Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency
One thing that you may also need to consider is that the timetables and therefore number of journeys a day may depend on the month as there are often summer and winter timetables. Regards Dudley > Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:28:26 -0700 > From: rich...@systemed.net > To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency > > Thanks all - some great suggestions. To clarify, I'm not looking to put > detailed timetable information in (that properly belongs in a GTFS feed or > somesuch, not OSM), just a broad-brush indication to help routing engines. > > Based on Richard M's and Janko's suggestions, I'm tempted to use: > > journeys=4/hour > journeys=2 orjourneys=2/day > journeys=on_demand > > to indicate, respectively, four journeys in each direction per day; two > journeys in each direction per day; and the sort of ferry where you go to > the bank, wave the ferryman down, and he comes to take you across. > > That avoids any confusion about "frequency" (a tram might have both > meanings!) and is simple both for the mapper and for the consumer. > > I note there's also a reservation= tag > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:reservation) which will be useful > for ferries where booking in advance is required. > > cheers > Richard > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Ferry-frequency-tp5780010p5780141.html > Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > 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=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?
>From a tourists perspective it is quite important to know whether it is self >catering accommodation or not. It is also important to know whether it is a >single building unit (i.e. house,cottage,chalet) as opposed to a number of >units in a building (i.e. apartments). I would be inclined to use >tourism=apartments for the latter. Types of tourist accommodation do seem to >be quite country specific. There are very few tourist apartments in the UK >but they are very common in Croatia for example. I would agree that >tourism=chalet would seem to be the most appropriate tag for a gîte. Dudley > Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:51:10 +0100 > From: craig...@fastmail.fm > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ? > > On 2013-10-17 09:52, Pieren wrote: > > Could someone explain the difference between "tourism=guest_house" and > > "tourism=bed_and_breakfast" ? > > Both are suggested here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dguest_house > > but only "guest_house" is really documented in the wiki. > > > > In taginfo, we find 527 "tourism=bed_and_breakfast" and 32382 > > "tourism=guest_house" (accidentally, taginfo says "Guest house and > > Bed&Breakfast for "tourism=guest_house") > > In UK terms, they are much the same thing. Some places refer to > themselves as B&Bs, some as guest houses, sometimes both. > Usually a B&B would be smaller, ie one or two rooms, with the owner also > living in the house, and doing most of the work. Whereas a guesthouse > may be bigger, more like a hotel, and more staff etc. But I have seen > plenty of small places calling themselves guesthouses. I don't think > there is any legal distinction. > > So it makes sense to tag both as tourism=guest_house. Plus tag the > number of rooms/beds to indicate how big it is. > > > I'm asking because in France we do have a diffence when guests are in > > an independent building (gîte [1]), usually for at least a week or a > > week-end, or just special bedrooms (bed&breakfast) as "guests" in > > private homes. So, I'm looking if we could reuse the two existing tags > > or if I should create a sub-tag like "tourism=guest_house" + > > "guest_house=bed_and_breakfast" or > > "guest_house=whatever_in_an_independent_building" > > If its a separate building (with self-catering), I wouldn't call it a > guest house. That's more like tourism=chalet. > Though maybe a more generic term for holiday chalets/cottages/apartments > etc would be good. And some way of distinguishing a single holiday house > to rent, from a larger 'holiday park'. > > Craig > > ___ > 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=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?
As a humble surveyor and editor I would ask that we have tourism=apartment at the first level. An apartment is quite distinct from a hotel and a guest_house and we already separate out these along with motel, hostel and chalet at this level. The only debate for myself would be is at to whether it should be tourism=apartment or tourism=apartments. In many cases you will have a number of apartments for rent in a apartment building block but not necessarily all. In which case I presume it would be most appropriate to put a node in the building area rather than tagging the building area. Would you therefore need to put in a node for each apartment if it was tourism=apartment? Regards Dudley Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:21:44 +0200 From: dieterdre...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ? 2013/10/18 Andrew Errington Surely it's simply a matter of tagging "There is accommodation of some kind here" and including a URL to the website? There is very little point in slicing the data so thinly, especially since renderers will paint a little picture that probably looks identical for any class of tourist accommodation. IMHO this isn't about "rendering", few people would look at a rendered map when looking for accomodation (usually you'd search in a db / with a query). We already have a system where we distinguish on the first level much more than "there is accomodation of some kind here", (IMHO that's good), so distinguishing an apartment from a hotel or a B&B / guest house or from a hostel does make sense - IMHO also at this very first level. 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] How to map holiday flats? New tag "tourism=holiday_flat" or extend existing "tourism=chalet"
I thought I should own up as to someone that has used tourism=apartments. Although I am from the UK this was actually in Croatia as this type of accommodation is very common and well advertised as such. Even in the UK I would agree that "apartment/s" would be the more common usage when it comes to looking for this type of holiday let. I debated as to whether it should be singular or not but by definition mostly there is more than one so the plural seemed a better choice. I would also say that from the outside it was quite difficult to determine if the whole building was an "apartment block". I would keep to a more generic description. Mostly, I have just drawn the outline of the building and tagged this as "building=yes" and then put a node in with a name=* and tourism=apartments. This type of accommodation is quite distinct from a chalet. The wiki description gives chalet quite a wide usage: "one or more detached cottages with self-contained cooking facilities and/or bathroom and toilet facilities" and it seems that attempts to introduce "holiday cottage" were abandoned in favour of this tag. These are however detached where as apartment/s generally aren't and this is why I don't think chalet should be used. Whether the accommodation is attached or detached is probably the most important information from a user perspective once you know where it located. If you look at the tourism wiki page, none of the tags have holiday in them so I'm not sure that there is any need for holiday in the tag as it would seem that this is implied by the use of the tourism=* tag. Personally I would go with tourism=apartment or apartments. When it comes to the wiki the main thing is to help people in searching and finding what they're looking for. Regards Dudley > Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 12:08:52 + > From: doerr.step...@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to map holiday flats? New tag > "tourism=holiday_flat" or extend existing "tourism=chalet" > > Yes, I'm saying that British people booking holiday accommodation will > mostly talk about 'apartments', not 'flats' - perhaps partly because > that's what they will see in the brochures. I'm saying that the famous > US/UK split between 'apartment' and 'flat' is largely confined to > residential accommodation, and that once we talk about holidays > (vacations) both sides of the Atlantic will mostly use the term 'apartment'. > > 'Chalet' might pass for a holiday apartment in a single-storey block, > where the apartments are next to each other but not on top of each > other. It would seem very strange, though, to use 'chalet' for an > apartment in a multi-storey block. (That's not to say, of course, that a > standalone chalet cannot itself have multiple floors - of course it can. > It's the idea of chalets stacked on top of each other that would be > ludicrous.) > > The other point you should consider is that what you will mostly be > tagging is not an apartment but a block of apartments - a building > containing several apartments. (Same applies to residential flats - > you're normally mapping the block, not the individual flats.) So maybe > you need tourism = apartment_block or just tourism = [holiday_]apartments. > > Steve > > On 03/01/2014 10:13, nounours77 wrote: > > Dear Dave, Steve, Philip > > > > Thank you very much for your replies. > > > > If I understand correctly, you all advocate to use "apartment" instead of > > "flat". > > > > As being non-native English, I can not really judge on this (I just learned > > "flat" in school, so ... at may age :-) ), so no problem for me to change. > > > > On the other hand, I think it's important to keep the part "holiday" in it, > > since the term "apartment" is already used in "normal" buildings to specify > > the type of building (e.g. being residential apartments), or the number of > > apartments or so, and though this might lead to confusion. > > > > @Philip: I agree that we should wherever possible respect actual use of > > tags. But for me, 237 uses is not strong enough to make a prejudice. If the > > proposal is accepted, I think this can be changed later if wished. > > > > So, "tourism=holiday_apartment" should be clear that this is a flat you can > > actually rent for a weeks vacation or so. > > > > Do you agree on that? > > > > In general, do you think it's worth making a new tag? > > > > Thanks, Nounours > > > > > > > > P.S.: The page is still under the old name, it will be moved when (if) we > > get to the voting stage: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/holiday_flat > > > > > >> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:31:04 +0700 > >> From: Dave Swarthout > >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > >> > >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to map holiday flats? New tag > >>"tourism=holiday_flat" or extend existing "tourism=chalet" > >> Message-ID: > >> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="u
Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts
Could the more general description found for "mountain hut" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_hut be used in the context of "alpine_hut" as this would make it more universal. This would then cover the "climbing huts" found in the UK as described in the wikipedia article. Additional tags could then be used to state whether it provides food, bedding, has a warden etc. "Alpine Huts" don't always provide food and bedding. As has already been mentioned, "Bothies" are probably the equivalent of a wilderness_hut in the UK but to make this fit the requirement "with fire place" really needs be removed.The wikipedia article description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut would cover these. We also have a few hostels that are remote to the extent that you have to walk or cycle to them. Some provide food and have a warden, some don't. Another type of "accommodation" that it would be useful to map is the emergency shelter. It is always good to know where these are, just in case! Regards Dudley Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:13:44 +0200 From: dieterdre...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts 2014-04-01 4:20 GMT+02:00 fly : > Wikipedia shows several huts of the type I mean here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut .Their definition says these > are free — that is not the case in Alaska but is mostly true elsewhere > in the U.S. AFAIK We have access=* and fee=* to state this information. Yes, I believe we shuldn't introduce the requirement "free" for wilderness_hut. It is common to give some sort of "voluntary" donation if you sleep in one of those huts around here, a contribution to the maintenance efforts for these places. They are also often locked up so you will have to contact the local "operator" in order to get access, still I don't see how "access" will come into play here. 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] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders
In the UK what you describe sounds like a “field margin”. Here is an example web page, but search on google under “field margins” for more information. http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife/habitats/arable-field-margins Farmers generally cultivate up to the field boundaries in the UK but there have been schemes to encourage them to leave “field margins” to support wildlife. Regards Dudley Sent from Windows Mail From: Yves Sent: Friday, 13 June 2014 15:33 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools, Simone Saviolo Field border literally means the border of a field, so I fear the tag meaning is not as clear as it should. On 13 juin 2014 14:35:34 UTC+02:00, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2014-06-13 14:15 GMT+02:00 Simon Wüllhorst : Hello Guys, currently I’m tagging the country around my place (farmland, farmyards, meadow and so on). Farmlands are typically surrounded or seperated by small areas/borders of several vegetations (trees bushes, at least in Germany), called Field Borders (or Feldrain in German, more Informations: http://extension.missouri.edu/p/g9421 or https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldrain). They are important for farmers (to improve crops growth) and they also useful for a better orientation and navigation in this country. I started a thread on forum.osm.org (It’s a german thread, so if you have questions, please ask me) to get tips for the correct/ideal tagging of these areas (important:it’s an area, not a way!). In summary I got a lot of suggestions, for example natural=scrub or natural=wood, …. The problem of all these suggestions were, they all describe the type of vegetation and not the purpose of these areas. Besides the vegetation of these areas are much various, so you can’t describe them by using one or two “vegetation”-tags. According to the post of “dieterdreist” (http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=422045#p422045) I thought about to create/use a completely new tag/value. At this point I’m not shure which key would be correct. I’m thinking about natural=fieldborder or landuse=fieldborder. On the one landuse=fieldborder seems to be the better choise, because field borders have got a farming purpose. But on the other hand they are grown as they are and are not really managed. So what whould be your favourite key/value for Filed Borders or what are you thinking about this topic in general. PS: After the latest update of the mapnik style farmlands/farmyards are sourrounded by a little border. Some people say that would be raise the motivation to create smaller seperations of farmland-areas (an own farmland-area for every farmland and not a farmland-area for a whole region). In my opinion the inroduciton of a Filed Border tag would support these idea, too. I'm a big supporter of small farmland areas too, and I'm starting to pay more attention to what lies between a field and its neighbour. In my case, though, most fields are rice fields, which are only separated by a small earth levee (http://www.ecori.it/images/gallery/1.jpg). When they're not close to each other, it's because a track or a waterway runs in that space. While some of the larger levees are often lined with trees or bushes, I'm not sure this would still qualify as field border, in the sense of the landuse (in other words, I wouldn't think that that vegetation is provided for agricultural/habitat reasons, but it may be, I'm no agronomist). Anyway, some such areas have been tagged by their vegetation characteristics. I think the best solution is to provide both tags, one about the vegetation, one about its agricultural function, as these two functions are largely orthogonal in my view. Ciao, Simone Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ 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] Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory
Hi I was going to say that from a UK English perspective I have never seen dormitory used in this way. However, in the context of a dictionary definition the proposal seems to relate to the definition with regard to a suburb "A small town or suburb providing a residential area for those who work in a nearby city".It also appears that it would be used as a modifier. i.e. a dormitory suburb. I may have got this wrong but the proposal would seem to be extending this definition to mean a type of "suburb" of the University. UK Universities are rather small to have "dormitory suburbs" and you would generally just talk about the "halls of residence" or the perhaps the "residential" area of a campus. Regards Dudley From: christoph-jai...@gmx.de To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:17:27 + Subject: [Tagging] Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory Hey, I just need some opinions to a proposal:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/amenity%3Ddormitory Greetings Gesendet von Windows-Mail ___ 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] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders
Hi I'm trying to work out exactly how a generic "field" would be mapped using this new tag. I am assuming you would have a way that marks the field boundary and in many cases this would be tagged with the barrier=fence/wall/hedge. This is what much or my mapping currently consists of. What is enclosed by the field boundary is arguably the "field" but it seems the use of landuse=field for such an area isn't encouraged where the wiki is concerned. With this new tag presumably you would mark out any areas of "field margin" with any appropriate additional tag to describe what is in the field margin. The area left within the "field" would then be tagged with the "crop". Field margins have a much "tighter" definition in the UK, most likely due to the use of payments to encourage farmers to create these for conservation purposes. Wood and scrub wouldn't fall under this definition, nor would hedges so I wouldn't be keen to see these additional tags used. Hedges vary considerably in size around where I live depending on whether they are cut regularly or not but they are still hedges and not field margins. Natural tree rows are also found quite commonly along rivers and streams that form field boundaries. natural=tree_row fits with this feature as they are not field margins. Would it not be better to have a "tighter" definition of this particular "field" feature when it comes to the use of any additional tags? Kind Regards Dudley Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:11:49 +0200 From: m...@simon-wuellhorst.de To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders Hello,thanks for your feedback. I created a proposed features page for fieldmargins where I wrote down my ideas about this topic. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/fieldmargin Please give me feedback (here or on the wikipage) to improve this propose. Greetings,Simon 2014-07-05 19:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > Am 05/lug/2014 um 11:08 schrieb Simon Wüllhorst : > > Is a proposal-page in the wiki needed? It is Not strictly needed (you can use the tag straight away), but it is recommended in order to have some documentation remaining. I'd also suggest to put a link (see also) on landuse farmland 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Truckage company
Other possible descriptions would be: “haulage” for large loads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haulage “courier” for smaller items. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courier Dudley From: John Sturdy Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2014 12:26 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > Any suggestion how to tag a transport company (a company forwarding goods, > don't > know how you call these guys from the "Güterbeförderungsgewerbe" like DPD etc. > in English)? The companies often refer to their sector as "logistics", although I think that's probably the marketing people trying to sound clever, and that the people actually driving and loading the trucks will call it "transport". __John ___ 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] elsan v dump_station
An alternative description found on camping/caravanning sites in the UK is a "Chemical Disposal Point" or CDP. Dudley > From: dban...@internode.on.net > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:33:31 +1100 > Subject: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station > > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:33 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > amenity=elsan_point ? > > While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. > > or > > > > amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. > > > Bryce, here in Australia, we use a lot of UK terms (and frown on the > horrid American ones creeping into our vocabulary). But no one here uses > Elsan. > > There is no wikipedia page (yet!) for Elsan. Appears its a brand name, > I'd prefer not to use a brand name if possible. > > > This (very long) discussion started with complaints that > waste=chemical_toilet is almost unused. Chemical_toilet_disposal_point > is very long ! > > David > > > > ___ > 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 - RFC - register
The Dartmoor Letter Box dates back 50 years. It was setup as a letter box. i.e. you would leave a card or letter and the next person to visit would take the latter and the put it in an "proper" letter box. My experience dates backs 35 years. If they are still used in this way then perhaps they should be tagged as amenity=post_box, operator="next person to visit!" From: bry...@obviously.com Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:00:13 -0800 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org; b...@volki.at Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: May be related to the United States Department of Agriculture's National Forest Service use permits. Typically a small wooden box with some pencils and waterproof application cards inside, on which you are either strongly encouraged or legally obligated to spell out where you're going, who's with you... There are various types in the USA: A "trail register" is at the trail head (start of a trail) or a wilderness entrance. It's used to track visitor counts for statistics purposes, and for gaining hints about lost people after they are reported lost. It's left by an official agency (official=yes). A "log book" or "peak register" is a social creation, unrelated to the above. These are placed at peaks, in caves, or or at nice destinations. Visitors are encouraged to flip through past responses and leave their own. People revisit old sites, perhaps with kids, and show off their entries. These are typically kept in an old jar and hidden under a rock (official=no). Some of the hardest to get to peaks in California have registers from 50 or more years back, which are still readable. In some cases the registers, especially those signed by famous people like John Muir, have been archived elsewhere. These are a social creation, not an official register. In the USA the official land managers rarely if ever place a true log book, though they occasionally read them. A "letterbox" and "geocache" are related extensions of the idea, developed later. There are well developed sites outside of OSM for locating geocaches, in particular. They are not the same as as "peak register", and appeal to different use cases. ___ 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] Bridge Parapets
It would appear that the rendering for a bridge might include the parapet. Much of my local mapping however includes barriers along roads. These are generally connected to the bridge parapet. It would seem reasonable to therefore have a seperate way for each bridge paparet that links the barriers either side of the bridge. Perhaps, barrier=wall, wall=parapet. Parapet is however used in more that one context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapet If bridge parapets were to be mapped would they therefore need a more distinct name in this context "bridge_parapet" of should there be some sort of relation between the highway segment of the bridge and its associated parapets? At the moment I just leave the barriers "hanging" but it doesn't seem like a very satisfactory approach to mapping given they are attached to the bridge. Regards Dudley ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hospital vs. Clinic refinement; Hospital departments
A requested, a few thoughts. This can get vary complicated and confusing given the size and complexity of many hospitals and the different local naming that can be used. You may want to consider using two tags. One for the actual name used within the hospital to describe the facility and one for the actual speciality. Our local hospital has a "Puffin" ward for example. It is actually the Children's ward. If you were using a map to try and find it you would want the local name but it would also be helpful to know the speciality. So perhaps, name=* & healthcare:speciality=* Most of the specialities are listed under the healthcare tag so this would be a good place to start. A few are missing. Most people will want to know the entrance to the particular facility within the hospital. If there is an external entrance you could consider putting the name=* and healthcare:speciality=* tag on the entrance=* tag. Otherwise, I guess this is indoor mapping of groups of rooms that make up the particular department, ward, unit theatre etc.Perhaps a single node at the position of the entrance to the facility within the building with the local name, the healthcare speciality and the floor level would be a simple first step. Regards Dudley > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > From: t.pfei...@computer.org > Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:51:21 +0100 > Subject: [Tagging] Hospital vs. Clinic refinement; Hospital departments > > I would like to sync the distinctive criterion when to use amenity=hospital > or amenity=clinic. > > The hospital page says "often but not always providing for longer-term > patient stays" > which is a bit fuzzy, while the clinic page clearly says it is a hospital > when it > "offers inpatient care (beds for long stays)". > > Thus having in-patient beds would be a good criterion, which could be > clarified on the hospital page. > > Oxford defines hospital as > "an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care > for sick or injured people." > thus includes the nursing care. > > Or are there any clear cases of hospitals that do not have in-patients? > > Another clarification that would be necessary is how to tag hospital > departments. > The wiki discourages the repetition of amenity=hospital, and recommends to use > building=hospital on buildings. > > The buildings can be used for naming departments/stations/wards. I becomes > tricky > however when these stations are just in different levels. Maybe some tagging > from > the healthcare proposals would help. > > In any case, I would not want any amenity=[clinic|doctors|hospital] nodes > within > the amenity=hospital campus area (as long as they are operated by the > hospital, and > not e.g. a private surgery renting space there). > > However I have seen mappers been tempted to tag departments as amenity=clinic, > mainly because some hospital departments like to call themselves "Clinic of > ABC therapy". > > Thoughts? > > > ___ > 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] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
In think the word you may be looking for is "ornamental". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornamental_plant Could you use landuse=field? The wiki suggests it has been abandoned but perhaps it should be used in the context. Presumably you could then add, field=ornamental_flowers. Regards Dudley > From: dieterdre...@gmail.com > Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:53:45 +0100 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?) > > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 29.11.2015 um 14:02 schrieb John Willis : > > > > Thinking of creating landuse=flower_display For sections of land that a > > cultivated with flowers for decorative/attraction purposes - > > > I think that's too specific for landuse. "exhibitional" isn't a proper word I > guess, but something like it might be a more generic approach. Still, if > there are just some foreign flowers brought into a natural setting, and > without maintenance, I would prefer an attribute approach which doesn't > "occupy" the landuse object but can be associated to other features like > forests, meadows etc. (this for cases where you are not tagging the > individual plant) > > 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] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
Do you need a landuse tag for the last two as they would be called gardens (in the UK) if people can move round them. Could you not just use leisure=garden for these? Regards Dudley > On 29 Nov 2015, at 22:16, John Willis wrote: > > >> On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:18 AM, Dudley Ibbett wrote: >> >> field=ornamental_flowers. > > In some cases, they are fields (nemophila, daffodils, lavender). > https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11094010745/ > > In other cases, the long strips of flowers between a maze of walkways (rose > garden),https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091430663/ > > large rows of hedges or individual plants (wisteria and azalea, iris) with > concrete paths between for wheelchairs. > https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091328063/ > > All of these places have land used for the display of flowering plants - and > are usually famous for them. > > Ornamental flowers is a great suggestion, though! > > Landuse=ornamental_flowers > > Javbw > ___ > 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] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
In the context you are describing (park, garden) these would be "landuse=flowerbed". There is no size restriction. I.e. They may look like an "open field". There appears to be a wiki entry for this tag already. If it is farmland being used to grow ornamental flowers for display then it would probably be a type of meadow. You do get "flower meadows" in the UK but they are normally wild flower displays. Regards Dudley Sent from my iPad > On 30 Nov 2015, at 21:31, John Willis wrote: > > > > Javbw > >> On Nov 30, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Dudley Ibbett wrote: >> >> leisure=garden > > I am mapping inside gardens/parks, and I have basically all the tags I need - > walkways, hedges, trees, grass, fountains, walls, steps, greenhouses, > drinking fountains, toilets, fences, gates - everything - except the the > flowers themselves. > > Here is the Bara-en flower park I stopped mapping a while ago until I > understood what do do with the flowers. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.41943/139.04933 > > Here is the big flower field (changed 3-4 times a year for different flowers > for the seasons) in the massive "Hitachi Seaside Park" look for the peak > marker. It is the highest point in the city. I ca map the unmanaged woods, > the scrub, and bits of forest (pine trees), but not the actual attraction > (the flowers). > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/36.4005/140.6004 > > The flowers are often cultivated as open fields for park visitors to see, or > as small displays for garden visitors. > > Either way, the actual flowered area is not a path nor grass nor scrub an > amusement park. It is flowers. ^_^ > > Javbw > ___ > 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] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
landuse=flowerbed already exists in the wiki. Personally I would just use this but if another tag is to be developed one consideration with regard to using an "landuse" tag is, should it be more widely applicable? "landuse=ornamental_planting" for example with another tag to describe the type of plant, i.e. flower, shrub, grass etc. would allow it to be used much more widely. Regards Dudley From: jo...@mac.com Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:54:56 +0900 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?) On Dec 1, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-12-01 9:02 GMT+01:00 John Willis : So landuse=ornamental_flowers is the current value I will propose, as it has no size connotations yes, it has no size connotations, but it is about "ornament"? Or am I misreading this? You keep speaking of "flower fields", so I think this is the tag to go. well, ornamental flowers are flowers that are for display purposes. Flower fields sounds like it is just for flowers in a large field, rather than an area of flowers for all sizes. I liked the suggested value of ornamental_flowers. Do you think there is a need for a landuse=flowerbed and landuse=flower_field? I thought landuse=ornamental flowers would cover both quite well. thoughts? ___ 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 - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox
In the UK "Letterboxing" has been a practice on Dartmoor for quite a few years. http://www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk/lett_box.htm As suggested it isn't a common practice when it comes to summits in the UK. Regards Dudley From: santiago06d...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:04:43 +0200 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox Page on OSMWiki. Some mountains have a "mailbox" at the summit. When mountaineers reach it, they may leave a card where they write down their contact data, weather, date of the hike... Then, the next mountaineers who reach the summit pick the card in order to give it back to the owner (sending it via mail, for example). I think mountaineer's mailboxes aren't extended into English-speaking countries, so if there's a more appropriate term for them, feel free to move the proposal page (I took the name from the Wikimedia Commons category) . ___ 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] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements
I’m slightly confused by this discussion. I live in a “hamlet” which is within a “dispersed settlement”. “Dispersed settlement” describes the pattern of isolated dwellings, farmyards, hamlets, villages etc. on a much larger scale. We don’t really seem to have tags that currently describe settlement patterns. If we did then we would need “linear” & “nuclear” as well as “dispersed”. The “hamlet” has a name (which is used in the address) but the “dispersed settlement” doesn’t as it is just describes a pattern of buildings, hamlets, farmyards etc. Regards Dudley From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: 16 June 2017 13:56 To: Jerry Clough - OSM; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements 2017-06-16 15:50 GMT+02:00 Jerry Clough - OSM mailto:sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk>>: In summary: we have an excellent source of mapped dispersed settlements in Europe; absence of any specific tags for such places has only slightly impeded mapping (although perhaps a rigorous insistence on locality having no population may make it harder); yes, basically what you are telling us is that you've mapped these settlements as place=locality, which is not in line with the wiki definition of place=locality. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station
Hi In the UK we have field shelters for horses. It can be very difficult to get planning permission for a fixed building in a field so people have these shelters that are movable. This gets round the planning restriction. Some people do move them around to protect their fields so they would probably need remapping on a regular basis. Our horse has an open stable (I think). The door is left open and he is free to come and go. In this context I would probably map the area into which he can go according to the tag landuse=meadow http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation Could this be a paddock or pen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddock Paddocks are generally small fenced off areas. I'm not sure when a Paddock becomes a field! Interestingly if you search on the OSM documentation on "paddock" it takes you to the Vegetation webpage. Dudley > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:03:03 +0200 > From: imagic@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station > > 2012/9/13 SomeoneElse : > > Martin Vonwald wrote: > >> > >> How would you tag an open stable? landuse=open_stable? > >> And how the feeding stations within the open stable? > >> amenity=feeding_station? > > > > > > You might want to link to a picture of an example - as an English speaker > > I'm not sure exactly what an "open_stable" would be. > > Open stable aka free stall barn aka loose barn. Contrary to a stable > the animals have free access to a large open-air area. Within the open > stable there are usually some watering places and feeding stations to > provide food and water at any time. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station
Hi I decided to get the wife to look at these. She's the horse "expert". [1], [2], & [3] she would call a paddock. The shelters in [1] and [2] she would call "field shelters". The small area in [4] would be a "turn out". Not sure this helps! Dudley > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:11:39 +0200 > From: imagic@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station > > 2012/9/13 Dudley Ibbett : > > Hi > > > > In the UK we have field shelters for horses. It can be very difficult to > > get planning permission for a fixed building in a field so people have these > > shelters that are movable. This gets round the planning restriction. Some > > people do move them around to protect their fields so they would probably > > need remapping on a regular basis. > > What you describe is not an open stable. See below > > > Our horse has an open stable (I think). The door is left open and he is > > free to come and go. In this context I would probably map the area into > > which he can go according to the tag landuse=meadow > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation > > > > Could this be a paddock or pen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddock > > Paddocks are generally small fenced off areas. I'm not sure when a Paddock > > becomes a field! > > No. A paddock is (usually) simply an area for grazing. But this term > is also sometimes used for a small, fenced open-air area without any > grass. An open stable may or may not contain an area for grazing, but > always contains feeding stations, watering places and shelters. Have a > look at the attached photos. > In [1] you see two feeding stations in the background. In [2] you see > the area for grazing. This area is usually not accessible for horses; > otherwise there won't be any grass within days. In [3] you see another > feeding station in the background. In [4] you see a watering place. In > the background of [4] you see paddock boxes, i.e. stables with an > attached small, fenced open-air area. > > Hope this helps! > Martin > > [1] > https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8PSzD0F9AEF5015wGlJtvcw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink > [2] > https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/cqzX0WjoIvRLJbQHNoguxcw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink > [3] > https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/FfGptElSx0d0RfNbIsHjfcw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink > [4] > https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/gAIgfmz53PI2qVI1Y0tsbMw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»
Hi In the UK local authorities are responsible for public rights of way. Paths, bridleways etc. There are so called Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) that require them to survey a certain % length of these each year to measure the ease of use of the network. Documentation and forms for this are on the web. http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Performance_Indicators In this they talk on terms of Obstruction. These are either points or lengths. Point Obstructions (i.e. a discrete obstruction, on or too close to the path) Wall/fence/hedge/electric fence/ other barrier Tree/bough Temporary Deposit (e.g. Straw bales) Illegal or misleading sign Building Muddy/Boggy hole Upgrowth (localised) Linear Obstruction (Surface) Cross-field not reinstated Headland ploughed Surface path our of repair Flooded/muddy/boggy/rutted Upgrowth Linear Obstruction (Other) Overgrowth Standing water e.g. pond/lake Barbed wire/electric fence adjacent Intimidating beast/person Encroachment (not ploughing) e.g. garden extension Quarry Plantation It may be that this should be a different tag i.e. Obstruction as the objective of recording the above is to get the Obstruction removed and the right of way re-instated. Regards Dudley Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:47:32 +0200 From: lakonfrariadelav...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle» Hi! I'm reconsidering my proposal... Before introduce in the wiki, I wanted to show you a scheme of the purpose... to see the viability of this. I nedd help and comments ;) I think that the name «Difficult Passability» could be changed for «Obstacle=*» (I see that this name is used in OSM: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/obstacle#values especially in Germany). For values, I want to propose: - obstacle=yes - obstacle=fallen_tree - obstacle=dense_vegetation --> you could combined with seasonal=yes - obstacle=unevenness ---> when you probably need hands, but not only in technical hiking also could be a small wall of 1,5 meters height that you should overcome to continue the route, for example. It could be combined with «Safety measures on hiking trail» - obstacle=narrowness (like this: http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/4315/11passetdelarabosa.jpg ) - obstacle=water --> and you could combine with ford=yes, for example or natural=wetland I'm not sure what to do with the value obstacle=with_precipe... ¿Rename it? ¿Omit it? ¿obstacle=precipice? ¿obstacle=cliff? A «obstacle_description=*» key could be added for text (especially if only obstacle=yes you use). The key refers to pedestrian and generalizes for bicycles or motor vehicles... perhaps a obstacle affects only to motor vehicles... In this case, could be interesting to use especification like in the key access? obstacle:horse=yes , for example? Thanks a lot!! -- KONFRARE ALBERT La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma WEB:http://www.konfraria.org TWITTER: http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria FACEBOOK: http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/11918952076 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Multiple purposes for buildings
I've not used this but if you're using JOSM this plugin might help. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer Dudley From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk To: tagging@openstreetmap.org CC: Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:25:47 + Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple purposes for buildings In the UK many premiere inns are converted office buildings. How does one go about mapping a row of terraced houses, where a single building will contain 20 our so houses, often with a corner shop at the end? I would have drawn each house to maintain numbering, is that the correct way? Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 02/01/2013 10:16 Simone Saviolo wrote: 2013/1/2 Martin Koppenhoefer 2013/1/2 Simone Saviolo : > What you are trying to tag is the > *use* of the building, and not a property of the building per se. Unless > it's a mall, a retail store's interior is not structurally different from an > office space or apartments - it could be converted, in fact. well, true and not. [...] I agree, what I said is not universally true. However, often those "mixed-use" buildings feature units that can be easily converted. In Italy for instance it is common to find apartments used as offices for small companies, and shops in the floor level of a building that could be converted to an apartment (I know because I did). While the use change doesn't happen at the blink of an eye, and you usually have to obtain permits to do that, I fail to see what makes those rooms a residential or a commercial building - especially considering, as you said, that "commercial" and "residential" may mean a lot of different things. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?
As a relatively new mapper I am rather confused about this discussion about source. To quote the wiki for the tag, source: "The source tag is a meta-tag, used for categorising the source of information added to the database. It is not usually used for rendering, but it assists with the verification of data, and informs future editors about the origins of the data they are modifying." In term of the changeset this is what you find for the change set under "proposed features/changeset" "This tag is to be used the same way as source=* on objects and may be a future replacement to object level source tagging, when using it, it is highly recommended that your edit should only contain data from that source." The former is quite well documented and readily seen by newbies under the properties window in JOSM. I've no idea how to find the latter within JOSM for a particular object. I can be a pain to add source tags to each object but I just hacked the presets and added a drop down box for these. I though it was good mapping practice as per the wiki. I would be tempted to just to tag the changeset but I would have to change the way I edit and use many more changesets during a typical session. Perhaps I should and this is why my stats are so bad in this respect!!! If putting source on the changeset is to be the way forward then it should be better documented for Newbies and also the changeset tag needs to be readily viewable for an object in editors. i.e. there when you select it in the editor. If it already is and I'm missing this, it would be good to know how you can view this information as I tend to be more likely to change an object where there is no object source tag. Dudley ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?
Interesting point about the wiki. I do think you need to be brave to update. Sent from my iPad On 7 Jan 2013, at 19:17, "Jeff Meyer" wrote: > Hi Dudley - > > Welcome to OSM! I think you've done great work & done everything you're > supposed to do. Then again, I'm pretty much a newcomer, too. > > One warning: the whole topic of the wiki / tagging / etc. is a little more > chaotic than you might expect kas a newcomer. > > For whatever reason, some people believe the wiki is out of date, or not > relevant. I and many others believe this is a silly perspective & that the > wiki is correct and up to date until it is changed. > > Stay tuned, hang in there, and keep mapping! > > Thanks, Jeff > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Dudley Ibbett > wrote: >> As a relatively new mapper I am rather confused about this discussion about >> source. To quote the wiki for the tag, source: >> >> "The source tag is a meta-tag, used for categorising the source of >> information added to the database. It is not usually used for rendering, but >> it assists with the verification of data, and informs future editors about >> the origins of the data they are modifying." >> >> In term of the changeset this is what you find for the change set under >> "proposed features/changeset" >> >> "This tag is to be used the same way as source=* on objects and may be a >> future replacement to object level source tagging, when using it, it is >> highly recommended that your edit should only contain data from that source." >> >> The former is quite well documented and readily seen by newbies under the >> properties window in JOSM. I've no idea how to find the latter within JOSM >> for a particular object. >> >> I can be a pain to add source tags to each object but I just hacked the >> presets and added a drop down box for these. I though it was good mapping >> practice as per the wiki. >> >> I would be tempted to just to tag the changeset but I would have to change >> the way I edit and use many more changesets during a typical session. >> Perhaps I should and this is why my stats are so bad in this respect!!! >> >> If putting source on the changeset is to be the way forward then it should >> be better documented for Newbies and also the changeset tag needs to be >> readily viewable for an object in editors. i.e. there when you select it in >> the editor. If it already is and I'm missing this, it would be good to know >> how you can view this information as I tend to be more likely to change an >> object where there is no object source tag. >> >> Dudley >> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > -- > Jeff Meyer > Global World History Atlas > www.gwhat.org > j...@gwhat.org > 206-676-2347 > www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
Sorry, but the picture is not a stable. It is, in the UK, a field shelter. The other problem with mapping some of these is they are often designed to be mobile to get round planning rules. The image is a mobile version. There have been previous discussions on this, so you might want to search on the mail group. I'm not sure I'd map this mobile type as it will probably/should move in the next year! Dudley Philip Barnes wrote: Are they not stables? Am not sure about amenity, that implies public use. I would suggest building = stable. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/02/2013 7:03 Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote: Hi, Are there any arguments against using amenity=shelter + shelter_type=field_shelter for field shelters (see [1]) for horses? >From the wiki: The amenity=shelter tag marks all sorts of small shelters to protect against bad weather conditions. Sounds good to me. Regards, Martin [1] http://www.herefordstables.co.uk/imgs/gallery/10_12ft-field-shelter.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker
In the UK many of these would come under the heading of "blue plaques". If you follow wikipedia through on this topic it talks about "historical marker" in the first sentence so people wishing to map these features may well search for this on the OSM wiki. historic=marker would there for seem to be a reasonable tag in this context. Dudley > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:38:26 -0700 > From: ericp...@ca.rr.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker > > Perhaps tagging this as "tourism=historicmarker" would be a better > option. Thoughts? > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] When was barrier=entrance abandoned ?
I'm afraid to say that it isn't abandoned as I am also using it in rural mapping as described below. I would agree with the comment that people could tag, barrier=gate and entrance=yes and this would then no longer identify the current use of barrier=entrance which is a gap in the barrier. Changing to using entrance=yes could therefore result in a loss of useful information. I did look at entrance=* when deciding which tag to initially use and the wiki seems to be written in the context of an urban environment and entering something. This left me with barrier=entrance. I would think in terms of passing through barrier so this is easier to remember as a tag. The wiki could do with some more detail but it seemed to fit better with the the general use of barrier=* in a rural context. I must admit I was under the impression that a tag only became abandoned when it failed to progress in the proposal stage. This tag seems to be in use given the taginfo is at more than 36000 so I don't quite understand how it can be abandoned. I think that the status of abandoned should be removed. I do however note that entrance=* is in the barrier=hedge wiki page for a gap, which adds to the confusion. There is no such description in the fence or wall wiki page but I was told that such a description should really be in the general barrier wiki page as it is relevant to all barriers. Dudley > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 04:01:51 +0200 > From: lowfligh...@googlemail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] When was barrier=entrance abandoned ? > > On 08.05.2013 03:32, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > On 08.05.2013 02:56, fly wrote: > >> On the wiki [1] barrier=entrance is marked as abandoned. Did I miss > >> something or was this another edit without discussion ? > > > > I don't remember a discussion about this. > > > > A problem with the edit is that entrance=* is not limited to the cases > > that barrier=entrance covers. For example, a barrier=gate could also be > > an entrance=yes/main. > > > > Of course we could adopt the assumption that a node of a linear barrier > > with entrance=* and without any barrier=* tag has the same meaning as > > barrier=entrance does now, but imo that interpretation should be > > confirmed by a discussion. > > I do use the two tags in a different way. If it is an entrance leading > to something (eg. building/amenity) I would use entrance=* but for a > small opening within a wall/fence I use barrier=entrance. This way I do > not have to cut the linear barrier. > > > PS - fixed link: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=entrance > > Sorry > > fly > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture
Hi Are you sure it is a meadow and not "unimproved pasture"? We have a field locally that has a variety of grass types, flowers etc. Horses generally graze in it but sometimes there are cows but only for a few weeks in the year. It would seem to fit into the definition of a meadow used by some mappers but when I queried this with a landscape expert they told be it was "unimproved pasture" and not a meadow. Regards Dudley > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 19:37:57 +0200 > From: yve...@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture > > To refine mowing & grazing, it would be better to separate the two. > Whatever tagging form it take, something like mow=yes/no , graze=yes/no > > Yves > > On 07/03/2013 07:24 PM, Volker Paul wrote: > > Sorry, forgot to add the discussion link. > > > > I made this proposal because > > currently, the tag landuse=meadow is for grassland used for mowing or > > grazing. > > I often find that a meadow is really for grazing, i.e. a pasture, > > but I could not provide this information with the currently official > > tags. > > Should landuse=pasture be introduced for this? > > > > Here is the link to the proposal page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pasture > > > > Please discuss on > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/pasture > > > > Regards, > > > > Segatus > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture
With regard to your comment below I am aware of mappers that use meadow because there are horses in a field year round. Personally, I don't think this is the way to identify a meadow. We currently have the farmland/farm landuse tag. It would seem that this should be the primary tag and then other tags should be used to identify the actually landuse in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land This would seem to devide farmland into crop/arable/pasture. We have the crop tag so perhaps we should have arable and pasture. Unfortunately it the goes on to describe pastures as pastures and meadows. I must admit I would map meadows in the context of conservation as we have lost so many in the UK as farming has become more intensive and they have been turned into improved pasture for intensive grazing. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/englands/habitatofthemonth/lowlandmeadows.aspx Interestingly there are 800 natural=meadows in taginfo. It is good that you have raised this issue. Regards Dudley > Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:11 +0200 > From: volker.p...@v-paul.de > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture > > > Think the major problem is who should a "normal" mapper determine the > > differences. Not talking about mappers using aerials. > > Well one of the differences is that on a pasture there are animals > and on a meadow usually not. Please read the proposal for more details. > > Segatus > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking tracks as POIs in Brazil
Hi In the UK we tend not to have "trailheads". We do however have a variety of guideposts. The following link provides an example which may be of help in this discussion: http://www.peakandnorthern.org.uk/signposts/about-our-signposts.htm This is tagged with the following: information=guidepost operator=Peak & Northern Footpaths Society ref=1234 source=survey;gps tourism=information These would generally be mapped as a separate node. Where the start of a footpath is identified but the route not mapped it has been common practice to mark the start of the way and put in a fixme. This is certainly very helpful when seeking to find footpaths that need mapping. Regards Dudley > Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 19:47:37 +0200 > From: pier...@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Hiking tracks as POIs in Brazil > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > I also think that a trailhead tag is needed. > -1 > > > I don't believe that implicitly determining trailheads will work. > Why not ? Eventually, enhance the route relation with a specific > element/role (e.g. roundtrips). > > > A trailhead is more than where a trail crosses a road; it's a > > significant place to access a trail in the eyes of the hiking community, > > typically (but not always) with parking and typically (but not always!) > > a sign of some sort. > > Then map the sign, mark, board or guidepost with the already existing tags. > > Pieren > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
