Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*
Hey guys, the voting has had people give more specific comments on the proposal. In has become clear in particular that landuse=police is mostly seen as superfluous, while hitherto there were people speaking out against as well as in favour of this tag. I've now also understood the idea of the police:XX tag for localised information that has been established in France and would include such a scheme. Now, how to proceed? I don't think that adapting the proposal while the voting is open would be considered democratic. Should I thus interrupt the voting and adapt the proposal? Or wait until the voting is over, adapt, and open another voting period? Best, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*
Mar 30, 2019, 6:33 PM by grimpeu...@gmail.com: > Hey guys, > > the voting has had people give more specific comments on the proposal. In has > become clear in particular that landuse=police is mostly seen as superfluous, > while hitherto there were people speaking out against as well as in favour of > this tag. > > I've now also understood the idea of the police:XX tag for localised > information that has been established in France and would include such a > scheme. > > Now, how to proceed? I don't think that adapting the proposal while the > voting is open would be considered democratic. Should I thus interrupt the > voting and adapt the proposal? Or wait until the voting is over, adapt, and > open another voting period? > Terminating voting, incorporating suggestions and starting a new RfC is OK*. *may not apply in some ridiculous situations ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*
sent from a phone > On 30. Mar 2019, at 18:33, Jan S wrote: > > Now, how to proceed? I don't think that adapting the proposal while the > voting is open would be considered democratic. Should I thus interrupt the > voting and adapt the proposal? Or wait until the voting is over, adapt, and > open another voting period? if you want to make changes to the proposal you can still do it, from my understanding, this would stop the current voting, and there would be a new voting on the modified proposal. The new voting period would again have to be min. 2 weeks, voting isn’t so much about democracy anyway (it is hardly representative and it is not binding), it is for discovering potential problems, and testing the acceptability. In the end what really counts is whether the tags are actually applied, and whether the tagged objects correspond to the definition. I believe the french scheme is a good idea, because it removes the ambiguity for people who know the local system (it is what seems most helpful to local data users), but it should be accompanied by an international classification. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*
Am Sa., 30. März 2019 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > if you want to make changes to the proposal you can still do it, from my > understanding, this would stop the current voting, and there would be a new > voting on the modified proposal. > > The new voting period would again have to be min. 2 weeks, voting isn’t so > much about democracy anyway (it is hardly representative and it is not > binding), it is for discovering potential problems, and testing the > acceptability. In the end what really counts is whether the tags are > actually applied, and whether the tagged objects correspond to the > definition. > > I believe the french scheme is a good idea, because it removes the > ambiguity for people who know the local system (it is what seems most > helpful to local data users), but it should be accompanied by an > international classification. > > Thanks! I have stopped the voting and modified the proposal taking into account the major arguments brought forward against the first version. Please feel free to revise the new version and comment on it! Best, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] capacity=* of bicycle sharing stations when no. of bikes > no. of stands
Hi all, A new bicycle-sharing scheme called MEVO has just (sort of) started in Poland. It consists of 660 stations, which function like regular bicycle stands (no active parts). The bikes are station-less, which means they can be left in almost any place in the city except excluded zones (albeit for a small extra fee). The normal intended usage is to leave them at stations, which is verified by GPS geofencing. This implies that people may (and they did) leave more bicycles than there are stands at some stations. How should we map the number of stands, if it's not really a measure of capacity? One mapper that mapped them went with e.g. capacity="5 stands", but this doesn't seem elegant or parsable to me. Thanks for suggestions Michał ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] capacity=* of bicycle sharing stations when no. of bikes > no. of stands
On 31/03/19 12:51, Michał Brzozowski wrote: Hi all, A new bicycle-sharing scheme called MEVO has just (sort of) started in Poland. It consists of 660 stations, which function like regular bicycle stands (no active parts). The bikes are station-less, which means they can be left in almost any place in the city except excluded zones (albeit for a small extra fee). The normal intended usage is to leave them at stations, which is verified by GPS geofencing. This implies that people may (and they did) leave more bicycles than there are stands at some stations. How should we map the number of stands, if it's not really a measure of capacity? One mapper that mapped them went with e.g. capacity="5 stands", but this doesn't seem elegant or parsable to me. I'd go with the number of stands. When I do a car park .. I do the number that have spaces, I do not count the cars parked outside those spaces! Reason, those outside the spaces inconvenience at least the rest. Same with tent sites. The capacity should be about what it is built for, what is legal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Horse mounting steps
On 27/03/19 20:23, Hufkratzer wrote: On 27.03.2019 07:37, Warin wrote: [...] I'd still call it a 'mounting block' ... no steps in the name so it can be a ramp or, in your case, a platform. Add wheelchair=yes and a description=* tag ??? +1, in wikipedia it's also called 'mounting block', see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounting_block. But isn't it too primitive to be an amenity? What about animal=mounting_block? We have animal=horse_walker. I was not aware of the key animal. Looks to be used for all sorts of things .. access? the kind of animal in a zoo exhibit? Very poorly organised I would not go there! Looks to come from the German talk group.. nothing to do with the tagging group? I assume only stationary (fixed, heavy) mountoing blocks should be tagged. Many other objects (e.g. old tractor tires) can be used to mount a horse and could otherwise be tagged as a mounting block. AFAIK most mounting blocks/steps used in riding centres are light and movable and therefore not relevant here. Yes, only fixed objects. OSM does not map things like parked cars. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] airport check in counters
Hi Airport check in counters don't seem to have any way of mapping these. As there is usually a number of them it is handy to know there proximate location so your not dragging luggage from one end to the other. Thoughts? There are also 'arrival lounges' where people can wait for family/friends arriving. These are less of a problem, but still it would be good to have a method of tagging them. Thoughts? I have used the tag indoor=area, OSMInspector complains that this is not a physical tag... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
