Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Thanks, this makes much sense. - I will update the proposal to use the key covered instead of different values for the type of storage - I will also change car to vehicle covering caravans, boats, etc. as well - I agree that amenity or shop would be better that parking as the ty

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, johnw wrote: > I think he’s trying to say that “a storage amenity” is different from "a > parking amenity”, because it is not something you would seek out on the map > when looking for parking (even long term airport parking, i think) - but > rather something you’

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

On 20/02/2015 1:22 PM, johnw wrote: I think he’s trying to say that “a storage amenity” is different from "a parking amenity”, because it is not something you would seek out on the map when looking for parking (even long term airport parking, i think) - but rather something you’d seek out when

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

I think he’s trying to say that “a storage amenity” is different from "a parking amenity”, because it is not something you would seek out on the map when looking for parking (even long term airport parking, i think) - but rather something you’d seek out when looking for a storage facility for yo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Oh .. you want to determine if the parking is covered or not? then http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered and/or use the present values of the key parking= underground, sheds, carports, garage_boxes, multi-storey ? any other value or missing tags take as uncovered? Adds no tags .. jus

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Would apply to travellers flying or going on a sea voyage for some time. The parking= key looks to give information on the physical layout of the parking - underground/ground level only, multi-story etc. So may not be the best place for this information? Would not the tag maxstay give some c

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 14:00 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The goal of mentioning Elsan is so someone searching will find it. > It's an alias. Do you mean in the context of the suggested "brand=Elsan" ? I just added a comment to the page questioning this. > > > Dump Stations apply to boats also.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Please have a look at this feature proposal . *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

The goal of mentioning Elsan is so someone searching will find it. It's an alias. Dump Stations apply to boats also. Some require a pumpout on the dock, others you carry the toilet to the dump point, yet others there is a pump on the boat. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

On 19/02/2015 11:01 PM, ael wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:23:38PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: 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 That looks fine. Although not common in UK English, it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

On 19/02/2015 9:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-02-18 23:09 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waste_collection I believe there are still some issues with this proposal. For one the concept

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - dump_station

On Feb 18, 2015 4:38 PM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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= - e

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

On Feb 18, 2015 8:13 PM, "Dave Swarthout" wrote: >The French tried to prevent new words from creeping into what they consider pure French too. The most amusing of which I'm aware of makes the following names equivalent in Canada: KFC, PFK, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Poulet Frit Kentucky... ___

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

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > amenity=elsan_point ? > > > While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. > > > or > > > amenity=chec

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > How is routing software supposed to know that some aerialway=goods are > actually taking passengers? like roads tagged with "access=no" or "private". Or "highway=pedestrian" not allowed for cars. We create simple tags for the average contribu

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

On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -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. > > My +1 wasn't for the trade name Elsan.

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 06:55 +0900, John Willis wrote: > > 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 things to > play on and, on three occasions, I have found ~ 10m zip line like rides. They

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 06:55 +0900, John Willis wrote: > > 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 things to > play on and, on three occasions, I have found ~ 10m zip line like rides. They

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 06:55 +0900, John Willis wrote: > > 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 things to > play on and, on three occasions, I have found ~ 10m zip line like rides. They

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

> Am 19.02.2015 um 13:12 schrieb Andreas Labres : > > The only alternative there is a helicopter flight... or a mule ;-) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

Richard, Those "Materialseilbahnen" (ropeways for goods) are typical in the Alps to supply alpine huts (where everybody can get something to eat and stay overnight) with everything that is needed. The only alternative there is a helicopter flight... On 19.02.15 12:24, Richard Z. wrote: > try ha

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:23:38PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > 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 That looks fine. Although not common in UK English, it is transparent and obvious. So +

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

2015-02-19 12:43 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. : > in addition to that I think any large enough maze should be mapped with > highway=maze or highway=path, dead end markers and emergency exits. > +1 and telephone number and capacity. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging

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

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -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. My +1 wasn't for the trade name Elsan. chemical_toilet_disposal_point seems obvious and transparent to

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:48:33PM +0900, johnw wrote: > I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze > is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger > complex. > > Then it would be > > tourism=attraction > attraction=maze > maze=he

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > 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. well the key is already here and perfect fit for ae

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

2015-02-19 12:24 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. : > try harder to find an english word for the special aerialway in the > picture becuase > mappers all over the world have been using this improperly to map large > mining and > industrial aerialways. > why do you think this is improper usage? The current

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 05:57:47AM +0100, Andreas Labres wrote: > 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 th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

2015-02-18 23:09 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waste_collection > I believe there are still some issues with this proposal. For one the concept is still not clear/logical with the currently suggested values IMHO you should deci

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

Some forms of mazes and labyrinths 1. - part of or entire garden (often of a castle or stately home or similarly representative building), like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Longleat_maze.jpg or this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Hedge_Maze,

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

There are some super famous ones in Japan in hat appear in the same field every year - I imagine there is some seasonal tag system to tag when it appears. There is also a yearly field used for making a giant pice of art. I wonder if artwork + a time or seasonal tag would work, as it appears in

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

maze=maize Probably too temporary for osm but they do appear every summer in the same area, moving with crop rotation. The farmer cuts paths through the maize and places a raised platform in the middle Phil (trigpoint ) On Thu Feb 19 09:48:33 2015 GMT, johnw wrote: > I think it should be k k

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

2015-02-19 10:20 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > The usuall OSM practice is to have one tag xxx=maze and then have a sub > tag to distinguish the type of maze. Why this exception .. other than poor > practice in the past? > you seem to imply that there is just one way to look at the

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger complex. Then it would be tourism=attraction attraction=maze maze=hedge or attraction:maze=hedge instead of attraction=maze + maze=hedge (

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

2015-02-19 10:27 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > I'd do > > tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork. > > and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types > .. see wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze > I agree. It's simple and to t

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

On 19/02/2015 8:15 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The problem with tourism=attraction attraction=maze Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. So maybe: tourism=attraction type=maze subtypes=labyrinth;hedge I'd do tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, mu

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

On 19/02/2015 7:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: there are also few amenity=maze and historic and tourism. The key attraction is used according to the wiki for features on a playground or in a theme park. Given the huge variety of maze types (ranging from built ones in masonry, ones made of

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

The problem with tourism=attraction attraction=maze Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. So maybe: tourism=attraction type=maze subtypes=labyrinth;hedge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://l

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

there are also few amenity=maze and historic and tourism. The key attraction is used according to the wiki for features on a playground or in a theme park. Given the huge variety of maze types (ranging from built ones in masonry, ones made of vegetation to those ornaments carved into historic b

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

Yes Mateusz, +1 from me, sounds good - Dan 2015-02-19 8:00 GMT+00:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > I think that attraction=maze is better than attraction:type (shorter, > without colon, "type" is not > really adding anything useful, clear detailing of tourism=attraction). > > 2015-02-19 3:59 GMT+01:00 Bry

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station

Well done Bryce, I did not realise that there was a 'failed' attempt to get this through as dumpstation in the past ! The name may not be ideal IMHO but I'll definitely vote for it. Mind if I add a bit of the recent history, how we arrived at this proposal ? David On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:23

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

I think that attraction=maze is better than attraction:type (shorter, without colon, "type" is not really adding anything useful, clear detailing of tourism=attraction). 2015-02-19 3:59 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > If it's of interest to outsiders it seems like an attraction. Thus how > about: >