should up as 
several different parking lots even though it's just one. So isead of a 
list with maybe 5 items, you get 10, 20 or 100.

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


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

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[pmailkeey .]

On 16 May 2015 at 16:54, Andreas Goss  wrote:

> Changed my mind. I see no point in tagging a single parking area any
>> different from amenity=parking, capacity=1.
>>
>
> Let's say you use a navigation system that shows nearby parking. Then if
> you tag the individual spaces with amenity=parking it will should up as
> several different parking lots even though it's just one. So isead of a
> list with maybe 5 items, you get 10, 20 or 100.
>

Then with what I'm doing, at point X, it'll find 3 car parks: a general one
with 100 spaces, adult & child 10 spaces and disabled 10 spaces. The
locations of the three areas is also given. What more could anyone want ?

If anyone wants to go down the route of marking individual parking bays,
then at least they should say whether it's currently occupied or not.


-- 
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] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . :
> 
> Forest=natural ?
> 
> or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted 
> forest].

or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit  presumptuous ;-)


how about
landcover=trees?

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . :
> 
> landuse=golf_course
> leisure+golf_course
> man_made=golf_course
> 
> Surely all three of these are 'obvious' when referring to a golf course ?


you can think of landuse as a more or less fixed list, see here: 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/landuse#values
I would see a limit at 5000 uses, everything above is well introduced, 
especially above 50/100K which are the basic classes you should be familiar 
with. 
golf_course is not on the first pages 


leisure is indeed the tag for sport locations, so obviously yes


man_made is more about infrastructure, technical, industrial stuff, structures, 
...
You can get an idea here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/man_made#values


There surely is some logical structure in the current osm tagging system and 
yes, you either look up the tags or learn them, or you will have to use presets 
;-)

Any system will not be obvious.

Yes, there are also some exceptions and oddities in the system I would like to 
get rid of like you do, but it's not the amenity key or the k/v structure for 
tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[pmailkeey .]

On 16 May 2015 at 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . :
> >
> > Forest=natural ?
> >
> > or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted
> forest].
>
> or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit  presumptuous ;-)
>
>
> how about
> landcover=trees?
>
>
If the trees are too far apart, they won't quite cover !


Makes me think - why do we have an icon for a tree that's not used in woods
and forests ? Wouldn't it be good if it was used and density=*% determines
the spacings of the tree symbols

sparse: 5:1 (space:tree)
moderate: 2:1
Dense 1:1 (abutting trees)
Very dense 1:2 - i.e. the trees overlap!


-- 
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] Long Tail ( was Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging)

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Daniel Koć  wrote:

> My "long tail" intuition are now supported by a scientific study called
> "Characterizing the Heterogeneity of the OpenStreetMap Data and Community",
> and we know even how much advanced users are there! The abstract says:
>
> "All three aspects (users, elements, and contributions) demonstrate
> striking power laws or heavy-tailed distributions. The heavy-tailed
> distributions imply that there are far more small elements than large ones,
> far more inactive users than active ones, and far more lightly edited
> elements than heavy-edited ones. Furthermore, about 500 users in the core
> group of the OSM are highly networked in terms of collaboration."
>
> [ http://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/4/2/535 ]
>
> So, we should really take care of casual mappers!
>

I confess to not fully understanding all the statistics in the article, but
it is clear that "casual" mappers make significant contributions to OSM. I
did wonder about the statement "... about 500 users in the core group of
the OSM are highly networked in terms of collaboration." Really,
collaboration? Someone just made a mass edit in an area I watch with a user
name I didn't recognize. Nothing wrong with the edit, I'm just pointing out
that we don't always collaborate. Imports are a good example of when we do
and a perfect example of when we don't.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Kotya Karapetyan]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:32 PM, pmailkeey . 
wrote:
>
> How about mapping a cemetery with connected smaller cemeteries ? That's
> what I've done to distinguish different areas and names.
>
>
Though you are of course free to do it anyway you find reasonable, I don't
think it's a good solution: If there is only one cemetery, it should be
mapped as one. It's about semantics:
— How many cemeteries do you have in your city
— 5.
— How many sectors (sections)?
— 154.

In your case you'll get as many cemeteries as sectors. I don't think it's
what you mean. Also, for a cemetery that has a name, it would mean you have
several cemeteries with the same name. Again, suboptimal.

I prefer to map it the way it is: a single cemetery with multiple composing
areas


Cheers,
Kotya




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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

I use natural=tree for tagging free standing trees that have some special
significance: they are separate from other trees, larger than other trees,
or otherwise prominent in the landscape.

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 9:42 AM, pmailkeey . 
wrote:

>
>
> On 16 May 2015 at 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Am 16.05.2015 um 15:29 schrieb pmailkeey . :
>> >
>> > Forest=natural ?
>> >
>> > or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted
>> forest].
>>
>> or forest=plantation? man made forest sounds a bit  presumptuous ;-)
>>
>>
>> how about
>> landcover=trees?
>>
>>
> If the trees are too far apart, they won't quite cover !
>
>
> Makes me think - why do we have an icon for a tree that's not used in
> woods and forests ? Wouldn't it be good if it was used and density=*%
> determines the spacings of the tree symbols
>
> sparse: 5:1 (space:tree)
> moderate: 2:1
> Dense 1:1 (abutting trees)
> Very dense 1:2 - i.e. the trees overlap!
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
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] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Kotya Karapetyan]

Though I strongly disagree to the idea of "mapping for the renderer", I
agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM database
is effectively lost because the renderers do not show it. Right now there
is a question whether we should use ref or name to tag parts of the
cemeteries. Logically, it's clearly a "ref". But refs are not rendered, so
no use to the map users, so why would I tag so? Just for the sake of making
database clean?

"Through 20 years of effort, we've successfully trained everyone to use
passwords that are hard for humans to remember, but easy for computers to
guess." (https://xkcd.com/936/)

I would like to ask you: is there a web-site and a smartphone app where I
could see all OSM data and switch things on and off?
That would probably be the answer to the question.

@Dave Swarthout: Have you by chance described your effort anywhere?


Cheers,
Kotya


On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . 
wrote:

> I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
>
> Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
> disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
> appear on the map. This situation is no use to anyone but has been allowed
> to continue and 'enforced' with wiki et al going against the notion of
> tagging for the renderer. The problem was likely there in the beginning and
> is still there now - several years later - unresolved. In fact, the way OSM
> is put together, it's completely unresolvable - as people are free to tag
> how they like and the map shows only what the renderers choose to show. I
> have considered that what we see in the editors is the real map and true
> OSM isn't. If the editors had a 'read-only' mode, they'd be far more use
> than OSM proper and mappers would be happier to see their work on the 'map'.
>
> I therefore want to air the view that 'mapping for the renderer' is no
> longer 'wrong' by actually adding a good set of basic tags for areas, lines
> and points ("simple English" as opposed to technical English of 'nodes' and
> 'ways') so that when a mapper invents something new, they can add tags for
> colour, opacity, line colour, line width, line opacity - for areas and
> similar attributes for lines and points (colour, opacity, size etc.) and
> obviously tags for name and description etc. What do people think to this ?
>
> --
> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Richard Welty]

On 5/16/15 1:19 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> Though I strongly disagree to the idea of "mapping for the renderer",
> I agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM
> database is effectively lost because the renderers do not show it.
on the other hand, demanding that the rendering on www.openstreetmap.org
be all things to all people is actually pretty unreasonable. the current
architecture which separates data from style is well considered and in line
with modern best practices; i haven't yet seen an argument that would
persuade me otherwise.

what we could use are more people doing projects like opencyclemap and
openfiremap and the like to bring out the data they care about in formats
that they like.

my presentation at SOTM US will include examples of using leaflet, jquery
and overpass to create mashups of OHM and OSM data, and i'll be making
my javascript available on the ohm github repository under a 3 clause BSD
license for anyone who wants to play.

there's nothing particularly radical or new in what i'm doing, but i hope it
serves as a reminder that there's more than just the rendering on
www.openstreetmap.org and if you want to show off the data you've
entered, there are ways to do it.

richard

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Marc Gemis]

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:01 AM, André Pirard 
wrote:

> Yes, there is "THE" ("main") map at OSM.org


That is just because you are not German or French, otherwise you might
refer to openstreetmap.de or openstreetmap.fr. IMHO those sites represent
OSM much better. They actually show that there are alternatives to the map
you see on osm.org or on their sites.

IMHO, it's not wise to talk about THE map, especially if you know better (
and I know you know better)

regards

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Kotya Karapetyan]

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

>  On 5/16/15 1:19 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
>
> Though I strongly disagree to the idea of "mapping for the renderer", I
> agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM database
> is effectively lost because the renderers do not show it.
>
> on the other hand, demanding that the rendering on www.openstreetmap.org
> be all things to all people is actually pretty unreasonable. the current
> architecture which separates data from style is well considered and in line
> with modern best practices; i haven't yet seen an argument that would
> persuade me otherwise.
>
>
The idea of mixing style and data was not implied! They are separate and
should remain such. I was only complaining about inability to see the data,
in whichever usably form. Currently there are two ways I can see some data:
switch on editing (bad, because I can screw data up) or use the query tool
(bad, because I cannot see the presence of a feature, I need to click the
map to find it).

Also I didn't mean that www.osm.org should be the place to show all data.
It can well be a separate site.

what we could use are more people doing projects like opencyclemap and
> openfiremap and the like to bring out the data they care about in formats
> that they like.
>

Good idea. Though, for the sake of usability, it would be great to have a
single site capable of showing everything. The problem is of course that
OSM doesn't restrict tagging in any way, meaning that it's barely possible
to create layers for different tags.


>
> my presentation at SOTM US will include examples of using leaflet, jquery
> and overpass to create mashups of OHM and OSM data, and i'll be making
> my javascript available on the ohm github repository under a 3 clause BSD
> license for anyone who wants to play.
>
>
I will be very much interested in having a look.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Marc Gemis]

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Kotya Karapetyan 
wrote:

> I would like to ask you: is there a web-site and a smartphone app where I
> could see all OSM data and switch things on and off?


I don't know of any website that shows the turn:lanes or destinations on a
map (I know the german webapp that shows them, but that is not on a map).
So the answer is no.
I think we should wait until the rendering on the client is feasible before
this becomes reality.

Until then, JOSM + many different styles that can be switched on/off is the
best alternative.

regards

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:19:20 +0200
Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:

> I would like to ask you: is there a web-site and a smartphone app
> where I could see all OSM data and switch things on and off?
> That would probably be the answer to the question.

http://www.openstreetmap.org - see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Data_layer

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 16.05.2015 20:31, Marc Gemis napisał(a):

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:01 AM, André Pirard
 wrote:


Yes, there is "THE" ("main") map at OSM.org


That is just because you are not German or French, otherwise you might
refer to openstreetmap.de [1] or openstreetmap.fr [2]. IMHO those
sites represent OSM much better. They actually show that there are
alternatives to the map you see on osm.org [3] or on their sites.


Marc- it's just generalization... Not being true in all details doesn't 
mean it's wrong. Much the same Google Search is "The Search", however if 
you are Russian (Yandex), Chineese (Baidu) or me (DuckDuckGo) you would 
disagree.


That's not the point! The point is it's _very_ important and we should 
remember it.


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 16.05.2015 18:41, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


There surely is some logical structure in the current osm tagging
system and yes, you either look up the tags or learn them, or you will
have to use presets ;-)


Presets are good! But I think their primary purpose is for thing you 
have no chance to remember exactly, like number of steps, surface types 
and so on.


But sooner or later the presets are not enough and you hit the wall.


Any system will not be obvious.

Yes, there are also some exceptions and oddities in the system I would
like to get rid of like you do, but it's not the amenity key or the
k/v structure for tags.


It sounds to me like an excuse to hold the inefficient, fixed system you 
have to remember instead of dynamic system allowing mappers do the 
mapping with less doubts. Nothing is perfect, but we can do better.


Why not area=golf_course (if it's an area) or just golf_course(=yes if 
you need to still use k/v structure)?


Is it harder to remember? No, it's easier!

Does it create fundamental questions about what type it really belongs 
to? Not for the mapper.


Do we loose categorization? No! We can just have more flexible category 
tree on wiki and change it or simply expand if needed. Wikipedia do this 
and it's working. There's no need to have fixed set of overlapping 
definitions in the phone book, but it doesn't mean the only alternative 
is complete chaos!


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[pmailkeey .]

>
> On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:19:20 +0200
> Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:
>
> > I would like to ask you: is there a web-site and a smartphone app
> > where I could see all OSM data and switch things on and off?
> > That would probably be the answer to the question.
>
>
That's what I think we should have for the base OSM.org map.

That leaves me with one solution - OSM removes all its maps and instead
promotes the idea of each of us producing and rendering our own 'personal'
maps which OSM hosts. So we get things like cycle map, humanitarian map, my
map, your map and her map all listed for us with an info panel as to what
the map shows so people can choose which map they prefer to use/embed.

-- 
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] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[AYTOUN RALPH]

I believe that the discussion regarding amenity v landuse  should consider
that where amenity designates the actual use of the area as in
amenity=school, landuse designates the general use of the land... in the
case of the school it should be landuse=education, the same as you get
landuse=residential, landuse=farmland, landuse=commercial.

In normal cartography there would be different maps designed to depict a
specific theme, we called them Thematic Maps. A map depicting landuse would
concentrate on the general use of that land pocket, at larger scales the
landuse would be more specific as to the categories of landuse used.

With OpenStreetMap everything is bunged together on a single map and that
really confuses a lot of people into believing that you can separate out
the tagging into something that fits. You cannot without restricting the
use of the map. Some people using the map will be interested in the
landuse, others may be more interested in the amenities. They are two
separate and independent themes. We do not at this stage have the zoom
levels organised to show certain thematics at each level nor do we have
them separated into separate layers that can be switched on or off
depending on what you want on the map. To get rid of one discriminates
against those who have a requirement for that type of information. OSM is
only now starting to realise that not all the specialist detail can be
depicted on one map and we are starting to see specialist areas creating
their own detailed "layer" of OSM such as the Cycle Map, Transport Map and
separate maps such as OpenSeaMap. Once this idea has spread to other
specifics then the tagging can be designed specifically for the
requirements of those layers and the argument for landuse v amenity will be
redundant

So what the OSM community needs is to reconcile their own specific ideas
with the requirements of others and reach a way of depicting their own
preferences without compromising the preferences of others. Not by getting
rid of a whole level of tags just because you do not understand them in
context with what your interests are.

Here is hoping we can all reach an amicable agreement and concentrate on
the mapping.

Regards to all

Ralph

On 16 May 2015 at 14:29, pmailkeey .  wrote:

>
>
> On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw  wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . 
>> wrote:
>>
>> area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get
>> landuse=building even.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Uhhh.  *What?*  This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then.
>> Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor
>> designated nor segregated for a specific use.
>>
>> I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful
>> alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and
>> amenities contained within….  then it is not a landuse. There is no
>> landuse=glacier for a reason.
>> Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to
>> have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and
>> it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?)
>>  That would be a great "oceanuse" tag- there are plenty of floating,
>> manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world.
>>
>> They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no
>> man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but
>> those are not “on the ground” in reality  (like a fish farm or a oyster
>> farm).
>>
>> I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse.   land… *used*
>> for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or
>> “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag.
>>
>> However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, *containing
>> the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as
>> such* (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school -
>> but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that
>> “school."
>>
>> That *land*…. designated to be *use*d by people… as a school… And which
>> currently is *altered from it’s natural state* … to be a school ground…
>> and has an *area easily defined*… as a school… should be “*landuse*
>> =school”
>>
>> The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level
>> amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as
>> amenities IMO -
>>
>> or should we have a tny little 30x30cm squares marked as
>> landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher?  It’s
>> just as asinine as landuse=glacier.
>>
>>
>> Which leads us to this statement:
>>
>>
>> So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value
>> in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does.
>>
>>
>> ??
>>
>> when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks
>> spilled across 

Re: [Tagging] "Pet Relief Areas"

[John F. Eldredge]

From my experience, rest areas along the US Interstate Highway system 
(motorways in OSM terms) usually have a designated area for this, generally on 
the opposite side of the parking lot from the building holding human restrooms, 
so that there is a reduced risk of stepping in a pet dropping for the general 
public.


On May 15, 2015 2:32:25 AM CDT, John Willis  wrote:
> Since so may people in Japan travel with small dogs, most parking
> areas and many service areas have "pet areas" (I think they are
> called), where you can let your dog out of the car and walk them or
> let them deficate. This is not an enclosed space - there are no fences
> or facilities. 
> 
> They are there specifically to let your pet "relieve" themselves. 
> 
> I believe the fenced-in no-leash areas are called dog runs.
> 
> Could these airport areas for pets be be the same thing as my PA/SA
> areas?
> 
> Javbw. 
> 
> 
> 
> > On May 15, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Bryce Nesbitt 
> wrote:
> > 
> > These stations are in facilities such as airports,
> > and they are open to whatever animal needs them:
> > pets, service dogs, and unruly children as appropriate.
> > Many of them are indoors.
> > 
> > Since they are likely to include access to dog waste bags, they
> could be a subtag under vending.  Ugh.
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com (615) 299-6451
"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] Long Tail ( was Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging)

[Marc Gemis]

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> I did wonder about the statement "... about 500 users in the core group of
> the OSM are highly networked in terms of collaboration."


I wonder about that too. Someone compiled a list of the most active users
on OSM lately and published it as a diary entry. Among them were 2
Belgians, that as far as I know, never seek contact with the rest of the
community. One of them even said that in his mapper of the month interview.
Of course they are networked when the other mappers build upon their work,
but that is not what I call collaboration.

regards

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

[Tagging] service=yard - changing definition on wiki from "marshaling yard" to "railway yard"

[Mateusz Konieczny]

service=yard is widely considered as to be used to tag tracks in
"complex series of railroad tracks for storing, sorting, or
loading/unloading, railroad cars and/or locomotives".

But Wiki currently defines service=yard to be used only for marshaling
yards ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dyard ) -
narrower term. Marshaling yard is a type/part of railway yard - used to
separate railroad freight cars on to one of several tracks

Maybe that was initial tagging and it would probably stay this way with
self-documenting tag (service=marshaling_yard) but as tag was much more
general than its definition it is now used to tag any kind of railway
yard (up to and including tram depots).

I propose to change on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dyard "marshaling yard"
to "railway yard" to document current tagging.

Overpass query, starts centered on tram depot with service=yard:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/9p8

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