Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

After looking at the feedback, I have had a major realization that I think makes the proposal much more viable while not adding innumerable new relations. Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries#.22Disputed_Area.22_and_.22Zone_of_Control.2

Re: [Tagging] My proposal for disputed country borders

(Some of this is on the wiki) On 28/11/2018 06:39, Johnparis wrote: I don't think the notion of "according_to" is viable unless it is restricted to the two disputing parties. (Three-way disputes can be simplified into three two-way disputes.) This is why I like according_to:XX=yes/no. It allo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:55 AM Doug Hembry wrote: > > Everyone seems to have forgotten boundary=administrative with its > associated admin_level=n tag, which IMHO is pretty analogous to > boundary=protected_area with its protect_class=n tag. I didn't forget it. I neglected to mention it becau

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

what about observers to the UN, e.g. Palestine? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_observers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine Or Kurdistan, which doesn’t exist as a country, but there is a people and claims for a country (verifiability of claimed b

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

Thanks for that, Martin. This is explicitly covered in the proposal under the List of Claiming Entities. The criteria for joining the list are crucial to implementation of the proposal. Palestine is on the list. Kurdistan is not. But once again, it's the criteria that count. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

Based on the feedback I have received so far, I plan to refine the Proposed Feature. I still welcome comments during this period, but I think the revised version will go a long way to resolving the problems we currently face. (For a hint, see my latest remarks on the Talk page of the proposal.) I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On 11/28/18 11:49, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: No need for conspiracy theories. We simply need more contributors at openstreetmap-carto who are willing to volunteer their time to fix these issues. But we are about to start rendering the equivalent protected_class boundaries for national parks and na

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

W dniu 28.11.2018 o 17:23, Doug Hembry pisze: > The point is taken about the workload and lack of coders. It has > always amazed me that the team manages to produce a robust, attractive > and coherent map from the disparate tagging styles and sometime > slightly weird practices that can be found i

Re: [Tagging] Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

payment:sms=yes payment:WhateverPayApp=yes contact:sms= ref:payment= As an alternative, ref:sms=* would also work for me, though I think it's redundant if the code is the same for all payment options. ref:payment:sms=* sounds a bit excessive, but would be the most correct tagging. However, OSM str

Re: [Tagging] Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Sorry, but it should be: payment:sms=yes payment:sms:WhateverPayApp=yes payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact= payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment= because, sooner or later, multiple payment options/clearingouse/apps could be supported and each should have its info. The "ref:" c

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:59 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:55 AM Doug Hembry > wrote: > >> But seriously, how many aboriginal lands do you think a mapper would >> have to tag before they remember "protect_class=24"? >> > > How many mappers handle nothing but aboriginal lands

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

28. Nov 2018 19:45 by dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl : > W dniu 28.11.2018 o 17:23, Doug Hembry pisze: > >> The point is taken about the workload and lack of coders. It has >> always amazed me that the team manages to produce a robust, attractive >> and coherent map from the di

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 07:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > WaPo has an op-ed > > about a pending SCOTUS case on this, that has a nonzero chance of redrawing > state lines and affecting

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:55 AM Paul Allen wrote: Everyone seems to have forgotten boundary=administrative with its associated admin_level=n tag, which IMHO is pretty analogous to boundary=protected_area with its protect_class=n tag. I didn't forget it. I neglected to mention it because I didn

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:24 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 07:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> WaPo has an op-ed >> >> about a pending SCOTUS case on this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Not to say that tag popularity means it's the best way forward. Consider that the US is still dealing with an import on low quality TIGER data and continent-wide smash-tagging by one person affecting how newer people use highway=motorway and highway=trunk. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:09 PM Doug Hem

Re: [Tagging] Named walking tracks following road

On 28/11/2018 07:52, OSMDoudou wrote: I would suggest to make a consistent edit of the area, not just solve one isolated MapRoulette challenge. Yes. Actually, in a case like that where someone's accidentally merged some names or other tags I'd suggest commenting on the changeset so that the

[Tagging] telescope types ... more type nonsense

Hi, I have made changes to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:telescope:type This again it a 'type' key that means??? I have taken it to be "broadly categorise the spectrum that the telescope sense". Other problems .. Solar telescope ... a special kind of optical telescope .. should t

[Tagging] antenna use key to replace some of the antenna type

Hi, Following from my previous post on antenna:type .. This is the first of the antenna:* keys that could be used to categorise various 'types' of antennas. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use This one is on the use to which the antenna signal is put. It do

Re: [Tagging] telescope types ... more type nonsense

> Other problems .. > "A large fraction of such astronomical gamma rays are screened by Earth's atmosphere." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray#Sources All done by satellite these days And don't leave out neutrino telescopes

Re: [Tagging] telescope types ... more type nonsense

X-ray telescopes cannot be built on the ground, but there are several recent gamma-ray telescope arrays. They are shaped like radio telescope dishes, but the dish is polished like a huge shiny mirror; quite unique. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:31 AM Michael Patrick wrote: > > Other problems .. >> >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Paul, I want to take your feedback with the weight and respect it deserves. I see you voted against "boundary=aboriginal_lands" on the wiki because you prefer "boundary=administrative". Can you clarify more about your proposed alternative? In this thread I see you're a fan of admin_level=*, but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alan McConchie wrote: > I want to take your feedback with the weight and respect it deserves. I > see you voted against "boundary=aboriginal_lands" on the wiki because you > prefer "boundary=administrative". Can you clarify more about your proposed > alternative? >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

In California there are “End Freeway” signs, usually between the last interchange and about 1/2 mike before the first at-grade intersection On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:54 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alan McConchie > wrote: > >> I want to take your feedback with the we

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

We consider it as generic for any type of entrance arch, be it in city, neighborhood, etc. Examples: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=9abzbC1EpTRUE8R4PDYs5A&lat=-27.454227912298393&lng=-56.04909613175403&z=17

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Ok, I see. So you propose that these areas should not have any additional tags that would identify them as special aboriginal areas, and that the admin_level should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances of each area and the country that it's in? And furthermore you do

Re: [Tagging] antenna use key to replace some of the antenna type

Hello, Warin, a couple of quick, non-exhaustive, notes on antenna use (or is it /usage/?) even if I'm still doubtful we should map with such detail: * amateur_radio: antenna systems used by *licensed *radio amateurs * transponder: I think they are mostly used on *mobile *systems (/unmappabl

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

+1000! On 2018-11-29 03:52, Paul Johnson wrote: > Treating tribal boundaries as other political boundaries humanizes the > situation. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lis

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:35 PM Alan McConchie wrote: > Ok, I see. So you propose that these areas should not have any additional > tags that would identify them as special aboriginal areas, and that the > admin_level should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on the > circumstances of ea

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Admin_level=3 is incorrect for reservations. in the USA They do not have administrative authority that is superior to that of the admin_level 4 States or even counties (level 6) in most areas of governance, but in some areas they have even more independence. No numeric admin_level is going to wor

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:09 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Admin_level=3 is incorrect for reservations. in the USA > > They do not have administrative authority that is superior to that of the > admin_level 4 States or even counties (level 6) in most areas of > govern

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:21:28 -0600 Paul Johnson wrote: > Not to mention in practice, this is something of a misnomer for most > tribes in the US. WaPo has an op-ed > > about a

Re: [Tagging] antenna use key to replace some of the antenna type

Thanks Sergio! I have updated with some more stuff. A fair proportion from your post - comments below. Wifi sucks as a tag .. it is a system not a use. Rats. Need a value for it. On 29/11/18 14:40, Sergio Manzi wrote: Hello, Warin, a couple of quick, non-exhaustive, notes on antenna use (or