Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[David Marchal]

Mateusz,

The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, so that 
sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.

The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to 
link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a given forest. 
With a relation? What kind?

Awaiting your answer,

Regards.


De : Mateusz Konieczny 
Envoyé : mercredi 9 octobre 2019 21:29
À : Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Objet : Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

boundary=forest_compartment?

Is there anything wrong with this tagging
scheme (except that mapping this
kind of info seems a bit dubious to me).

All problems that you mention are
about tagging for renderer.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16 Oct 2019, 10:08 by pene...@live.fr:

> Mateusz,
>
> The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, so that 
> sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.
>
Well, every tagging scheme starts from that.
> The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to 
> link these with the forest
>
By mapping them in the same place?

Though, I want to note that mapping this
feature seems questionable to me.

At least in Poland, where general public
is utterly unaware about this.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2019, at 10:08, David Marchal  wrote:
> 
> The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to 
> link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a given 
> forest. With a relation? What kind?


no need for a relation, the forest is implicit through the spatial relation / 
the position of the parcels 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 15/10/2019 16:24, Vɑdɪm wrote:


Apparently you've misunderstood the proposal. It is not about a place where
sunbathing is generally allowed, which indeed would be too vague/general.

It's about a dedicated place.


That you've changed your tune & given vague/unrealistic examples 
suggests you don't really have a proposal with any validity. It appears 
you have a solution looking for a problem.


Maybe your OSM time would be better spent on other aspects of the project?

DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

[Warin]

On 16/10/19 19:08, David Marchal wrote:

Mateusz,

The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, 
so that sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.


The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see 
how to link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in 
a given forest. With a relation? What kind?


? site relation?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

[John Willis via Tagging]

While Tagging Pachinko parlors in Japan, I came across a wiki documentation 
conflict. 

2 different tags say that they are the proper ones to use when tagging pachinko 
parlors:


Amenity=gambling wiki page says:

> A place for gambling, not being a bookmaker, lottery shop, casino, or adult 
> gaming centre.  Games that are covered by this definition include bingo and 
> pachinko.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgambling 




Amenity=adult_gaming_centre says:

> This tag is used for venues with gambling machines, such as slot machines.

> Examples: • Pachinko Parlors (Japan)


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



Can someone who knows better clean up this mess? 

IMO, a bingo hall and Pachinko parlor are totally different. “Adult Gaming 
Center” seems to be the correct tag.
A Pachinko machine is basically a slot machine. But Amenity=gambling might be 
the de-facto in-use tag already. I don’t know.  


Also, how do you specify which games are offered? gambling=pachinko is in the 
wiki, but what about adult_gaming_centre? is gambling=* the default way to 
define what games are offered at such facilities? that seems to be vague or 
missing. 

gambling=pachinko has 560 uses (all in Japan) 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/gambling=pachinko#overview 


there are several times more pachinko parlors in Japan, but many have been 
mapped with this tag. 


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

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Sorry, can't help with Pachinko, but just in regard to it all

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 15:04, John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Amenity=gambling wiki page says:
>
> > A place for gambling, not being a bookmaker, lottery shop, casino, or
> adult gaming centre.  Games that are covered by this definition include
> bingo and pachinko.
>

Personally, I wouldn't really have called bingo "gambling" as such? Yes,
you pay a fee & there is a chance of winning a prize, but gambling seems a
little strong?

Amenity=adult_gaming_centre says:
>
> > This tag is used for venues with gambling machines, such as slot
> machines.
>

Didn't realise till reading this now that adult_gaming = gambling!

I had previously used the tag for https://zerolatencyvr.com/

What do you then call a place that adults (min age 15) play games, but no
gambling of any sort takes place?

Thanks

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