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

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-03-30 4:01 GMT+02:00 johnw : > >> They are just private facilities, but they should be properly tagged as a >> camp site, as people drive long distances to take scouts there, so they >> should be searchable and routable. > > > I

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

2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > 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 are no

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

2015-04-05 0:12 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > > This mailing list community veers toward nit picking and bike shedding, > and tends to block rather than guide forward change. It's also a tiny > fraction of the mapping community, which is sad. > > > *"Published" *in this sense m

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

> On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > 2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : >>> 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

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

In my opinion changing the word doesn't get rid of the problem. Especially if the "word" - no matter if it is published, approved, whatever - is the result of another glorious vote. There should be no "vote" at the end of any discussion, because the discussion never ends! Especially there should be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

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

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

+1, Totally agree with this. I think I also mentioned the "be in proposal for an extended period" before. Give a tagging scheme the time to mature, new variations/needs might pop up only after a couple of months. regards m On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > In my opinion c

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

2015-04-07 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > Especially there should be no "vote" before the tag is used on a wide base > and proves itself! If different mappers use the same tag for different purposes we got a real problem, because you won't be able to tell what a tag on a given object is mea

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

Don't mistake "voting" with "documenting". And btw: neither the one nor the other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag. 2015-04-07 13:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2015-04-07 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > >> Especially there should be no "vote" before the tag is used on a wide >>

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

2015-04-07 13:33 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > Don't mistake "voting" with "documenting". And btw: neither the one nor > the other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag. > > the difference is that someone who has a different idea of the definition of a proposal in draft or proposed status could

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

Here again comes the spirit of "approved", i.e. voted-on tags :-( If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than tags that are already in use. A proposal should be the documentation of new tags that are actually used(!). A proposal should not be a drawing board idea that

Re: [Tagging] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap

2015-04-05 9:59 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > No. The correct way is > > man_made=water_tap > > drinking_water=yes > > See the wiki.. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap > > The addition of amenity=drinking_water may get it rendered .. but that is > just taggin

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

2015-04-07 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > > If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than > tags that are already in use. > +-0, typically mappers want to use the same tags that other users also use to make usage of the map data easier (i.e. they want their stuff r

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

2015-04-07 14:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2015-04-07 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > >> If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than >> tags that are already in use. >> > +-0, typically mappers want to use the same tags that other users also use > to make us

[Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

Hi, Yesterday the Easter eggs were dropping from model airplanes. Of course I want to map where this happened and were this club has their "airfield". Any suggestions? Jo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Jo wrote: > Yesterday the Easter eggs were dropping from model airplanes. Of course I > want to map where this happened and were this club has their "airfield". Check out sport=model_aerodrome. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome --

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

2015-04-07 15:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > I was refering to "different idea of the defintion". > > If someone has a different idea about what a tag should mean, one will > either > * be ignorant and use the tag in a (completely) different way > the issue is typically not a "completely" diffe

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow : > Check out sport=model_aerodrome. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dmodel_aerodrome > this looks like a bad tag, because "aerodrome" is a place and not a kind of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into "leisure" (aside "pitc

[Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

Hi As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required. From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform & highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there any others & do other renderings have diffe

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

I agree with leisure but where they're flown is a place & model_aerodrome differentiates it clearly from other types. On 07/04/2015 16:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-04-07 16:52 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow >: Check out sport=model_aerodrome. https://w

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

Am 07.04.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F.: > As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on > natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required. +1 > From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform > & highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

If it has a formal airfield then the name would indicate what it is, such as the 'Avondale Model Flying Club' but this tag needs a bit more investigation and discussion as there are over 800 clubs affiliated to the British Model Flying Association, some are indoors, some are outdoor airfields for m

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > this looks like a bad tag, because "aerodrome" is a place and not a kind > of sport/activity. Wouldn't this value fit better into "leisure" (aside > "pitch", "track" etc.)? For "sport" (if this can be considered a sport) I'd > expect to

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

Hi I thought it was required for platform as some were being drawn as a single line & as OSM has no specific closed polygon entity, renderers can't tell if it's an area to be filled or an extremely squiggly platform. Ah, I forgot about aeroways. I'm surprised the conclusion was the width tag

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

Am 07.04.2015 um 18:39 schrieb Dave F.: > Hi > > I thought it was required for platform as some were being drawn as a > single line & as OSM has no specific closed polygon entity, renderers > can't tell if it's an area to be filled or an extremely squiggly platform. No problem with platform as wa

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

> Am 07.04.2015 um 18:04 schrieb Clifford Snow : > > > Yes, Leisure= is needed for sport=. it is typically done like this, but it is not needed, you could have also other tags where a combination with the key sport might have sense, eg amenity=club > Not knowing what kind of location the

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

Another one is man_made=pier. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

Hi, On 04/07/2015 05:31 PM, Dave F. wrote: > From memory the only two I know that can require it are railway=platform > & highway=pedestrian when drawn as closed ways. Are there any others & > do other renderings have different rules regarding this? http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/area=yes#

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

highway=track too. -- i. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > thing is, aerodrome or model aerodrome, is not a sport nor an activity, it > is a physical place. It doesn't fit into the set of other values that can > be found within "sport". You might want to change the wiki entry for sport=mode

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

leisure=track, (With area=no because leisure is a key which suggests an area yes default) cheers Martin > Am 07.04.2015 um 21:18 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen : > > highway=track too. > > > -- > i. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] model airplane "airfield"

How related to this discussion are dedicated model rocket ranges? Someone just posted this note a couple of hours ago which got me thinking about this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/344001 This seems like a similar activity. Or does it deserve its own thread? :) Toby On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

The wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Page_details says "/Proposal/ /A short description of what you want to map, including links to relevant material with photos if possible./ /Rationale/ /Why the tag is needed, considering significance and potential uses

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

One more point... Some of those opposing the proposal say they don't have time to follow discussion on the tagging group.. they may also claim they don't have time to read the dissuasion page .. so for that point of view the reasons why things are done should be on the proposal page... Not sayi

Re: [Tagging] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap

Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified, ion exchanged I believe, water for drinking. Current practice seems to be to tag them with amenity=drinking_water and leave it at that. What opinions do you have on that? On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote

Re: [Tagging] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap

On 8/04/2015 1:46 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified, ion exchanged I believe, water for drinking. Current practice seems to be to tag them with amenity=drinking_water and leave it at that. What opinions do you have on that? Me? I'd

Re: [Tagging] Edit of wiki page amenity=drinking_water for man_made=water_tap

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:46:56 +0700 Dave Swarthout wrote: Tagging it as amenity=drinking_water is fine, but I would add also fee=yes. Describing it as vending machine also would be a good idea. > Here in Thailand there are many vending machines that sell purified, > ion exchanged I believe, water

Re: [Tagging] Which entities use area=yes

Hedge requires area=yes when used on an area. I use it for median and sidewalk hedges all the time. Javbw > On Apr 8, 2015, at 12:31 AM, Dave F. wrote: > > Hi > > As I was tidying up some data in my locale I noticed area=yes sub tag on > natural=wood which, AFAIK isn't required. > > From