5-09-17 18:02, Kotya Karapetyan wrote :
>
> Hi André,
>
> I don't know why your text was removed.
>
> > It would produce a message saying something like:
> > "The coordinates you are trying to change are accurate to 25 cm.
> > You probably shouldn't chan
rg/ as well as
> http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/
> Thanks, but please give correct information.
> But a sandbox wouldn't help with the first bad example because it's to be
> looked at on Waymarked trails and that program does not display sandbox
> data. And as we'
Hi André,
I agree with moltonel.
But otherwise I think there is a difference between a general warning or
message from one mapper to another (which in its own is an interesting idea
but can lead to dialogues and discussions) and a specific technical feature
that would prevent moving an accurately
Hi Warin,
After looking at all these proposals and the related discussions, I would
actually strongly suggest going for information=reception:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:information.
1) We wanted to avoid confusion between reception as place and reception as
an event and reception as
Hi,
I wonder: Could we try to slightly change the proposal/RFC process to make
the community develop the good solution?
It is obvious that only a small amount of people voted against the proposal
as such, thinking it's not useful.
The majority complained about the specific wording.
We could put se
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
> Voting is a pointless, broken process that means absolutely nothing.
I think voting is a good indicator of the community opinion. As such, it is
useful. I agree of course that we are not bound by the outcome, but it does
introduce some unifor
It's really a pity if the proposal will be rejected. Its need is clear,
even though the exact wording may not be perfect. But do we need to have a
*perfect* proposal before we can get anything? I would suggest to those who
oppose it to accept it and then propose a modification. Otherwise we'll
stay
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:34 AM, pmailkeey .
wrote:
> If they need a map to find the place, the need any reception for newbies.
> Tag the appropriate entrances with ent/ext tags - all those entrances
> suitable for newbies.
>
I believe we should simply map the reality. So a reception should be
>
> One node, all tags is the gut feeling I get. Put all the tags on one and
> if two are the same key with different values, add the values separated by
> semicolons.
>
> If in doubt, create two nodes and use iD to combine them ;) by (shift)
> selecting both and use the + symbol to combine.
>
>
+1
>
>
>> You could evaluate the tagging already in use in different cemeteries
> around the world and see which tags are used for similar objects, then
> proposing some system to unify the situation.
> Well mapped cemeteries you can find in Poland, Pere Lachaise in Paris,
> Staglieno in Genoa, and so
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Richard Welty
wrote:
> On 5/16/15 1:19 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
>
> Though I strongly disagree to the idea of "mapping for the renderer", I
> agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM database
> is eff
Though I strongly disagree to the idea of "mapping for the renderer", I
agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM database
is effectively lost because the renderers do not show it. Right now there
is a question whether we should use ref or name to tag parts of the
cemeterie
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:32 PM, pmailkeey .
wrote:
>
> How about mapping a cemetery with connected smaller cemeteries ? That's
> what I've done to distinguish different areas and names.
>
>
Though you are of course free to do it anyway you find reasonable, I don't
think it's a good solution: If t
Great, office=administrative will do. Thanks!
Cheers,
Kotya
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Am 15.05.2015 um 16:49 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan :
> >
> > Is there a tag for an administration building of a large campus/site?
&
Hi again,
Is there a tag for an administration building of a large campus/site?
Specifically, I would like to tag the administration location of a
cemetery. There is an abandoned proposal (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Administration) but
its examples imply something very
>
> > 4) Ref seems to be a good tagging for the cemetery section number,
> > but it doesn't show up on the map, unlike the "name" (e.g.
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345082198). Is ref still a
> > preferred tag?
>
> "it does not render" as sole argument is not a good argument. Mappers
> sho
Hi everybody,
I was mapping cemeteries recently, and I stumbled over a couple of
confusing points. I would like to know your opinion.
1) There is landuse=cemetery and amenity-grave_yard. Could someone explain
the difference please? Is it that graveyard is always at a place of worship
territory? I
I wonder if we want to limit it to spikes only. What about these things:
http://www.siapress.ru/images/news/main/24438.jpg
http://park-ur.ru.images.1c-bitrix-cdn.ru/upload/medialibrary/bee/beebb476f5dc4c2cccedd1ab6f41.jpg?142435251415224
My proposal would be to add "oneway" to the existing b
I agree with fly that it would be good to actually change the proposal page
to make it closer resemble the tag description page. Currently it mainly
addresses the RFC process and questions. As the result, there is no "good"
page for which we could vote. All discussion could be moved to the Talk
sub
>
>
> Warin,
> Maybe there needs to be a wiki page on the subject?
> Associating one feature (a 'parent') with another feature (a 'child')?
> More of a guide as to how OSM 'does' it?
>
> Or may be it needs to be added to some already existing guide...
>
>
I would propose to word it as "belongs-to
Hi Warin,
> 10 state it should not be an amenity key and most of those are for it
> being in the tourism key.
> My failing there for not explaining that it has applications to offices,
> industries and educational areas where tourism is not an appropriate key.
>
In my opinion, it depends on per
I did.
> But no one popped up, ad so, Loomio must be seen as unsupported software.
> I could not make actual tests.
>
> On 2015-03-23 19:07, Kotya Karapetyan wrote :
>
> Now I am missing the "like" link :)
>
> We'll definitely need to find a smart and soft way to
>
> Please also have in mind the amount of traffic between plain text and html.
>
I actually wonder how relevant this is. In general, I am a proponent of
saving resources, so the less transmitted data the better. But with the
increase of internet bandwidth and the speed of available hardware, the
>
> I was *too* quick. Here is an example:
> https://www.loomio.org/d/1E3YAaz0/test-images
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
y immediate
> thought
> > was, it'll never get accepted into OSM
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dan S wrote:
> >>
> >> It's interesting. I hadn't realised it's open-source too, so osm could
> >> run its own version of it
>
>
>> Question:... Can you include pictures or diagrams as visual arguments to
>> support your reasoning?
>>
>>
> Doesn't seems to be possible.
>
I was too quick. It *is* possible. Here is an example.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:42 PM, AYTOUN RALPH
wrote:
> Well, I guess I am also out of this. Needs me to log in to make a comment
> but appears I have done something wrong because it just does not work for
> me. I do not have a Google account and my Virgin email is unacceptable.
>
> So I cannot co
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that a 'forum' is far better at engaging a community ... keeps
>> topics more organised as replies are localised (that are no isolated
>> branches for instan
Dear all,
In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal discussions, Loomio
has been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a feasible
alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
Let's take a look together: https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
And let me know if you
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Dan S wrote:
> 2015-03-20 11:50 GMT+00:00 althio :
> > Maybe it was Loomio?
>
> That was it! Thanks
Shall we take a look at it all together?
https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Ta
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Dan S wrote:
> I use Stack Exchange a lot and it's great, very well designed for its
> purpose. BUT Stack Exchange is not designed for community decision
> making. There are tools/forums that are actually designed for that
> purpose.
>
> Also I don't think Stack
>
> I'm starting to think a Forum is a good idea. But Stack Exchange is a
> bigger decision, I have not used it, who has ?
I have :) Also participated in the proposal phase for a couple of sites.
I am wondering: If so many people think that forum is better, and if OSM
actually provides a forum
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> My issue with email lists is that for most emails I delete after reading.
> If at some time later, I come across a tagging situation that I recall
> being previously discussed I need to go into the mail archives at
> https://lists.openstreetmap.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jan van Bekkum
wrote:
> Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search,
>
>
Jan, I wonder if you've ever had a question, googled for an answer and
landed in a forum thread with 50+ pages with 10 posts per page.
Personally, I dislike forums even more
impression that democracy should sometimes be a little
helped by a strong opinion, when it minimizes damage. If you foresee a
damage—feel free to undo.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2015-03-19 11:37 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan :
&
it's a bad idea.
Cheers,
Kotya
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2015-03-18 21:05 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan :
>
>> Do we have abstention possible at all? The voting system currently only
>> implements "
>
> > Think StackExchange.
> >
> Nice. But practicable ?
>
Why not?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
hange of the proposal/voting process
and on how to carry out discussions goes on :)
Cheers,
Kotya
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 17.03.2015 15:04, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> > I propose to clarify it by changing the recommended number of votes
hy will a change of a word in the wiki page break any
connections?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, moltonel 3x Combo
wrote:
> On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo
> > wrote:
> >> Why should
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2015-03-19 0:56 GMT+01:00 David Bannon :
>
>> * Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a
>> "like" or "dislike" button and aggregate score is shown. For some time
>> (?). Obvious
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM, David Bannon
wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote:
> >
> > So here's how I would answer your question of how would "an interested
> > party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded":
> > instead of approved/rejected, some s
To make it clear:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo
wrote:
> Why should the page be "converted to a feature page" ?
Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a
stable 10 year-old feature page cannot be easily distinguished from a
proposal created ye
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> +1 on showing the vote and discussion in the final page.
>
> And I guess +1 on the lack of a vote. The ugly proposals DO look ugly.
>
> ---
> This works well for single proposals, but fails to capture *competing
> proposals *or* subsequent
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Martin Vonwald
wrote:
> Very good ideas and it would bring the original intention of OSM back into
> the play: the numbers count and not the two-and-a-half people putting a
> line starting with "yes" somewhere in the wiki.
>
>
I think some opposition to a proper
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I believe it is generally difficult to decide on English tags when you
> don't speak English.
>
I tend to disagree. A lot of people would be able to use the words
"temperature" or "reception desk". The same people however may not feel
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'd prefer to require something like "not more than x percent negative
> votes" rather than "at least y percent positive votes", because when
> requiring a percentage of positive votes all abstentions count like
> negative votes.
>
>
Having lived in Russia and Germany for quite a while, I can confirm that
the language barrier definitely plays a strong role. A lot of people in
Russia will never use the English-language internet at all. I think the
same holds for France, Spain and Italy, to a lesser extent for Germany. In
the Net
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Pieren wrote:
> -1
> The main criticism about "votes" is the "approved" status and the
> small amount of participants, not percentage of approvals. So change
> the status name and increase the quorum, not the opposite. It's also
> not a problem to keep the "vote"
07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 17.03.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan :
>>
>> I don't think there is a procedure to vote on such proposals, so please
>> just give it +1 here if you ag
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I also don't think there is a procedure to change the proposal voting
> system and how votes are counted. 8 votes in favor of a change seem too
> few, and besides this, IMHO this is not something we should vote on the
> tagging mailing
Dear all,
I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was
that the current number of votes proposed in the wiki for accepted/rejected
decision was self-contradicting. Even if there may be different opinions on
that, the very discussion shows that the situation is not clea
Proposal: let's change it to "8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more
votes with at least 74 % approval ones"?
I agree that the current situation looks funny pretty often.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>>
>>
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
>
> Also I believe most of the time you'll be more interested in the entrance,
> the reception desk will very likely be close to it.
>
>
On our campus, we have a couple of dozens of entrances for employees but
only three of four receptions where a non-employee can enter. So mapping a
reception defi
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you 'navigate' to 'drinking water' or simply look for the closest
> one?
>
> Most would navigate to an address .. then look on the map for parking,
> then look on the map for the closest reception desk ..
>
I think there
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Andreas Goss wrote:
> And if I'm a visitor how would for example a OSM based navigation system
> figure out to which company or facility they belong?
>
>
I think it's a relevant point. I would include the
company/hospital/university etc. name in the reception name
I believe it depends on the facility. My company has 3 receptions, and they
are called officially "Reception 7", "4" and "8"; these are the names
appearing on the phone when I receive a call to collect a visitor. I will
use that as the names.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Goss wrote:
>
I support the proposal. However I don't see how it can be applied to a
way. I suggest removing that option after voting.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Time to vote .. on a fairly simple thing ..
>
>
> A Reception Desk provides a place where a visitor goes
Hi Warin,
Why rush? I don't think it's a question of how long the discussion
took. The proposal still has open issues, some of which are even
mentioned in the proposal page itself. So what are we voting for? It
would be better to close the open issues (or at least remove the
options that cause the
Hi all,
I wonder: shouldn't we separate a conditioned room air in a hotel and
an object temperature? I get the feeling that this discussion on a
useful tag (how to denote the temperature of an object where it is
needed) is slowly drifting away to defining about everything related
to temperature.
>> Amenity is the best fit for this tag.
>
>
> I disagree. (Usually that just means "I didn't find anything better")
+1
"Amenity" is very vague in general (), and a lot of things can be
marked as such. So I'd prefer to use it only when it's an obvious
choice or there is nothing better.
What about
I think this proposal is very relevant for some larger hotel and
resorts. I've been myself a few times in a situation when I had to
search for the reception over a large area. It can be a trouble if you
simultaneously have to get rid of your car in a parking restricted
area. Same for multi-entrance
; wrote:
> On 5/02/2015 1:02 AM, fly wrote:
>
> Am 04.02.2015 um 10:56 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan:
>
> Hi,
>
> +1 for the proposal as such.
>
> I have suggestions for some parts of the proposal though.
>
> 1) I would discourage specification of the temperature without th
> have you checked your spam folder? sometimes gmail tends to label as
> spam a number of mailing list posts; periodically going through the spam
> folder and marking them as not-spam seems to reduce the problem, at
> least for a while.
Yes, I have and do it regularly. Also the "all mail" folder,
Hi all,
1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was
not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails
from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but
couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?) The last email I saw
was Warin's an
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> Also, I think that editor presets makers should really implement *all*
> approved tags (barring some specialized stuff like OSM-3D, indoor
> mapping etc) because not featuring a tag makes some people tag things
> not exactly correctly, ju
Hi Marc,
> By forced rules: you mean a committee that decides what gets mapped and how
> ?
> So when I want to map something now, I have to file a request to the
> committee to start looking for a new tag. And if they like the request they
> come back within a few months with a proposal. And this
Now that the water_tap proposal discussion is over, I'd like to join
this important discussion.
My opinion: Since OSM is a *map*, we should *map* things. That means,
we should tag what actually exists on the planet, not what is implied.
Sometimes things are tagged in real life. For example, motorw
rs,
Kotya
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
>
> Cheers,
> Kotya
Hi François,
> I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement.
Have you also voted at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
?
> In my opinion, and I'm sorry for rough words, it's a bit useless because of
lack of consistency with many other tags.
I full
I agree with Craig concerning the use of word "literature" and suggest
simply using books:genre, to make use of the existing key. Having two
keys "book" and "books" would be confusing. Besides, the current tag
seems to me to be overlapping with what is proposed. It is now indeed
used for types of b
I like the proposal. In Germany and in the Netherlands these machines
are common and it is indeed important to know where one can find the
nearest one. They are usually not operator-specific, though the
voucher they issue can be redeemed only within the operator shop (or
network).
I have no clue h
Dear all,
This is a kind reminder that the voting is ongoing at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Cheers,
Kotya
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
licly
accessible), because this is what does matter (and we don't want to exclude
"privately owned, but publicly usable taps" in this generic proposal, do
we?).
Agree.
I hope I've addressed your concerns and you can vote now :)
Cheers,
Kotya
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:31 AM
ng-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:27:23 +0100
> From: Kotya Karapetyan
> To: Rainer Fügenstein , "Tag discussion,
> strategy and
> related tools"
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey
> Message-ID:
>
>
org wrote:
>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:18:28 -0800
>> From: Bryce Nesbitt
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap (Kotya
>> Karapet
Einverstanden :)
Please vote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting
Cheers,
Kotya
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 04.12.2014 10:31, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
> > For me, English common sense says a 'water sour
Happy holidays and 2015 everyone!
> what is needed here is some tag, saying "don't touch these
> coordinates, they've been surveyed with high(est) accuracy".
I second this idea.
Just recently I discovered that something in this direction already exists:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiPr
>
> ? On the Keep It Simple Stupid theory?
>
> water_potable = yes/no
> If not known you don't tag. Then it will some default action possibly based
> on location. Some may want tags 'boil', 'filter','filter+boil' ...
>
>
What would be the difference from the existing drinking_water=*?
>
> For me, English common sense says a 'water source' could be a river, lake,
> spring etc...
> the portability of water is not a measure of its source (where it comes
> from) but its purity...
>
> So I'd think the key should be
>
> Water_purity with the key values 'potable', 'nonpotable' and 'un
>
> water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
>>>
>>>
>>> in analogy: "water:effervescent" (or ~:sparkling)
>>>
>>
>> I don't mind using the word "effervescent"; however: is there any
>> recommendation that we should use as "simple" words as possible, to achieve
>> the above goals 1 and 3? I k
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2014-11-17 23:26 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan :
>
>> What about introducing a name space:
>> water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find
>> a good
>
> I think this is an inconsistency in tagging and would be interested to
>> hear if you believe the recommendation should be changed. E.g. we could
>> have a "plant:genus" to explicitly state that the genus refers to the
>> plants rather than the nursery.
>>
>>
I agree about the inconsistency. In
What about introducing a name space:
water_source:potable=designated | mineral | heilwasser (I failed to find a
good English-language analogue, could someone help please?)
water_source:sparkling=yes | no | unknown
water_source:nonpotable=compromised | designated
In principle, details regarding the
Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
information he doesn't possess. "This water is non-potable" is very
different from "I am not sure you can drink it". This is why I tend to go
for a generic "water source" tag with an additional potability
specification.
Taking
Bryce,
Thanks for your comments.
Tagging "amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no" makes, at least, the WeTap
> Android application show a false source of drinkable water.
> It renders on many maps indistinguishable from potable water.
>
As I already said in the previous email, I think the only so
Hi Martin and all,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2014-10-18 23:20 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Karapetyan :
>
>> I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following
>> the suggestion at
>> https://help.openstreetmap.org/qu
Dear all,
This is a kind reminder that the water_tap proposal (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap) is in the
RFC stage at the moment. Please comment here or at the discussion page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/water_tap.
Cheers,
Kotya
Dear all,
I would hereby like to propose a new value for the man_made tag:
man_made=water_tap
The proposal page is:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap
Thanks for comments in advance!
Cheers,
Kotya
___
Tagging mailing list
89 matches
Mail list logo
