Re: [Tagging] Missing only_u_turn?
On 19-6-2011 4:21, Alan Mintz wrote: If not, how do I go about telling consumers about the change? 1. Use it. 2. Document it. 3. Write about it here. 4. Hope that e.g. the josm turn restriction plugin writers pick up on this and add it to their list. Or that they are asked to add it by users noticing the tag (1), finding it on the wiki (2), but find it missing from their $fav_editor. That last scenario is the most likely :) -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kosher amenities
John Smith wrote: > So... > > kosher=yes > kosher=rabbanut > kosher=badatz Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious, I would never have thought of this myself. BTW: It's perfectly alright to use your magic eraser, and actually cut off large portions of what you're replying to. We've read that all before, not 10 minutes earlier, no need to include it all again. BTW2: It's halal. What you lack in replying restraint, you make up for with extra letters? -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kosher amenities
John Smith wrote: > No need for sarcasim either, if you don't want to see it again get a > better MUA that hides it... At least that's what people are told when > their MUA doesn't support other features... Some people just don't listen when things are alluded to them, never mind when they're outright told. > There was 3 entries in the OSM wiki with 'kosher', and that's how it > was written in the first one that came up in the search: Since when has OSM's wiki become the final say in spelling issues? There... I fixed it. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kosher amenities
Stephen Hope wrote: > Maybe where you come from, they write it that way. Not near me they > don't. And seeing as it is an English transliteration of a foreign > language term, don't expect consistency in spelling. I've lived in Where is 'near me', then? > countries were it is pronounced hah-lahl, I've also lived were it is > pronounced hahl-lahl, with a definite double L sound. And we never have differences between pronunciation and written words? Right, guv'ner. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/halal?view=uk http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=35278&dict=CALD http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halal http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/halal -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Comparison of tag support: Mapnik, Osmarender, Potlatch, JOSM, Kosmos, Map Features (wiki)
Ulf Lamping wrote: > c) why is that "power=line" and "power=tower" and lot's of others > displayed in the map have no entry in the Mapnik column? These are filtered on in the Datasource, in the SQL itself, and not in a mapnik style. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dutch cafes (was: What's a power=station?)
Emilie Laffray wrote: > Again, it is a case of sticking to the definition used on the wiki, even > if it doesn't sound logical based on the usage of the word in your language. I believe that was Ben's point, and this time it's the English-speaking part of the world that should adhere to that advice, for a change. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11-4-2010 0:50, Roy Wallace wrote: > city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=beach. But in Australia > sand, is frequently dumped on beaches bordering the sea, to "top up" > the sand for the tourists. At what point would that change from > natural=beach to landuse=beach? Not just for tourists, but another major reason is for coastal protection. Really, we humans sculpt and mold large swaths of our environment. Why should the distinction between 'natural' and 'landuse' cause so much aggravation and discussion? Why are you even concerned that one area should be natural=beach because you think nobody ever touched it (tell that to the kid with a bucket and shovel), while another entirely similar looking area should be landuse=beach, just because it has been fortified and "topped up"? A beach is a beach is a beach. Agree on a tag and use it. Subtag away all you want, with surface, operator, note, what-have-you. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Updated cross-renderer/editor support table
On 16-5-2010 17:26, Steve Bennett wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/tagsupport
[...]
> * Harder than it sounds - almost every source file had changed in a
> way that broke my program.
You still have some (new) issues with the mapnik stylesheet. These might
take some extra code to detect. For instance, you show
railway=spur-siding-yard
as a tag that's rendered by mapnik. In reality, this is stylesheet
internal code, built by the SQL query, to collapse railway=rail +
service=* (recommended tags) and railway=spur, railway=siding,
railway=spur (TIGER import tags) into a single element for mapnik to
handle in the rule which renders this element:
SQL:
case when railway in ('spur','siding')
or (railway='rail' and service in ('spur','siding','yard'))
then 'spur-siding-yard'::text else railway end as railway
Mapnik:
[railway]='siding-spur-yard'
Processing the data in this way using SQL is much easier (and more
readable IMO) than writing filters like this:
[railway]='spur' or [railway]='siding' or [railway]='yard' or
([railway]='rail' and ([service]='spur' or [service]='siding' or
[service]='yard'))
Especially when you take into account there also is a bridge variant to
handle.
So you might want to be on the lookout for things like this when
updating your list. Having this internal spur-siding-yard tag in your
list might give people the wrong idea.
--
Lennard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Updated cross-renderer/editor support table
On 16-5-2010 23:56, Steve Bennett wrote: > Are there any others like this? I just had a look, and apart from > normalising yes/true/1 to 'yes', I don't see any other examples like > this one. Which means I can just manually add an exception. Currently, no, there aren't, but don't count on it staying that way forever. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sea wall defence barrier
On 17-9-2010 16:28, Dave F. wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawall There appears to be only 7 occurrences of sea wall so I'm wondering if a different tag is being used, or maybe no-one's mapped them yet. Has anybody mapped this type of barrier before? During our import in The Netherlands[1], we're using man_made=reinforced_slope. This is a kind of placeholder tag until a more specific (or otherwise better) tag is found to be more common place, or until a local survey classifies what type of reinforced slope it is and sets better tags. Better tags don't seem to be in widespread use, though, or at all. Reinforced slope was chosen as a direct translation of the dutch classification in the dataset being imported. Some of these are actually seawalls, some are the outer side of a dike/levee lining rivers. Can't use man_made=dyke in the latter case, as that describes the entire dyke, i.e. two slopes and the top bit. The idea for this placeholder tag was that a local survey would mean the object got retagged, and we could recognize by the occurence of man_made=reinforced_slope that a survey would still be required. The ones that are actually groynes we have already reclassified as man_made=groyne during the import, as they're so easy to spot. Same goes for man_made=breakwater.[2] Obviously, if man_made=reinforced_slope (and a possible subclassing) would somehow be adopted as the tag to use world wide, we'd be done. :) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3dShapes [2] Tagwatch counts for NL at this moment: groyne (2596), breakwater (42), reinforced_slope (564). -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sea wall defence barrier
On 17-9-2010 23:29, Dave F. wrote: I've never been happy using man_made as it's far too general. (instead I tag buildings as buildings etc..) Mother nature sure didn't form these constructs. reinforced_slope is to vague for me. Sometimes it's just natural bolders & others it's a vertical wall. Thanks, you nailed it. We _are_ using it as a generic, somewhat vague tag, as we know these appear in various different forms and scopes that only a survey can make clear as to what exactly it is. In that respect it's somewhat analogous to, say, natural=wetland. We're subclassing that as wetland=* to denote the various types of wetland. Taking that concept to your example: I'm thinking that as it's to protect against the waves/tide it should be barrier=; & taking from the wiki & general usage (UK) it should be sea_wall. A seawall is just one specific form of what we (and our national mapping agency) call a reinforced slope. slope=seawall, slope=revetment ? surface=concrete/asphalt/accropode/riprap/basalt ? barrier=seawall. Any objections? What do you call such a thing if it is the shore of a reservoir, or along a river tens or hundreds of $distance_unit inland? -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] musings on landuse
On 27-9-2010 8:14, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Not always - a recruitment office is open to interested public, for example. So are some military ranges, at certain hours/days. And even military ranges aren't barren (and barren would also be an indication of the type of land cover), as there will certainly be a mix of land cover types present: forest, heath, grass, water. Currently, we're stacking those on top of each other. Just see here for an example, where the landuse=military is almost totally covered up by forest and grass: http://osm.org/go/0EsGb4EW-- I see military zones as a boundary type concept, same as national parks. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] musings on landuse
On 27-9-2010 10:16, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Landuse should be covered by land cover (and buildings) where said cover exists. For example a landuse=retail area may be over half amenity=parking areas. And yet we call forests/heath/grass/etc land *use* instead of land *cover*. It feels like we're rehashing old discussions. What do you know, we are: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2009-October/000106.html Congratulations, the tagging ML is 1 year old, and we've come full circle. :-) -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge
On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: What about abandoned=yes ? And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore is just that: not there anymore. It doesn't deserve a bridge=* tag. That's one thing I've never really understood with railway=abandoned either. Sure, many of them have been converted into might fine cycleways, but that's just what they are now: cycleways. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge
On 27-9-2010 16:57, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Well, you presumably would have an intermediate step in which the railway is no longer being used for train traffic, but the rails and crossties (also known as sleepers) have not yet been taken up, so it isn't suitable yet for use as a cycleway. It's called railway=disused. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge
On 27-9-2010 17:48, Dave F. wrote: Many railways in the UK, following Doctor Beeching's cuts, were abandoned, but much infrastructure, such as bridges, remain, & are unused. If there's a usable bridge, it's bridge=yes. If there's no usable bridge, it's ruins=bridge or not even that. is legitimate & accurate. And when I cycle such a thing and want to map it, it's: highway=cycleway And I'm done. How am I to know there used to be rails infrastructure there, years (and years) ago? But I'm biased. We render them on the mapnik map, and that's mostly where my discomfort stems from. It would be fine to have the tags just for the purpose of generating dedicated railways maps that also show all the glory of past, but what the heck are they doing on the current map? -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Layer=* tags disappearing
On 12-10-2010 19:15, Phil! Gold wrote: How true is that these days? It's still in the JOSM presets, but a) I don't see any reason in principle that should be true, and my reading of the Mapnik rendering rules seems to indicate that any number of (integer-based) levels would be rendered correctly. I'd rather not see an expansion of the integer -5 .. 5 range. Can anyone point out any area where there are more than 16 crossing highways/railways? -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Layer=* tags disappearing
On 12-10-2010 20:49, Lennard wrote: I'd rather not see an expansion of the integer -5 .. 5 range. Can anyone point out any area where there are more than 16 crossing highways/railways? Make that 11. :D -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Successful proposal
On 13-10-2010 9:43, Peter Körner wrote: I contacted him and we're still in a very interesting discussion. His opinion is, that the map-features should list the *most common used* features and it's clear that with 500 uses, craft does not fall into this category. So I can accept this tag not being listed on map-features but findable via a the search. This is a definition problem of what should be on the map-features page. And how exactly would the craft tag become widely used if people have to out on a limb to find it, exactly because it's not mentioned in the Map Features? This will only hamper adoption. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: Rendering locks in Mapnik/Osmarender
On 20-12-2010 22:29, Wyo wrote: Hmm, no remarks at all. Now what shall i do next to get this into renderers? In the case of mapnik: wait. The current version used on osm.org cannot rotate symbols, and we haven't transitioned to the yet-to-be-released mapnik2 either. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging capitals
> I'd say that this problem seems really "potential" and I don't expect > this to happen at all, but who knows. You could check this by looking Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands (admin_level=2), but not of the Province of Noord-Holland in which it is situated. That's nearby Haarlem (admin_level=4). This scenario is real. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging capitals
> OK, but where is the problem? You would tag Amsterdam with capital=yes > and Haarlem with capital=4. If you wanted to know which is the capital No problem, actually. I should have answered Simone directly, when he asked: >> I see a potential problem. Let's say there's a large admin level (say, >> the country) whose capital is *not* the capital of a lesser admin level >> it is in. I'm not sure this actually happens anywhere [...] I was relaying an actual case of this. > of Noord-Holland, you would look for a settlement with capital=4 > within its boundaries (or look it up in the relation if any). And when this tag would be absent, but Amsterdam does have capital=yes, does it then mean that I should think Amsterdam is the provincial capital? And what about the Seat of Government. Do we record that anywhere? This isn't always located in the country capital either. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pls explain?
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/tags/man_made=dolphin > > Any ideas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28structure%29 -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?
On 31-3-2011 19:25, Sam Vekemans wrote: Nope it's actually just a rendering rule that can be created. Technically, yes. That would also be the wrong approach. If the direction of the way is drawn in the same flow of the water, it should always be drawn with an arrow. What if it's drawn the other way? this rendering rule could be immediatly applied on mapnik, then you would see water pointing everywhere ... this just needs to be manually fixed. Which we're not going to do. It's on my list to impliment it for CommonMapnik rendering, so the geobase NHN will all look great, since the geometry is correct with the flow (canvec rivers are not). Thanks for already listing a major objection against rendering implicit flow direction only based on way direction. That saves me from having to explain that part to you. Cheers. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
