Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers etc.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-10 3:51 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :

> @Martin, I'm not sure of the meaning of your question.
>
> I am aware of the use of man_made=water_tower for example and think it
> might be better to use the top level tag
> man_made=tower
> followed by:
> tower:type=water_storage (or water_tower)
>
> But it seems the two methods are already in use, namely, using tower:type
> for some types of towers while others have a dedicated main tag like the
> water_tower example.
>
> Is that what you're referring to?
>
>
sorry for replying late. What I was trying to say: man_made=tower, as it is
currently documented in the wiki (and I do take issue with this), is for
classifying something as tower which is accessible, has platforms etc.
Water towers might be classifiable like this (but probably shouldn't,
because there is the more specific, key-conflicting main tag
man_made=water_tower), but cooling towers DO NOT fall under this kind of
tower class (nor do some other things that have the word "tower" in their
name or might be confused as a tower by some, e.g. power towers, antennas,
chimneys, etc.), so IMHO cooling towers should NOT be tagged with
man_made=tower plus a subtag, but should either get a new main tag, or
simply get the (in-use) tag "man_made=cooling_tower", which is currently
signed as "deprecated" in the wiki (in this case, I do take issue).

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sinkholes refinement

[David Marchal]

Hi, Yuri.

Though I understand your request and find it relevant, I’m unsure about 
altering a proposal page after the vote had started; AFAIK, I’m supposed to let 
it as is, apart from the vote section. Could you show me if my assumption is 
wrong, or can someone on the ML confirm or infirm that?

Awaiting your answers,

Regards.

Le 12 nov. 2017 à 21:17, Yuri Astrakhan 
mailto:yuriastrak...@gmail.com>> a écrit :

David, hi, just an thought - could you combine the rationale and examples 
sections?  The way you have it now is first you describe each concept, and 
afterwards you have the same concept but with a picture.  I think it would be 
better to list each variant with the picture right away.

Thanks!

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:30 AM David Marchal 
mailto:pene...@live.fr>> wrote:
Hello, there.

Almost 3 weeks passed and only 3 people told that they preferred karst=yes 
instead of karstic=yes. As the first one was also the one stated as the 
proposal, and the second one was only mentioned in erroneous examples, I assume 
this relative unanimity is enough to confirm karst=yes as the one to use, and 
will create the wiki page accordingly. Thanks to all who voted; the proposal 
process is now fully finished, apart from creating all the Wiki pages.

Regards.


Le 24 oct. 2017 à 19:16, David Marchal 
mailto:pene...@live.fr>> a écrit :

Hello, there.

The vote period passed, and the proposal received a total of 16 approvals, 1 
spoilt vote and 0 refusals, so I closed the vote and marked the proposal as 
approved. Thanks to all the voters; I’ll create the according Wiki pages and 
edit existing ones to reflect the vote on the following days.

As a side note, there is a secondary vote on the proposal page; indeed, some 
voters noticed an inconsistency in the proposal, ie. a proposal example carried 
karstic=yes tagging instead of the proposed karst=yes. To make sure of what 
version the voters approved, I have to ask them to go back on the proposal page 
and vote, in the dedicated subsection, amongst karstic=yes or karst=yes. Once 
the choice will have been asserted, I’ll be able to create the corresponding 
Wiki page.

Thanking you for your patience, and awaiting your votes,

Regards.

Le 8 oct. 2017 à 09:51, David Marchal mailto:pene...@live.fr>> 
a écrit :

Hello, there.

The normal voting duration passed, but there are not enough votes yet to 
approve or reject the proposal, so I extend the voting period by two weeks to 
allow latecomers to vote.

Awaiting your votes,

Reagrds.

Le 26 sept. 2017 à 20:26, David Marchal 
mailto:pene...@live.fr>> a écrit :

Hello, there.

As this proposal has been RFCed more than 2 weeks ago, and that comments have 
been addressed, I’m now putting it on vote. Please go on the proposal page 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sinkholes_refinement) to 
vote.

Awaiting your votes,

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

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

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sinkholes refinement

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Hi David,  you do have a point. Perhaps it should be altered after the
voting? Unless if no one has voted yet one way or the other? Awaiting other
opinions.

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:34 PM, David Marchal  wrote:

> Hi, Yuri.
>
> Though I understand your request and find it relevant, I’m unsure about
> altering a proposal page after the vote had started; AFAIK, I’m supposed to
> let it as is, apart from the vote section. Could you show me if my
> assumption is wrong, or can someone on the ML confirm or infirm that?
>
> Awaiting your answers,
>
> Regards.
>
> Le 12 nov. 2017 à 21:17, Yuri Astrakhan  a écrit
> :
>
> David, hi, just an thought - could you combine the rationale and examples
> sections?  The way you have it now is first you describe each concept, and
> afterwards you have the same concept but with a picture.  I think it would
> be better to list each variant with the picture right away.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:30 AM David Marchal  wrote:
>
>> Hello, there.
>>
>> Almost 3 weeks passed and only 3 people told that they preferred
>> karst=yes instead of karstic=yes. As the first one was also the one stated
>> as the proposal, and the second one was only mentioned in erroneous
>> examples, I assume this relative unanimity is enough to confirm karst=yes
>> as the one to use, and will create the wiki page accordingly. Thanks to all
>> who voted; the proposal process is now fully finished, apart from creating
>> all the Wiki pages.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> Le 24 oct. 2017 à 19:16, David Marchal  a écrit :
>>
>> Hello, there.
>>
>> The vote period passed, and the proposal received a total of 16
>> approvals, 1 spoilt vote and 0 refusals, so I closed the vote and marked
>> the proposal as approved. Thanks to all the voters; I’ll create the
>> according Wiki pages and edit existing ones to reflect the vote on the
>> following days.
>>
>> As a side note, there is a secondary vote on the proposal page; indeed,
>> some voters noticed an inconsistency in the proposal, ie. a proposal
>> example carried karstic=yes tagging instead of the proposed karst=yes. To
>> make sure of what version the voters approved, I have to ask them to go
>> back on the proposal page and vote, in the dedicated subsection, amongst
>> karstic=yes or karst=yes. Once the choice will have been asserted, I’ll be
>> able to create the corresponding Wiki page.
>>
>> Thanking you for your patience, and awaiting your votes,
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Le 8 oct. 2017 à 09:51, David Marchal  a écrit :
>>
>> Hello, there.
>>
>> The normal voting duration passed, but there are not enough votes yet to
>> approve or reject the proposal, so I extend the voting period by two weeks
>> to allow latecomers to vote.
>>
>> Awaiting your votes,
>>
>> Reagrds.
>>
>> Le 26 sept. 2017 à 20:26, David Marchal  a écrit :
>>
>> Hello, there.
>>
>> As this proposal has been RFCed more than 2 weeks ago, and that comments
>> have been addressed, I’m now putting it on vote. Please go on the proposal
>> page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sinkh
>> oles_refinement) to vote.
>>
>> Awaiting your votes,
>>
>> Regards.
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] The StreetComplete team has some questions about check_date

[Gabe Appleton]

Do you think you could weigh in here? 

The tl;dr is that there are a few properties (in this case whether a building 
is under construction) that would be nice to coordinate checks between users. 
But the only tag (we're aware of) which reasonably allows this is check_date, 
and the developers are reluctant to use this without a signoff from other 
community members.

https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/685

Thanks,
Gabe (gappleto97)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging