Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Industrial tagging scheme complementing man made=works (was:works:type and works:process)

Hi Martin, I've moved some text around and made the Proposal section a lot shorter - hopefully much easier to read now. Cheers, Daniel On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 15:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 3 May 2024, at 15:39, Daniel Evans > wr

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Industrial tagging scheme complementing man made=works (was:works:type and works:process)

l concepts. Cheers, Daniel On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 at 19:37, Daniel Evans wrote: > Hi all, > > Building on the feeling in the thread on DRI plants, and a number of other > discussions and historic proposals which indicated support for better > industrial tagging, I've put in a pr

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

uot; tags isn't excellent. Cheers, Daniel On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 at 22:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > On 27 Apr 2024, at 10:55, Daniel Evans > wrote: > > works:industry= is an option which is much clearer about exactly what the > tag means.

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

(Apologies for double-posting) Another suggestion on the Wiki is to just use works= directly instead of works:type. It's actually already used in that way in about 1000 cases. Not sure how I missed that! Cheers, Daniel On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 at 09:50, Daniel Evans wrote: > Hi Marc, &g

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for the time you spend on that. > > Le 26.04.24 à 20:37, Daniel Evans a écrit : > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Works:type_and_works:process > > :type is a meaningless suffix > it could be :type=bi

[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

Hi all, Building on the feeling in the thread on DRI plants, and a number of other discussions and historic proposals which indicated support for better industrial tagging, I've put in a proposal for a scheme to provide additional tags for describing industries, building on man_made=works + produc

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

24 at 12:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 26 Apr 2024, at 13:11, Daniel Evans > wrote: > > > > It sounds like your feeling is that the tagging of industrial sites > should be closer to power=plant and the associated plant:x ta

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

08:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 26 Apr 2024, at 09:30, Daniel Evans > wrote: > > > > Differentiating with different `product=` values doesn't seem sensible - > both types of works "produce steel", and gett

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

another way of tagging steel > mills: man_made=works + product=steel wich is way more common (260 times > while industrial=steel_mill is used 70 times) > > Have a nice day ! > Romain > > Le jeu. 25 avr. 2024 à 23:14, Daniel Evans > a écrit : > >> Hi all, >>

[Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

Hi all, In the steel industry, a process which has started gaining adoption in recent years is the production of steel from Direct Reduced Iron (DRI), rather than from pig iron produced from iron ore in a blast furnace. To give context, the two existing widespread methods of steel production are: