I think this is a decent proposal. Thanks Peter for putting it online.
The only thing I would like to point out is about "alternative" or "(alternate
is also accepted)". Perhaps when can decide on one of the two. As it's all new
and almost no roles are currently in use, it's better to make a cl
My opinion is that there are too many different features lumped
together under "amenity=social_facility"
This came up with the "Refugee Site" proposal, where it was noted that
sometimes amenity=social_facility + social_facility=shelter is
sometimes used for residential facilities that services for
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:54, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> social_facility=ambulatory_care - "An office for workers who support
> the living needs of those who can't fully support themselves"
>
> Shouldn't that be "office=ambulatory_care" or something else under
> "office"? Why is an office a soci
Looking more into this, I think the problem is with the residential /
inpatient facilities.
While social_facility=hospice was documented a few years ago,
amenity=hospice was much older, and healthcare=hospice is several
times more common now even though it was not documented. A hospice is
a pallia
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 15:41, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
Also, amenity=nursing_home is still more common than
> social_facility=nursing_home. At least in the USA, a real "nursing
> home" is a "skilled nursing facility" with RNs always on staff, who
> supervise patients getting their medications and
So, I would like to know what would be the technical pros and cons
regarding heritage:ref:operator=* vs ref:operator=* , i.e. the database
use, rendering, consulting, exporting etc.
Às 21:04 de 17/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre..
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
>
> Is it or is it not a social facility within the broad meaning of the term?
> I'd say that it is. It's a facility. It's social (in both meanings:
> people
> interact socially and it is a social service).
>
apart from workshops, it is
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:41 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> I would suggest deprecating social_facility=hospice, and I'm also not
> convinced that social_facility=nursing_home is better than
> amenity=nursing_home.
interestingly, these 2 tags also haven't been
Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
> apart from workshops, it is this overly broad meaning of "social facility"
> that doesn't make the tag super useful. In the end you will have to add
I agree with this overbroad notion. I am very much in favor of a
top-level tag with subtags when all of the subthing
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 17:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >:
>
> Why on earth should we have this second level tagging for social
> facilities but have almost all the other tags in a flat system (not
> amenity=educational_institution, educat
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
> Because "amenity" has come to mean "miscellaneous."
>
this is trolling, because amenity=social_facility social_facility=food_bank
still has amenity as the "main" key, if we made it amenity=food_bank we
would not change anything in this re
Did you consider mtb=designated?
Are there implications for pedestrians, riders and "other" cyclists?
Motorbikes? (Question is, are they allowed, not allowed, or maybe allowed
in absence of explicit specific access tags?)
Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging maili
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 18:21, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >:
>
>> Because "amenity" has come to mean "miscellaneous."
>>
>
> this is trolling,
>
No it isn't. I'm entirely serious. Amenity has come to mean
miscellaneous.
This is not a
Hi Hidde, welcome,
The wiki definition is « Used to indicate that a particular location is
known by a particular name, to indicate what sort of "place" it is. A place
tag should exist for every significant human settlements (city, town,
suburb, etc.) and also for notable unpopulated, named places.
sent from a phone
> On 20. Apr 2020, at 20:02, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> No it isn't. I'm entirely serious. Amenity has come to mean miscellaneous.
> This is not a good thing.
this sounds as if you were implying it was different some time ago? Anyway, it
is offtopic in this discussion unless
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 21:50, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 20. Apr 2020, at 20:02, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > No it isn't. I'm entirely serious. Amenity has come to mean
> miscellaneous.
> > This is not a good thing.
>
> this sounds as if you were implying it was different some time ago
Con:
1) "hertiage:ref:operator" is 9 characters longer. This uses an
insignificant amount of disk space and bandwidth, but it does take an
extra second to type when mappers are entering tags manually.
The only advantage would be if there is a different "ref:operator" for
the "hertiage" designatio
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 16:47, António Madeira
wrote:
> So, I would like to know what would be the technical pros and cons
> regarding heritage:ref:operator=* vs ref:operator=* , i.e. the database
> use, rendering, consulting, exporting etc.
>
AFAIK, only one map makes use of heritage*. So if yo
As I already wrote before in this thread, lutz already agreed with and
supported my proposal.
My problem with the actual ref tag is that there are many ref tags for
other schemes and elements, but I don't know if this concern is
pointless or not.
I would like to see this scheme more organized and
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 00:30, António Madeira
wrote:
> As I already wrote before in this thread, lutz already agreed with and
> supported my proposal.
>
Then you don't have to worry about it being rendered. That's one of your
questions dealt with.
My problem with the actual ref tag is that the
In my experience of mapping heritage stuff (mainly in Belgium), i never
found any case where i would need to re-use the scheme
*ref:=* *(where
the "" is the group of letter given by the other tag
*heritage:operator=*) for another thing (and it was always
comprehensible, as all other subtag of the h
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 03:42, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Did you consider mtb=designated?
>
This was considered and mentioned in the rationale, mtb as a key is better
use as a mode specific access tag, which makes mtb=designated to usually
mean signposted or otherwise indicated for use by moun
This is the main reason why I came up with this refinement.
For example, if I search for "ref:" at taginfo, there are *millions* of
results. I believe this has implications in data management, although
I'm by no means an expert on that matter.
Às 20:57 de 20/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:
As it
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 02:10, António Madeira
wrote:
> This is the main reason why I came up with this refinement.
> For example, if I search for "ref:" at taginfo, there are *millions* of
> results. I believe this has implications in data management, although I'm
> by no means an expert on that
So, what's the rationale for using heritage:operator and not heritage:ref?
It's these inconsistencies that breaks my logic...
Às 22:19 de 20/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 at 02:10, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote:
This is the main reason why I came
On 21/4/20 5:31 am, Florimond Berthoux wrote:
Hi Hidde, welcome,
The wiki definition is « Used to indicate that a particular location
is known by a particular name, to indicate what sort of "place" it is.
A place tag should exist for every significant human settlements
(city, town, suburb, et
26 matches
Mail list logo
