Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables)
Around here those are called poll-barns. They are usually constructed with utility poles ( or similar ) a roof truss system, and corrugated/galvanized metal sheets. They cover farm equipment, feed storage, and sometimes animals. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:02 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote: >> >> more happy pigs to be found here (supposedly) https://www.naturalpigfarming.com/low%20res%2060/IMG_1385.jpg >>> >>> And that is a pig pen. But, according to some, also a pig sty. An >>> enclosure rather than a building. >>> >> >> This time, I'd go sty, although pen would also be OK. >> > > In common parlance that could be a sty or a pen. However, I don't think > you'd map it as > building=sty (or even building=pen) because it's not a building. > > >> The one's I've seen in farmyards have had a rudimentary roof in one >> corner, with the rest being dirt or mud! >> > > The bit of roof could be building=sty (a bit of a stretch, though). I'd > be tempted to make it > building=roof. Especially as that's how somebody might map it if seen > from the road but > no pigs were around at the time. > > > -- > Paul > > ___ > 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] lanes = 0
Without digging deeply into width, presumably it measured in meters ? I can see value there, but the width has to be an average, and the cleared area for passage of vehicles. On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:12 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:49 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > >> Joseph Eisenberg writes: >> >> > This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings >> > is not reliable in all of the world. >> > >> > In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of >> > painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used >> > instead of more durable thermoplastic, so the markings only last a >> > year. After that the road still functions the same, even though the >> > markings are no longer visible. >> >> It is not just about developing countries. In my part of the US, there >> are many roads whicha have either no paint at all, or have white lines >> at the edges (so you can see where the edges are at night). Almost all >> of these roads are wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably, but not >> really wider than that. This seems really obviously one lane in each >> direction, and everybody who drives here gets that. There is a legal >> requirement to stay on the right of the imaginary center lane (absent a >> reason such as passing a pedestrian); you can be cited for "operating >> left of center" entire reasonably on a two-cars-wide road with no >> markings -- but that will only happen if you are left of center >> egregiously or on a blind curve or rise. >> >> >> So that's a long way of saying that "lane markings" should not be >> required for lanes=N; it is enough to observe the local conventions > > > In that example, I think it'd be better to just tag width=* instead of > lanes=*. > ___ > 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] lanes = 0
Let's try looking at this from a different direction. All roads must have the capacity to convey one vehicle width. Some roads have formal lane markings ( in which case the number of lanes will be obvious) and other road types have informal (i.e. none) lane markings. On the latter, the number of lanes is somewhat variable, and may depend upon the road surface type, the types of vehicles approaching, and recent precipitation ( which could fill edges, and dynamically contract the width). So maybe trying to put a finite number of lanes on an informal road situation may be a long process that satisfies no one. On informal roads , width may be the only viable metric. On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:41 AM Allroads wrote: > So there are lanes and virtual lanes. > > We must make a good distinction, I must be able to see immediately, > whether I am dealing with a marked lane or a virtual lane, that has no > marking. > > Do not expect from a mapper, at a marked lane, also to set marked = yes. > (or else) to make the distinction. > See wikipedia and else, there all marked. > > A two-way road without a marking in our country, does not have lanes! > (law). Although, you can pass each other. There, we could have also a new > tagcombination! But not lanes=* , these are marked! (law) > To make a good distinction, it must be immediately clear. > > What do you think of: > > > > lanes: virtual = (number), lanes that have no markings. Not a second tag > needed. > > The same method as there is used highway: virtual = pedestrian, to make a > route line over a pedestrian area. Or over a field, a beach. > > You could say, lanes are created in the UK, lanes are created in OSM, > these lanes where written down as marked lanes, to use lanes=* for virtual > lanes was a abuse of the tag lanes=* , if you do use it, you make the > definition unclear and that should be avoided, there is a new tag needed. > Problem solved. > > > > > > Quote: yo_paseopor > In Spain is easy: when there is no marks = lanes=1 > > Also when they are a passable, two way road? > > When there are no marking there are no lanes. > lanes=1, like on a highway link, is indicating one way, one direction. > > A lot of lanes=1 are deleted in our country, because they are not a lane > (rijstrook)(law). > > > Allroads. > > ___ > 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] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
One caravan park I am familiar with has three types: basic picnic tables where you can provide your own mini grill, some fixed on a post grills, and a single large motorized rotating spit type grill. On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:43 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 16:27, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> >> Should we use bbq=yes or barbecue_grill=yes with campsites, caravan >> sites and camp pitches to specify the presence of a grill that can be >> used for bbq / grilling? >> > > I would go for barbecue_grill=yes to show that there is "something" > provded. > > bbq=yes means that you are allowed to cook outside your caravan / tent, > usually using your own gas bbq > > Thanks > > Graeme > ___ > 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] Fuel octane ratings: RON versus AKI
Without attempting to complicate this subject further, there is the issue that some fuels ( same octane rating) do not contain ethanol. Around here those are referred to as 'marine fuel', because the absence of ethanol helps prevent moisture collecting in the fuel tanks. Those few stations that carry marine fuel also carry the common variety with ethanol. On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 1:59 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:25 PM Minh Nguyen > wrote: > >> Compounding the matter, for several years, the fuel:* wiki page has >> specified that octane ratings must be expressed in RON, which is used in >> more countries. [3] In a few countries including U.S., octane ratings >> are only posted in RON, not AKI. Converting between AKI and RON would >> require knowing the MON, which AFAICT isn't published anywhere. >> Wikipedia does offer estimates for regular and premium grade, but they >> aren't reliable or specific enough to use as subkeys. [4] > > > This is one of those situations where I generally reject the advice in the > wiki. For octane ratings, I don't think most people even look to tell if > they're rating it in RON or AKI. I take AKI for granted because it's > *the* number available at the stations. > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
