Re: [Tagging] Ranger Station Tag Update (too anglo-centric)?

2013-09-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/9/3 Bryce Nesbitt > operator=[nps/usfs] not sure if this was intended literally, but I'd suggest not to use abbreviations, for instance nps could be national park service, national party of switzerland or nikon professional services (or a lot more). cheers, Martin ___

[Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread François Lacombe
Hi, There are really fancy problems to discuss these days... Since there is an operator=* tag well documented on wiki, why can't we introduce a page for an owner=* one ? As you maybe know, the owner of an infrastructure (public transports, facilities network, public services, etc) and the effect

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread John Sturdy
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM, François Lacombe wrote: > Operator could be given by operator=* and the effective owner by a "new" > owner=* tag. What about when a business is owned by one entity, but operated on their behalf by another, in a building that they lease from yet another one --- do

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread Richard Welty
On 9/3/13 7:31 AM, John Sturdy wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM, François Lacombe wrote: Operator could be given by operator=* and the effective owner by a "new" owner=* tag. What about when a business is owned by one entity, but operated on their behalf by another, in a building that t

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > it's also something that's subject to change and therefore creates a > maintence issue. i guess i want to know whether this enables anything > that makes the maintenece effort worth it. my fear of course is that > we end up with a collection

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread Colin Smale
On 2013-09-03 13:45, Richard Welty wrote: On 9/3/13 7:31 AM, John Sturdy wrote: On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM, François Lacombe wrote: Operator could be given by operator=* and the effective owner by a "new" owner=* tag. What about when a business is owned by one entity, but operated on the

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread André Pirard
On 2013-09-03 12:59, François Lacombe wrote : Hi, There are really fancy problems to discuss these days... Since there is an operato

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Il giorno 03/set/2013, alle ore 13:31, John Sturdy ha scritto: > does "owner=" refer to the business, or the building? you should map distinct objects for the building and the business (e.g. a node inside the building or a mp-relation for the business with the building as outer way) in ord

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Il giorno 03/set/2013, alle ore 13:58, Colin Smale ha scritto: > Unfortunately the whole world is subject to change. Where does one draw the > line? Data must have a life expectancy of more than 1 year? Which > deliberately does not refer to the age of the information by the way, only > som

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread Pieren
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What François forgot to mention is that the current wiki page of "operator" ([1]) is questionable. It says: "The operator tag is used to name a company, corporation, person or any other entity who is in charge of the operation of a certa

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2013/9/3 Pieren > but : > > "Useful to describe that a certain map object "belongs" to a company > or corporation in any way." > > This definition suggests that "operator" is also the owner... > maybe we should change this into "some way", so it doesn't (IMHO) imply property? Looking at usage

Re: [Tagging] owner vs operator

2013-09-03 Thread François Lacombe
Hi, Many thanks for your answers. +1 with Martin Koppenhoefer, let's update the wiki according to that. @Pieren : As said on french list, "belongs to" on the operator tag's page may refer to the obligation the operator have regarding the infrastructure without implying propery (as Martin said).

Re: [Tagging] Ace Hardware

2013-09-03 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > > With ACE what's important (I suppose) is that the store probably carries > a > > bunch of ACE products. > > Not to me. I don't think OSM is where we want to carry store > inventories. We had that discussion on that list a year ago. Wha

Re: [Tagging] Ace Hardware

2013-09-03 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > i might look up hardware or hardware store. i probably wouldn't > specify brand/franchise, but i'd want to see it in the results, e.g. > > Name Franchise Distance/Direction > Tremont Hardware

Re: [Tagging] Ace Hardware

2013-09-03 Thread Richard Welty
On 9/3/13 1:18 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: With the URL one can argue that no other details are needed. think about it in terms of what you would search for and what you would want to see in the results. i might look up hardware or hardware store. i probably wouldn't specify brand/franchise, bu

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata

2013-09-03 Thread Dario Zontini Gmail
sorry, I'm in my first proposal. you can voting the proposal via_ferrata? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata -- Dario Zontini ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/ta

[Tagging] Utility corridor mapping

2013-09-03 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
To see how it feels, I've started to tag my local area with: utilities=underground In areas where I know that all overhead wires have been undergrounded. A complete tag list might be: utilities=underground ( no overhead utilities are present ) utilities=overhead (overhead wires are visible)