[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

It's clear there's on one term that's perfect. Moving on, here is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station For your edits and participation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station (side talk)

Indeed Dave, here there is a lot of resistance to "American Spelling", we like to put a 'u' in colour, honour etc. Joke is, the American way is the older (and therefore correct ?) way. Seems you lot took (eg) 'color' with you on the Mayfair at a time when English did spell it 'color' and later it

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

On 18.02.15 14:36, Richard Z. wrote: > suggest deprecating this particular value of aerialway -1 A "Materialseilbahn" is a special type of aerialway (Seilbahn) and should have its own value. See the picture linked in the wiki. This is not a cable car, this is not a gondola, it is a "Materialseilb

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

> On Feb 19, 2015, at 7:51 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Your words 'dangerous' immediately brought to mind ... > There is an 'adult' playground in Manash, South Australia ... there have been > a number of adult deaths there > ..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash,_South_A

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

> On Feb 19, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > If it's of interest to outsiders it seems like an attraction. Thus how about: > > tourism=attraction > attraction:type=maze > name=Happy Tunnel Kiddie Maze > website=http://maze.example.org/ What other informa

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

If it's of interest to outsiders it seems like an attraction. Thus how about: *tourism=attraction* *attraction:type=maze* *name=Happy Tunnel Kiddie Maze* *website=http://maze.example.org/ * You want all those similar features (maze/tube hill/ride/garden/water park/wha

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

> On Feb 19, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Seeing as a maze is not an "attraction" for me, I would prefer the first > option. > > Moreover, I would have assumed attraction was a subkey of tourism=attraction > but apparently it is not. There are many uses of the term but the

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

Bryce, here in Australia, we use a lot of UK terms (and frown on the horrid American ones creeping into our vocabulary). But no one here uses Elsan. Now, now David. There is a reason those "horrid American" terms are creeping into your vocabulary. The French tried to prevent new words from creepin

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 15:11 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Thus: > amenity=toilet_waste_dump > amenity=chemical_toilet_disposal > amenity=chemical_toilet_disposal_point > amenity=toilet_holding_tank_disposal > Is it fair to say that none of those terms are widely used ? But, yes, valid. But plea

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:06 +, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > An alternative description found on camping/caravanning sites in the > UK is a "Chemical Disposal Point" or CDP. > Wow, think so ? As I see it, "dump station" is likely to be recognised in at least North (and maybe South) America and Austr

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

Seeing as a maze is not an "attraction" for me, I would prefer the first option. Moreover, I would have assumed attraction was a subkey of tourism=attraction but apparently it is not. There are many uses of the term but the tag attraction=* was proposed in 2008 but never voted on or accepted. htt

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - temperature

Added 'mild' with note. Changed the order to reflect what I think will be the more frequent use. Tried to add separation horizontal bar to the table for clarity. On 12/02/2015 5:38 PM, johnw wrote: tepid and mild are synonyms, so tepid should cover mild in that way. usually tepid is for liqu

[Tagging] ?=maze

The value maze is used some 224 times ... but it is split between leisure=maze 77 attraction=maze 147 So the usage is split about even.. What would be preferred? Both are applicable... none are documented .. and I'd like to document one .. so the question which is best? ___

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > An alternative description found on camping/caravanning sites in the UK is > a "Chemical Disposal Point" or CDP. > In the context of motor homes, CDP is fine. In a general context, it's unclear what chemicals one might be disposing of (Love

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

An alternative description found on camping/caravanning sites in the UK is a "Chemical Disposal Point" or CDP. Dudley > From: dban...@internode.on.net > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:33:31 +1100 > Subject: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station > > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:3

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

On 19/02/2015 8:55 AM, John Willis wrote: Btw the playground-type zipwires which I see in nearby parks are around 50 meters, are the 10m types predominant in your place? Richard Something so "dangerous" in the US for children's playgrounds were removed a long time ago, but in Japan, they sti

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - dump_station

On 19/02/2015 8:19 AM, David Bannon wrote: Subject renamed for clarity. * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) ...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station On Wed, 2015

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

After over a week of comments on the proposal of a new key rubbish= .. this is the replacement by a new proposal for the new key: waste_collection. The same points for this proposal exist as for the key:rubbish .. but with a better name. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

On 19/02/2015 8:33 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:33 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. Bryce, here in Australia, we use a lot of UK terms (and frown on the

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

> > Btw the playground-type zipwires which I see in nearby parks are around > 50 meters, are the 10m types predominant in your place? > > Richard Something so "dangerous" in the US for children's playgrounds were removed a long time ago, but in Japan, they still have plenty of giant steel th

[Tagging] elsan v dump_station

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:33 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > amenity=elsan_point ? > While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. > or > > amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. > Bryce, here in Australia, we use a lot of UK terms (and frown on the horrid American ones creeping into

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - dump_station

Subject renamed for clarity. * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) >> ...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:31 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/helpandadvice/gettingstarted/campingequipment/toilets/ ___ Tagging mailing list Taggin

Re: [Tagging] Tagging opening_hours controlled by enclosing way

> Am 18.02.2015 um 18:47 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt : > > For example an ATM or Toilet or aed that's open to the public, but inside a > train station that itself closes at 11pm? in theory there is no need to add this information to the poi if you map the containing feature as an area and add ap

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 07:36:16PM +, SomeoneElse wrote: > > > >Remember that OSM tags are based on UK English. dump_station should be > >fine. > > > > Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but I'd never heard the term before this > thread. When I had caravan holidays inflicted upon me as a chi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On 18/02/2015 19:15, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Remember that OSM tags are based on UK English. dump_station should be fine. Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but I'd never heard the term before this thread. When I had caravan holidays inflicted upon me as a child, "Elsan* disposal point" wa

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > How long can this discussion continue? > Let's try approaching this a different way: what are some reasons for _not_ > adopting this tag? I don't buy into the notion that there are too many > amenity tags. A dump_station is just as much an

[Tagging] Tagging opening_hours controlled by enclosing way

How should we tag a node with opening hours controlled by a destinatio?. For example an ATM or Toilet or aed that's open to the public, but inside a train station that itself closes at 11pm? * Tagging the true opening hours is fragile, as that's repeated data between the destination and the object

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Tobias Knerr wrote: >The odd one out is clearly that introduction of the Key:maxheight page. >And that also used to clearly state that the key refers to legal limits, >until this edit: >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Amaxheight&diff=806806&oldid=762233 The history of the desc

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:49 PM, fly wrote: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aerialway#Usage -1 I don't like such general keys like "usage" (or "type") in general. Basically, it could be used in all tags (e.g. highway=yes + usage=residential). It's not because it is now spread in railw

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

Am 18.02.2015 um 14:36 schrieb Richard Z.: > suggest deprecating this particular value of aerialway as there are > much better ways to map industrial/freight lines with usage=* and > foot=* type restrictions. > > The new description is already in: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aeri

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

On 18/02/2015, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 18.02.2015 10:39, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Allow me to disagree: >> >> * maxheight is defined this way. Having maxwidth defined differently >> is asking for trouble. > > I agree with you that we should define all the max* keys in the same > way. But it wo

[Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

Hi, suggest deprecating this particular value of aerialway as there are much better ways to map industrial/freight lines with usage=* and foot=* type restrictions. The new description is already in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aerialway#Usage discussion: http://wiki.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:09:10PM +0900, John Willis wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Am 17.02.2015 um 21:52 schrieb Richard Z. : > >> > >> Deciding between the two would be always arbitrary > > > > > > I'd not expect p

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 13:23 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout : > ? I don't buy into the notion that there are too many amenity tags. yes, this is something that occassionally pops up, but there is really no actual problem behind this. Maybe the idea is that someone offering presets to his users (for example) wou

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

Er, not the tag. I meant the term dump station. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > How long can this discussion continue? > > Several agree that waste=dump_station is ambiguous, and I think all the > other top level waste=* proposals are too. That tag must be subservient t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

How long can this discussion continue? Several agree that waste=dump_station is ambiguous, and I think all the other top level waste=* proposals are too. That tag must be subservient to another top level tag to remove its inhereht ambiguity I'm pushing for amenity=dump_station because it isn't am

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

> On Feb 18, 2015, at 5:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > >> Am 17.02.2015 um 21:52 schrieb Richard Z. : >> >> Deciding between the two would be always arbitrary > > > I'd not expect practical problems (inside a playground vs not), and > distinguishing the two will help whe

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

2015-02-18 12:10 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > So imo the easiest way to get back to a consistent situation is to > revert that change. > +1 this is just another prove that changes to tagdefinitions should be preceded by a discussion to reduce the probability of inconsistencies. cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

On 18.02.2015 10:39, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Allow me to disagree: > > * maxheight is defined this way. Having maxwidth defined differently > is asking for trouble. I agree with you that we should define all the max* keys in the same way. But it would actually make much more sense to achieve t

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

"I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or appropriate tag to the area." It is absurd to tag parking as amenity=place_of_worship or include it in this area - it is not a place of worship. Maybe landuse=religious has problems, but it is a better solution for cases like this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-18 10:04 GMT+01:00 David Bannon : > > > I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station > > > semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a > place type to put waste > > > True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people > use in the tag seem

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

On 18/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Am 17.02.2015 um 19:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : >> maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) > > -1, maxfoo was always defined as a legal restriction so this function should > go into your data evaluator but not be the rule for the data entering ma

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:53 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station > semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place > type to put waste > True. But fact is thats the term people use. And using the term people use i

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

On 18/02/2015, Colin Smale wrote: > As lots of people frequently point out, what about emergency vehicles? > They can (often) ignore legal restrictions, but not physical ones: > > if(i_am_an_emergency_vehicle) > > maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) > > else > > maxfoo = maxfoo:physical;

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 22:42 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The point of a standalone tag is that it has a clear focus. If thee's > a recycling bin next to a dump station, > that recycling bin can and should be a different node. > Agree. > The key should probably be sanitary_dump_station or rv_d

Re: [Tagging] Spatial triggers/conditions changing/affecting tags elsewhere

> Am 07.02.2015 um 23:04 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen : > > Would it make sense to define some kind of relation to handle > these case so that a proper *:conditional=* could be applied on > the relation so that the tag transformations would be in a > machine-readable form? sounds reasonable chee

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

As lots of people frequently point out, what about emergency vehicles? They can (often) ignore legal restrictions, but not physical ones: if(i_am_an_emergency_vehicle) maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) else maxfoo = maxfoo:physical; On 2015-02-17 19:57, moltonel 3x Combo wr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

> Am 17.02.2015 um 17:54 schrieb John F. Eldredge : > > If the power supply is given to frequent, unscheduled breakdowns, this is > useful to know, but can't be covered by a schedule tag. this can occur on various levels (eg regional or just on one facility) and depends on various factors

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

I added a clarification to the limitations section, as after rereading the comments and the wiki page trying to understand Andreas' position, and realized that there was no talk of exceptions when the school or other small facility was considered as an amenity to the main religious complex. I

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

> Am 17.02.2015 um 19:57 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : > > maxfoo = min(maxfoo:physical, maxfoo:legal) -1, maxfoo was always defined as a legal restriction so this function should go into your data evaluator but not be the rule for the data entering mapper cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

> Am 17.02.2015 um 21:52 schrieb Richard Z. : > > Deciding between the two would be always arbitrary I'd not expect practical problems (inside a playground vs not), and distinguishing the two will help when rendering and you wanted different rules according to context cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

> Am 18.02.2015 um 01:07 schrieb John Willis : > > There is no building named "abc shopping center" - the complex's landuse is > named that, and the buildings are the individual shops. its not the landuse which has the name, landuses are attributes, the shopping center is a shop (?) entity

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

> Am 18.02.2015 um 00:12 schrieb Andreas Goss : > > And if there is a amenity=school in the centre of a monastary I have to cut > it out. Nice. you won't have to cut it out, you can have a big area amenity =monastery with overlapping smaller areas pow and school (given they'd be part of th