Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
On 18/07/2016 07:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: but they for sure must have same tags for that. Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
2016-07-18 9:44 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will > do. I know this has been discussed before, but as the issue persists, I'm mentioning it again: why "seamark:*"? Are there any plans to transition from "seamark:*" to different tag names that are more descriptive, for things that aren't "seamarks"? If I read a tag "seamark:type" I would expect this to describe a seamark, not a nautical channel. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
On 18/07/2016 08:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: why "seamark:*"? This is historical. At the beginning of nautical navigation mapping, it was buoys, beacons, lights, etc that were being mapped. As is usual with OSM mapping, feature creep set in to include all objects listed in the IHO catalogue. In retrospect, a broader term than "seamark" would have been better, but like many other ill-fitting tag keys, we are stuck with it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
2016-07-18 10:26 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring :
> but like many other ill-fitting tag keys, we are stuck with it.
I'm not sure we are stuck with it. Like other ill-fitting tag names we
should try to fix it.
A very small change and replacing "rk" with "p" would already be an
improvement ("seamap:*"), but on a more general note I think that
everything that isn't only occuring in seamap contest should likely get a
"normal" tag (e.g. "rock", bridge, ...) in the more common natural,
waterway, man_made etc. namespaces.
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural & cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these objects, it should be only to indicate additional navigational information. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
2016-07-18 11:16 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces >> > > Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural & > cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these objects, it > should be only to indicate additional navigational information. you do it for some features, but not for others. e.g. "landmarks", http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_E e.g. seamark:type=landmark seamark:landmark:category=tower wouldn't this be better represented as man_made=tower, landmark=tower (or yes)? similarly, all the contained objects in landmark already have their corresponding tagging (or should get it): seamark:type=landmark seamark:landmark:category=monument (or seamark:landmark:category=column) (or seamark:landmark:category=obelisk) (or seamark:landmark:category=statue) Monument, column, pillar, obelisk, statue ... Also in this section, there is a draft which seems that someone wants to add more information in the future (empty tables), where my suggestion would be to either add a short sentence why there is no information, or whether you plan to add more (or encourage people to add it) or to remove these paragraphs (with currently no information, and where "normal" tags are there or should be invented, like "public buildings", port infrastructure, etc.): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_F And a lot of features from here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_U seamark:type=harbour seamark:harbour:category=marina (doesn't seem to add anything compared to leisure=marina) seamark:type=small_craft_facility seamark:small_craft_facility:category=restaurant (or is this for restaurants that can only be accessed with small water craft and not e.g. by pedestrians?) seamark:type=small_craft_facility seamark:small_craft_facility:category=telephone cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?
Hi Maarten, > I'm seeing some ways tagged with waterway=fairway in the Netherlands. I did this to mark fairways on lakes in simple way and to draw a navigable inland watrways network. These waterways should also have tags like motorboat=yes or CEMT=* to classify. Results can be seen on http://maps.grade.de and http://routino.grade.de > This user also added waterway=lake on unclosed ways. Must have been a mistake if tagged by me Have a nice day, Dirk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tourism=attraction
what about making tourism=attraction a flag? Like attraction=yes/no or tourist_attraction=yes/no? Reason is that otherwise you can't flag stuff in the tourism namespace as attractions cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tourism=attraction
Good idea! On 18 July 2016 at 21:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > what about making tourism=attraction a flag? Like attraction=yes/no or > tourist_attraction=yes/no? > > > Reason is that otherwise you can't flag stuff in the tourism namespace as > attractions > > > cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tourism=attraction
W dniu 18.07.2016 21:30, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): what about making tourism=attraction a flag? Like attraction=yes/no or tourist_attraction=yes/no? It is already used a bit (among other, more popular types): http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/attraction=yes -- "Low, low, low..." [M. Kempa] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
