(response to message archived at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-August/014639.html )
I took a look around and likely the closest match, albeit still a far one,
would be "Trail riding station" which is listed among features on the page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ri
There are advantages and disadvantages to this. The advantage is, as you point
out, you reduce information duplication; there is also the designation of a
limited controlled vocabulary which is used as a primary facet. The
disadvantage is that the classification of these values as movable is l
In particular for business properties, the property or building manager name
and contact information is often available on a sign on the building's
exterior. In this case I've used the _operator_ key to contain this
information. Wondering what your opinion is on the suitability of this.
Than
This is a posting on the wiki which I've responded to -->
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:landuse#Landuse.3D_-vs-_Place.3D
The text of my input, for discussion:
My opinion on this is that _place=neighborhood_ implies _landuse=residential_
but not vice versa. In that case, if one has
On my Ubuntu Linux machine, the default calendar uses 3 letters for days of the
week. --ceyockey
-Original Message-
>From: Eckhart Wörner
>Sent: Jan 22, 2013 11:43 AM
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Follow-up on Time Domains
>
>Hi Serge,
>
>Am
Maybe change from _building=yes_ to _building=construction_ and then use
_construction=renovation_ ? --ceyockey
-Original Message-
From: Janko Mihelić
Sent: Jan 18, 2013 2:54 PM
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] business closed for renovation - tag
There is a fast food franchise site which is closed for renovation in my
vicinity. Two questions:
* Would you support or recommend tagging a transient state like 'closed for
renovation'?
* If one were to indicate temporary closure, how would one do this? In the
case of renovation, would one us
I've suggested a revision to the proposed shoulder key @
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Shoulder . This draft began about 1.5
years ago. It would be nice to bring it to completion ... or has it already
been brought to completion in another form? --ceyockey
__
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_features --ceyockey
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Consider posting at or joining http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=67 , which is dedicated to 'indoor mapping' . I've noted this discussion thread at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Indoor_Mapping . --ceyockey
___
Tagging mailing lis
I take it that you are suggesting the use of key:traffic_sign as the referent
for the sign containing the adopt-a-highway information. Though not said in
the Wiki page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign ), I
generally think of a traffic sign as something which is meant to inf
I should have also pointed at the revision to the original suggestion which I
wrote after comments were provided at talk-us --> see
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010187.html .
This doesn't use amenity. --ceyockey
-Original Message-
>From: Chris66
>Sent
There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether to
represent Adopt-a-highway features. See
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html as
the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the tagging
board for further discu
There is a thread of discussion on the Talk-us board about how and whether to represent Adopt-a-highway features. See http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html as the top of the thread. It was suggested that this come over to the tagging board for further discussio
I posted the original question/comment and have been testing a switch over to
providing source information _only_ on changesets. I posted a followup message
which related the source-on-changeset matter to provenance in RDF data .. I
think that the source-on-changeset is as valid as and more con
Thanks for the several comments from people. I decided to remove the relation
and name each component way individually. I referred to this conversation in
the changeset meta-data (source and source_ref). Regards --ceyockey.
-Original Message-
>From: Werner Hoch
>Sent: Jan 6, 2013 4:
In an earlier message it was suggested that I use key:brand for a store in a
chain. An alternative is to use key:franchise. Key:Brand is (much) more
widely used in terms of instances. Key:franchise implies a conservation of
business model by franchisees and goes along with a shared brand; sha
"...why do you duplicate the tag waterway=river on every way"
Because the relation can contain more than simply the waterway. For instance,
one could add the riverbank, islets, and slips if one were so inclined. By
letting each component way retain an identity of what it is, the relation
I wanted to tag a GNC franchise outlet in the United States and wasn't quite
sure what value to use for the shop key. I find that I'm not alone. Using
OpenLinkMap, I identified most of the current GNC outlets mapped in the US and
recorded the key:shop values ... all of the variants appeared on
Thanks -- the rationale embodied in the sentence quoted from Toby Murray below
was what drove me to use a relation:
"It allows one real world object to be represented by one object in OSM and
reduces duplication of tags on component ways."
--ceyockey
-Original Message-
>From: Toby Mur
The waterway segments I collected into the relation are exactly analogous to
roadway segments collected into a route relation. I do not think that the
relation I created constitutes a category, really. --ceyockey
-Original Message-
>From: Chris66
>Sent: Jan 4, 2013 4:38 PM
>To: taggi
Hello -- I recently created a waterway where I put the name of the waterway on
the relation but not on the component ways which are grouped by the relation.
This results in the name of the waterway not appearing in the standard Map
view. I am wondering what current best practice is. Should na
(I am replying to the message which appears last in the longest stack in the
web listing)
Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts.
I gave this some additional thought over the past day. My initial concern was
from a provenance point-of-view; I work with semantic web technologies inside a
corporat
I have been told ( on the talk-US email list ) that use of {{key|source}} on
objects has been deprecated for years and that such information is only of
historical interest and its use should be restricted to changesets. This is
not reflected in anything I can find on the wiki, and I've done an
I have been told ( on the talk-US email list ) that use of {{key|source}} on objects has been deprecated for years and that such information is only of historical interest and its use should be restricted to changesets. This is not reflected in anything I can find on the wiki, and I've done an inc
(reply to message at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-September/011278.html )
I am wondering whether this tag might be used for something like Christian
Science Reading Room locations. Though not really a 'meditation center', such
a location aims to provide an alternative
There was some mention in this thread of the some lack of utility of
"access=no" as a tag-value pair as someone usually has access to somewhere, it
is just impeded by rules or physical barriers; I do agree with this in general.
If we move to the inclusion of a historical layer, then "access=no"
This relates to the thread "Tag desired for "maintenance"" which begins at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-November/008887.html .
My gut feeling is that it is more beneficial to bring civic services into the
fold in using OSM as a micro-mapping resource than it is to reflec
(from ceyockey) I am of the opinion that "addr:state" should only be used in
the context of an address, not as a standalone synonym for "is_in:state",
meaning that I support the use of "is_in:state" for routes.
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ceyockey)
==ORIGINAL BELOW==
From: Nathan
I came across http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Disused_road
today. I applied the proposal page template, indicating that the proposal had
been obsoleted, as noted in the commentary on the page. Looking at the tag
info for highway (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/highwa
30 matches
Mail list logo
