Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or informal swimming holes?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > How best should I tag informal swimming areas? These typically have no > lifeguard or facilities. An example deep-content site for these types of > holes is: > http://www.iforgotthename.com/ > > In OSM is it best to create an area and tag > sport=swimming/name=/access=/fee=no? > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dswimming Hmm. If they have a sign with a name, I'd tag them as name="Ye Olde Swimmin' Hole", or whatever. No sign? then I'd go with whatever physical traits are significant, permanent and verifiable. Tag the parking lot, the stairs, the path, the bike rack, the fire pit, etc. If you have those things, and you've added the name tag for the lake, etc. perhaps you are done. But a node or polygon for a swimming area? How do you confirm that? Decide that it should be n meters wide vs. n+1? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Beach routing
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > OSM US: > > I've been using some routing engines to map fitness routes (e.g. Strava) > that use OSM data. Along our US coasts, there are beaches. The beaches I'm > familiar with are popular with walkers and joggers to go up and down the > shore, since access is generally open to anyone along the water's edge. I'm > considering adding a `highway=path` along the beach to facilitate this. I'd > add the connections to the walking paths between parking lots and the beach > as well. > > For uninterrupted strips of sandy beach, would a path be appropriate to > indicate walkability? Adding a single arbitrary path where an area exists seems a bit of a hack. I recognize that part of the problem that you are trying to address is that routers aren't routing across areas. And that is surely a difficult problem to solve. Is the creation of arbitrary fake-paths a worse problem than not being able to route with specific routing software? Perhaps. A similar situation exists in (micro-)mapping golf courses. Some courses have cart paths with discontinuities. Often those discontinuities direct you to drive the cart (or walk, I'm not "judging" here) on the fairway, until the next section of physical cart path begins. In that situation, I only map the real path, not the virtual path. The another similarity is that users will select different paths for different reasons. Beach walkers may divert towards interesting items on the beach, or away from waves, washouts or debris. Golf players will be guided by course rules, weather rules and the location of their ball. The golf player is probably more likely to complete a predictable circuit. Beach walkers might follow an "out and back" of entirely arbitrary length. Using a router to select a, let's say, 5km stroll, out and back on a beach, seems of limited utility. I suggest, "no path on the beach". Map a boardwalk where one exists, by all means. And adding those access ramps / paths is awesome. ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food
fast_food vs. restaurant, ah yes, a debate for the ages. :-) I used the counter service versus table service distinction for a while, then another mapper from our local group suggested that a distinction with fewer exceptions is: pay before eating (fast_food) vs. pay after eating (restaurant). It isn't a perfect match, but it works pretty well here. If I'm really having a hard time selecting the perfect tag from equally good candidates, I'll check what other local mappers have used and follow their guidance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging a club's meeting location
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:21 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > In addition to being a mapper, I am the secretary of the Nashville Linux > Users Group. I have been debating whether the club's monthly meeting > location should be tagged in OSM, and, if so, what tag to use. The question > arises because the club doesn't have its own dedicated space; instead, it > meets once a month in a particular lecture hall at Vanderbilt University. > For the rest of the month, there is no sign or marker designating the lecture > hall as NLUG's meeting space. > > How should such a meeting location be tagged? Make sure the venue is properly tagged, with address. Add local parking and transit amenities, etc so that the map is really useful. Link to that venue with a permalink, or even better, with a shortlink and marker whenever you want to provide a map. If you want to display the location on your LUG web site, consider using OpenLayers to put a nice big LUG logo on the map (or Tux the Penguin) in your location. Some problems aren't tagging problems. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/1/17 Volker Schmidt : >> it is >> simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional >> information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is >> anyway clear that people do not live on roads. > > you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not > helpful or interesting? You get the border between public and private land _wrong_. In my experience, the property line is not at the curb, but some distance back from the curb. A reserved area is held for utilities, road expansion, snowplow debris, etc. I am not a fan of individual landuse areas for each block, or even worse individual landuse areas from each property / building. There is not necessarily a direct connection between landuse and zoning. Is a home-based daycare residential or commercial, or commercial / residential. (Or residential commercial=permissive) What about a home-based medical practice or barber shop? Locally, zoning is only directly observable when an application for a zoning change requires a posted sign. Even then, While the land owner has "applied for permission to build an 8-storey residential building atop a two-story commercial shopping area (and underground parking)", that isn't the current landuse. It's currently a disused gas station. The correct landuse or zoning is unknowable from a casual OSM foot survey or aerial imagery. Instead, map what is knowable and observable. building=shop, shop=convenience or building=house or amenity=doctors, etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > I'd like to solicit some thoughts on the tagging for special routes > (commonly known as bannered routes)[0]. In route relations, it's > customary to separate the network and the reference number. How do or > should special routes fit into that? > > I'm torn between three views and I'm not sure which of them is the best > fit for the way people think about special routes in a general sense. > > Let's consider one of US Route 1's alternate routes[1]. We can > think of it as: > > * An independent route within the US Highway system whose reference > number happens to be alphanumeric. > network=US:US > ref=1 Alternate (but people might use ref=1 Alt, because that's what's > on some of the signs) > > * A route within the subset of the US Highway system consisting of > alternate routes: > network=US:US:Alternate > ref=1 > > -- > ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ > PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 > --- -- > Wow, I'm being shot at from both sides. That means I *must* be right. > :-) > -- Larry Wall > --- -- > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > * A route related to the main US Route 1, but with an additional tag > indicating that it's a bannered offshoot: > network=US:US > ref=1 > banner=Alternate > > I'm partial to the idea of separating the banner from the reference > number, but I'm not sure how any of these ideas mesh with the > understandings of people with more experience with road networks than I > have. > > tagging@ is included because I'm not sure how global a practice this sort > of thing is, even though it's quite common in the US. > > [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_route > [1]: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannered_routes_of_U.S._Route_1#Alternate_routes adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite option of those above. increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the least surprise to naive consumers of the data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]: >> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite >> option of those above. > > Why? Why add a tag to further describe an arcane, minor detail, in a small portion of the world, when we already have network to do exactly that? :-) >> increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt >> follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the >> least surprise to naive consumers of the data. > > So you get the reverse questions from NE2. };> We (so far) mostly use > the network tag as a hierarchy of ownership, not containment: the US:MD > network is for Maryland's roads and Maryland is in the US, but its roads > are not members of the "US" network. Does it make sense to double up on > the meanings of network tags, so that, say, US:NJ:Business would be a > business route that's a member of the New Jersey state highway network, > but US:NJ:CR would be a county road that's not a member of the state > network? Is it still easier for data consumers if they have to > differentiate between those two cases? > > Compared to the scenario where we add a modifier tag for special routes, > data consumers already have to consider two tags to work with route > relations. Would adding a third make a difference? As I said, "We already got one." :-) I've always considered network as "describing the sign" and ref as "the number on it". When we describe even more details of the sign, that should stay in the same tag. So US 66 (Historic), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Route66_sign.jpg would be ref = 66 network = US:US:historic ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] how to tag hockey rink - NOT ice hockey
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Antony Pegg wrote: > I need to tag a hockey rink - regular hockey, not ice hockey. > > There is no leisure=rink, only leisure=ice_rink > > http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rink > > this is an outdoor boxed-in structure with asphalt or concrete ground to > play hockey on roller blades > > For now I'm going to use leisure=pitch, sport=hockey, surface=concrete and > will edit later based on feedback here > > My thinking is, if I was into inventing tags, it would be something like: > > leisure=rink > surface=concrete/wood/ice > sport=roller hockey (or just hockey, and type is inferred) > > > > but then that would change it from > leisure=ice_rink > sport=ice_hockey or sport=hockey (if if its an ice_rink, do people assume > the type of hockey is ice-based?) > > to > > leisure=rink > surface=ice (as opposed to roller or curling) > sport=roller hockey (or sport=hockey, and type is assumed based on surface?) Interesting. From this side of the 49th parallel, hockey is hockey and roller_hockey, ball_hockey or dare I say it, field_hockey each need the qualifier to avoid confusion. Since, well, hockey is hockey. Since you are referring to an outdoor venue, I'd lean towards, leisure=pitch; sport=roller_hockey; and for clarity or extra marks, add surface=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] name:English, name:Español and l eisure:pitch & pitch:? or sport:?
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2010, at 8:28 AM, David Paleino wrote: > >> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote: >> >>> Is this how to tag them?; >>> name:English Name >>> name:es:Español >>> >>> Or do I need to do this: >>> name:English Name >>> name:es >>> es:Español >> >> name=Name in English >> name:es=Nombre en Español > > Thanks David... was not certain about the colon in the tag name... so it's ok > to use "name:es" as a key name? Yes, the colon is fine in tag keys. You will have to quote them in psql selects. SELECT 'name:es' FROM ... ; I suggest a slight refinement. name=default name in local language name:en=Name in English name:es=Nombre en Español ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How can the US get its stuff together? (was Re: Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap)
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Richard Fairhurst [2010-10-14 10:47 -0700]: >> I think you could largely sum up his criticisms in two broad headings: >> >> 1. US OSM contributors need to get their shit together >> 2. European maps don't look like American ones > > I'm trying to see what sort of consensus exists on some of the issues from > 41 latitude's post. I've sent an email to the talk-us list[0] asking for > feedback and discussion. I encourage anyone who's interested, particulary > people who map in the US, to contribute to the discussion on that list. > > [0]: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004361.html The North American interest in highway signs may be difficult to understand around the world. If I remember correctly one of our Euro-colleagues referred to highway shields as looking "a bit naff". I think that means "good" though. So, highways and road culture play a large role in the life of many North Americans, there are even songs that we know like Route 66, and Highway 61 that show affection for specific roads. There are others. Many others. I was surprised to find this list of road songs on the official US Federal Highway Administration web site. That may help to define the scope of the interest (problem) for our friends who don't see the attraction of highway shields. Even the humorless official bodies in North America like a good road song. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/roadsong.cfm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/10/17 Eugene Alvin Villar : >> be shortened. But it seems that the question about hyphen vs. >> underscore is not resolved? > > > IMHO it should be "drive-through" and not "drive_through", as the > latter is the OSM-form of "drive through" and AFAIK here it is one > term in English and not two. This http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22drive+through%22%2C+%22drive-through%22 suggests the popular form is not hyphenated, but two words. Please can we maintain the customary underscore to join words in values, as found in motorway_link, level_crossing, kent_carriage_gap. name=value has long been an exception to joining words with "_" in values. I don't suggest changing that. And if service=drive_thru is to be revised, perhaps drive_thru=yes/no from Map Features should follow the same plan. Also redirecting drive_thru=yes to drive_in seems very wrong. A drive through and a drive in are very different in my experience. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:drive_thru&redirect=no ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Peter Budny wrote: [ ... ] > I forgot to mention control cities > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_city). > These are cities that are designated for use on highway signs to > indicate which direction you're heading. These should definitely appear > on the map, even if they're relatively small cities (e.g. Valdosta, > Georgia). Control cities for highway destination signs are only important on maps for which control cities on highway destination signs are important. Tagging Valdosta as control_city=yes might make sense, but tagging it as prominent=yes does not. Just as tagging Athens, GA as 80s_band_origin_city=yes might make sense, but tagging it as prominent=yes does not. Even if you are making a Cities of the 80s Bands Map. So don't promote Valdosta based on one aspect of the nature of Valdosta. Tell OSM about the nature of Valdosta then render it based on the aspects that are important for your audience. Not everybody cares about my band map. Or your highway control cities. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ant The Limey wrote: > PS: I will buy beers at SOTM 2011 for anyone who can sing the Jibrovian > national anthem to me :) That's one more beer for IvanSanchezOrtega. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ultimate list of approved keys
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote: > Hi, > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features lists a certain portion of > approved tags. > > - Why only a part of all approved tags are mentioned here? One of the key strengths of OpenStreetMap is that there is no approval process required for tags. The closest thing that we have to an official policy on this is "use any tag" as reflected here http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/116/which-tags-do-i-use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/671/how-do-i-propose-an-official-tag So while any tag is possible, some tags are better than others. There are many guidelines to determine better tags, for example, duplicating an existing tag with a different spelling makes little sense. Some OSM editing programs have presets for various objects that make tagging simpler. Those tags will be used more often than other variations. Some tags are more likely to be rendered in various map rendering styles. Those tags that are rendered are often more appealing to mappers because mappers like feedback. There is overlap, though perhaps not 100%, between these two sets of tags. That doesn't make them "official" though. > - Where should I go to find the ultimate list of approved tags? There isn't one. There are several tools that let you see all of the tags currently in use in the OSM data base, and show the relative frequency of use. This is very helpful if you want to decide between existing tags, though some find these sites a little imposing initially. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] "by_appointment"
The taginfo seem to be silent on how to tag a shop or service that is only open by appointment. A discussion on the wiki has some interesting points. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#Museum_opens_only_on_request opening_hours=by_appointment seems logical but collides with conventional opening_hours. Perhaps opening_hours:by_appointment=* using the same format as opening_hours, so that a location that is open weekdays, and by appointment evenings and weekends might be tagged as opening_hours=Mo-Fr 09:00-17:00 opening_hours:by_appointment=Mo-Fr 18:30-22:00 Sa-Su 10:00-13:00 We've not used any indication that an appointment is required for tags like amenity=doctors. Can we just leave that be as it seems to have been presumed opening_hours:by_appointment=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Sports_centre, gym, dojo
May will be sport and activity month for Project of the Week / Project of the Month. Some aspects of tags in this space are well understood and widely used. Can we clear up a few more of them? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=sports_centre might include racquet sport courts, a gymnasium, exercise equipment, a running track and an ice hockey rink. leisure=pitch, sport=* is well established. What is the ideal tagging for a shop with exercise equipment for use. Treadmills, stair climbers, stationary bikes, free weights and weight machines for use by members. Local slang here might call that a "gym". amenity=gym is used in ~400 locations with sport=gym and leisure=gym each near 50. Also locally, a "gymnasium" is a large indoor sport floor which can be configured for multiple sports like gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, murderball, etc. taginfo says only 16 instances of leisure=gymnasium are in OSM at the moment. A lone gymnasium would seem unusual around here. They are typically included as part of a leisure=sports_centre. Does that match with experiences elsewhere? Is the distinction between gym and gymnasium too fine? Should synonyms be found? And what about martial arts dojos? Amenity=dojo and sport=dojo are rare indeed with only a handful of entries. A dojo might be part of a gym that has a sport floor or held as an event at a sports_centre. Others are stand alone businesses. Around here, they are often in a retail store front, with a sport fioor of some sort, and changing rooms. They might also sell some of the tools or clothing associated with the sport. I'm inclined towards amenity=dojo, sport=martial_arts, martial_art=$specific_art ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
