Re: [Tagging] Meeting point

Amenity is definitely better. I used them more as a business traveller than as a tourist. On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Yes, that would be OK. > > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:41:33 +0900 > John Willis wrote: > > > I think the meeting point has a name beyond "meeting poin

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

Dave, I wasn't intending to have another try at camp_type=*. We'll leave on our next trip in less than two weeks from now, so I don't have the time. I also will be not able to complete another voting cycle until I'll be without decent internet again. Furthermore I haven't seen better proposals la

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this discussion ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*) was to cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that are use

Re: [Tagging] inuse, defacto

Why is it important? The main thing that matters is than only one definition exists for an item, irrespective of how often it is used. On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:46 PM Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 18.04.2015 09:31, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > So far we have 3 parameters: number of OSM objects, numb

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

Alternatively you could use brand=moneygram;western_union;orlandi_valuta On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:28 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services > > (like

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram rather than money_transfer:moneygram=yes to be consistent with other businesses like gas station

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/camp type=*

The voting was officially closed by today, but I'll leave it open for another week. So far 13 people have voted. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > I agree that we should not use

Re: [Tagging] Straw pole Temperature=objective default unit?

As a physicist I don't like any value without units. The degree symbol is not needed, but C would be great: 21 C, 70 F. On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 6:43 AM John Willis wrote: > If it's 42 f, you'd go into hypothermia almost instantly. =} > > Assuming c unless explicit should be enough for mapping. >

Re: [Tagging] Straw pole Temperature=objective default unit?

I would prefer a degree symbol. Otherwise you never can be sure that C is meant by a mapper from a F region. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:13 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > I think that, as for elevations, it should default to degrees Celsius. > That is, taking the number 20 as a value would mean 20 degr

Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=

Mosques often have separate entrances for men and women. On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:34 AM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Sounds good. > > Is there a similar dual entrance concept for other classes of building, or > is this just a school thing? > > -- > Many western buildings have a service entrance, but t

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

I don't say that tourist, scout, refugee should be outside OSM. My statement is that the group key (tourism, shop, highway, ...) is not needed, as all information is in the value (hotel, supermarket, motorway, ...). Attribute tags that give more information about the main key (opening_hours=...) re

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

I like recommended by 25 users, but then I would also want to know how many users oppose the idea: 25-0 is not the same as 25-24. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:14 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recomme

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

Is "supported" reasonable? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 03.04.2015 11:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of "Approved" to > > read "Published" > > I would prefer to stay with "approved". Using "published" would not > act

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published > and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag > without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't e

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

This is an example of a more general discussion: the distinction between land use (what it looks like) and what function it has. Similar cases are being discussed for a building that looks like a church, but is not used for religious services or a reception desk that is hidden in a non-descript bui

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM Dan S wrote: > 2015-04-03 10:22 GM

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

I will definitely use the proposed tag where applicable. The issue of adding a relation is close to the ongoing discussion about mapping amenities on camping sites: *Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites.* >> This is the only critically important aspect IMO. For a building hosting > multiple

Re: [Tagging] RFC - proposal page for camp_site=

Does any formal definition of a postfix to a key exist? A prefix in prefix:key like in abandoned:shop tells something about the state for the key. In a proposal like camp_site:restaurant=yes it means that restaurant belongs to camping (a kind of site relation in a line). In practice in this exam

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*

Corrected where applicable On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:33 PM Pieren wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > > > Not sure about the typo : is it "non-designated" or "non_designated" ? > > Pieren > > ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*

re" > (or in character) that will make it grammatically correct. > > Cheers, > Dave > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> After an intensive discussion (see [Tagging] Tagging established, >> unofficial and wild campings) that has resulte

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*

. Proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D* Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

I decided not to include the scout camp, because it then still might be confused with a place where ordinary campers can stay (like is the case with all options in the proposal). After the long discussion I have tried to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else will st

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our discussions. It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation) and does no longer classify on facility level, ease of access or pricing. It can be found here . Re

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

lready various other attributes defined on that page and it would be > natural to include your tag there as well. > > Ole / opani > > On 28/03/2015 22:35, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in > > the tourism se

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

I just followed the post voting instructions that ask for the listing. There is no condition for a minimal number of votes. I believe it is good to have a single list with all approved tags. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:48 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Am 28.03.2015 um 22:12 schrieb Michał

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in the tourism section. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski wrote: > You have to edit the Map Features template. > > Michał > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

So what is the voting for then: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process? On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:57 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> >>> It means that you create new tags for objects for which approve

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

> > > > What if I know the camp site has a showers, a swimming pool and a dump > station, but I don't know where on the site they are? > Thus: > > *tourism=camp_site* > *showers=yes* > *swimming_pool=yes* > *dump_station=yes* > > > It means that you create new tags for objects for which approved ta

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Hi Dave, I agree with that. I am thinking about camp_type=*. Also usable for scout camps? On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:11 AM David Bannon wrote: > > > On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > 1. Get a high level of classification of campsit

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

Conclusion for my own mapping efforts from the discussion so far: start with stacked amenities until you know something about the campsite topology, then make nodes/polygons per amenity. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Am 28.03.2015 um 12:26 schrieb Marc G

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

Bryce, This is not the right example. All tags in your example are attributes that belong to the camp_site, no need for extra nodes; you are fully correct there. What I am talking about is multiple namespace tags in a single node: tourism=camp_site amenity=restaurant;shower;bar;swimming_pool shop

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Some participants in this discussion feel we are making little progress. The cause is that contributors have two different agenda's: 1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the relation between the land owner and the camper 2. Get a classification of regular campsites

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

What do I see on the map when I use the stacked amenity model? A campsite symbol with a restaurant below it or a restaurant symbol with a campsite below it? A search in OsmAnd will give me the campsite in all cases, but it cannot always show all tags below it, so I don't know all amenities by looki

Re: [Tagging] How does an end user use camp site data ?

I don't agree that we don't make progress, but we have different agendas. I put a proposal how to solve this in the original mailing list. If I am in a country with abundant campsite (France) I start looking for a campsite one hour before I want to stop and I base my choice on location and facilit

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

So, explicit mapping is needed. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:20 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28/03/2015 1:48 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> However, places you select for security or for av

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

> > m > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> So if you don't know the real shape of the polygon it would be best to >> create a placeholder polygon (like a circle - it will be clear that it is a >> placeholder) and put all amenit

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

True On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:24 PM Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > > Hi Pieren, > > I have mapped those myself only in cases other reasons > > existed to map than. > > But this is not what the first section sugge

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

So if you don't know the real shape of the polygon it would be best to create a placeholder polygon (like a circle - it will be clear that it is a placeholder) and put all amenities inside it until the real shape is known. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:33 AM Marc Gemis wrote: > Overpass understands

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

more of an issue in Africa than in Europe, but in countries without a camping culture you need this. In my earlier mail I have given a number of examples of such places that we visited. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan van Bekkum >

[Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

g of nodes incorrect if layout of camping area is not known, (2) use of relations felt to be difficult by some mappers. All in all I personally prefer option 4. Opinions? Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

After yesterday's discussion I thought about the wording a bit more: - We can use *camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality* for the hotels, hostels etc. that don't have a separate camping area or amenities but offer a place at their parking and some way of access to amenities for payment a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 > rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: > http://wiki.openstre

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

ing? > > Jonathan > > http://bigfatfrog67.me > > *From:* Jan van Bekkum > *Sent:* ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎11 > > *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > > Fortunately we had those as well: > https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Fortunately we had those as well: https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641 > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

he is > nothing “Wild” about it. > > All of these examples can be covered by existing tags. > > Jonathan > > ----------- > http://bigfatfrog67.me > > *From:* Jan van Bekkum > *Sent:* ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎12‎:‎36 > > *To:* Tag discuss

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not listed. For overlanders this information is too important not to have it mapped somehow. Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that shou

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated > > campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia, > > Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and > > enjo

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

an see the quality of the places varies wildly. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on > availability of services, whil

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation between the camper and the land owner: - Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is) i

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

nated category. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > > > I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was > > my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is no

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

> > Need to start another topic for this? That would separate it out from > "established, unofficial and wild campings". > Makes sense. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Dave, > > > IMHO these amenities are not "stand alone", they are attributes of the > camp ground itself. For things like fire places and BBQ, might be one > for every pitch. I'm not into micro mapping ! > > This is correct for BBQ's, but not for big amenities like restaurants, bars and shops, wh

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities in a relation. I really do want to keep *non-designated* as currently proposed. It was

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

> Using a relation in any case you see all amenities: when I find a > campground on the map I see a restaurant in its direct neighbourhood, etc., > even if the relation isn't handled at all by the renderer. I am not so > afraid of mapping relations. The site relation is very simple. > If I don't

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

What we discuss here is a classification of campgrounds. In addition we need tags that spell out available facilities. Those tags should be separate discussions (this is already complex enough to bring to closure :-( ). See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site and http://

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

w attributes in this proposal as each of them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the discussions. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ​Before I update the proposal ​ ___ Tagging maili

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM, David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote > > > > Are we better saying - > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

In Africa we have been desperately looking for such places. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close to what I had in mind with camp_site=designated. So the updated proposal would become: - Designated - standard, designated (duplication of tourism=caravan_site), trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

tween designated (in the broader sense), non designated (not much discussed here, but for me the most important reason to start the topic) and informal. We could decide to recombine the current *Standard*, *Designated *and *Trekking.* Indeed we could leave the other details to attributes. Regards, Ja

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

> > How does the tagging differ from an unstaffed filling station where you > enter your credit card and fill up the tank of your car yourself 24/7 like > I seem them all over the place in the Netherlands? In the situation you > describe I really prefer shop=*. > Regards, Jan > > At these places

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Martin, I agree with the proposal to have a different main tag for informal sites; something like tourism=wild_camp. I guess some kind of RV/trekking attribute would work as well, What we now are looking for is the proper distinction between 1, 2 and 4. It should be one attribute key to distinguis

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement, let > them be mentioned as optional > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I have renamed "commercial" to "standard" as it is the most common >> campground an

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

tegory of campground (definition and examples). Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

+5 I fully agree with Dave! We need a clear differentiation between regular filling stations with large underground containers and the shops that sell a few liters of diesel of which you may hope that it isn't polluted and doesn't contain water. When I travel in countries like Malawi or Ethiopia I

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

I can't imagine that people who are able to provide mapping input for OSM are not able to work with forums etc. Moderation is something you have to agree upon before. The OSM community can decide not to moderate. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-03-23 10:43 GM

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

There is also more risk that fuel sold for cars is more polluted or that water was added. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

If I would have to choose between the options I would go for full_service, but I leave this to the native speakers. If I get the same service and pay the same for a state run campground as for a privately run one it can be called commercial. Is it a problem if tourism=camp_site wouldn't get the at

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

For example in Sweden you are not allowed to camp in view of any home etc. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:22 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 08:02 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > ... > > > I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the > > tag camp_site=perm

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

What Dave Bannon says is exactly what I have in mind. #6 was intended for parks with larger areas where camping is allowed. I have made a few adaptations to the text to clarify the issue I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the tag camp_site

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

ng.n.16.png as currently in place > > > > Why do you use the word undefined. It's the first time that word > > appears in the proposal and has no . I think you should say, > > commercial sites or sites that are tagged tourism=camp_site but have > > no other clarify

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

I have updated the proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D*> with the feedback as much as possible. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John Willis wrote: > > I un

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

Willis wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > > There is a similar confusion for kerosine (US), paraffine (UK), petroleum > (NL); it all the same liquid > > > Yikes! > > Paraffin is a wax, and petroleum is

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

There is a similar confusion for kerosine (US), paraffine (UK), petroleum (NL); it all the same liquid. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM johnw wrote: > On Mar 20, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 20/03/2015 6:20 PM, John Willis wrote: > > > I haven't had a chance to

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

It is expected that most renderers only look at the namespace tag, not at the attributes. How do we ensure that I don't end up at a "bottle store" while I expect a decent filling station. I am afraid that we pollute the amenity=fuel tag if we use it for fuel out of a drum as well? We really should

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search, On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:26 PM Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 19/03/2015 15:42, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was > > proposed earlier). > > Then you

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was proposed earlier). On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:32 PM sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: > Jan van Bekkum wrote > > It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and > > vote > > compared to

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

+1 The last thin I want is to count on a regular filling station and to and up at a "bottle store" with my 4WD. A that will happen if the type of store is an attribute, as map makers will show them the same. So please make it a different value for the tag, not fuel. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:11 P

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

I would prefer a different tag as I would not like the lemonade table to be rendered in the same way as a regular filling station. The tag shop=gas with subtag would be better. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:46 AM Andrew Errington wrote: > I think they should remain as amenity=fuel (I have visited T

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

Good idea to have such a tag, should include diesel for cars, kerosine for heating and propane/butane for cooking that are sold in the same way. I Kenya we have been in areas far away from regular filling stations; there people are selling diesel from drums. I think shop=fuel is dangerous as it is

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

only bring the logic back but also address this issue. > > I agree that it changes the rules, but why not try to improve them? > > Cheers, > Kotya > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I would like to stick to my original proposal.

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

Can we copy some of this: for other vehicles than mtb: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating? On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:55 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:39 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale > > > At grade 6, it's a li

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

I would like to stick to my original proposal. It brings the logic back, but doesn't change the rules. *"enough support" is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a majority approval otherwise.* On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > Am 17.03.2015 um

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

Can we learn something from this: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating? On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:49 AM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in > JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. >

[Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is A rule of thumb for "enough support" is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15 total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). This sounds a bit strange to me: a pro

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

+1 to make a wiki entry on leisure=maze. Fits with what already exists and the alternative isn't really better. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > >> On Fri,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

Nowhere, but I repeat my question: What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards, Jan On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:16 AM Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: > Hi, > > Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum: > > &

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer wrote: > > > > So - I am against any of propose

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

rgumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: >

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

rgumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards Jan van Bekkum Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Ja

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

Combination of 2 and 3. It must be possible to distinguish between vehicles. As I wrote earlier a stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a motorcycle and vice versa. A scale in words very bad, bad, ... very good or whatever at least helps me to remember what the "good en

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

t;> There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground >> inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also >> noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business >> would be. >> >> On Fri, Mar 13,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

ite but it is also > noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business > would be. > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can >> yo

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Ref1: good point. Any recommendation for the tags to be used? Ref 2: isn't this covered by example 2.1? Aren't the permissive ones at the bottom of your mail covered by example 4.4? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:36 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Two issues I think the proposal should address: > > 1) Use

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Therefore the proposal explicitly states: *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

t run for profit as a business > would be. > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can >> you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? >> >&

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jan van Bekkum > > > wrote: > >> > >> What to do with places where one cannot camp? > > > > > > Sure > > > > camp_site=prohibited or camp_site=no [for

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum

  1   2   >