Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Gambling (reminder)

2014-01-09 Thread fly
On 08.01.2014 22:00, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > Dear all, > > This is a reminder that voting on the gambling proposal is currently > open. Voting can be done here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gambling Sorry, for the late answer but I hade to take some holidays. Thanks

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Gambling (reminder)

2014-01-09 Thread Martin Vonwald
Hi! 2014/1/9 fly > and only use gambling, especially as > it might collide with another value of amenity. > In my opinion we all really should start accepting that a key might have more than one possible value. I don't see any problem in amenity=pub;gambling . - Ok, you don't like the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bag shop, pet shop

2014-01-09 Thread fly
We are talking about two tags which are two different cases: 1. shop=pet seems to be established without voting and there is no need of any proposal but documentation on the wiki is needed. 2. shop=bag is not used much and the numbers are similar e.g. a proposal is useful to document it and decid

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Gambling (reminder)

2014-01-09 Thread Peter Wendorff
Hi Martin, in general you're right, but in this case it's a bad choice. we as a community, as the mappers, can accept multiple values - but even we as the mappers don't have the tools to deal with multiple values, that is: AFAIK editors create multiple-value-tags, but don't use them, e.g. for thei

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bag shop, pet shop

2014-01-09 Thread fly
On 09.01.2014 15:13, fly wrote: > We are talking about two tags which are two different cases: > 2. shop=bag is not used much and the numbers are similar e.g. a proposal > is useful to document it and decide about singular <-> plural form. Totally forgot to mention, that this proposal is a stub.

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Gambling (reminder)

2014-01-09 Thread fly
On 09.01.2014 15:07, Martin Vonwald wrote: > Hi! > > 2014/1/9 fly > > > and only use gambling, especially as > it might collide with another value of amenity. > > > In my opinion we all really should start accepting that a key might have > more t

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Gambling (reminder)

2014-01-09 Thread Martin Vonwald
Hi! I fully understand the technical and other difficulties. And I also don't have any problem with using the gambling key _in this case_ (I simply don't tag any of those). I just want to make anyone aware that it is _not_ a solution to move from one key to another, because once we started we can'

[Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

2014-01-09 Thread yvecai
Scott, I relay your question to the tagging mailing-list: As I am a mapper and a renderer, I may not be partial :) I was face recently with a piste shared by alpine skiers and sleds and I choose the easy way: I just tagged the way for skiers. This is not satisfactory, I know. With relations,

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

2014-01-09 Thread Tod Fitch
In the areas I cross country ski at in the California mountains many trails are used by both nordic skiers and snowshoers. Since I am ski centric I've tended to tag them as piste:type=nordic. Could one simply tag them as piste:type=nordic;snowshoe? A bit ugly and the difficulty is an issue as th

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

2014-01-09 Thread yvecai
On 01/09/2014 07:27 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: I could go for relations which would solve the multiple use and multiple difficulty issues. Unless you map difficulties like it should: by section, or in OSM, by ways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstr

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

2014-01-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2014/1/9 Tod Fitch > In the areas I cross country ski at in the California mountains many > trails are used by both nordic skiers and snowshoers. Since I am ski > centric I've tended to tag them as piste:type=nordic. Could one simply tag > them as piste:type=nordic;snowshoe? A bit ugly and the di

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

2014-01-09 Thread Tod Fitch
A single trail, even a single section of a trail, represented by a single way could have one difficulty rating for a person on snowshoes and a different difficulty rating for a person on skis. -Tod On Jan 9, 2014, at 11:08 AM, yvecai wrote: > On 01/09/2014 07:27 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: >> >> I

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

2014-01-09 Thread fly
Do not really understand your problem. As already mentioned you can use a semicolon for the piste_type values and tag the difficulty with addidtional keys like difficulty:sled=* cu fly On 09.01.2014 21:44, Tod Fitch wrote: > A single trail, even a single section of a trail, represented by a sing

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

2014-01-09 Thread Tod Fitch
I thought the discussion was how the tagging described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Piste_Maps could be made better. That tagging does not have piste:difficulty:snowshoe, etc. So one option would be to add that. Another would be to have separate relations for each act

Re: [Tagging] Unsuitable?

2014-01-09 Thread John F. Eldredge
Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Martin Vonwald > wrote: > > > Since when is "unsuitable" an accepted value for the access keys? I > always > > thought that the access keys describe legal restrictions. > > It says "usage is discouraged (e.g. HGVs on narrow lanes) . Often > marked