Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

They go under education=specialty. education=vocational is intended for post-secondary vocational schools. Regarding other question, yes, you can tag specialty=* or vocation=* to denote which subjects are trained, however, I do not think OSM database can cope with a generic university's whole swath

[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

17-09-2017 11:16 tarihinde Erkin Alp Güney yazdı: > Driving school is a government-recognized education institution and > usually they have a monopoly in driving education. Hence they are > considered specialty schools, not cram-schools. However, due to > commonality, they need a separate tag. We

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

That was a leftover from previous proposal. Edited proposal page to reflect that all educational institutions are covered. 17-09-2017 09:26 tarihinde marc marc yazdı: > Le 17. 09. 17 à 07:54, Erkin Alp Güney a écrit : > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_Features/Educati

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

On 17.09.2017 07:54, Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > This brings education key instead of amenity=school. In my opinion, and speaking broadly, the job of the OSM tagging system is to answer two questions: - What kind of feature is this? - What properties does this feature have? The first question can u

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

Thanks for your response, Erkin. The idea of putting driving license and some speciality schools under "cram" schools came from the fact that, despite of needind a special license, in my country (Spain) these centers do not make exams, they only prepare for an official exam done by the government.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

I have partly inspired by Turkish standardized education institution identification guide. Most of the school kinds mentioned, except universities, including ministry itself has distinct color codes identifying what kind of education institution they are (for example, all secondary schools have to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

These are applied educational research centers and should be tagged "education=applied_education". Completely different from a cram school. I do not know of any jurisdiction where a driving school is entitled to license a driver by itself. These examinations are government regulated otherwise driv

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

I would suggest there needs to be a separation between the school as an organisation, a campus, a building, and the courses provided. Here in NL there are many mixed colleges, which provide statutory education to kids (16+), adult academic education and vocational training. Such colleges often

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

Hi Erkin, Am 17.09.2017 um 07:54 schrieb Erkin Alp Güney: > Two RFCs by me are ready. One of them are education reform(actually > delayed a bit). This brings education key instead of amenity=school. > Full proposal at >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

> Another is magnetic levitation trains, this one having completed its > draft quickly. This brings railway=maglev tag and its associated > rendering. > Resent as per listmaster's request. _

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

sent from a phone > On 17. Sep 2017, at 10:52, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > . If we were to reform > the tagging system, my ideal solution would be a "type"/"thing"/"class" > key that is used for the main tag of all features. the downside with this approach is that many things are kind of a mixtu

[Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

Hi everyone The current situation of how public outdoor and indoor swimming pool facilities are tagged is not ideal. There is no dedicated tag, so they are all tagged differently: e.g. as water parks, sports centres, swimming pools, recreation grounds or parks. However, these tags all define somet

[Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

Hi everyone The current situation of how public outdoor and indoor swimming pool facilities are tagged is not ideal. There is no dedicated tag, so they are all tagged differently: e.g. as water parks, sports centres, swimming pools, recreation grounds or parks. However, these tags all define somet

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

2017-09-17 18:20 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse : > > The lack of a dedicated tag and the different tagging prevents > searching for nearby swimming pool facilities. Furthermore, it is not > possible to distinguish between indoor and outdoor swimming pool > facilities. > Thank you for bringing swimm

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

Yes, please!! It's inconsistent to have a tag to mark the outdoor area surrounding a sports swimming pool or a water park and no tag to mark the outdoor area around a not-for-sports, not-theme-park swimming pool. I said that in the swimming pool discusion. If you have a tag for the facility, you

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

Le 17. 09. 17 à 18:20, Selfish Seahorse a écrit : > a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor existing indoor=yes/no is not enough ? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/indoor#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.op

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

On 17.09.2017 20:08, marc marc wrote: Le 17. 09. 17 à 18:20, Selfish Seahorse a écrit : a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor existing indoor=yes/no is not enough ? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/indoor#values Both are in use: * indoor=yes/no * outdoor=yes/no They are in use fo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

Thanks for clarification re "types" of training schools. Carrying on along the driving side of things but diverging a bit - how about flying & boating training schools? It was mentioned that for driver training, the school only teaches the student how to drive, then they must go to the Transport

[Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

Hi, I came across an interesting routing problem the other day. A section of the Richardson Highway in Alaska was relocated in 2015 by the Alaska DOT in anticipation of erosion or flooding by the nearby Delta River. However, the old highway is still present, is still paved, and is shorter than the

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Hi, > I came across an interesting routing problem the other day. A section of > the Richardson Highway in Alaska was relocated in 2015 by the Alaska DOT in > anticipation of erosion or flooding by the nearby Delta River. However, the > old

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I came across an interesting routing problem the other day. A section of > the Richardson Highway in Alaska was relocated in 2015 by the Alaska DOT in > anticipation of erosion or flooding by the nearby Delta River. However, the > old highw

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

How about =proposed? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed "For roads to be removed, use *proposed:highway*=no. This is understood by (at least) ITO's Transport Construction map." " - a further tag could be added to illustrate the expected begi

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

DigitalGlobe Standard Imagery has the new road. Also we have a more up to date map than Google in that area 😎 *Regards,* *Hans* On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > How about =proposed? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed > > "For roads to be removed, us

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

The old hwy looks like it is being torn apart in a few area looking at the Digital Globe standard imagery. Track may be more appropriate. On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Hans De Kryger wrote: > DigitalGlobe Standard Imagery has the new road. Also we have a more up to > date map than Google in t

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

I'm pretty sure this was discussed in the past on this mailing list. Is there a descend way to search in the tagging archive, it would interesting to see what was discussed then. m. On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Selfish Seahorse wrote: > Hi everyone > > The current situation of how public ou

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

I'm so enamored of the new ESRI imagery I had forgotten to check *all* the available imagery in that area. Thanks, Hans. It appears that not only has some of the old pavement been removed but there is no bridge over the small stream anymore. The highway isn't even continuous. I'll check with Will

[Tagging] Access by permit

I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game but require a special permit for access. This is from the Department of Fish & Game website: These lakes are on military land. A

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

Erkin Alp Güney Wrote in message: > > Another is magnetic levitation trains, this one having completed its >> draft quickly. This brings railway=maglev tag and its associated >> rendering. >> > Resent as per listmas

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military > reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the > Alaska Department of Fish & Game but require a special permit for access. > This is from the Depart

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

Maglev is intended for HST usage. Monorail is usually intended for urban commutes. Different uses, different tagging. Maglev needs to render prominently, urban monorail does not. 18-09-2017 07:54 tarihinde Holger Jeromin yazdı: > Currently we have world wide one disused, one active test rail and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

On 2017-09-18 07:49, Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > Maglev is intended for HST usage. Monorail is usually intended for urban > commutes. Different uses, different tagging. Maglev needs to render > prominently, urban monorail does not. But not by virtue of the technology. Maglev can be used for local tr

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 18 September 2017 at 14:55, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military >> reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the >> Alaska Department of Fish & Game bu