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

> Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with > that ? I feel access=private deals with it effectively, but you guys have more experience in how data customers would deal with the data. A scout camp is a camp. It is visited by people who are not directly affil

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > This contradicts in many cases our current page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units > It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal. Computers are very good at removing spaces ( s/ //g ), and converting units. Humans are

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, johnw wrote: > Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong > with that ? > > > I feel access=private deals with it effectively, but you guys have more > experience in how data customers would deal with the data. > Aren't all camp sites a

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Marc Gemis wrote > Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission from > the site owner to access the grounds. > Camp sites in general are: access=public fee=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

The default unit is _not_ always “meters”. There are tags where the default unit is “meters” (e. g. width) and there are others where the default unit is “kilometers” (e. g. distance). “Centimeters” isn’t in the current list of accepted units at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Unit

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

> It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal. So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. 2015-04-03 8:01 GMT, Lukas Sommer : > The default unit is _not_ always “meters”. There are tags where the > default unit is “meters” (e. g. width) and there are others where the > default unit is “kilomet

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

2015-04-03 9:39 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal. > Then you should label it accordingly. Currently it is nowhere identified as proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap

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

At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. On 2015-04-03 09:56, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Marc Gemis wrote > >> Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission from >> the site

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

2015-04-03 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer : > I think this template should be deleted or be changed to reflect > exactly what Map_Features/Units says. (But probably even a direct link > to Map_Features/Units would be easier and clearer – so I don’t see any > need for this template.) > +1 for the de

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote: > > A wide variety of formats are acceptable: > > The list that is following this statement doesn’t contain “km”. It > seems to be only a list of some non-mandatory examples > The template takes a parameter to adapt to different origin pages (e

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:25 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > +1 for the deletion (or at least move it to the proposal namespace). A > simply direct link to Map_Features/Units should be enough. > The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units embedded on their own pages. That's

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable > right of access supported by law. > Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances ar

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

On 3/04/2015 7:39 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Either way, a cleanup of the recognized units is in order (e.g. km, m/meters/m, ft/feet/foot/" ). I note that; ele= only takes meters as a unit .. the reason states is that "Renderers have no way of doing conversions on the fly to local units wh

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

>> So please move it to the “Proposal/” namespace. > That's not possible for a working template, > Note the template is not USED, And it should also not be used, because it’s just your personal proposal for a discussion. So there is no need to have a working template. So please move it to the “Pr

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

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:21 PM, François Lacombe < fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > +1 with Bryce and "published" instead of "approved" > +1 with Ole regarding power features > > Cheers > François > So let's see if we can make it happen. The question of what wiki approval means

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

> I'd ask the following be excluded ? > cm (used in the clothing and foot ware trades ..not an OSM thing ) > cubits I don’t think that there is a need to “exclude” some values (and “allow” anything else). Insteat, I think there is a need to “allow” some values (and exclude anything else). 2015-04

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

2015-04-03 10:22 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:21 PM, François Lacombe > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> +1 with Bryce and "published" instead of "approved" >> +1 with Ole regarding power features >> >> Cheers >> François > > > So let's see if we can make it happen. The questi

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

> The majority of existing tags have a summary of the Map_Features/Units > embedded on their own pages. > That's a good thing for tl;dr readers. Map_Features/Units isn’t a big wiki page. It’s really short (3 sentences and some tables). Maybe for keys like “width” it could be usefull to have only

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > ele= only takes meters as a unit .. the reason states is that "Renderers > have no way of doing conversions on the fly to local units while creating > image tiles" ... and this is an 'approved' tag. That's mapping for the ren

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] 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"

One more idea: why do we need a binary outcome of the voting? Something like endorsement= positive/neutral/negative (the current approve, abstain, reject) as an indicator tells much more (together with tag use). Examples: - Endorsement=50/0/2 - very good, important tag (much involvement) - go

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

On 3/04/2015 9:27 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Looking at long-term OSM developments one wonders if such a classification shouldn't replace the current key=value structure: in almost all cases of main tags the key information is redundant - in tourism=hotel "tourism" doesn't give any additional i

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

Don't like that idea... The 'voting' needs to be yes/no otherwise it is too much of a judgement call that will not make sense to most. If something is rejected.. then if someone cares enough they can simply make a wiki page .. just as if they had never had a vote on the feature. The true asse

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

-1 'Endorsed' is just another way of saying approved. We need to remove this status that 'some authority' has given their blessing to use the tag. 'Published' is a useful statement which demonstrates community discussion and some consensus but nothing else. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

On 3/04/2015 8:33 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: ele= only takes meters as a unit .. the reason states is that "Renderers have no way of doing conversions on the fly to local units while

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

On 3/04/2015 10:12 PM, Chris Hill wrote: -1 'Endorsed' is just another way of saying approved. We need to remove this status that 'some authority' has given their blessing to use the tag. True. 'Published' is a useful statement which demonstrates community discussion and some consensus bu

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

>From an IT perspective we should be keeping form and function separate. There are two facts here: 1) the altitude of that point is 14505 ft - it is what it is, whatever units you use. Saying the altitude is 4421.124m is also correct. The value needs a number and a unit, in an agreed format. I

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

I am against adding yet another template to wiki, intended to be used as part of article text. Many pages are already obnoxious to edit because on editing it turns out that table is hidden in a template - so it is necessary to open another page. "It also promotes explicit numbers (e.g. 20 m) over

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

I welcome this idea. Yves Le 3 avril 2015 13:09:07 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : >Don't like that idea... The 'voting' needs to be yes/no otherwise it is > >too much of a judgement call that will not make sense to most. > >If something is rejected.. then if someone cares enou

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

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 actually make things clearer, quite the opposite: Using the normal meaning of "published", a pr

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"

“Supported” by whom? To me that implies that a number of data consumers/renders will use that data. I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recommended”. Tod > On Apr 3, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Is "supported" reasonable? > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM Tobi

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

Hi, On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recommended”. Ideally, "recommended by 25 users", just to bring a perspective to things ;) But humour aside, I applaud the idea of getting rid of "approved". The suggestion of "published" is not id

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"

On 3 April 2015 at 10:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of "Approved" to read > "Published", > with no other changes. The feeling is the term "published" is less likely > to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described >

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recommended”. > > Ideally, "recommended by 25 users", just to bring a perspective to things > ;) > But humour aside, I applaud the idea of gettin

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

On 03/04/15 17:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I appreciate your effort to bring more clarity in the different wiki statuses. However, I don't think changing the status 'Approved' to 'Published' is a good idea. In my opinion, 'approved' is exactly what it is: a proposal approved by the OSM communi

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

Hi, On 04/03/2015 06:09 PM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > However, I don't think changing the status 'Approved' to 'Published' > is a good idea. In my opinion, 'approved' is exactly what it is: a > proposal approved by the OSM community. No, approved is often misunderstood as "approved by the OSM co

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

No, that is not sensible - it's a bit like the Hitchhiker's guide "you > could have read this if you had wanted to" thing. Except that we don't have a "Beware of the Leopard" sign. Maybe we should start a vote on how to tag those. Polyglot ___ Taggin

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

Circling back to the proposal at hand: The notion is that the word "approved" has over the years repeatedly contributed to confusion about the role of a wiki vote. The proposal is to replace the word "approved" with the word "published". -- Separately we can talk about how to involve more people

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

On 4/04/2015 8:30 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Circling back to the proposal at hand: The notion is that the word "approved" has over the years repeatedly contributed to confusion about the role of a wiki vote. The proposal is to replace the word "approved" with the word "published". Against. I

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Against. I don't think the word change will change that confusion. > Is that "abstain because it's a waste of time", or "opposed because it will cause harm"? ___ Tagging mailing list

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

Actually we can also rid of “Rejected” in the same way. I have seen example of (but cannot remember exactly what tag) of a “rejected” tag with many usages. I rather change “Rejected” to “Not Recommended”, and with that kind of wording, “Approved” would rather be “Recommended (by 25 users)”. A w

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

You're right, the 'status' field in the template may look very official and definitive, but going from approved to published is a step in a good direction. Yves Le 3 avril 2015 23:50:40 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : >On 4/04/2015 8:30 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: >> Circling back

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

On 4/04/2015 8:58 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: Against. I don't think the word change will change that confusion. Is that "abstain because it's a waste of time", or "opposed because it will ca