Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 10:24 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Anne-Karoline Distel  writes:
> 
> > [women's and parent's parking]
> 
> I can believe it exists, and it being common in .eu explains why it's
> in
> the josm presets.
> > You're right about caravans/ RVs, that should be its own tag as
> > well and
> > be rendered. 
Generally there is parking provided for coaches as they bring a lot of
people to spend money.

For large motor homes the rule is usually buy as many pay and display
tickets as the number of car size spaces you are taking up.


> > For coaches, I'm in favour of amenity=coach_parking (or
> > "bus_parking", if people don't like the term "coach". This might be
> > easier for non-native British English speakers), since that's how
> > it's
> > done with cars and bicycles.
> 
> I would use the normal UK term, as OSM tradition is to use UK
> English.
> It seems coach is for distance and 'bus' is used for within a city as
> part of a rapid transit system.  But we need an en_GB native speaker
> to
> opine.
> 
> In the US people do use "motorcoach" to refer to a "tour bus" when
> trying to make it sound fancy, so I don't think coach_parking will
> confuse most en_US speakers.  But e.g. Greyhound calls itself bus.

Greyhound is however a PSV too, operated by coaches (as are National
Express in the UK). They both operate a regular service to a published
timetable and carry anyone who pays the fare.


Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Postal verses locational addresses

[Philip Barnes]

On 12 September 2023 10:28:11 CEST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On 12/9/23 03:57, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> The fundamental issue is that there are postal addresses and what might
>> be called "civil addresses" or "physical addresses" ('locational' I
>> understand but is not normal English usage).
>I could not think of a better descriptive 'word' for what I wanted to express.
>>   In the US, we also have
>> "911 dispatchable location" which is all about getting there physically
>> and is US-bureaucatic-speak.
>> 
>> OSM has decided to tag postal addresses on address points.   I find this
>> an odd choice, and I think it really doesn't mean this, as companies
>> that use PO boxes are not tagged that way, but with the street address.
>> 
>> The only fix I think of is to have a separate set of tags paddr: and a
>> rule that those should be set if they are different from the addr: tags
>> (which are postal).  except postcode, which is a postal-only.
>
>
>Err the zip/postcode in the UK is a (small) physical area. It is used by truck 
>delivery drivers to enter into their GPS to find a route to the delivery 
>point. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcodes_in_the_United_Kingdom
>
>Possibly the OSM addr thinking is based on the UK where the postal address is 
>the physical location?There maybe exceptions to this in the UK too?
>
The company I work for has a PO box meaning the postcode is not the actual 
location.

Visitors often arrive having put the postcode into their satnav and have had a 
detour via the Royal Mail sorting office several miles away.

Putting the company name into an  OSM based router will take you straight there.

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

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

[Philip Barnes]

This is becoming much more of a problem.

In the UK we have a shop called Argos, where you order from a catalogue then 
the item appears on a conveyor from an attached storage area a few minutes 
later. You could also ask to see something before you bought it. A few years 
ago they were large shops that had stock of pretty much everything in the 
catalogue.

Now they have become small areas in a supermarket which have no stock and 
everything has to be ordered online and collected the next day. Other high 
street shops are going the same way and making themselves irrelevant.


On 21 November 2023 20:42:02 GMT, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 13:01:32 +0100
>Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>sent from a phone
>>
>>> On 21 Nov 2023, at 12:47, Niels Elgaard Larsen 
>>> wrote: The wiki for Tesla says that Tesla showrooms are tagged
>>> shop=car A lot of shop=kitchen are really showrooms where you can
>>> order a kitchen which will be installed in you kitchen. The shop do
>>> not actually have kitchens for sale in the store.
>
>
>I agree with that.
>
>But from the users point of view, there are some implicit expectations
>depending of what is sold.
>
>For shop=estate_agent it should be obvious that you do not get anything
>physical at the store.
>
>For shop=car it is less clear.
>Also for shop=kitchen, some places will sell you a flatpack kitchen,
>that you can put in the back of your car.
>
>I once drove to a shop=pet only to find out that it was the office for
>a pet webshop that had a small showroom of cat scrathcing pads, etc.
>
>For eg furniture, appliances, bathroom devices, bicycles, glassware
>there are showrooms and a user could reasonable expect to be able to go
>there and just buy an item.
>
>With more stuff being sold online, we will probably see more showrooms,
>and I think we should have a way to tell users if they can buy anything
>at a shop, or it is just a showroom.
>
>>
>>„ordering“ a kitchen or car in a shop is a sale, IMHO. The word sale
>>does not imply you take the goods away with you immediately, nor that
>>they are necessarily present at the point of sale.
>>
>>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] Feature proposal - RFC - Documenting feet as an an optional elevation unit

[Philip Barnes]

The legal definition of a foot is of course  0.348 m.

"Since an international agreement in 1959, the foot is defined as equal to 
exactly 0.3048 metres'.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 28 January 2024 18:57:45 GMT, Minh Nguyen  
wrote:
>Vào lúc 04:08 2024-01-28, Greg Troxel đã viết:
>> Minh Nguyen  writes:
>> 
>>> Vào lúc 19:50 2024-01-27, Brian M. Sperlongano đã viết:
 Uh so I did the math, and unless I've got this wrong, the difference
 between survey feet and international feet for tagging, let's say,
 Mount Everest, is less than seven one-hundredths of an inch.  So I'm
 really not even sure why we're discussing it beyond the fact that
 we're all nerds about this sort of thing.
>>> 
>>> You got me. :-) The actual proposal doesn't mention the foot's two
>>> definitions at all, and so far I'm planning to keep it that way.
>> 
>> I think it's important to be definitionally correct, even if it doesn't
>> really matter.  It's a slippery slope, and pretty soon \pi is 3.
>
>Poor Indiana. ;-) The definition of the foot would apply to the ' and ft 
>abbreviations in every context, not just the ele=* key, so I'd suggest 
>considering it separately, probably without the formality of a vote. The main 
>unit symbol listing has come together more informally over the years. [1]
>
>Sooner or later, OpenHistoricalMap will have a lot of fun with this issue...
>
>[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features/Units
>
>-- 
>m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
>___
>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] clootie trees/ rag trees

[Philip Barnes]

This reminded me of The Arbor Tree in Aston-on-Clun. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/436200174

It is decorated annually on Oak Apple Day (29th May). It is decorated
with flags these days but it goes a log way back so I assume it was
simpler cloths at one time.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5642115

Phil (trigpoint)


On Sun, 2024-03-03 at 20:48 +, Anne-Karoline Distel via Tagging
wrote:
>  
> Hello there,
>  
> does anyone have any opinions about how to map what is called
> clootie/ cloughtie/ cloutie trees in Scotland and rag trees or
> raggedy bushes in Ireland? I have used place_of_worship=rag_tree (to
> avoid the many different spellings) in combination with natural=tree,
> but there is also a category on Wikimedia called "Prayer trees". But
> for some prayer trees, you stick coins in the bark instead of tying
> rags or ribbons (or other votive offerings) to the branches, so I
> think rag trees should be mapped different to coin ones. They're not
> historic, but still very much in use in Ireland, the UK (by Neo-
> Pagans and Christians alike), and I believe there are other cultures
> like Hinduism who use them.
>  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clootie_well
>  
> To my knowledge, "clootie tree" is not used in Ireland at all and
> wasn't in the past either (only in the wikimedia category). In
> Ireland, the tree is also usually not necessarily connected to a
> well. There is one at the Hill of Tara, for example.
>  
> If you like fairy tales, I think there is one in Cinderella, at least
> in the Brothers Grimm version. As far as I remember, the dress for
> the ball appeared in the tree.
>  
> Anne aka b-unicycling
>  
>  
> ___
> 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] Limited use telephone

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 15:14 +0100, Timothy Noname wrote:
> There is a node 6397545656 marked as amenity telephone but it's a
> service only for cyclists to contact the shuttle bus that takes them
> through the Dartford crossing. 
> 
> I think amenity=telephone should be reserved for general use
> telephones where you can call any number. 
> 
> I personally think it's more like a subtype of emergency phone than
> amenity phone.
> 
> I might change it unless someone convinces me otherwise 
> 
I agree with you.

Not sure how it would be tagged but maybe similar to the phones on
level crossings that connect to the signaller or on fire stations which
connect to the control room if any are mapped.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Limited use telephone

[Philip Barnes]

They are phones, they usually dial a fixed number when the handset is lifted.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 24 May 2024 16:11:12 BST, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2024, 15:14 Timothy Noname,  wrote:
>
>> There is a node 6397545656 marked as amenity telephone but it's a service
>only for cyclists to contact the shuttle bus that takes them through the
>Dartford crossing.
>
>Sounds more like an intercom than a phone.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 15:42 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> 
> And we already have plenty of those:
> 
> Piste
> Gabion
> Kindergarten
> chicane
> kneipp_water_cure
> bureau_de_change
> aikido
> krachtbal
> boules
> futsal
> adit
> gasometer
> 
Bungalow
Robot

and sometimes British and American English borrow from different
languages
Courgette - Zuccini which is one I know

Aubergine 

In terms of food a lot of words are borrowed from different languages
and combined with a strange measuring system makes American recipies
totally baffling.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 19:25 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > > They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> > 
> > > prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the
> > world
> > 
> > > where they actually are still in use (if they are).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I think if any I would use disused=yes as they still remain
> > „operational“ I guess, although not actually used.
> 
> True of brick/concrete/stone.  For wooden ones that are decaying,
> abandoned=yes
> may be more appropriate.  I've not had chance to take a look myself
> yet (and
> won't be able to look until there's a vaccine) but sources I cannot
> use for
> mapping indicate that the one nearest to me, embedded in a bank, has
> had
> the bank reshaped to cover the top of it (only the side is visible). 
> Using
> abandoned=yes in such cases would seem appropriate.
> 
> > The disused:key=value style seems more appropriate for functions
> > (amenity etc.) than for physical descriptions (man_made).
> 
> That is how I interpret it, but others on this list have a different
> opinion.  However,
> I'd go with was:man_made=milk_churn_stand if it had been repurposed
> in some way that it merited a different main tag.  A foolish
> consistency
> is the hobgoblin of little minds, according to Ralph Waldo Emerson.
> 
> That leaves the question of the name.  For older British English
> speakers the
> containers are called milk churns, even though they are not for
> churning
> milk.  This may cause confusion to younger speakers of British
> English
> and those for whom English is a second language.  According to the
> Wikipedia article these are sometimes referred to as milk cans so
> maybe milk_can_stand would be better than milk_churn_stand.
> 
I can remember milk churns on these stands waiting for collection being
a common sight when I was growing up.
These days milk churns are a common period prop on preserved railway
stations.For example here at Arley 
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4458834
When children see these and ask what they are they will be told that
they are milk churns rather milk cans.
Phil (trigpoint)




> -- 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> ___Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@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 - shop=bubble_tea

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 19:53 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> FWIW, I also believe these are very different from shop=beverages, as
> they are selling drinks ready to consume, while shop=beverages is a
> kind of shop that sells beverages to take home (while nothing
> prevents you from buying a single drink and consume it as soon as you
> leave the shop, this is not what typically is done and not how they
> are set up. 
> 
> Just compare these two images to get an understanding what they might
> look like and what kind of "style" it is:
> https://curiocity.com/toronto/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/screen-shot-2019-01-22-at-10.32.55-am.png
> https://www.getraenkefachhandel-meyer.de/file/8ae67d834b563d71014b6df0d7233baf.de.0/content-ueber-uns-anfahrt-getraenkemarkt-waldstetten-alkoholfrei.jpg?derivate=usage%3Dposter%2Cwidth~805
> 
> It is also about quantity. You will usually buy large quantities in a
> beverage shop like a weeks ration, while the bubble tea shop is more
> like a coffee to go or an ice cream parlour.
> 
I would call that a takeaway in everyday language which we map as fast
food in OSM.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 16:33 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 27. Jun 2020, at 16:03, Philip Barnes 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > I would call that a takeaway in everyday language which we map as
> > fast food in OSM.
> 
> I would be ok with fast food for bubble tea, although typically you
> say “food and drinks”, i.e. calling a place where you can get only
> things to drink and nothing to eat might seem a bit strange?
> 
> The fast food term has also some connotations about being not
> healthy, synonymous to “junk food” (devouring hastily food with a
> unhealthy relation of nutritional components). It’s probably
> acceptable for bubble tea, but we shouldn’t see it as a general
> category for takeaways, shall we?
> 
Very true. 

If you say 'fast food' most people would think of American imports such
as McDonalds and KFC, not the local fish and chip shop or Chinese (take
away).

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 09:48 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 6/27/20 09:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > I would be ok with fast food for bubble tea, although typically you
> > say “food and drinks”, i.e. calling a place where you can get only
> > things to drink and nothing to eat might seem a bit strange?
> > 
> > The fast food term has also some connotations about being not
> > healthy, synonymous to “junk food” (devouring hastily food with a
> > unhealthy relation of nutritional components). It’s probably
> > acceptable for bubble tea, but we shouldn’t see it as a general
> > category for takeaways, shall we?
> 
> I have been tagging Starbucks as amenity=cafe; I don't see what's
> wrong
> with tagging these the same way.

Starbucks in my experience has seating, I am unaware of any which are
takeaway only.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] 回覆﹕ Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 19:54 +0100, Cj Malone wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 17:15 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 17:03, 德泉 談 via Tagging
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > In previous discussion we haven’t clarify that “cafe” is a place
> > > serving coffee drinks
> > > or
> > >  a place providing seat for the consumer to have
> > > something like coffee or donut.
> > > 
> > 
> > In British English, that is exactly the meaning of cafe
> 
> Which one? That sentence has an "or" in it.

I would have said both and going back 30 years I would have said a cafe
was more about tea than coffee. At that time coffee 'out' was awful and
usually instant, it still happens.

I would certainly expect indoor seating in a cafe and food, most
notably in the UK/IE breakfast.

Phil (trigpoint) 




> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:36 +0200, Gábor Fekete wrote:
> In Hungary in every restaurant before you pay the bill, the waiter
> asks if you want some dessert. She asks you, even if they only have
> pancakes as dessert. So one could tag every "amenity=restaurant" with
> "cuisine=*;dessert". But the restaurants do not want you to sit in
> only for a pancake, they want you to eat a whole course (food).
> 

Cuisine=dessert is perfectly valid, my local big town has
two restaurants which only sell desserts.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:02, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > While it might be used in Paul’s area, McDonalds is not a cafe
> > where I am from, and would put money on most British people calling
> > it a fast food restaurant 
> 
> I am surprised that there is anywhere in the world that would glorify
> aMcDonalds sit-down area with the term "restaurant."  Candle-lit
> quarterpounders for two?  Would sir like wine with that?
> 
> However, taking another look at the wiki for fast food, I see it
> covers
> sit down as well as takeaway only.  Which surprised me (never having
> had to map a McD).  
Come to think of it there isn't one in Aberystwyth even?

> For me there is a very, very big distinction between
> a takeaway-only place and somewhere you can sit down to eat. 
> Counter-only
> service is not a biggie.  Speed of the food is somewhat important but
> speed
> is a continuous variable, even at a single establishment: I can go to
> a
> chip shop and, if there's no queue, have my order filled in under a
> minute;
> or I can go in and they've run out of chips and I have to wait 10
> minutes
> while they fry more.  Whether or not I can sit down out of the rain
> matters far more to me.

McDonalds is definitely fast food, it certainly doesn't fit either the
UK or continental definition of a cafe.

Whilst it has tables it is definitely a take away where you can choose
to sit down or walk out with your food, fast food with seating=yes is a
better definition. 

In Welsh McDonalds this is slightly different as you are charged for
paper bags so do have to specify when ordering, or take your own bag.
At Chirk drivethrough it is amusing to see Big Macs being passed to the
driver one at a time .

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 14:45 +0200, bkil wrote:
> Yes, pretty much sounds like a cukrászda to me. ;-)
> 
> Especially if they prepare their own desserts and if they take custom
> orders (why shouldn't they if they already have a pastry cook?).
> 
> Do they have waited tables? Do they serve alcohol? It would be great
> if you could share a link to their website or some photos so we could
> see for ourselves.

I will see what I can find out, websites are not particularly helpful
at the moment as they are currently takeaway/delivery only.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 13:35 +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 12:02, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > > While it might be used in Paul’s area, McDonalds is not a cafe
> > > where I am from, and would put money on most British people
> > > calling it a fast food restaurant 
> > 
> > I am surprised that there is anywhere in the world that would
> > glorify aMcDonalds sit-down area with the term "restaurant." 
> > Candle-lit quarterpounders for two?  Would sir like wine with that?
> > 
> > However, taking another look at the wiki for fast food, I see it
> > covers
> > sit down as well as takeaway only.  Which surprised me (never
> > having
> > had to map a McD).  
> Come to think of it there isn't one in Aberystwyth even?

Answering my own post, there is one in Aber. Just couldnt picture it.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 18:17 +, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote:
> 在 2020年7月2日 星期四 上午7:18 [GMT+8]， Paul Allen< pla16...@gmail.com> 寫道：
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 23:59, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2. Jul 2020, at 00:44, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I cannot deny the possibility, but I have never seen a takeaway
> > > > kebab shop with seats for queuing customers. 
> > > 
> > > typical configuration in such places around here is a board
> > > (“table”)
> > > attached to the wall and bar stools. You can use it while waiting
> > > but
> > > also to eat if you want. 
> > 
> > example pic with limited outdoor and indoor seating, typical
> > situation:
> > 
> > I've never seen anything like that with a takeaway.  Cafes, yes. 
> > Seats
> > outside used when it's sunny, seats inside used when it's raining. 
> > Not
> > any takeway that I recall.
> 
> It's interesting to find the difference of the food shops between
> different nations, I'm surprised that seats for the takeaway queue is
> not common in your place. Let me introduce the Taiwanese fried
> chicken shop.
> 
I would have said that somewhere to sit in take-aways for waiting
customers is the norm, it may be a simple bench or in my local fish and
chip shop there is a window sill that people sit on. Places where you
have to stand are in the minority.

Chinese takeaways usually have seats to wait at and they don't mind if
you eat there providing you clear up.

Often a kebab shop will have a table you can sit and eat at and you are
expected to clear up when you leave.

The key thing is that takeaways will not have customer toilets which
are required by law in cafes, pubs and resturaunts. 

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:32 +0200, bkil wrote:
> I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only
> want to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and
> pushing the bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and
> allowing people to push bikes around would risk them hopping on the
> bike when nobody is looking.
> 
> What does this sign mean exactly, does this only disallow pushing a
> bike or am I also discouraged from carrying one in, like a foldable
> bike? A foldable bike can be carried onto city buses as luggage
> around here without an extra fee. How could such a sign limit the
> type of luggage I can carry onto the premises?
> 
> Also, I'd invent something like this:dog=carried

I know this is a very old joke, but
The first time I went on the London Underground, I saw a sign saying
'dogs must be carried'. I then spent half an hour looking for a dog.

More seriously that tag does make sense. The sign is used on escalators
on the London Underground so imagine it applies on escalators
elsewhere.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 14:06 +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already
>   be covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use)
> shop=*
>   value?
> 
> 
> 
It is also a confusing term to have chosen as prior to reading your
page I had a Customer Services desk in my mind. Typically this is where
you go to exchange purchases, get refunds.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 22/07/2020 19.05, bkil wrote:
> > But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
> > foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
> > auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of
> > tags would
> > create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferred
> > tagging
> > practice in OSM.
> > 
> > I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you
> > dismount,
> > however if a certain combination of other tags are also present
> > (foot=no),
> > a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing
> > than
> > necessary (bicycle=no).
> 
> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you
> are 
> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...).
> Do 
> you know of any examples?
> 

I cannot think of many roads where you can walk but not cycle, other
than pedestrianised streets in town centres but you can walk on lots of
footpaths where you can push a bicycle. Some are too long and totally
unsuitable.


A few of examples from my local big town
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HW9qSNB-1JlkQAC3SH_gZQ
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23896048

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350458507

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318709194

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 18:07 +0200, pangoSE wrote:
> Fine by me to attach them to whatever.
> I would not map them twice.
> 
> Anyway I never met or heard about anyone who wanted to navigate to a
> signpost. Usually people navigate to attractions like a lake or a
> firepit or a viewpoint or simple follow a route and walk past the
> guideposts.
> 
Sometimes navigating to them is an important part of following a route,
they are often used in open spaces to indicate where the route changes
direction.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-07-30 at 01:45 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height.
> > Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to
> > 10cm
> 
> when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”

That sounds more like a sunken wall than a kerb :)

At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about
crossing them.

In built up areas typical raised kerbs are upto 15cm, being a sad geek
I have just measured the kerb outside, 12cm which is certainly in my
experience normal.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 20:15 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 19:46, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> > > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow  > > > wrote:
> > > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in
> > > height. Your definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or
> > > equal to 10cm
> > 
> > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something
> > like 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised”
> 
> You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user,
> there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10
> cm,
> because both are impassable.

Wheelchairs have a large rear wheel so that they can be tilted just so
that they can get over kerbs. They have no problem crossing typical
raised kerbs. 25 cm is a bit excessive for a kerb.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 13:58 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag
> overrides the less specific tag. And the transport mode section [2]
> of that has examples very much like those in your question.
> And:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
> 
> Means you can walk, drive or ride a horse, etc. but you can’t
> bicycle.
> 
Although I would question that combination if I found it in use, it
would be a very strange situation.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 15:09 +0100, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original
> postis this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own
> value? Perhaps I'm against it because we don't AFAIK have these in
> the UK?

I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special
spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time
to clear the queue. Is that what this means?

We also have loading bays where you can stop for a few minutes to
collect things you have bought and cannot carry to the car park, there
is no specific time limit here but you are expected to not be far away.
Again is that what this means.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 17:38 +0300, Alexey Zakharenkov wrote:
> As a person who have been monitoring and fixing rapid transit
> networks (primarity subways) for long I can say that railway
> stop_positions make more headache than advantage. Most of
> stop_positions look like here: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7966822#map=19/35.70290/139.74568
> i.e. they reside on rails near the station node (adding no
> information) and carry bunch of station's tags like wikipedia and
> name translations (adding info duplication or triplication). Mappers'
> eagerness to conform PTv2 in respect of adding stop_positions here
> and there results in many errors:
> *) stop_positions are created and not added to stop_area relations
> *) stop_positions are erroneously converted to stations and vice
> versa
> *) stop_position tags are transferred to another nearby node ignoring
> its membership in routes and stop_areas
> *) stop_position duplicates corresponding railway station object
> (public_transport=stop_position + railway=station)
> *) and so on.
>  
> All this makes subway maintenance (in state that allows routing)
> tenfold costly.
>  
> BTW, I could not find the definition where is the point of stop of a
> 150-meter train. In practice, the position of head or center is used.
>  
It is the front, that is where stop position signs are placed on the
platform. and are usually based on the number of coaches.

Some platforms have a single stop position, usually where the entrance
is at that end of the platform. Others have stop positions based on the
length of the train which ensures that the rear of the train is close
to the entrance.

One local station has different stop positions for different classes of
train. Basically it has a low platform to which a raised section has
been added so the stop position ensures one door is at this postition.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-08-15 at 22:13 +0200, Lisbeth Salander wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Paul Allen 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>
> 
>   
> > Yeah, we try to avoid putting two top-level tags on the
> >   same object because
> > of nasal demons:  
> > http://catb.org/jargon/html/N/nasal-demons.html
> >   
> 
>   That's awfully pessimistic, but I see your point. I suppose
> having some hairdressers rendered as generic healthcare
> providers will be confusing... and no general-purpose
> renderer
> will adapt to something as minor as this. So I'll relent.
> 
>   I'd really like a tag we could use for both hairdressers and
> specialists, but unless we find a less monstrous version of
> lice_removal_treatment_on_premise=yes
> I'll let it go.
> 
>   
> 
>   On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>   
> 
>   
> > Maybe it’s because I am not an English
> > native speaker, but I would expect something more than a
> > head
> > lice removal treatment place or a speech therapist when I
> > see
> > healthcare=clinic. I would see it as misleading promising a
> > „clinic“ to the map user just to find out that it is a head
> > lice
> > removal or speech therapist
> 
>   I'm in the same boat, actually. In Spanish these are never
> called
>   "clinics", they're either "centros de eliminación de piojos"
> (lice
>   elimination centres) or "peluquerías de piojos" (lice
>   hairdressers).
>   I don't know what's the expectation in English-speaking
> countries, but I find it difficult to categorise this as a
> clinic. I'm not even sure if they operate under the same laws
> as
> speech therapists and typical clinics in Spain; I think not.
It is difficult to speak for all English speaking countries as they
have different expectations of healthcare, however in the UK for any
health issues (except dentist or optician) our first point of call is
always our GP Medical Centre (amenity=doctors). From there you may be
refered to a specialised clinic. Such clinics are very unlikely to be
standalone, they may take place within the local medical centre or
within a hospital. 
I am old enough to remember when the the Nit Nurse came to schools.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/dec/16/nit-nurse
I would not expect this to be something my hairdresser would deal with.
Phil (trigpoint)



>   
>   The only reason I even proposed healthcare is because, well, it
> is a hygiene and health problem... and both amenity
> and shop seemed too generic.
> 
>   
>   On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>   
> > I've just had a hip replacement done, so
> > saw the orthopaedic surgeon this week for a follow up.
> > While I
> > was waiting, his receptionist took a call, & had to tell
> > the
> > caller that "I'm sorry, Dr doesn't work on wrists. He
> > specialises in hips & knees"  
> 
>   How would we map that? healthcare=orthopaedics +
> healthcare:speciality=hips;knees?
> 
> 
>   
> 
> ___Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@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 -Funeral hall

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-08-19 at 10:26 +0200, woll...@posteo.de wrote:
> Funeral directors are a business, this is a public facility
> (generally) 
> on a cemetery. A mortuary is for storing corpses, that's often 
> associated to this kind of ceremonial place, but not necessarily.
> 
Looking around my local area these have simply been mapped as
amenity=crematorium. They are publicly owned and have a chapel within
them.

They are used by all religions and non-religions.

Phil (trigpoint)


> Am 19.08.2020 01:36 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> > There is already an existing tag with similar meaning for funeral
> > homes / funeral halls / funeral directors:  shop=funeral_directors.
> > The use of the key "shop=" is odd, but it's been used over 20,000
> > times so it seems to be well established:
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfuneral_directors
> > [4] -
> > documented since 2009:
> > 
> > "Also known as a "funeral parlour","undertaker", "funeral home", or
> > "memorial home".
> > 
> > A funeral directors [5] shop is a place where arrangements to
> > permanently store the physical body after death are made. An event
> > (sometimes with the deceased's body present) to honor the deceased
> > for
> > mourners are held here in conjunction with religious services which
> > are held elsewhere."
> > There is also a related tag amenity=mortuary -
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmortuary [6]
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 1:03 PM  wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear list,
> > > 
> > > Please comment on the following proposal:
> > > 
> > > Funeral hall: a building for funeral ceremonies which may be
> > > religious
> > > or secular
> > > 
> > > Proposal page:
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > > [1]
> > > Discussion page:
> > > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > > [2]
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Vollis
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [3]
> > 
> > Links:
> > --
> > [1] 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > [2] 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Funeral_hall
> > [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > [4] 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfuneral_directors
> > [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Funeral_director
> > [6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmortuary
> > 
> > ___
> > 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] tagging for fairgrounds

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 15:29 -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 8/27/20 12:35 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> > As is fair.  Without further qualification, I'd interpret "fair" as
> > a
> > (temporary, mobile) funfair: an annual event with fairground rides,
> > stalls, etc. I think American usage may tend more towards trade
> > fairs.
> > 
> > As for mapping the temporary funfair thing, that's difficult, at
> > least
> > around
> > here.  Every November the town's biggest car park is closed to
> > parking
> > for a week and is used for several fairground rides and a couple of
> > food
> > stalls.
> > As part of the same event, for a couple of days most of the town
> > centre is
> > closed to traffic and the streets are filled with market stalls
> > selling
> > all sort
> > of things of varying quality, from real bargains to absolute
> > garbage (like
> > eBay made physical).  Hard to map.
> > 
> > There is also an annual agricultural-based show held in some large
> > fields.
> 
> i'm fine with a british english equivalent if there is one.
> 
In British English they are showgrounds.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48473181

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35432806

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 01:57 +0300, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
> in the united states we say (portable)

I suspect the US word is potable, same as GB.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 11:39 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> board_games=yes seems clearly superior
> 

+1

A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to play, or they
did in normal times.

Themed implies that is the raison d'etre for the pubs existance and you
would only go there to play board games, which would attract a very
limited clientel.

Also many pubs have darts and dominos available for customers to play.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 01:53 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:On Mon, 5 Oct 2020
> Nope.  ID thinks you guys speak mostly Merkin. Somebody will have
> copied the Merkin language file for en_AU and maybe changed a few
> things. 
> Changed
> BBQ to Barbie, stuff like that. :)
>
I do remember that some years back there was a request to translate the
iD presets into other types of English. I did some en-gb which means it
has probably ended up as a strange mix of South Walian and
Leicestershire :)

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2020-10-04 at 15:44 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 09:32, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > However, if we count that as a farm shop then the term essentially
> > becomes an alias of greengrocer.
> > A greengrocer with a single supplier, but still a greengrocer.
> > 
> 
> True, but under that theory, there's no difference between a
> convenience store & a supermarket.
> 
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 at 10:23, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> >  OSM even has a nice icon for the business
> > 
> 
> Just tried mapping one & iD calls it a Produce Stand, which I guess
> could also be an alternative name, possibly as shop=produce_stand?
> 
> & wondering about also listing what they sell, took me to the produce
> page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:produce :roll eyes:
> 
> Something that wasn't mentioned there though, is manure, & the only
> reference that I can find to it is as a content= for bunker_silos?
> 
> So, how should manure appear?
> 
> produce=manure + manure=horse, or
> 
> produce=horse_manure?
> 
 
It just surprises me that anyone would sell horse manure, around here
horsey people are only too happy for you to take it away. They will
often even throw in a free bag :)

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico 
> wrote:
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is
> > free.
> > There is some more information available here:
> > 
> > https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20.
> 
> The wiki is not the clearest on this 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
> 
> You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
> `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though
> not sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
> 
> disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would
> be good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM
> wiki of where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc"
> is used? Does it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?

Parking discs used to be quit common in France, the Disque Blue areas
were very common in towns where you needed to set the time of arrival
on yourdisc and display it in the car.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disque_de_stationnement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking
Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:10 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:32, stevea 
> wrote:
> > In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always)
> > arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking
> > lots (large and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for
> > three hours, but after that we have the right to tow your car
> > away."  (Sometimes punctuated with 'video surveillance active' to
> > make the point fairly direct and that "they mean business").  In my
> > experience of driving-and-parking for many decades, I personally
> > have never gotten towed (the few times I've gone over a time
> > limit), I've never heard of anybody (that I personally know)
> > getting towed, but I have seen the extremely infrequent tow truck
> > towing a car that has likely been there a while — perhaps it was
> > abandoned, used for illegal purposes or was otherwise a public
> > nuisance.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is
> > possible, it's rare.  And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly
> > turns into a fairly large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck
> > driver and storage charges (per day, usually) are added together
> > and paid to get one's car back from the impound lot.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts
> > of the world the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey
> > the full situation (on Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking
> > lots).  In short, what appears to be "simply" a fee can be fairly
> > full-throated when it comes to describing the entire semantic
> > richness of the situation.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A tag like maxstay is a good beginning.  An additional tag of
> > something like towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.
> 
> I'd just use the regular maxstay tag, I think most places if you
> overstay they can tow you.
> 
> `fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h` says you're allowed by the
> rules of the car park to park longer if you like, but you need to pay
> a fee to do so. This is different to the rules saying you're limited
> to 3hr and then issuing a fine or penalty for overstaying

This rule is quite common at Motorway Service Areas, you can park for
free for a couple of hours but if you wish to stay longer you need to
pay or have your vehicle authorised (hotel guests for example).
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 21 October 2020, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:20, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> >
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
> >
> > There is some more information available here:
> >
> >
> > https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20
> > .
> >
> >
> > The wiki is not the clearest on this
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
> >
> > You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
> > `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though not
> > sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
> >
> > disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would be
> > good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM wiki of
> > where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc" is used? Does
> > it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?
> >
> >
> > Parking discs used to be quit common in France, the Disque Blue areas were 
> > very common in towns where you needed to set the time of arrival on your
> >
> > disc and display it in the car.
> >
> >
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:58, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 
> > disc appears at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
> >
> > with proposed tag a parking:condition:*:maxstay=2 h
> >
> > with * replace by left/right/both depending on side
> >
> 
> 
> So it's just plain old maxstay, but you need to mark your arrival time on a
> device, could be paid or free. The only thing the tag adds over
> `parking:condition:side:maxstay=2 h` is that it describes that you need to
> use the disc device to record your time of arrival?
> 
> This part was unclear to me if it should be used for any maxstay regardless
> of if it uses the disk device or not.
>
Mapping  the disc requirement is important as without the disc you cannot park. 
Not so much of a problem if it is common and everyone has a disc but a problem 
if you drive into Stranraer and  end up driving out again because you don't 
have a disc.

Phil (trigpoint)  
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2020-10-31 at 12:08 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Sa., 31. Okt. 2020 um 11:36 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <
> si...@poole.ch>:
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   If there are actual legal differences between taxi and chauffeur
> >   access somewhere, we could use chauffeur or chauffeur-driven
> > as an
> >   access tag (better suggestions welcome).
> 
> 
> I can confirm that there are such differences, for example in Germany
> (Personenmietwagen vs. Taxi), in Italy (NCC vs. taxi),
> Legislation will probably vary across jurisdictions, e.g. in Germany,
> the Personenmietwagen is not part of the public transport, taxi is,
> in Italy, NCC is considered "servizio pubblico non di linea" (public
> service which is not line traffic).
> 

Much the same in the UK.

We have taxis (Hackneys) which are part of the public transport system,
can use bus lanes and do not need to be booked in advance.

Also private hire, which need to be booked in advance and have the same
access rights/restrictions on the public highway as a private car. For
some reason I cannot fathom, in London private hire are called
minicabs.

Uber and Lyft are legally private hire so whilst there may be a case
for access tags covering private hire there should not be a separate
tag. If different companies use different points at an airport that can
be covered by operator=*.

I would avoid the term chauffeur as it implies somebody who is part of
the staff for somebody who also has a butler and a nanny.

Phil (trigpoint)







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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 07:26 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 23:14, Simon Poole  wrote:
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >   
> > We don't seem to have a tagging currently for dedicated pickup
> >   locations in this kind of context, bus stops etc are
> > naturally
> >   taggable), if considered really useful I don't see why we
> > couldn't
> >   introduce a amenity=...pickup... tag.
> 
> But if such a dedicated pickup location is a carpark then it needs
> amenity=parking, so it can't fit into the amenity key.  

A pickup point will be a node within a car park area.

Its is already common to add amenity=bicycle_parking nodes within
amenity=car_park areas.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 13:28 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 13:15, Phake Nick  wrote:
> > I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities
> > into OSM.
> 
> How temporary is temporary?  All of man's works eventually crumble
> and
> decay.  No man-made feature is permanent.  On a long enough
> timescale,
> no geological feature is permanent either.
> 
> We shouldn't map a one-off.  But such facilities are likely to
> operate for months,
> if not years.  Testing and vaccination facilities are generally not
> located in
> places like hospitals and doctors to minimize infection.  Often open-
> air
> for the same reason, which means they are going to be building=roof
> or building=marquee.  Most won't be constructed to last decades but
> will be there for many months.
> 
Although in this case I would expect the approach to be to set up
sessions for schools, universities and at larger employers and for the
general population it will simply attend an appointment at their local
medical centre.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not
> be solvable.
> 
> How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths?

Humans are animals, mammals to be a bit more exact.

The non-human paths I have had most experience of following are made by
sheep in the mountains.

On reasonably level ground they appear very similar to human made
paths, and is tempting to follow them.

The problems come as the ground gets steep, and as you no doubt aware
sheep have small feet which are relatively close together.

The result is that the paths can be deep ruts, that a little more than
10cm wide, not wide enough for a pair of human walking boots to pass.

Little point mapping the narrow parts, but the parts that look like it
may be a path are worth mapping to indicate that they are not, and the
next unfortunate bobble hatted walker will know not to follow them.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 2 December 2020, Jo wrote
> > your feet may sink into the mud
Wear wellies.


 though and beware the BULL :-)
Make sure you know if it a recognised dairy breed or not.

Phil (trigpoint)



-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > 
> > I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use
> > it where
> > danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full
> > scale rock slide.
> > 
> 
> In the UK we do not appear to have any signage warning of
> landslides.  The
> one sign we have is described as warning of "falling or fallen
> rocks."  A
> landslide is very different to falling rocks.
> 
> That's not to say we don't have landslides in the UK, but it appears
> we don't construct roads in places where they are anticipated to
> happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A625_road#Mam_Tor_road

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - 2 Week Update & RFC Summary

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 07:27 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> Grid: to warn that you are approaching a cattle grid - we already
> have a tag for grids, do we also need a sign to warn that they're
> coming up?

Welsh example (I have never seen these in England).
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/NiGw-6hqC72o_jkcnxe4UQ


> 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] Rapids (whitewater) on rivers

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 17:08 +, ael via Tagging wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:29:52AM -0800, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > Another argument against use of hazard=* for rapids is that the
> > hazard key
> > has been used almost always with highway=* features, not waterways.
> 
> Not in my part of the world. Why try to restrict the scope
> artificially?
> Hazard in British English (and all other dialects, I suspect) is a
> general term with no particular connotation with roads or even paths.
> Why force us to invent a new tag "hazard_not_on_a_highway" ???
> 
Very true, but if you a a canoeist then rapids are an attraction not a
hazard at all.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] Is this continouos flow a water tap?

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 27 September 2022, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> What exactly defines man_made=water_tap?
> 
> Open/close ability?
> 
> Top-down water flow (rather than small upward jet of many
> drinking water fountains?)
> 
> Is
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beim_Kiosk_(Anlagage_Sihlh%C3%B6lzli).jpg
> man_made=water_tap
> or
> man_made=drinking_fountain
> ?
I would expect to be able to turn a tap on or off.

The description seems correct, water fountain or maybe drinking if the water is 
fresh and not recirculated.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] care services

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 18:39 +0100, Georges Dutreix via Tagging wrote:
> Hello,
> How would you tag the office of a company providing personnal
> services 
> or care services at home, like gardener, cleaning, assistance for 
> children, elders or disabled, small repairs, etcetera ?
> 
> The tag office=employment_agency is sometimes used, but looks for me
> not 
> really adequate. The goal is not to provide jobs but to sell
> services.
> 
> I would favor office=home_care (used 56 times), with home_care=* 
> (gardener;cleaning...) but I will appreciate your feedbacks.
> Thanks
> 
I have used office=home_care for a care company.

Gardening and cleaning seem to be odd tags to combine with care
however.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] care services

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2022-11-17 at 19:21 +0100, Georges Dutreix wrote:
> 
> Le 17/11/2022 à 18:52, Philip Barnes a écrit :
> > I have used office=home_care for a care company.
> 
> I found as well amenity=personal_service used 110 times
> Would be "amenity" better than "office" for this case ?

Personal services and Care are not really the same thing.

Care could probably fit into heathcare.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Private ambulance / patient transport service

[Philip Barnes]

That would be very misleading, these are not the normal public ambulance 
service crewed by paramedics who you contact in an emergency.

There is one locally who provide patient transport between hospitals for the 
NHS. I would go with a commercial landuse and company=patient_transport and a 
name. 

Phil (trigpoint)

On 3 January 2023 11:23:07 GMT, Anne- Karoline Distel  
wrote:
>___
>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 - yarn shops

[Philip Barnes]

Shops selling wool are commonly referred to as wool shops so why not shop=wool?

Yarn doesn't seem very intuitive to me as a native English speaker.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 2 January 2023 17:14:28 GMT, Nate Wessel  wrote:
>Howdy y'all,
>
>I am proposing to make official a tag that is already in use to some degree, 
>*shop=yarn*, for shops that primarily sell yarn and other knitting/crochet 
>supplies. Currently the wiki has these falling under shop=sewing. As a 
>long-time sewer who has recently taken up knitting, I can say with confidence 
>that these are very different things; though sometimes larger stores will sell 
>both.
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/yarn_shops
>
>Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Nate Wessel
>Cartographer, Planner, Transport Nerd
>NateWessel.com 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2023-01-03 at 09:16 -0500, Nate Wessel wrote:
> shop=wool ... this seems like almost exactly what I'm proposing. And
> is used much more frequently than shop=yarn. 
> And yet for me, I never even thought to search for this. And the word
> 'yarn' doesn't actually appear anywhere on the page or it would have
> shown up in my searches of the wiki. 
> It's also not referenced anywhere on the shop=sewing page, which
> explicitly mentions knitting needles, etc. Nor on the shop=fabric nor
> shop=haberdashery pages. 
> It seems like maybe the real problem here is that the various tags
> related to the "fibre-arts" aren't all that well documented yet and
> not at all well cross-referenced. Would anyone object to an attempt
> to better cross-reference and distinguish these categories? 
> In particular it seems to me like shop=wool should encompass things
> like knitting needles, and specify that it would be selling (wool)
> yarn, and not wool fabric as that would fall under shop=fabric. 
> I would also want to drop references to yarn and knitting needles
> from shop=sewing, pointing to shop=wool for that. 
> It seems like shop=haberdashery and shop=sewing need some further
> discussion, as they seem almost impossible to distinguish from the
> wiki documentation. Personally, I always thought of a haberdashery as
> a hat shop?? I somehow hadn't even heard of that tag before this
> discussion. 

These were common back in the 70s, now a big part of the problem is
that most of this trade (along with other many other small specialist
retailers) have been taken up by bigger general purpose shops and craft
shops.

Thinking where do I know of a wool shop locally the answer is I don't
but thinking of where have I seen wool for sale I immediately came up
with The Range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Range_(retailer) and
Charlie's (similar to The Range based in Wales and The Borders).

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"

[Philip Barnes]

On 4 January 2023 22:11:23 GMT, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 1/4/23 13:05, Marc_marc wrote:
>> or nothing due the fact that the only "Mörthe und Mosel“
>> is on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/51856
>> with a name=* in french :)
>
>It does have a name:de though, like other French departements - I was rahter 
>surprised to read "Großer Osten" on a map with German labels, and later found 
>out that there are indeed German tourist guides for this part of France that 
>carry this name.
>
>It is not always easy to determine whether a name is (a) harmless and in use, 
>(b) a silly translation that has no basis in reality ("pont neuf" = "Neue 
>Brücke", 

Reminds me that I discovered name:en='Arch of Triumph' added by a mapbox 
mapper. They removed it when I commented how wrong it was.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 23:11 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> (b) a silly translation that has no basis in reality ("pont neuf" =
> "Neue Brücke", or the recently discovered Latin name "sub tilias" for
> the well-known street "Unter den Linden" in Berlin)

Just checked this one, it has a name:en of Under The Lindens, again
this is something English speakers never translate.

Phil (trigpoint)




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

Re: [Tagging] foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"

[Philip Barnes]

It is likely to be confusing if it is not on the signs leading to the station.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 7 January 2023 19:10:17 GMT, Alexander Kane <1998alexk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've been pondering whether to add name:en to European train stations when
>the English announcement is usually translated. For example Cologne South
>for the train station Köln Süd.
>
>Alex
>
>Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  schrieb am Fr.,
>6. Jan. 2023, 04:27:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan 5, 2023, 17:36 by frede...@remote.org:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 1/5/23 11:00, Anne- Karoline Distel wrote:
>>
>> I personally found old, yet now maybe offensive names on OpenStreetMap
>> very useful
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is something people occasionally quote as a reason for keeping
>> old street names as well - genealogy and other historic research. Such
>> names should always be in an old_name tag though, to avoid a multi-lingual
>> map showing them prominently.
>>
>> sometimes with language suffix, like old_name:de
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/old_name%3Ade#values
>>
>> ___
>> 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] barrows and tumuli

[Philip Barnes]

Long barrows are not always archeological or even historic.

Maybe they could be man_made=long_barrow.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 18 January 2023 15:48:42 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel  
wrote:
>The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the
>map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information
>to the wiki
>(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus).
>In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are
>now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.
>
>I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a
>table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible
>redundant tags.
>
>However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +
>megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.
>This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as
>archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?
>
>Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +
>megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, IMHO.
>
>Anne
>
>
>
>___
>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] barrows and tumuli

[Philip Barnes]

I am using local knowledge here, 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow

It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 18 January 2023 17:55:57 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel  
wrote:
>Well, yes, they're not historic; they're prehistoric. But we tend to map
>those features with the historic tag nonetheless.
>
>I don't understand why you say that they're not archaeological, when
>they're written about by archaeologists and part of archaeological surveys.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow
>
>Like many British and Irish barrows (and maybe other areas, but I
>haven't looked at those in much detail), they are man_made=cairn,
>though, just under a layer of soil.
>
>Anne
>
>On 18/01/2023 17:04, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> Long barrows are not always archeological or even historic.
>> 
>> Maybe they could be man_made=long_barrow.
>> 
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>> 
>> On 18 January 2023 15:48:42 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the
>> map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information
>> to the wiki
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus).
>> In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are
>> now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.
>> 
>> I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a
>> table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible
>> redundant tags.
>> 
>> However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +
>> megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.
>> This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as
>> archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?
>> 
>> Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +
>> megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, 
>> IMHO.
>> 
>> Anne
>> 
>> 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] barrows and tumuli

[Philip Barnes]

The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an active 
place for burials. 

The internal construction is clear on the current bing imagery.

Phil 


On 19 January 2023 09:04:14 GMT, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
>p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:
>
>> I am using local knowledge here,
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow
>>
>> It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire.
>>
>
>
>architectural style: "neoneolithic", ok, a fake neolithic structure, this
>is something that occurs occasionally, e.g. fake "castles", fake caves,
>fake buildings, fake trees, etc.
>I do not believe we should generally use a different key just because there
>is a handful of other objects in the world that do not fit.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round, not 
always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there is 
nothing to measure the diameter of .

Phil (trigpoint)

On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>
>We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
>mini-roundabouts.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 27 January 2023 21:29:49 GMT, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
>> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
>> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
>> trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
>> and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
>> flies. This triggered the question.
>
>There has been a pretty lenghty discussion in the German forum just a
>couple days back which i started. 
>
>I started a discussion about mini_roundabouts here too a couple years
>back.
>
>I still find the concept of tagging a "mini roundabout" _broken by
>design_.
>
>The main difference we have in usage is - A mini roundabout will never
>cause any announcements like "3rd exit" it will be "turn left". This
>will be pretty confusing for anything larger that a small residential
>street. 
I do find the lack of acknowledgement of mini-roundabouts by routers a strange 
omission. 

They just need to say Turn left/turn right/go straight on at the 
mini-roundabout the same as a human passenger does if they are giving 
directions. In terms of on-screen directions just use the normal turn arrows 
with a blue mini roundabout sign in the middle.


>
>And i think the misconception is still what a mini roundabout is. 
>A mini roundabout is not a mini roundabout because its center is
>traverseable. Its a matter of fixing a priority problem in busy
>junctions. 
I'm not sure I understand why there is any confusion. They are traversable.

>
>So in case you have 12m diameter and a traversable center i would not
>say thats a mini_roundabout.
Not sure about diameter, that implies something is round. The paint usually is, 
but the area around it very rarely is.


>
>And while at it - We should introduce a tag "traversable=yes" or
>something on the junction=roundabout way.

Why? Mini-roundabout is the standard name everyone knows, it's not just an OSM 
tag. If I told my girlfriend to turn right at the traversable roundabout she 
would be very confused.

Drawing a roundabout way in the space would usually be challenging, many you 
wouldn't attempt to go around.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 28 January 2023 23:17:59 GMT, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale :
>
>> A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is
>> often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that
>> traffic is intended to avoid it and use the outer ring, while keeping it
>> perfectly usable by most vehicles.
>> Example:
>> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotonde_(verkeer)#/media/Bestand:N746-Noordergraafsingel-Harbrinkhoek.jpg
>>
>>
>
>The raised part is the truck apron. Traffic, including trucks, is not
>dsupposed to use the truck apron. The kerb and the raised part warn the
>trucker who forgets that.
>The roundabout shown there is a true roundabout. Mini-roundabouts do not
>exist in Nederland, but we do have fake roundabouts (dot or circle in the
>middle, possibly raised, no kerb, no roundabout rules.
>Come to mention it, true roundabouts by themselves do not have special
>priority rules in Nederland, just the oneway rule indicated by the
>roundabout traffic signs. However, .priority is almost always indicated by
>at least shark's teeth. If it isn't, traffic from the right has priority,
>same as on regular junctions. (We're driving on the right).
>
>As for diameters, I think the (minimal) turning circle or maximal rigid
>vehicle length is what traffic needs. I am not sure that it can be
>calculated from the diameters of inner centre circle, outer centre circle
>and circumference of the entire traffic area.

Would that not only be relevant if trying to do a U turn (which is illegal at 
mini-roundabout).

Phil (trigpoint)
>
>On 28/01/2023 22:12 CET Philip Barnes  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round,
>> not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there
>> is nothing to measure the diameter of .
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>>
>> We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
>> mini-roundabouts.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 28 January 2023 23:47:38 GMT, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>The mini-roundabout just adds priority on the MR to the general keep left 
>rule, that is my understanding. 

They are to give equal priority to all roads at a junction, usually where 
traffic flow would block traffic from side roads.

They are usually only used where there is not enough space for a roundabout.

When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these 
should be mini-roundabouts. 

Phil (trigpoint)
>
>Peter Elderson
>
>> Op 29 jan. 2023 om 00:37 heeft Florian Lohoff  het volgende 
>> geschreven:
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>> Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often
>>> round, not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads
>>> where there is nothing to measure the diameter of .
>> 
>> Thats exactly the point. The mini_roundabout is a UK speciality and most
>> likely should not have appeared anywhere else.
>> 
>> 
>> A mini_roundabout _must_ have a traversable center, a traversable center
>> does _not_ make a mini_roundabout.
>> 
>> 
>> Thats the major misconception a lot of people have.
>> 
>> Flo
>> -- 
>> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>>  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
>> ___
>> 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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 14:31 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +0000, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > 
> > When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did
> > think these should be mini-roundabouts. 
> 
> Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort"
> which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there is no other 
> rules of priority its "Right before left".

That is a rule I believe exists in most of continental Europe. I
certainly learned of it as ‘Priorité à droite’ in French lessons at
school.


> 
> Other jurisdications dont have this so there is a problem with
> producing
> junctions with "equal priority". The UK solution is the "mini
> roundabout".
> 
> So a mini roundabout is really "mini" or "tiny" - Not necessarily
> round.
A roundabout isn't necessarily round either :)

It about going around, the name comes from the fairground roundabout
(carousel in American English) or a children's roundabout in
playground.

A mini-roundabout in the UK, and in France which is the country which
comes second in terms of my driving experience are signed with a blue
sign with white arrows. Different to a normal roundabout. They are
always traversable but doing so is often made uncomfortable for small
vehicles by either building them up with concrete so they can be the
height of a speed bump or with the use of setts.

Others are just white paint at what was once a give way and nobody goes
around the paint. They just make priority equal.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=381114187015295


I did spot this one today,
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=509797140032524 which is
traversable by a truck, but you wouldn't want to in a car.


> The problem here starts with the imagery in the Wiki which IMHO dont
> show mini roundabouts, but random roundabouts with traversable
> center.
Am not sure what you mean, all of the photos that say mini-roundabout,
I would interpret as such. The one that looks different is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/5e/Kreisverkehr.jpg but it
has the mini-roundabout sign so I would treat it a a mini-roundabout. A
large vehicle turning would have to cross the island. In reality most
drivers would go straight over it.
> 
> And main distinction people read in the wiki is "traversable center"
> so
> everything with a traversable center gets tagged by mappers as mini
> roundabout.
> 
I don't think I have ever come across a roundabout with a traversable
centre, why would it even exist?

> So we have a problem with the wiki documentation. 
It looks fine to me, although mini-roundabouts were common in the UK by
the time I was learning to drive in the late 70s.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Philip Barnes]

I am with Dave on this one.

The tag is clear, concise and intuitive.

It says exactly what a map user would expect to find 

Changing to practice_pitch with sport=cricket loses the descriptive nature of 
the current tag. It just becomes where cricket is practiced instead of where 
there are nets in the real world.

When a colleague says they are going 'to nets' after work, it is clearly 
understood.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 30 January 2023 13:54:01 GMT, Illia Marchenko  
wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend
>leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=*
>generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure.
>Regards,
>Illia.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal 
junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority.

So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other junctions, 
whether they can turn left or right. 

In the UK, U turns are prohibited at mini-roundabouts, which I would have 
thought would be the main usecase for a diameter.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 2 February 2023 03:31:39 GMT, Matija Nalis 
 wrote:
>If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it 
>as 
>`hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers
>will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can actually 
>pass.
>
>Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others not, then maxlength=* 
>or maxlength:hgv=* or some of the other alternatives from 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxlength ?
>
>On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:25:32 +0100, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the
>> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road
>> surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for
>> trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12 m,
>> and that attracts regularly articulated lorries like the cheese attracts
>> flies. This triggered the question.
>>
>> Il giorno mer 25 gen 2023 alle ore 19:10 Peter Neale via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
>>
>>> According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is
>>> defined as:
>> >
>>> "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed
>>>  by vehicles, and is
>>> typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic
>>> flows in one direction around a point in the middle and the traffic in the
>>> roundabout has right-of-way. The middle of a mini-roundabout is usually
>>> only a painted circle, but there might also be a low, fully traversable
>>> (mountable) dome or island."
>> >
>>> As it is traversable, does it really have a diameter?  Or, if there is a
>>> painted circle (are traversable domed area) on the ground, perhaps that has
>>> a diameter, but does it matter to any prospective map user?
>> >
>>> Regards,
>>> Peter
>> >
>>> Peter Neale
>>> t: 01908 309666
>>> m: 07968 341930
>> >
>> >
>>> On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 17:53:55 GMT, Volker Schmidt <
>>> vosc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>> Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout?
>> >
>>> We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to
>>> mini-roundabouts.
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>
>
>-- 
>Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
>
>
>___
>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] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On 2 February 2023 09:34:08 GMT, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct,
>there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are
>adequate for that
>
>The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as the
>traversable roundabout has a circular "belly", providing additional space
>for turning longer vehicles. The diameter of this circular turning space in
>this specific location is 12m. The maximum length for articulated trucks is
>generally 16m in Italy.
>
>The probable reason why I see relatively frequent problems there, is that
>the junction is represented on big-G maps as a normal roundabout (they do
>not have a specific way to represent traversable roundabouts) and the size
>of this roundabout is a bit large on their map. This junction is on a route
>to reach a company that repairs agricultaral machinery, that arrives on
>long flat-bed articulated trucks.
>
>Coming back to my original question: could we agree that:
>
>1) highway=mini_roundabout outside the UK is used to describe traversable
>roundabouts, provided the traffic rules are the same as on untraversable
>roundabouts
Most of my non GB driving experience is in France. Mini-roundabouts there use 
the same blue sign as the UK.

Phil (trigpoint) 
>2) diameter= x m can be used to describe the available turning area
>diameter, if it is roughly circular.
>3) we will look into defining an alternative way to describe the
>traversable roundabout area in a way similar to bridge or road geometry
>(and let us discuss that approach in a new thread)
>
>Volker
>
>
>
>On Thu, 2 Feb 2023, 09:58 Mark Reidel,  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 04:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote:
>> > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply
>> > mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional
>> > advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs
>> > somewhere where they can actually pass.
>>
>> Adding an access-tag like maxlength isn't the correct way to tackle
>> this, because:
>> a) there is no *legal* restriction that disallows a vehicle of a
>> certain length
>> b) it's not only about the length, but mostly about the turning radius
>> of trucks, which is not necessarily related to their length, especially
>> when they have more than 1 trailer.
>>
>> But overall, I don't see how this is of special importance for a mini
>> roundabout with a traversable surface, it being very much identical to
>> a regular crossing when you are allowed to go over the inner circle.
>> Shouldn't the angle between the two roads the vehicle wants to pass be
>> the limiting factor in that case?
>>
>> --
>> Mark aka Nadjita
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

[Philip Barnes]

On 2 February 2023 11:06:04 GMT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at either 
>end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field and goals 
>there cannot be a game of soccer...
>
Jumpers for goalposts?

To be mappable there needs to be some infrastructure but there certainly can be 
a game of soccer without goalposts. Did you never make a pile of coats or 
jumpers as makeshift goalposts? In some places even grass is not a pre-reqiesit.

Even where there is a marked pitch goals are often removed when there isn't an 
official game going on.

Outside of actual grounds pitch markings are seasonal, soccer is a winter game. 
On recreation grounds and school fields markings for soccer or rugby will only 
be there part of the year, to maybe be replaced by running track markings or be 
used as a cricket pitch during the summer. 

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Slate roof tiles

[Philip Barnes]

On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 16:01 +, Timothy Noname wrote:
> Slate roof tiles
> roof:material=slate
> Or
> roof:material=roof_tiles
> 
> I admit I've used both in the past.

Tiles are totally different to slates, I would never consider a slate
to be a tile.

Other than being used for roofing, they are different and easily
identified.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Slate roof tiles

[Philip Barnes]

Slate is a natural material, quarried from sedimentary rock, they tend to be 
very smooth and not overlap too much. Usually found on older buildings, are 
rare on modern buildings unless they are in a conservative area and need to fit 
in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate#/media/File%3ASt_Fagans_Tannery_7.jpg

Tiles are moulded from clay and are designed to lock together and overlap. 
Common on more modern buildings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_tiles#/media/File%3ARoof-Tile-3149.jpg

Phil (trigpoint)

On 10 March 2023 18:53:09 GMT, Timothy Noname  wrote:
>How are slate roof tiles totally different to roof tiles?
>They are both manufactured to a certain size and laid in an overlapping
>pattern?
>
>On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, 17:19 Philip Barnes,  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 16:01 +, Timothy Noname wrote:
>> > Slate roof tiles
>> > roof:material=slate
>> > Or
>> > roof:material=roof_tiles
>> >
>> > I admit I've used both in the past.
>>
>> Tiles are totally different to slates, I would never consider a slate
>> to be a tile.
>>
>> Other than being used for roofing, they are different and easily
>> identified.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

[Philip Barnes]

I have come across a few cases where a mapper has has blindly answered no to a 
list of octane ratings that do not exist in the country they are mapping in.

In the UK it is safe to assume every filling station sells Euro 95/E10 and 
diesel.

The interesting tag is whether it sells 98 or 99/E5. The E5 being the important 
information as many cars can either be damaged by E10 or just experience poor 
performance so finding the right fuel is important.

Phil (trigpoint)



On 18 April 2023 16:08:39 BST, Marc_marc  wrote:
>Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
>> Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
>
>no, some contributors will fill in what they are interested in,
>others will fill in everything that is visible (and may not
>be able to see the blue additive pump not visible from the car pumps), others 
>will do an exaustive survey
>
>> For example amenity=fuel + fuel:octane_80=yes
>> 
>> Is it implying that it is sole type of fuel available?
>
>no
>
>> Is it possible to mark that fuel station
>> has solely fuel:octane_98 and fuel:octane_80 ?
>> It seems that fuel:others=no is used a bit for that purpose
>
>yes *:others=no but also *:*=only exist for that purpose
>
>
>
>___
>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] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 00:39 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Apr 19, 2023, 00:14 by mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr:
> > On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:08:39 +0200, Marc_marc 
> > wrote:
> > > Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
> > > > Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?
> > > 
> > > no, some contributors will fill in what they are interested in,
> > > others will fill in everything that is visible (and may not
> > > be able to see the blue additive pump not visible from the car
> > > pumps), 
> > > others will do an exaustive survey
> > 
> > Agreed.
> I made initial edit in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:fuel&diff=2506079&oldid=2451100
> 
> Feel free to edit/amend/improve.
> 
> Thanks for all comments!

Looks good, although I am thinking that octane and ethanol should be
combined to indicate what is actually sold. Whilst I can make educated
guesses in the UK (if its octane 95 it will be E10, octane 99 will be
E5 (E0 for Esso outside North Wales).

So maybe 
fuel:octane_95:E10 = yes
fuel:octane_99:E5  = yes

The current tagging
i.e.fuel:e10 = yes
fuel:e5 = yes
fuel:octane_95 = yes
fuel:octane_99 = yes

Doesn't tell me which octane goes with which Ethanol level.
Particularly useful for tourists who do not know the 'rules' for that
country and finding E5 is essential.

Phil (trigpoint) 



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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Philip Barnes]

There is at least one trunk road (green signs) which has a B classification. A6 
to M6 near Shap.

Phil (trigpoint)

 

On Monday, 12 August 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 15:56, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> 
> > > If your country's government indicates with signs
> > > that a road as a primary route then that is what it is.
> >
> > no government says „primary“ road, they might say „A road“, or
> > „Bundesstraße“ but the latter is only telling that the Federal government
> > of Germany is in charge of the maintenance (i.e. it is somehow deemed to be
> > important, but it doesn’t say _how_ important it is, because importance
> > varies among Bundesstraßen, and it is only generally more important than a
> > Kreisstraße (local connection road), while in a specific case it may be
> > less important than a specific Kreisstraße.
> >
> 
> There's always one country does it differently. :p  I've just had a look
> into it, and Germany is
> rather messy. :(
> 
> Here the national government decides on which roads are primary and which
> are secondary.
> Some primary roads are designated trunk roads and they are maintained by
> national
> government with all others being maintained at the county level.  It's
> possible somebody
> could find an exceptional case and argue that a UK B-road ought to be
> tagged as a
> primary route, or an A-road be tagged as a secondary, but I doubt it.  In a
> few cases new
> roads or motorways have resulted in former A-roads being given a new B
> number by
> the government itself.  I'd hesitate to buck the system in the UK even if I
> found a
> very exceptional case.  Especially as speed limits and lane counts could be
> used
> by routers to prefer a secondary route to a primary route in some
> situations.
> 
> A map that highlighted roads in a way that conflicted with signage would be
> somewhat
> confusing.  Here we're used to the idea that a primary route is a better
> choice than
> a secondary route, all other things being equal.  If you're planning a
> journey you look
> at the primary routes first and maybe refine it a little by diverting onto
> secondary routes
> for part of the journey (actually you'd look at motorways first).
> 
> I’m all for recording these classes (we do it in ref in Germany and Italy),
> > but they cannot be an argument in the individual case in favor of a
> > specific osm highway class.
> >
> 
> In the case of Germany, I agree.  In Germany it's not that simple.  From
> what I've read
> the number of digits indicates how important the road is.  Sort of.  There
> are exceptions.
> :(
> 
> -- 
> Paul
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 12 August 2019, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 12/08/2019 14:36, Paul Allen wrote:
> > Where a country-wide classification exists, it is usual for this to be 
> > reflected in the
> > numbering scheme and the signage.  In the UK it may not be readily 
> > apparent whether
> > a road is a trunk or a primary since they'll both be "A" roads with 
> > the same style of
> > signage, but there's an obvious difference in signage between A roads 
> > and B roads
> 
> Careful. If my understanding is correct, the term 'trunk road' as used 
> in the UK does not map to highway=trunk in OSM. The latter has always I 
> believe been used to represent the 'primary route network' in the UK 
> (excluding the motorways), that is those A roads (and possibly some B 
> roads) which connect the designated 'primary destinations' on the road 
> network. They should be characterized by green signage, which therefore 
> distinguishes them from other A roads which are not part of the primary 
> network (black-and-white signage, confusingly mapped as highway=primary 
> in OSM).
> 
That is a correct summary.

Although most in the UK will be unaware  of the difference between trunk 
(national government operated) and other green signed A road (local government 
operated).

There  is no discernable difference between tha A49 south of Shrewsbury and A49 
north of Shrewsbury.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Philip Barnes]

On 12/08/2019 19:06, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 18:25, Fernando Trebien 
mailto:fernando.treb...@gmail.com>> wrote:



There are all sorts of opinions on this matter, but trying to define
classification rules based on physical characteristics or
administrative responsibility (municipality, state or national) always
led to unexpected situations here. I guess the UK is somewhat unique
in having an official classification system that matches the
topological organization of the road system.


I would hope the UK is not unique.  The reason it matches (mostly) in 
the UK is that
the classification was assigned based on the characteristics of the 
roads.  It

wasn't somebody making decisions based upon a whim, it tried to assign
categories based upon usage: it defined a route as being primary if it was
the best route.

The UK is not unique. When I first drove to Paris back in 1981, I went 
on the hovercraft to Boulogne and then drove down the N1 to Paris.


It was much like a UK trunk road, mostly two lane, streches of dual 
carriageway and it passed through villages and towns along the way. Far 
nicer than boring Motorways.


I used that route many times over the years, however France 
deccentralised its network and much of this has been lost.


In England/Wales, the road network radiates out from London, with the 
single A digit roads leading to the major destinations.


A1 to Edinburgh, A2 to Dover, A3 to Portsmouth, A4 to Bath, A5 to 
Holyhead and A6 to Carlilse. The network is divided into zones, hence 
most A and B roads between the A5 and A6 (my zone), with start with a 5. 
The exceptions will be roads which  start in a different zone.


Scotland has a similar systen radiating from Edinburgh.

The term trunk is based on the trunk of a tree, with other roads 
branching off.


Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 08:26 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 21:19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > A good example is the A487 passing
> > through the centre of the city of Aberystwyth:
> >  
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.4163&mlon=-4.0802#map=15/52.4163/-4.0802
> 
> Just looking at your sample there, Paul, & it's a good chance to ask
> a question that I've often wondered about.
> 
> I use OSMand+ to nav when required, & it will tell me to drive along
> SR3 then turn onto SR80 & proceed. I don't! - I drive along Bermuda
> St (which is officially Southport - Burleigh Rd!), then turn onto
> Reedy Creek Rd.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-28.0944/153.4260  
> 
> In your sample, would someone driving from Aberystwyth Uni, go along
> the A487, then the A44 & the A4120 to get to Blandolau Rec Grounds,
> or would they use Penglais Rd, Quebec Rd, Ffordd Sulien then Heol-y-
> Bont?
> 
> In other words, do you navigate & drive by numbers or names?
> 
In The UK we mostly navigate by numbers.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cash_withdrawal draft

[Philip Barnes]

In British English the term used is Cashback.

Although only used once according to taginfo.

Its never been something I have thought of tagging, just an option we 
assume to be available at supermarkets.


Phil (trigpoint)


On 21/08/2019 19:53, amilopow...@u-cloud.ch wrote:

Hello

I filed a draft for a new tag called "cash_withdrawal".

Please comment in the wiki. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cash_withdrawal


With my best regards
Ueli aka amilopowers


Sent from ProtonMail , encrypted email based in 
Switzerland.




___
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] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Philip Barnes]

On 17/08/2019 17:02, Andrew Hain wrote:
In the UK every business that handles food has its hygiene ratings and 
usually address published as open data under a licence we can use. 
Sometimes a business in an unmarked house is listed with an unredacted 
address; I don’t record the business or the existence of the listing 
in that case.


This is becoming a less useful source.

Many objects that were listed in the early version have now disappeared, 
such as pubs.


My local used to have a 5, sticker now gone and no mention in FHRS. The 
pub has not closed.


Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] Cash_withdrawal draft

[Philip Barnes]

On Thursday, 22 August 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 13:09, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> > In British English the term used is Cashback.
> >
> I can confirm that.  I'm not sure, but I think it's only possible to get
> cashback if you make
> a purchase.  But that could just be a policy of some stores, or I could be
> completely wrong
> (I've never tried to get cashback without making a purchase).
> 
> Its never been something I have thought of tagging, just an option we
> > assume to be available at supermarkets.
> >
> 
> And convenience stores, such as Spar (my local Spar doesn't charge for
> cashback but I'm
> told other shops in the franchise do).
> 
> I don't think it would be sensible to tag nodes with the intention of
> having them rendered
> in some way, as in a large supermarket it would mean mapping every till.
> Even my local
> Spar has three tills, and it's not a big shop.  Probably best as a property
> on the shop
> itself.
> 
> Incidentally, I recall reading somewhere I cannot remember (and can
> definitely not vouch
> for the accuracy of the info) that cashback arose because banks charge a
> fee on large(?)
> shops depositing their takings, and that fee is a percentage of the size of
> the deposit.
> Various EPOS vendors decided they could give shops a cashback facility and
> charge
> a lower percentage of the transaction than the shop would pay a bank to
> deposit it.  If
> this is all true, the shops aren't doing you a favour, they're doing
> themselves a favour
> by giving you an incentive to use them, doing themselves a favour by
> reducing the
> fee they pay the bank, and triple-dipping if they charge you for cashback.
> 
Avoiding charges for banking cash is my understanding of the reason for shops 
offing this service too.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cash_withdrawal draft

[Philip Barnes]

On 22/08/2019 15:47, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 13:09, Philip Barnes <mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:


In British English the term used is Cashback.

I can confirm that.  I'm not sure, but I think it's only possible to 
get cashback if you make
a purchase.  But that could just be a policy of some stores, or I 
could be completely wrong

(I've never tried to get cashback without making a purchase).

I believe that is correct, you have to buy something, even if it costs a 
penny/cent so that they can open the till.


My local co-op has a separate area for the post office, which offers the 
full range of services but keeps normal post office hours.


The main co-op supermarket has a post office terminal, not sure what it 
can do but you can't tax your car or send off for a passport, but it has 
a scale to weigh parcels and also offers cash withdrawl which requires 
no purchase. This is available whenever the co-op is open Mo-Sa 
7:00-22:00 Su 10:00-16:00.


Is there, or should there be, a tag for these mini-post offices?

Is this a UK thing?

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] How to distinguish public and private offices?

[Philip Barnes]

On 15/08/2019 12:23, Paul Allen wrote:


Nevertheless, we probably need something to indicate that sort of 
thing as there are
hairdresses and beauty salons which are operated by a single person 
and are

appointment-only.


In the case of hairdressers, the appointment only tag is only an 
indication and most people don't want to wait.


You can usually walk into a hairdressers to make an appointment and if 
they are not busy they will not turn you away.


Its just those with an appointment will get priority. Much like making 
reservations in a resturaunt, its more a guarantee than compulsory.


Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

[Philip Barnes]

In terms of schools, we call them gyms in the UK too. 

Certainly not sports halls.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thursday, 5 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> What is a sports hall?
> 
> Is it what we call a "gym" in America?
> 
> The dictionary definition I found just said it was "a building used
> for sports", and the wiki page only says it's a building or part of a
> building "used as a sports hall", which doesn't do anything to clarify
> the situation.
> 
> I don't see how that is different than the definition of
> sports_centre: "a distinct facility where sports take place within an
> enclosed area" - which then specifically mentions "it can be a
> building".
> 
> I'll admit that we don't use the term "sports centre" in the USA
> either, but at least the wiki definition is clearly vague: it's any
> enclosed area (including buildings) where sports take place.
> 
> On 9/5/19, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> > On 05.09.2019 15:48, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >> Another user would like the proposed tag (used 329 times)
> >
> > 346 if you count all tags. Look at taghistory and see it has grown from 22
> > in early 2018, thus about
> > 15 times.
> >
> > It was a result of discussion in some communities that time.
> >
> >> leisure=sports_hall to be added to leisure=sports_centre.
> >
> > No. You cannot add the value to the same key.
> >
> > The intention of leisure=sports_hall is to describe facilities better that
> > were incorrectly tagged
> > leisure=sports_centre, an example are simple school sport halls, which
> > certainly are not 'centres'.
> >
> >
> >> However, I believe that rarely used, proposed tags should be approved
> >> through the proposal process or should become commonly used
> >> organically, before being added to the pages of common tags and keys.
> >
> > If you look at the history, it is being growing organically.
> > A hint to consider a more suitable tag on the centre page tagging cannot
> > hurt.
> >
> >> So, this can be a synonym for a sports_centre, or a tag for a building
> >> found in a sports_centre?
> >
> > More precisely, leisure=sports_hall is for facilities that are not centres.
> > Surely a centre can hold, among other facilities to form a centre, one or
> > more halls.
> >
> >> Why not just use building=sports_hall and sports_centre for the whole
> >> area?
> >
> > Because building=* describes the building typology, not the usage. leisure=*
> > describes the usage.
> > Thus, a purpose-built sports hall is
> > leisure=sports_hall+building=sports_hall, while a converted
> > church that is now used for sports is leisure=sports_hall+building=church.
> >
> > tom
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

[Philip Barnes]

Have not stayed at a campsite that charges for showers for sometime now but 
many require a token, rather than coins.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >shower:fee=yes
> 
> I believe "yes/no" is better for fee, since the value may change frequently.
> 
>  If you are mapping detailed information about the showers, it would
> be best to map these as a separate node with amenity=shower, if you
> know it's correct location.
> 
> In that case you could use hot_water=yes and fee=yes etc. instead of
> having to use namespacing. See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshower
> 
> The proposal only approves shower=yes/no and amenity=shower but that
> doesn't stop you from using shower=hot and shower:fee=* if you want
> to.
> 
> > capacity:powered / power_supply=30 ?
> 
> While you could do that, if you are getting into that much detail it
> might be better to map each tourism=camp_pitch, if you have time for
> it. Then you can tag each camp_pitch with power_supply individually.
> 
> - Joseph
> 
> On 9/10/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 11:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Another question :-)
> >>
> >
> > & again!
> >
> > There are powered pitches available, but there are only 30 of them (mixture
> > of tent & caravan), while there are virtually unlimited numbers of
> > unpowered pitches.
> >
> > capacity:powered / power_supply=30 ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >>
> >
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 9 September 2019, marc marc wrote:
> Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com:
> > 
> > Imho:the real problem, why we have multiple objects for
> > "name:*"   tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )
> > 
> > Label is an  attempt to manually
> > specify optimal place for placement of a label.
> 
> the label doesn't need any tag
> exept that some of them duplicate a country with a node place=country
> 

The label node is also used for navigation and is used to indicate the city 
centre.

If I tell OSMand I want to go to Liverpool today, I don't expect it to direct 
me to a residential street at the geographical centre.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 04:39 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen <
> > 354...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > if both can stop, it is not a tourist bus stop but a regular bus stop
> > where coaches can stop. I have difficulties imagining it, but I would not
> > exclude the possibility.
> >
> 
> I'm glad you wouldn't exclude the possibility.  There is a bus stop like
> that in my town.  Occasionally
> tourist buses stop there to allow passengers to board so they can go on
> holiday.  As it happens,
> the same company that runs the public buses around here also has a tourist
> operation which
> takes people in the area on holidays, tours, etc.
> 
> 
> > Usually these tourist bus stops are set up in areas with a lot of traffic
> > and few parking space, in these settings you would not want tourist busses
> > to block pt bus stops, the setting where it would be imaginable are low
> > density places where it doesn't matter anyway where you stop (no problem,
> > next bus in 4 hours).
> >
> 
> Ummm, the one here is on what is effectively the high street (and used to
> be named that
> many, many years ago).  Several different hourly services stop there.  It's
> actually a long
> "platform," long enough that two buses can stop there at once, which
> sometimes happens if one
> is running a little late.  So there's enough room for an ordinary bus and a
> tourist bus.
> 
> The other place tourist buses stop is a public car park.  Fortunately the
> annual fair (with
> mobile fairground rides) that takes over the car park a few days a year
> does so in November
> when there aren't as many people wanting to travel.
> 
> In other places I've lived, tourist and long-distance buses shared a bus
> station with ordinary
> buses.
> 
Am still not 100% clear what was originally meant by Tourist bus.

The  description here describes coaches, which are more comfortable than buses 
and are used for long distances. In French for example this would be the 
difference between Autocar and Autobus.

I would have considered a tourist bus, to be the buses that travel around 
Central London giving a guided commentary where tourists can get on and off a 
certain dedicated bus stops close to tourist attractions.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

[Philip Barnes]

Amenity goes back to the term used by estate agents when describing a property 
as being close to the amenities. The level of which will vary, but in a village 
you expect the four Ps. Pub, Post Office, Primary School and Parish Church.

Living in a small town I would add doctors, cafes, restaurants, library, 
pharmacy and public toilets. A large town/city would add museums

I suppose the amenities, which are considered the must be within walking 
distance will vary from person to person. My town has a launderette, but I have 
never used one in my life so would not personally put it in that amenity space. 
Others may disagree and see it as essential.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> 
> Am 18.09.2019 um 09:37 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 18. Sep 2019, at 09:22, Simon Poole  wrote:
> >>
> >> My point was more that you should ignore the shop classification and
> >> assume that that this is simply facility that in some form provides
> >> access to clothes washing machines and space, because even a completely
> >> normal laundromat facility is not a shop. In hindsight it should have
> >> always been amenity=laundry (or similar) but that is a done deal.
> >
> > IMHO we shouldn’t ignore classifications. It would be easier to follow your 
> > argument if the tag was indeed amenity=laundry but as it isn’t, the tag 
> > should be used for what in OpenStreetMap is a shop (a business selling 
> > goods or services)
> 
> Then nearly all amenities and leisure objects would be shops, consider
> for example amentity=toilets Which, as you likely know :-), exist both
> in free and paid versions. Providing access to a facility for use,
> regardless if free or not, is not a shop, not even in OSM.
> 
> Simon
> 
> > Cheers Martin 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

[Philip Barnes]

In the UK it is easy to tell a mobile number, I would not be happy getting a 
builder who only has a mobile number. It suggests lack of permanent location.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 17:00, Valor Naram  wrote:
> 
> > We should not talk any longer about charging plans (which provider and
> > when will apply different charges to whom) because we're difting off -->
> > going Off-Topic.
> >
> 
> It is very much on topic because it is the basis of whether or not there is
> any point in making
> a distinction between a mobile and a landline.  If there are no charge
> differences then they're
> both just phone numbers and we don't need a special tag for mobile phones.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Philip Barnes]

I can think of at least two pubs in my stamping ground within The Shire which I 
have never set foot  in as they closed before I moved there eight years ago. 
Both still look like pubs and display their name and look like pubs from a 
distance. Set to disused:amenity=pub.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204717378 gives local people much to moan 
about on the local Facebook group for local people.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thursday, 26 September 2019, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 26/09/2019 16:48, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Paul Allen wrote:
> >> BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is
> >> a pub would be of interest to some mappers.
> > Oh, has that closed? That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years
> > ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was
> > planning to go but was diverted by some other excellent pubs nearby. Not
> > least the one in St Dogmaels itself which served Gwynt y Ddraig Black
> > Dragon. I'd hoped to return one day... ah well.)
> >
> >> Mapping it as amenity=pub + disused=yes would (if carto
> >> is consistent with other times I've tried disused=yes) render it as a pub
> >> where disused:amenity=pub does not render it as a pub.
> > Sure, but OSM isn't just about rendering, let alone just osm-carto
> > rendering. A "find a pint of beer near me" app which does a proximity search
> > for amenity=pub won't work very well if some of those pubs... aren't pubs.
> >
> > amenity=pub means "actually a pub", not "thing that looks like a pub".
> 
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20&lat=52.0802094&lon=-4.660442
> 
> Works for me.  I might be tempted to keep the "name" set (or perhaps 
> "old_name") if there's still a sign outside, since I think it's 
> reasonable to think of that as the building or old pub name.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

[Philip Barnes]

Well indoors they become stairs.

True at least in the parts of England/Wales I am from. I believe usage is 
different in Scotland.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Thursday, 26 September 2019, Markus wrote:
> BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for
> indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for
> that?
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 30 September 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Andrew Davidson  wrote:
> 
> > On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led
> > > me there.
> >
> > It in many places but this one will do:
> >
> > https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch/os_info3.html
> 
> 
> That wasn't the one I saw, but it did remind me that the one I saw was
> somewhere on the
> NLS site.  Close enough to make the same point, though.  Ultimately, the
> official names
> derive from going around and asking locals.
> 
Which is how we end up with River Avon, avon (afon in welsh) meaning river 
hence River River.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Philip Barnes]

We also map the phone number of phoneboxes using phone=.

We do not generally contact phoneboxes.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. 
> > But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then 
> > either we find some way to represent that using other tagging, or we accept 
> > that a certain nuance will be lost.
> > 
> 
> there could be phone numbers with automatic announcements, so “phone” will 
> still be valid, but contact:phone would not suit well. To give an example. It 
> cannot be seen from the “phone”-key that this is the case though. I’m happy 
> with loosing the subtle differences that may make  “contact:”-prefixed tags 
> slightly more specific, in exchange for more universally usable 
> “almost-equal” more generic tags without the prefix.
> 
> Cheers Martin

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Philip Barnes]

On Friday, 11 October 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> 
> >
> > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you
> > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car
> > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think that
> > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be able to
> > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for example an
> emergency vehicle...
>
+100
 
Also a cyclist can dismount and become a pedestrian to cross the road.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Philip Barnes]

Not just the driver. Routing software can be used to determine which vehicle 
can give the quickest response.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Friday, 11 October 2019, Snusmumriken wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:57 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 11 Oct 2019, 10:50 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com:
> > > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:31 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken <
> > > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>:
> > > > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big
> > > > SUV
> > > > > you
> > > > > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big
> > > > your
> > > > > car
> > > > > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't think
> > > > > that
> > > > > OSM should be about that, but rather to be a map database to be
> > > > > able to
> > > > > provide a _legal_ route from A to B.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > what is not legal for you may be legal for someone else, for
> > > > example
> > > > an emergency vehicle...
> > > 
> > > Yes, exactly, but as I wrote "You have to remember that some
> > > physical
> > > separation are just as easy to cross as a painted line."
> > > 
> > > So a level strip of grass would be just as problematic for the
> > > emergency vehicle routing engine as a painted line.
> > 
> > Maybe it depends on location but in
> > Poland emergency vehicles routinely
> > ignore road paintings, one-way restrictions,
> > traffic lights, turn restrictions etc.
> > 
> > And I have never seen an emergency vehicle
> > crossing a grass median.
> > 
> > And it seem obvious that crossing a grass median
> > is trickier than crossing just a painted line.
> 
> It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws
> in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So
> he would use his own judgment and not so much what a routing engine
> tells him what he can do.
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 11:03 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 10:46, Vɑdɪm  wrote:
> > I think it's no more vague than some many other tags in OSM. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > For example have a look at 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > leisure=fishing
> 
> For most rivers in the UK, there are legalities around fishing
> rights.  There is often signage.
> There may be maps by angling associations (permission to make use of
> those maps must
> be gained before adding those details to OSM).

In the UK fishing ponds are a common feature, specifically dug and
stocked with fish for that purpose, the public can then pay to fish
there. 

So certainly verifiable.

Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 21 October 2019, Warin wrote:
> On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > I'm in favor of deprecating contact:phone now (and the other
> > contact:XXX duplicates later), but I don't know about your other
> > proposed changes.
> >
> > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.
> 
> It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it is 
> what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call that 
> number.
> So in the Australian Tagging Guidelines that are instructions on how to tag 
> phone numbers in OSM using +61.
> See 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Phone_Numbers
> 
> I would suggest similar guides for Indonesia and America.
> Where a phone number in OSM does not start with a '+' that can mean it needs 
> some attention, with some exceptions as a few phone numbers are not 
> accessible from outside the particular country.
> 
A + prefix is the standard way of entering phone numbers in OSM, but in the 
real world it is also the standard way to enter phone numbers in your mobile 
phone. If you enter numbers as would work at home, you will get errors when you 
try to call those numbers when roaming.

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 21 October 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > while I am not, I’m pretty sure the British term is pavement, not sidewalk
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's as idiotic as us Brits calling underpants "pants"  because the
> sidewalk is paved
> but the road is also paved so both are pavements.  But that's what we do.

But the British English technical/legal term is footway, which has also found 
its way into OSM.

You will often see signs warning of no footway for .

And sorry Paul, I cannot remember the Welsh version.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 21 October 2019, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 22, 2019, at 3:11 AM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
> > 
> > leisure=amusement_arcade ?
> 
> This is between =gambling and =adult_gaming_center, two established tags that 
> both claim to be the proper way to map a Pachinko parlor. A Pachinko machine 
> is a type of "gaming machine" in the gambling sense, like a slot machine. It 
> is not an arcade game, like pac-man, though it uses steel balls like pinball. 
> Pachinko is a luck-based machine, not skil-based like pac-man or pinball.
> 
> Arcades are full of skill games (for the most part), and full of kids and 
> teens playing Street Fighter, Galaga, claw machines, and such. 
> 
> Pachinko Parlors are full of grandpas gambling away their afternoons the 
> nickel machines (5yen Pachinko or slot machines). 
> 
In the UK slot machines and arcade games are usually in the same space and are 
known as amusement arcades.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hunting stands, bird and wildlife hides

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 22 October 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> You may need to look at the context, or ask local people.
> 
> For example many named peaks, streams, saddles have no explicit sign - 
> you need to ask local people or base it on your own knowledge.
>
Or use out of copyright mapping.

Phil (trigpoint)

 
> 22 Oct 2019, 16:36 by i...@zverev.info:
> 
> > I understand the reasoning, but I don’t see how can I follow the “truth on 
> > the ground” principle. Are there any guidelines on choosing the correct 
> > tag? For some reason people don’t write its purpose on a side. And again, 
> > images in three of these pages are the same.
> >
> > Ilya
> >
> >
> >> On 22 Oct 2019, at 10:46, Martin Koppenhoefer <>> dieterdre...@gmail.com 
> >> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am Di., 22. Okt. 2019 um 09:35 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev <>> 
> >> i...@zverev.info >> >:
> >>
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>>
> >>> Today we were looking for a tag to mark this structure:
> >>>
> >>> http://not.textual.ru/zverik/2/5/some_hide.jpg 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> Searching the wiki gave out FIVE options:
> >>>
> >>> - >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dbird_hide 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dwildlife_hide 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhunting_stand 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hunting%3Draised_hide 
> >>> 
> >>> ->>>  >>> 
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dobservation 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> What’s confusing is that photos in the first three look the same, even 
> >>> with a book on birds featured on the wildlife_hide page.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I can imagine how tower:type=observation differs from the others, but 
> >>> what do you think about four others? Should we add a warning box on all 
> >>> three “_hide” tags to use amenity=hunting_stand instead? Or choose one 
> >>> “_hide” over others? Currently the wiki is very disorienting.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> a hunting stand is a place where hunters are waiting for animals to shoot 
> >> them. A bird hide or wildlife hide is a place where you can observe 
> >> animals / birds.
> >>
> >> I do not recall any discussion about hunting=raised_hide and it seems to 
> >> be a duplicate or sub-group of hunting stand. The tag should probably be 
> >> discouraged as stand alone tag (in favor of hunting stand), but it could 
> >> make sense to state the subtype of hunting stand.
> >>
> >> Observation towers are similar features, but usually higher and not 
> >> specifically for watching animals. The definition says they are for "long 
> >> distance" observations, while hunting stands are for observing within 
> >> shooting range.
> >>
> >> With regard to your photo, we cannot tell which is the correct tag, 
> >> because we do not know what the purpose is.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Martin
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> >> 
> >>
> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> So, for those who like definitions: In the UK, a "mini roundabout" is
> simply a small roundabout that is either flush to the road or slightly
> raised so that large/long vehicles are able drive over it if they need to.
> If it has anything on it, like a lamp post, it is a "roundabout". It is not
> the size, it is the being able to drive over it that matters
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561491/mini-roundabouts-report.pdf
>
There is also the rule that you should not do U turns at mini roundabouts, so 
it is important that mapping retains this important distinction.

These are a very common feature, it does seem odd that routers are not 
supporting them.

Phil (trigpoint)
 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:28 AM Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > i just saw a changeset of someone makeing a mini_roundabout
> > from a junction=roundabout. I have never used mini_roundabout
> > as non of the routing/nav engines i tried actually supported it
> > when i did.
> >
> > Instead of making it some special type of roundabout with seperate
> > tagging i'd vote for deprecating the mini_roundabout and adding
> > a tag making the area of the junction=roundabout be an area which is
> > driveable. e.g. why not area=yes on the junction=roundabout.
> >
> > That would add a lot of information - e.g. the size of the roundabout
> > etc - and it would eliminate another "special" case which is mostly
> > unsupported.
> >
> > Flo
> > --
> > Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> > UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:24:30AM +0000, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > > So, for those who like definitions: In the UK, a "mini roundabout" is
> > > simply a small roundabout that is either flush to the road or slightly
> > > raised so that large/long vehicles are able drive over it if they need to.
> > > If it has anything on it, like a lamp post, it is a "roundabout". It is 
> > > not
> > > the size, it is the being able to drive over it that matters
> > > https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561491/mini-roundabouts-report.pdf
> > >
> > There is also the rule that you should not do U turns at mini roundabouts, 
> > so it is important that mapping retains this important distinction.
> > 
> > These are a very common feature, it does seem odd that routers are not 
> > supporting them.
> 
> The point is that a mini roundabout does need a LOT of preprocessing to
> put it into some graph for your classical A* or Dijkstra. You need to
> eliminate the node and replace it with a circular road much like a
> junction.
> 
Not really, a drivers brain does not process them in the same way as a large 
roundabout, with exit number/exit angle. You still go straight on or turn left 
or right.

In the case of OSMand it would simply need some slightly different turn 
graphics. For example the turn left with the blue mini-roundabout sign on it. 
The important one would be the missing instruction to go straight on.

 Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

It is not just a British thing, I have encountered many when driving in France.

The rules and usage are the same as in the UK. 

The other rule that makes them different to other roundabouts is that you 
should not use them to turn around, do U turns.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:42:27PM +0000, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > It is not just a British thing, I have encountered many when driving in 
> > France.
> > The rules and usage are the same as in the UK. 
> > The other rule that makes them different to other roundabouts is that you 
> > should not use them to turn around, do U turns.
> 
> So what is the difference then?
>
You can enter a normal roundabout, do 360 degrees and then be traveling in the 
opposite direction. It is a common and useful navigation decision. Turn 
restrictions are often used to force that behavior.

You should not do that with a mini roundabout.


Phil (trigpoint)

 
> What i know learned:
> 
> - You may traverse the center
> - No more than 4 exits as left/right/straight on wont work
> - You dont expect nav aids to be "2nd exit etc" but a "turn left at" as
>   the navaids are like a junction.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Flo
> -- 
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging