Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Pee Wee]

> Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
> private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
> by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
> No, we refine this with additional tags.
> This method can be applied to private gardens as well.
>
> regards
> m
>
> Forgot to mention that since people started to map  whole residential
area's with leisure=garden even small
completely paved strips in front of a houses are tagged.  To me this is no
garden an no leisure either.  I think the current definition needs a change
in order to include or exclude these paved area's (which ever the community
wants).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Pee Wee]

>
>
> 1.   Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the
> outcome?
>
> 2.   If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden
> should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if
> so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are
> partially/completely paved?)
>
>
>
>
> (PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private
> front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case
> someone wants to. )
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter (PeeWee32)
>

The first part of question 1 was answered by Marc Zoutendijk on the Dutch
OSM forum.  The mailing list can be searched so here are are results
for leisure=garden.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Peter Elderson]

Residential gardens in Nederland, as along as people refer to those as "My
front garden" even when completely paved to support one tree-in-a-pot,  are
leisure things. From the air you commonly see rows of houses with strips of
green in front and back, so it would make sense to tag the gardens
different than the residential area. Access and use is mostly restricted,
but that doesn't change the leisure function. You could discern types and
qualities. I wouldnt go that far myself.

When planning recreational routes, this would help me decide which areas to
include.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op zo 14 jul. 2019 om 09:30 schreef Pee Wee :

>
>
>>
>> 1.   Has this issue been discussed before and if so … what was the
>> outcome?
>>
>> 2.   If not… do you agree with me that private front/back garden
>> should not be tagged with leisure=garden but with a non-leisure tag? (if
>> so… any suggestions? And what about private "gardens" that are
>> partially/completely paved?)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (PS: it is not my intention to discuss the relevance of tagging private
>> front/back gardens. I just want to know how this should be tagged in case
>> someone wants to. )
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Peter (PeeWee32)
>>
>
> The first part of question 1 was answered by Marc Zoutendijk on the Dutch
> OSM forum.  The mailing list can be searched so here are are results for 
> leisure=garden.
>
> 
> ___
> 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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Warin]

On 14/07/19 16:48, Pee Wee wrote:



Op vr 12 jul. 2019 om 09:13 schreef Marc Gemis >:


On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM Pee Wee mailto:piewi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a
private wood / forest in a different way than one that is accessible
by the public? Do private parking lots get a different amenity-key ?
No, we refine this with additional tags.
This method can be applied to private gardens as well.

That is a good question. I would agree with you if the k/v would be 
e.g. natural=garden. This describes what it is and not what it is used 
for. Leisure=garden does not only describe what it is (garden) but 
also what it is used for (leisure). If I look at all the other leisure 
values they give me the impression that they are meant for places one 
can go to recreate and mainly publicly accessible.


OSM maps leisure=pitch in 'private' areas - eg football fields in 
stadiums and club grounds... these are not 'freely available' for all to 
use.
One could argue that you can also recreate in your own garden but 
still these private gardens are a dissonant from all the other leisure 
values.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure
"The leisure tag is for places people go in their spare time."
Nothing here says it has to be 'open to the public'.
Most people go into their garden in their spare time. So 'private 
gardens' match the leisure key.


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

[Tagging] New entry to the wiki pages leisure soccer golf

[Warin]

Hi,

Some 30 uses of the tag leisure=soccer_golf and 2 wiki pages on it - 
English and Polish.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dsoccer_golf


Should this not be tagged leisure=pitch with sport=soccer_golf ???

Or are any sports related to golf to be tagged leisure=* only???


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

Re: [Tagging] New entry to the wiki pages leisure soccer golf

[Leif Rasmussen]

Yes, that would be better

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 10:35 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Some 30 uses of the tag leisure=soccer_golf and 2 wiki pages on it -
> English and Polish.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dsoccer_golf
>
>
> Should this not be tagged leisure=pitch with sport=soccer_golf ???
>
> Or are any sports related to golf to be tagged leisure=* only???
>
>
> ___
> 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] New entry to the wiki pages leisure soccer golf

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 09:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Should this not be tagged leisure=pitch with sport=soccer_golf ???
>
> Or are any sports related to golf to be tagged leisure=* only???
>

Going by
https://www.worldfootballgolf.com/en/s2106/WFGA/c2243-What-is-Footballgolf
it is far more similar to a golf course than to a soccer pitch.

If you think it should be mapped as leisure=pitch + sport=soccer_golf then
you need
to explain why we should not be using leisure=pitch + sport=golf rather than
leisure=golf_course.  Ditto for miniature golf.

Arguably this should be leisure=soccer_golf_course rather than
leisure=soccer_golf.  But I don't
see "pitch" as being a good fit for soccer_golf any more than it is for a
golf course or for a
miniature golf course.

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

[Tagging] Clashing access tags

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this:

bicycle=designated
highway=proposed

(from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335831004)

where the "bikes can ride along here" of the first tag is contradicted 
by the "this hasn't even been built yet" of the second.


Similarly, on occasion I've found ways which are tagged access=no 
("nothing is allowed along here") but are part of a bike route relation 
("bikes can ride along here").


To some degree they're similar to "trolltags" 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag) - where the meaning of 
one tag is "radically changed" by another.


Two questions:

1. Is there any precedent for how to parse these contradictory tags? At 
present cycle.travel will assume the most optimistic outcome, which is 
good for a cycle route which goes over a private road and the mapper has 
forgotten to add bicycle=permissive, but not good for a new cycleway 
which hasn't yet been constructed.


2. Can we get warnings about this into validators etc.? I note iD 
doesn't warn about it. (No idea what JOSM does.)


cheers
Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

[François Lacombe]

Hi Mark,

I agree with your choice to specifiy which service are available in a given
facility.
This doesn't require to add :type in the name of the key. Such suffixe
don't bring any information.
Your proposal would be way better if you use health_amenit=MRI at least
instead

All the best

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer  a
écrit :

> The intention of the tag is to specify physical equipment
> (health_amenity:type=MRI) and should be used in conjunction with
> amenity=clinic to show that the health facility contains that specialised
> equipment. This will enable mappers say that "this clinic contains an MRI"
> ᐧ
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> 4) health_amenity:type
>>
>> I think the key "healthcare" should be used instead of the new key
>> health_amenity:type". If it's necessary to tag an MRI facility
>> separately, then create a tag like "healthcare=mri".
>>
>>  However, it may be more useful to use a tag like "mri=yes" on the
>> main amenity=hospital or the radiology department within the medical
>> centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
>> an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
>> equipment within the building. This would also make it easier for
>> database users: they can just check for "amenity=hospital" + "mri=yes"
>> rather than doing a spacial query to find MRI nodes within or near an
>> amenity=hospital feature
>>
>>
>> On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara  wrote:
>> > Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>> >
>> > We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for
>> the
>> > staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify
>> the
>> > number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
>> > operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like
>> to
>> > highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the
>> current
>> > functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
>> > health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what
>> type
>> > of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4]
>> and
>> > the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
>> > insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>> >
>> > Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted,
>> or
>> > properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would
>> like to
>> > try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take
>> a
>> > look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
>> > Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
>> > work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward
>> to
>> > discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> > Mhairi
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
>> > [2]
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
>> > [3]
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
>> > [4]
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
>> > [5]
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
>> > [6]
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *Mhairi O'Hara*
>> > Project Manager
>> > mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org
>> > @mataharimhairi
>> >
>> >
>> > *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
>> > *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
>> > web 
>> >  |  twitter 
>> >  |  facebook 
>> >  |  donate 
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards
> Mark Herringer
> www.healthsites.io
> https://medium.com/healthsites-io
> @sharehealthdata 
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:15, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> From the air you commonly see rows of houses with strips of green in front 
> and back, so it would make sense to tag the gardens different than the 
> residential area.


While I am all in favor of being detailed with landuse mapping (e.g. not 
including public streets and sidewalks in residential landuse), I would still 
consider the gardens part of the residential landuse. Mapping gardens does not 
imply you have to exclude them from the landuse.

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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Line attachments

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

The voting on the line attachments proposal is now open
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_attachments

Proposed tagging regards how any line is bound to its supports.
This proposal wasn't intended to describe power insulators only (further
work may be done regarding this goal) but delivers a set of concepts to
address power, telecom, various mechanical use cases...

Many comments have been received during more than 1 year of writing which
is really great. I think the document is mature enough to be voted now
thanks to contributions.
Tagging has been experienced recently in France and Senegal on several
situations and was used as expected.

Thanks in advance for your time, all the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2019, at 14:07, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> 
> 1. Is there any precedent for how to parse these contradictory tags?


not sure I follow your analysis that these are contradictory. One could read 
bicycle=designated as a property (refines a feature), so in this case 
highway=proposed defines a planned highway and bicycle=designated states it 
will be explicitly for bicycles. No contradiction.


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

Re: [Tagging] New entry to the wiki pages leisure soccer golf

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Should this not be tagged leisure=pitch with sport=soccer_golf ???


+1, “soccer golf” seems to be a value suitable for “sport”. It we would want a 
dedicated tag for the physical place it still should not look like a kind of 
sports but like a kind of facility


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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Peter Elderson]

That's what I meant.
Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op zo 14 jul. 2019 om 15:29 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:15, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > From the air you commonly see rows of houses with strips of green in
> front and back, so it would make sense to tag the gardens different than
> the residential area.
>
>
> While I am all in favor of being detailed with landuse mapping (e.g. not
> including public streets and sidewalks in residential landuse), I would
> still consider the gardens part of the residential landuse. Mapping gardens
> does not imply you have to exclude them from the landuse.
>
> 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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Here is another proposal we were two working on it.
It regards several kinds of utility markers usually warning about buried
infrastructure beneath them.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal

Markers are currently described with keys like pipeline=* and power=*
although they're not directly involved in infrastructure running processes
(like a valve can be on a pipeline for instance).
Then it can be useful to define a new key marker=* to gather more
categories on OSM (pipeline is for now the most mapped here) and prevent
pipeline, power and telecom keys be cluttered with not directly related
features.

Note that markers mapping is important on OSM as location signs and
relevant data to verify presence of not visible infrastructures.

Feel free to raise concerns here and on talk page.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

[Leif Rasmussen]

I'd map the way as highway=cycleway + proposed:highway=*, since until the
proposed highway is finished, it's effectivity a cycleway.
Adding foot=yes could also be good if relevant.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 3:38 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Jul 2019, at 14:07, Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Is there any precedent for how to parse these contradictory tags?
>
>
> not sure I follow your analysis that these are contradictory. One could
> read bicycle=designated as a property (refines a feature), so in this case
> highway=proposed defines a planned highway and bicycle=designated states it
> will be explicitly for bicycles. No contradiction.
>
>
> 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] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14 lip 2019, 15:26 od dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:15, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>>
>> From the air you commonly see rows of houses with strips of green in front 
>> and back, so it would make sense to tag the gardens different than the 
>> residential area.
>>
>
>
> While I am all in favor of being detailed with landuse mapping (e.g. not 
> including public streets and sidewalks in residential landuse), I would still 
> consider the gardens part of the residential landuse. Mapping gardens does 
> not imply you have to exclude them from the landuse.
>
Yes, residential garden are clearly 
part of landuse=residential___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14 lip 2019, 14:07 od rich...@systemed.net:

> Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this:
>
> bicycle=designated
> highway=proposed
>
Based on tagging is it a not yet existing
road that will have some part designated
for use by cyclists (lane/cycleway?).
Maybe it will be a cycleway.

Other major issue is that source tag
is missing what is not ok for 
proposed ways (assuming that mapping highway=proposed
is desirable)
> Similarly, on occasion I've found ways which are tagged access=no ("nothing 
> is allowed along here") but are part of a bike route relation ("bikes can 
> ride along here").
>
It may be worth reporting as error by validator. Even with really badly designed
bicycle routes where bicycle=no
happens still allow foot passage.
> 1. Is there any precedent for how to parse these contradictory tags? At 
> present cycle.travel will assume the most optimistic outcome, which is good 
> for a cycle route which goes over a private road and the mapper has forgotten 
> to add bicycle=permissive, but not good for a new cycleway which hasn't yet 
> been constructed.
>
Personally I would assume that all highway=proposed are not passable
(including ones with cycleway=lane etc).

I would treat ways with supposedly
no access but in cycleway route as 
passable. But maybe add some penalty 
and assume that dismounting and walking
is necessary?

Not sure about ways in route, with 
explicit bicycle=no, foot=no.
> 2. Can we get warnings about this into validators etc.? I note iD doesn't 
> warn about it. (No idea what JOSM does.)
>
As usual, opening issue in their bug trackers
is usual a good first step.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14 lip 2019, 14:07 od rich...@systemed.net:

> Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this:
>
> bicycle=designated
> highway=proposed
>
Based on tagging is it a not yet existing
road that will have some part designated
for use by cyclists (lane/cycleway?).
Maybe it will be a cycleway.

Other major issue is that source tag
is missing what is not ok for 
proposed ways (assuming that mapping highway=proposed
is desirable)
> Similarly, on occasion I've found ways which are tagged access=no ("nothing 
> is allowed along here") but are part of a bike route relation ("bikes can 
> ride along here").
>
It may be worth reporting as error by validator. Even with really badly designed
bicycle routes where bicycle=no
happens still allow foot passage.
> 1. Is there any precedent for how to parse these contradictory tags? At 
> present cycle.travel will assume the most optimistic outcome, which is good 
> for a cycle route which goes over a private road and the mapper has forgotten 
> to add bicycle=permissive, but not good for a new cycleway which hasn't yet 
> been constructed.
>
Personally I would assume that all highway=proposed are not passable
(including ones with cycleway=lane etc).

I would treat ways with supposedly
no access but in cycleway route as 
passable. But maybe add some penalty 
and assume that dismounting and walking
is necessary?

Not sure about ways in route, with 
explicit bicycle=no, foot=no.
> 2. Can we get warnings about this into validators etc.? I note iD doesn't 
> warn about it. (No idea what JOSM does.)
>
As usual, opening issue in their bug trackers
is usual a good first step.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 14/07/2019 13:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Hi all,

Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this:

bicycle=designated
highway=proposed

(from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335831004)

where the "bikes can ride along here" of the first tag is contradicted 
by the "this hasn't even been built yet" of the second.


No. it doesn't. Highway is the primary tag. It usurps sub-tags which are 
merely adjectives of the primary.

When it has been completed it will be designated for use by bicycles.



Similarly, on occasion I've found ways which are tagged access=no 
("nothing is allowed along here") but are part of a bike route 
relation ("bikes can ride along here").


Route relations should be aware of tags on ways. access=no can be used 
in part to indicate road works.
Just because a way may be inaccessible to bikes doesn't mean it's not 
still officially regarded as a cycle route (the NCN ref won't be removed)


DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

[Warin]

This is about the equipment available?

Using the principle of 'say what it is' ...

medical_equipment=MRI ??? Assuming the tag is for equipment.

Calling the key health_amenity:type "in use" is a stretch - 40 uses .. 
and most of these are for first aid kits!

The next most popular is "scales".
Fist aid kits have the tag emergency=first_aid_kit ... which is more 
popular (170) despite it being a "draft".


No, I don't think is is "in use" nor has it been used in a sensible way. 
Probably because "type" can mean anything.


health_facility:type has the same problem, despite being more popular, 
uses are for

dispensary
office
clinic
hospital
etc


On 14/07/19 23:18, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi Mark,

I agree with your choice to specifiy which service are available in a 
given facility.
This doesn't require to add :type in the name of the key. Such suffixe 
don't bring any information.
Your proposal would be way better if you use health_amenit=MRI at 
least instead


All the best

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer > a écrit :


The intention of the tag is to specify physical equipment
(health_amenity:type=MRI) and should be used in conjunction with
amenity=clinic to show that the health facility contains that
specialised equipment. This will enable mappers say that "this
clinic contains an MRI"
ᐧ

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

4) health_amenity:type

I think the key "healthcare" should be used instead of the new key
health_amenity:type". If it's necessary to tag an MRI facility
separately, then create a tag like "healthcare=mri".

 However, it may be more useful to use a tag like "mri=yes" on the
main amenity=hospital or the radiology department within the
medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital
contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. This would also make it easier for
database users: they can just check for "amenity=hospital" +
"mri=yes"
rather than doing a spacial query to find MRI nodes within or
near an
amenity=hospital feature


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara mailto:mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org>> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the
proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps
identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility
[1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I
would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation
of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility)
[3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this
indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health
facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type
of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been
formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which
we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project.
Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the
Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of
the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We
look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion
pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
>

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org 
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian 

Re: [Tagging] New entry to the wiki pages leisure soccer golf

[Warin]

On 14/07/19 21:15, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 09:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



Should this not be tagged leisure=pitch with sport=soccer_golf ???

Or are any sports related to golf to be tagged leisure=* only???


Going by 
https://www.worldfootballgolf.com/en/s2106/WFGA/c2243-What-is-Footballgolf

it is far more similar to a golf course than to a soccer pitch.

If you think it should be mapped as leisure=pitch + sport=soccer_golf 
then you need
to explain why we should not be using leisure=pitch + sport=golf 
rather than

leisure=golf_course.  Ditto for miniature golf.

Arguably this should be leisure=soccer_golf_course rather than 
leisure=soccer_golf.  But I don't
see "pitch" as being a good fit for soccer_golf any more than it is 
for a golf course or for a

miniature golf course.



Pitch, in OSM terms, is the area of a sport.. shooting ranges go in 
here, as do chess, ping pong, hammer throwing, etc.


Think you  find leisure=golf pre-dates the sports key and the pitch 
value. So its existence may be historical.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

[Andrew Harvey]

+1

On Mon., 15 Jul. 2019, 3:02 am Dave F via Tagging, <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 14/07/2019 13:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this:
> >
> > bicycle=designated
> > highway=proposed
> >
> > (from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335831004)
> >
> > where the "bikes can ride along here" of the first tag is contradicted
> > by the "this hasn't even been built yet" of the second.
>
> No. it doesn't. Highway is the primary tag. It usurps sub-tags which are
> merely adjectives of the primary.
> When it has been completed it will be designated for use by bicycles.
>
> >
> > Similarly, on occasion I've found ways which are tagged access=no
> > ("nothing is allowed along here") but are part of a bike route
> > relation ("bikes can ride along here").
>
> Route relations should be aware of tags on ways. access=no can be used
> in part to indicate road works.
> Just because a way may be inaccessible to bikes doesn't mean it's not
> still officially regarded as a cycle route (the NCN ref won't be removed)
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging