Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

+1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David wrote: > "I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.." > > I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my > experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or > track. It does really need to b

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

- Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself, but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at industrial compounds etc. than at campsites; - If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as accurately as possible whe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

One personal factual example; 5 buildings with an area including parking, landscaping etc .. of about 2 square kilometers One reception desk. Yes only one. The node of reception desk is spatially within the area .. so 'connected' to the rest .. as are the car parks within the area. On 1

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

"I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.." I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or track. It does really need to be looked at in context, the issues averaged out by eye. O

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

> -1, I like the idea of OSM maps being consistent on a worldwide basis. I would support the idea of a regional style iff it turns out to be practicable. One, isolated example. One of the reasons i was given for the inability to render unsealed roads was that the "preferred" style, dashed infil

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

On 12/03/2015 7:57 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: On 12/03/2015 05:49, Warin wrote: On 11/03/2015 4:06 AM, Sam Dyck wrote: In Canada, privately licensed frequencies, not CB Humm Why call it a 'channel'? And not 'frequency"? Might reduce confusion with CB radio channels? And why 'haul'? I'm actual

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

> No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the > values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad". But Martin, its not a "good" or "bad" situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smoo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

> Sorry, but amenity= is the wrong key. Should be tourism= IMHO. Hmm, i don't think so. While it may be sometimes, its more of amenity than tourism. Lets take an extreme case, a caravan park. Yes, the most likely role of the caravan park is tourism (but maybe not). But the reception desk is just

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

anything that is big enough to have a reception is better represented by an area than by a node- IMHO. At the time I micromap the reception I'd likely also convert the node POI into an area So how do you now connect the reception with the area? What if you have different levels?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Temperature=

I'll summarise at the end. A clear statement of any opposition, its number on any one point and potential resolution/s or rebuttals can be made then. I'd rather get a good indication of any problems and ideas to go forward through the voting system now that it has started rather than terminate

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

> Am 12.03.2015 um 22:38 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt : > > > Perfect: we'll just invent a new OSM primitive, the "sub node", for > micromapping within a given node. anything that is big enough to have a reception is better represented by an area than by a node- IMHO. At the time I micromap the

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 20:14 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM, johnw wrote: > In certain countries (such as the one I am in) the thick black > line has a single purpose - private train lines. The zebra > striped lines -carto uses are for national

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am 12.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt : > > > > Tagging a node with "reception_desk" is not the given use case. > > > it doesn't matter if it's a node or a small area, most likely it will be > smaller than the feature for whic

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

On 12/03/2015 21:11, John Willis wrote: On Mar 12, 2015, at 6:56 PM, SomeoneElse wrote: The "standard" map has an impossible job - trying to be "a nice map" This is true, and thanks for linking to the resources to set up the server for a special version. However, what I would like to see im

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

> Am 12.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt : > > Tagging a node with "reception_desk" is not the given use case. it doesn't matter if it's a node or a small area, most likely it will be smaller than the feature for which it is the reception cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Andreas Goss wrote: > Look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity and tell me those > don't have reception desks. > And you can't put them inside an amenity if it's just a node of a building > like for example many doctors. > Tagging a node with "recep

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 6:56 PM, SomeoneElse wrote: > > The "standard" map has an impossible job - trying to be "a nice map" This is true, and thanks for linking to the resources to set up the server for a special version. However, what I would like to see implemented, I think, is not impossi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

> Am 12.03.2015 um 21:48 schrieb Brad Neuhauser : > > I'm wondering, there seems to be potential overlap with tourism=information yes, if the feature is tourism related there might be overlap for a subset of information=* This is not a problem as you could either tag both (different keys)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

I'm wondering, there seems to be potential overlap with tourism=information. From what is written on the reception desk page, it seems like the main difference is that the tag reception_desk also controls access to a site, and a reception desk which only gives information may as well be tagged tour

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

On 12/03/2015 17:11, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's technically possible to divide that, at least along fairly coarse boundaries. (not that it's particularly relevant to the tagging list, but just in case anyone wasn't aware) that's what Mapquest already do: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

- "It's not simple at all. Using amenity =* for this makes it impossible to combine it with such POIs. Also why amenity at all? For me it looks like a "I didn't find anything better", I mean amenity =

Re: [Tagging] Rendering of individual power lines in residential areas on default osm-carto

On 12 March 2015 at 02:21, johnw wrote: > I opened a ticket in which I was told it was my fault for thinking it it > was a bad idea and to stop complaining or claiming persecution (which was > really really weird). > Just to be clear, this was not a comment by one of the maintainers of the style

Re: [Tagging] Rendering of individual power lines in residential areas on default osm-carto

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Tim Waters wrote: > In the UK, in urban areas, it is more common to see telephone wires (and > poles) in residential streets than power lines, but again not many mappers > have mapped them. I also think that they are not being rendered currently > in the OSM styl

[Tagging] Resubmitted proposal: mechanically removing all denotation=cluster and fixme=set_better_denotation tags worldwide

Resubmitting by request of maper Sly: The edit described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt was modified based on mailing list input, and sits at complete removal of the "cluster" value for denotation, along with a certain fixme value. The "cluster" value was i

Re: [Tagging] Rendering of individual power lines in residential areas on default osm-carto

Just a couple of observations. The first is that there are not many such elements in urban areas for the "problem" to become an obvious one. This will change if more mappers add power lines and these examples become more obvious. In the UK, in urban areas, it is more common to see telephone wires

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

On Mar 12, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > Sorry, but amenity= is the wrong key. Should be tourism= IMHO. > Tourism for the reception desk for visitors, most likely only business or invited individuals, at a facility of International Corp? That sounds wrong to me. Not sure if it s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > Sorry, but amenity= is the wrong key. Should be tourism= IMHO. > I voted yes for amenity... however I agree the tourism/amenity issue should be worked out and the proposal resubmitted for vote. --- I find "tourism" wrong, because valuab

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

Sorry, but amenity= is the wrong key. Should be tourism= IMHO. /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

I voted yes for this proposal. The same people who are leaving confused comments are likely to be confused at tagging time also. The level of opposition is indicating some sort of problem with the proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:56 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: > > The "standard" map has an impossible job - trying to be "a nice map", > providing feedmap to mappers that an esoteric thing that they've just > mapped is now present on the map and trying to work for everyone around the > world regardless of

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I think the judgement words should be taken out of the tags. *For hiking a "horrible" trail may be nicer than a "smooth" one. Stepping over roots for example is not always unpleasant.* glassy - smooth - rough - bumpy - or an measurement 1-20cm 20-30cm 30-50cm travel:motorcycle={easy:hard:very_

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

(I think of the roads we drove in Kenya), so any input is welcome even if it isn't perfect. We ran into some nasty surprises during our trip because the road quality wasn't tagged at all. +1. I also widely use smoothness=* in Madagascar. Indeed, I use it to describe practicability of roads or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

+1 On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-03-12 2:53 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > >> >> The level of opposition -- regardless of the technical count -- indicates >> the proposal can use some improvement. >> I urge any person getting this level of opposition to recons

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

2015-03-11 16:51 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring : > This is why I am of the view that survey points should be mapped on > separate nodes. I agree, having an area tagged as "survey point" doesn't make much sense, it will be a precise point, typically marked with a metal sign similar to this: http://

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 12:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the > community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something > entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground. I believe the tag "smoothness"

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground. When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to be grade

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this discussion the two are mixed: 1. The physical status of the road is described as well as possible and it is left to the receiver of this information to judge if he/she can use the road. This is quite complex as many p

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:57:28AM +1100, Warin wrote: > > > > Mapping a maze path would reduce the enjoyment of the maze .. at least > for > > me. Even if it was a single path. > > spoiler_warning=yes ? > > I do not think that is necessary: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

2015-03-12 2:53 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > > The level of opposition -- regardless of the technical count -- indicates > the proposal can use some improvement. > I urge any person getting this level of opposition to reconsider, resolve > the issues, and resubmit. > If you look at the actual co

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > Is grade1 now excellent or horrible? > > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like > the values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad". > it really doesn't help you a lot to know whether "good" i

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 10:36 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > I believe that the main problem are the value names. If these were called > grade1 to grade8 many more people would likely use these values and I guess > there would be much fewer objections. > Is grade1 now excellent or horrible? No, numeric va

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Temperature=

Warin, you have a 50/50 split. Maybe it's better to try to address the issues and re-vote the proposal? We could have a good tag, but we are going towards a barely accepted one. My main concern is not even that we don't have the vast majority support, but that the proposal hasn't provided a clear

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

2015-03-12 4:14 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > In certain countries (such as the one I am in) the thick black line has a > single purpose - private train lines. The zebra striped lines -carto uses > are for national lines only (JR lines in Japan), and the thick black lines > are for private railways

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

+1 But make it 1-8 note grade1-grade8 for simplicity IMHO. The grade1-grade5 for tracktype is an error in itself... It does not matter if it's easier or more difficult - the main thing is that people using it should know what they enter. With the current values like good some mappers just us

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

On 12/03/2015 7:57 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: On 12/03/2015 05:49, Warin wrote: On 11/03/2015 4:06 AM, Sam Dyck wrote: In Canada, privately licensed frequencies, not CB Humm Why call it a 'channel'? And not 'frequency"? Might reduce confusion with CB radio channels? And why 'haul'? I'm actual

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM, johnw > wrote: ... which is a real detriment to the OSM/-carto render in Japan ... So create your own rendering (either on your own, or with the rest of the Japanese community). Many different ones exist already - for example if y

Re: [Tagging] Buildings blocks

On Mar 11, 2015 7:44 PM, "Markus Lindholm" wrote: > > On 11 March 2015 at 18:04, althio wrote: > > The trouble is there is no definition yet of city_block > > Not so. When I added it to osm wiki I also put there a reference to > the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 7:24 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > That is a very complex question. You may add bicycle to the vehicles too. > Animals and humans .. too? > > Soft surfaces may not support the vehicle weight (given a tyre size and > number). > > Slippery surfaces may no provide enough tract

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-11 23:15 GMT+01:00 David : > I consider the definitions quite reasonable for this tag. Yes,there is a > degree of subjectiveness there,there has to be given what it is trying to > do. Honestly, we really need to got over this dread fear of being > subjective. Not everything can be measured

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks

2015-03-12 7:54 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm : > >> reference to > >> the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the > >> tag. > > > > and if someone changes the Wikipedia page, the definition for our tag > will change as well? > > > > How likely is that? Not that somebody edits

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

On 12/03/2015 05:49, Warin wrote: On 11/03/2015 4:06 AM, Sam Dyck wrote: In Canada, privately licensed frequencies, not CB Humm Why call it a 'channel'? And not 'frequency"? Might reduce confusion with CB radio channels? And why 'haul'? I'm actually having no success finding examples of th

[Tagging] square_paving_stones:width

As described in paving_stones:n thread there is a problem with surface=paving_stones: values. To offer better alternative for storing information about size of square paving stones I am proposing this tag. Key: square_paving_stones:width Value: size of square paving stone in cm. __

Re: [Tagging] Buildings blocks

Landuse=* is not just about defining a residential area or an industrial zone. I use all of the class landuses to define the individual grounds for a specific company’s factory or for a certain shop. yes, I can use the landuse to define a section, but I just as often use it to define individual

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster

On mercredi 11 mars 2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > in some cases it's modernizing tagging I don't like the sound of "Modernizing tagging in a mechanical way", that should be handeled with care, and time. If you intend to replace all type=deciduous to leaf_cycle=deciduous send a new email with a

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-11 13:53 GMT+01:00 Pieren : > I search an adjective about this tag and I hesitate between "very_bad" > and "horrible" ;-) > In my opinion this tag is pretty bad. > Btw, what's different today about its verifiability ? I think most of > the people rejecting this tag simply ignore the di

Re: [Tagging] Buildings blocks

2015-03-11 12:06 GMT+00:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2015-03-11 12:56 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier : >> >> As you can see, each block is subdivided into land plots - each with a >> courtyard and several buildings that usually all belong to an extended >> family. Those land plots have a strong signif

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

2015-03-11 8:24 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst : > Please > let's not adopt deletionism as well. > +1, seriously. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

Was this RFC ever submitted to the mailinglist? Shop sounds a bit strange to me as you say, maybe it's also just that non-native speakers see it a bit different. But as you say we kinda lack a key for services. On 3/9/15 08:50 , Jan van Bekkum wrote: As the comments period is over and no com

Re: [Tagging] place=block vs. place=city_block (was: Buildings blocks)

Has anyone ever mentioned merging place=block and place=city_block ? I have found no mention of this question. Would the merging of those two tags for an apparently identical concept be beneficial ? Of course after extensive discussion (and I won't be the one advocating either of the two - as l

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:Waste Collection

On 12/03/2015 6:04 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: "not the suggested values on the page .. those are for an indication ONLY .. and should be further discussed and voted on if the proposal is approved." It is strange and confusing - how key is supposed to be used without any valid values? I'

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

On 12/03/2015 5:39 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: I think that we should explicitly include or exclude steepness in the smoothness definition. Opinions? Exclude. 'Steepness' is covered by the incline tag. There is no mention of width or surface in the smoothness tag.. nor should there be. The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:Waste Collection

"not the suggested values on the page .. those are for an indication ONLY .. and should be further discussed and voted on if the proposal is approved." It is strange and confusing - how key is supposed to be used without any valid values? 2015-03-12 2:16 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: