Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

ym to document the date when total disagreement was reached, the number of days that took and how many mails were sent? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 29 jul. 2019 om 08:49 schreef Tobias Zwick : > One or several wiki edits should stand at the end of every tagging > discussion, to document the conc

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Hi, On 29.07.19 08:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently > incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably > deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:* > (namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 4

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

> > *This attribute is not suitable for private house antennas.* > Apparently this caveat prevented us from using all above tags since we want to use it in this regard. See screenshot [1] 1. https://imgur.com/tyXnMtJ Le lun. 29 juil. 2019 à 06:23, Topographe Fou a écrit : > Look at this recent

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 01:17, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > admin_level isn't *wrong*, it just doesn't help. With or without > admin_level, there's no IUCN-defined protect_class that fits. I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own system, while it shoul

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone On 29. Jul 2019, at 01:18, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Putting on my cynic hat, I'd say you'll probably get too many objections for >> it to happen: >> people will say you have to manually ensure area=yes is actually valid in >> each situation; > > Yeah. Although, how can a prot

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 08:13, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is > actually used now days. this tag was introduced through an automated edit many years ago with the reasoning that natural=tree should only be used for “special” an

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Thanks, that makes sense now. Should probably be deprecated then, not obsolete since there are some uses. But then I checked the other values of denotation=, eg denotation=urban, denotation=avenue, =landmark, =natural_monument. Boy, that's a mess. The whole key was poorly thought out. It looks li

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Am 29.07.2019 um 10:44 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> On 29. Jul 2019, at 08:13, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is >> actually used now days. > > this tag was introduced through an automated edit many years ago with the >

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 11:11 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > But then I checked the other values of denotation=, eg > denotation=urban, denotation=avenue, =landmark, =natural_monument. > Boy, that's a mess. The whole key was poorly thought out. > > It looks like man

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

In Italy, are all of the trees with designation=natural_monument the officially protected ones, or are there others that are old or historic but not official? On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 11:11 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisen

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 11:14 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole : > Am 29.07.2019 um 10:44 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > > this tag was introduced through an automated edit many years ago with > the reasoning that natural=tree should only be used for “special” and alone > standing trees, so that all o

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 11:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > In Italy, are all of the trees with designation=natural_monument the > officially protected ones, or are there others that are old or historic but > not official? > you'd have to check all of them to be

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 09:36 Uhr schrieb Enock Seth Nyamador < enocks...@gmail.com>: > *This attribute is not suitable for private house antennas.* >> > Apparently this caveat prevented us from using all above tags since we > want to use it in this regard. See screenshot [1] > > 1. https://imgur

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

I agree; I spent a few minutes trying to improve the page a bit. However, I don't see much benefit from mapping private household satellite antennas: the dishes in the linked picture above are only 90 cm across, and they are on just about every house. Maybe there are more useful things to map in

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > > Frankly, I am worried about the obsession with tag "statuses". I > couldn't care less whether "abandoned=yes" was obsolete, deprecated, in > use, or even voted on; "negating tags" like this is are dangerous and >

[Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

Hello, the OSM-Wiki-page on charging stations [1] defines the tag socket::output=watt wheres the examples contain values like "22 kW". What would the preferred format be? "22000" or "22 kW"? I would like to clearify this on the wiki-page. Personally I would prefer "22000" as it fits with o

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

> However, I don't see much benefit from mapping private household > satellite antennas: the dishes in the linked picture above are only 90 > cm across, and they are on just about every house. > Maybe there are more useful things to map in Ghana before adding these > minor features? I agree with

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

On Mon, July 29, 2019 7:03 am, Enock Seth Nyamador wrote: > I am looking for specific tags for Satellite Dish [1]. I haven't found > anything near so far. May be am missing something, else it doesn't exist > and might be useful to propose and come handy in some cases. Prior discussion about that:

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb dktue : > Hello, > > the OSM-Wiki-page on charging stations [1] defines the tag > socket::output=watt > > wheres the examples contain values like "22 kW". > > What would the preferred format be? "22000" or "22 kW"? I would like to > clearify this on the w

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

I'd vote for kW aswell (and a value of "22" then), since we're not always using SI and not always base-unit-values (see kilometers per hour). Am 29.07.2019 um 12:53 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb dktue >: Hello,

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus > disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry. > It applies to more than just quarries. The problem is that the namespaced version, when applied to phy

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 11:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: However, I don't see much benefit from mapping private household > satellite antennas: the dishes in the linked picture above are only 90 > cm across, and they are on just about every house. > > Maybe there are more useful things to map in Gha

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 14:17, Paul Allen wrote: > > I could see where it might be useful to somebody to map > them to show the uptake of the technology in given areas it could also show the level of cooperation/coordination: one dish per household or a better one shared a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kevin Kenny wrote: There are no sizable cities in the park, but dozens of towns and > villages of a few thousand inhabitants each. > I can think of only one city in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park (but I'm not that familiar with it) and that's the second-small

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

>> By the way, it seems the wiki does not show "statuses" correctly for >> historic page revisions: it shows a status (the current one?) where there is >> none set in the template, and it shows statuses that haven't been in >> existence when the revision was published. > > This might be related

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Yes, buildings are a good example of a feature that can be disused or even abandoned, but remain a building=house or building=barn. I've recreated the pages. Please check them and make or suggest any improvements needed: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:disused=yes https://wiki.openstreet

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 7:58 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > “how can a protected_AREA be anything but an area?” > > Right. Please don’t add area=yes to these features. If you're saying that the alternative is for mappers to wait, possibly years, for an approved osm2pgsql stylesheet+Lua change, and

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote: It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced version, when applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto). Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer... It's fine with usages.  I

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own system, > while it should ideally allow to distinguish all the IUCN classes, it doesn’t > mean we cannot have more qualifiers, if they seem useful. We return to the

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

29 Jul 2019, 14:05 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg <> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus >> disused=yes might be more sensible than disuse

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

To be more exact someone decided to delete content and document prefix on the same page instead of creating new one. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:disused:&diff=878757&oldid=862845 29 Jul 2019, 08:45 by o...@westnordost.de: > Sounds to me that those pages were incor

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:43, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote: > > > It applies to more than just quarries. The problem is that the namespaced > version, when > applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto). > > Please let's just stop worryi

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:54, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Is there a case where making it visible would actually be useful? > Yes, I would argue that disused physical objects should be rendered. A disused:building=house is still a house. An abandoned:building=house is still a house. Even ruins:b

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > We return to the original idea proposed at the very start of this > thread: 'protect_class=21 protection_object=recreation' for these > features. Except for the ugliness of using numeric values for > protect_class, it sounds as if you might agr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 14:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own >> system, while it should ideally allow to distinguish all the IUCN classes, >> it doe

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:06 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the man_made=satellite_dish tag is poorly defined anyway, the short > definition speaks about "ground stations": "A ground station is a terrestrial > radio station designed for extraplanetary telecommunication with spacecraf." > > Prob

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 14:43 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend : > On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote: > > > It applies to more than just quarries. The problem is that the namespaced > version, when > applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto). > > Please let's just stop

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 15:51 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > To an American engineer (I can speak with some authority, *being* an > American holder of an MSEE degree ;) ) 'communication' comprises > either transmission or reception, or both, and 'spacecraft' includes > 'sat

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

No, summary of discussion with reference to the thread - to avoid rediscussing the same thing in  a future using the same arguments and spending time on rediscovering the same facts. 29 Jul 2019, 09:20 by pelder...@gmail.com: > ym to document the date when total disagreement was reached, the numb

[Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I read up on the rather exhausting history of public transport tagging. The strange thing is that the approved proposal which introduced public_transport=* and the current public_transport pages suggest using bus=yes only for public_transport=stop_position. In contrast, public_transport=platform d

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:44 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Maybe you can see (and map) the state park as one thing and the nature > reserve within it as another? For the state park you would need to say it is > a state park and has this name and or number (usually there will be an > identifie

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Hi This is not a criticism of Joseph. This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors. highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema. It was created long before the invention of the

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated. Are they "in use" then? According to https://taghistory.raifer.tech they've both increased in number by about 3500 features in the past 12 months. In comparison, disused:shop=* has been added about 3000 times in the same time period. On 7/29/19,

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there, to be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render. Davef On 29/07/2019 07:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I was going to fix the status of a

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

29 Jul 2019, 18:34 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated. > > Are they "in use" then? > I would say that use is deprecated for things like shop=* and in use for things like quarries, buildings, adits, bunkers etc > > According to https://taghistory.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 16:37, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > There are other historic sites embedded in the park are all these sites mentioned to be part of the state park, or do they simply happen to be within the boundaries? If the definition of the park is a list of areas a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

-1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area, and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or villages which are not part of the official protected area. Mappers don’t need to add things to relatio

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:02 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 29. Jul 2019, at 16:37, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > There are other historic sites embedded in the park > are all these sites mentioned to be part of the state park, or do they simply > happen to be within the boundaries? I'm not

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:20 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I would say that use is deprecated for things like shop=* and in use > for things like quarries, buildings, adits, bunkers etc I wind up using a lifecycle prefix mostly when the former use is recognizable, but there is another tag for wha

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

On 30/07/19 02:55, Dave F via Tagging wrote: I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there, to be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render. That is a problem with that particular re

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

The use of 'multipliers' is common .. As well as kilometers per hour (100 kmh would be come 100,000 mh without the multiplier) there is mass kg and tonnes .. (10kg would be come 10,000 g with the multiplier) , elevation in meters and kilometers etc. Preference should be for what is commonly u

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I think you might be referring to this proposal from Zverik last summer, which suggests stopping using public_transport=stop_position/platform/station, but keeps the relations: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport - =stop_position is not really needed for

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

I don't have an opinion about kw or w, but if the value is only a number, then to prevent confusion and reduce mistagging the key should specify, output-kw=22 . On 7/29/19 5:00 AM, dktue wrote: I'd vote for kW aswell (and a value of "22" then), since we're not always using SI and not always b