[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

Please comment the proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent>to add the value *intermittent *to the key* power_supply.* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoor

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

than power_supply:schedule= intermittent? Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 4:32:54 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 20:47 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Please comment the proposal to add the value intermittent to the key > > power_supply. > > > Jan, good move,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

- The community supply is not reliable and fails at random moments *during the day...* On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:09:33 AM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > The proposal comes from experience while traveling through Africa. > Electricity failing three times per year probably isn't ve

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

to empty waste water tanks that are fixed in the car Or do you also want to cover split collection of glass, plastic, organic material, etc.? Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 12:16:29 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > I'm lurking but you know where I stand on this tag. &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. On Wed Feb 18 2015 at 4:52:39 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Please have a look at this feature proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage> . *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

shops are not delivering a service, but goods only; this is comparable with other types of parking Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 5:09:59 AM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, johnw wrote: > >> I think he’s trying to say that “a storage

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Thanks again, makes sense. What is the best way to map what vehicles the storage is intended for? motorcar=yes? Access=motorcar, access=caravan would duplicate the key So it would become: shop=vehicle_storage covered=yes motorcar=yes caravan=yes On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 9:35:09 AM johnw wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

Sure, see my feedback there. On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 9:35:43 AM François Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > I've put some feedbacks on the Talk page of this proposal. > > It would be good to discuss those points before the vote start. > > > Cheers. > > *François Lacombe* > > fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

bruary 20, 2015 4:34:16 PM John Willis wrote: > >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 20, 2015, at 9:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> >> 2015-02-20 13:42 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum : >> >>> So it would become: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

You never can do it fully correct: - The breakfast restaurant in a two-star hotel just for residents is an amenity - A restaurant in a five-star hotel has to be present to qualify the for five stars, just like a gym, so it is an amenity, although you have to pay separately for the s

[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Please have a look at this <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D*> proposal. Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

The proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent>has been updated to reflect the outcome of the discussion. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer

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

*Camping categories* >From this discussion I propose to maintain three categories, but name them as listed below. I give examples from own experience from our overland trip from the Netherlands to South Africa in an attempt to answer the question why we would want them on the map: - Designated:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

I have adapted the proposal to reflect the results of this discussion. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:53 AM, johnw wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

Warin, Don't you van a few possible values that create little controversion to be included in the proposal. The ones that cause more discussion can be added later. In this way you have a complete proposal without losing the main key because of disagreement about proposed values. On Mon, Mar 2, 20

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

*Ones that won't annoy those who lurk silently until voting time ?* Well said! On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:24 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, David Bannon > wrote: > >> I agree with Jan in that a small set of (universally acceptable) values >> would make the proposal m

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

r definition under what condition a proposal passes. For example what are *significant *negative comments? In summary I doubt if the proposed changes will bring an improvement, but I wonder if we need voting at all, or only the preceding discussion. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 3, 2

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Regards, Jan On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:49 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:35 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Jan, for a non English speaker, you put it very well ! > > I agree with what you have said except, perhaps dropping the voti

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

s here <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent#Voting> . Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Why not? On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:54 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Time to vote .. on a fairly simple thing .. >> > > > Why does reception disk already appear in: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity > > And the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

When you enter a National Park in a country in Africa you usually have to register with the gatekeeper (not the same as the ticket counter) On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:47 PM Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.03.2015 12:09, Paul Johnson wrote: > > May be related to the United States Department of A

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

+1 On Sun, Mar 8, 2015, 23:09 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/03/2015 1:22 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: > > Why do you even bother with a proposal when you bascially don't care > > about tagging? > > I care to get good, if not the best, tags. I try to get ideas for these > from the taggin

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

As the comments period is over and no comments have been received lately I would like to move the proposal shop=storage to stage voting. I have done some final editing to cover the received feedback. Instructions for vot

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

hop is the better alternative. It remains a bit fuzzy, just like the real world. I have tried to explain that in the updated proposal. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:15 PM Andreas Goss wrote: > Was this RFC ever submitted to the mailinglist? > > Shop sounds a bit s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

Hi Bryce, How can I rename the wiki? Do I need to create a new one and copy/paste the contents? Regards, Jan On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Jan, > > I think it would help if you renamed the page title in the wiki, and > edited the text of the proposal for clarity. > Th

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

for the proposal as it is a bit more in the paragraph "Tagging". Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > There a "move page" link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming > pages. >

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I fully agree with Martin. Availability of a tag like this is very important. I have to be able to enter a value while I am driving without sophisticated measuring equipment. I rather have a rating that is one step off on the scale than no rating at all. Many of these roads are in areas where few

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

mation. Honestly, while not very clear, the pictures look about right > to me. > > David > . > > Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > >On 11.03.2015 17:29, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > >> Perhaps we can extend the library of pictures in the wiki to give > people a > &

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this discussion the two are mixed: 1. The physical status of the road is described as well as possible and it is left to the receiver of this information to judge if he/she can use the road. This is quite complex as many p

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

+1 On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-03-12 2:53 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > >> >> The level of opposition -- regardless of the technical count -- indicates >> the proposal can use some improvement. >> I urge any person getting this level of opposition to recons

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

- Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself, but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at industrial compounds etc. than at campsites; - If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as accurately as possible whe

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

+1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David wrote: > "I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.." > > I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my > experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or > track. It does really need to b

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

I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum

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

AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jan van Bekkum > > > wrote: > >> > >> What to do with places where one cannot camp? > > > > > > Sure > > > > camp_site=prohibited or camp_site=no [for

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

t run for profit as a business > would be. > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can >> you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? >> >&

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

Therefore the proposal explicitly states: *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar

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

Ref1: good point. Any recommendation for the tags to be used? Ref 2: isn't this covered by example 2.1? Aren't the permissive ones at the bottom of your mail covered by example 4.4? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:36 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Two issues I think the proposal should address: > > 1) Use

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

ite but it is also > noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business > would be. > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can >> yo

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

t;> There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground >> inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also >> noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business >> would be. >> >> On Fri, Mar 13,

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

Combination of 2 and 3. It must be possible to distinguish between vehicles. As I wrote earlier a stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a motorcycle and vice versa. A scale in words very bad, bad, ... very good or whatever at least helps me to remember what the "good en

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

rgumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards Jan van Bekkum Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Ja

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

rgumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer wrote: > > > > So - I am against any of propose

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

Nowhere, but I repeat my question: What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards, Jan On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:16 AM Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: > Hi, > > Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum: > > &

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

+1 to make a wiki entry on leisure=maze. Fits with what already exists and the alternative isn't really better. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > >> On Fri,

[Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is A rule of thumb for "enough support" is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15 total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). This sounds a bit strange to me: a pro

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

Can we learn something from this: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating? On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:49 AM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in > JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. >

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

I would like to stick to my original proposal. It brings the logic back, but doesn't change the rules. *"enough support" is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a majority approval otherwise.* On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > Am 17.03.2015 um

Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.

Can we copy some of this: for other vehicles than mtb: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating? On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:55 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:39 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale > > > At grade 6, it's a li

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

only bring the logic back but also address this issue. > > I agree that it changes the rules, but why not try to improve them? > > Cheers, > Kotya > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I would like to stick to my original proposal.

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

Good idea to have such a tag, should include diesel for cars, kerosine for heating and propane/butane for cooking that are sold in the same way. I Kenya we have been in areas far away from regular filling stations; there people are selling diesel from drums. I think shop=fuel is dangerous as it is

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

I would prefer a different tag as I would not like the lemonade table to be rendered in the same way as a regular filling station. The tag shop=gas with subtag would be better. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:46 AM Andrew Errington wrote: > I think they should remain as amenity=fuel (I have visited T

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

+1 The last thin I want is to count on a regular filling station and to and up at a "bottle store" with my 4WD. A that will happen if the type of store is an attribute, as map makers will show them the same. So please make it a different value for the tag, not fuel. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:11 P

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was proposed earlier). On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:32 PM sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: > Jan van Bekkum wrote > > It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and > > vote > > compared to

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search, On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:26 PM Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 19/03/2015 15:42, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was > > proposed earlier). > > Then you

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

It is expected that most renderers only look at the namespace tag, not at the attributes. How do we ensure that I don't end up at a "bottle store" while I expect a decent filling station. I am afraid that we pollute the amenity=fuel tag if we use it for fuel out of a drum as well? We really should

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

There is a similar confusion for kerosine (US), paraffine (UK), petroleum (NL); it all the same liquid. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM johnw wrote: > On Mar 20, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 20/03/2015 6:20 PM, John Willis wrote: > > > I haven't had a chance to

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

Willis wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > > There is a similar confusion for kerosine (US), paraffine (UK), petroleum > (NL); it all the same liquid > > > Yikes! > > Paraffin is a wax, and petroleum is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: >

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

I have updated the proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D*> with the feedback as much as possible. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John Willis wrote: > > I un

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

ng.n.16.png as currently in place > > > > Why do you use the word undefined. It's the first time that word > > appears in the proposal and has no . I think you should say, > > commercial sites or sites that are tagged tourism=camp_site but have > > no other clarify

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

What Dave Bannon says is exactly what I have in mind. #6 was intended for parks with larger areas where camping is allowed. I have made a few adaptations to the text to clarify the issue I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the tag camp_site

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

For example in Sweden you are not allowed to camp in view of any home etc. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:22 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 08:02 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > ... > > > I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the > > tag camp_site=perm

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

If I would have to choose between the options I would go for full_service, but I leave this to the native speakers. If I get the same service and pay the same for a state run campground as for a privately run one it can be called commercial. Is it a problem if tourism=camp_site wouldn't get the at

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

There is also more risk that fuel sold for cars is more polluted or that water was added. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

I can't imagine that people who are able to provide mapping input for OSM are not able to work with forums etc. Moderation is something you have to agree upon before. The OSM community can decide not to moderate. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-03-23 10:43 GM

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

+5 I fully agree with Dave! We need a clear differentiation between regular filling stations with large underground containers and the shops that sell a few liters of diesel of which you may hope that it isn't polluted and doesn't contain water. When I travel in countries like Malawi or Ethiopia I

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

tegory of campground (definition and examples). Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >

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

Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement, let > them be mentioned as optional > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> I have renamed "commercial" to "standard" as it is the most common >> campground an

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

Martin, I agree with the proposal to have a different main tag for informal sites; something like tourism=wild_camp. I guess some kind of RV/trekking attribute would work as well, What we now are looking for is the proper distinction between 1, 2 and 4. It should be one attribute key to distinguis

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

> > How does the tagging differ from an unstaffed filling station where you > enter your credit card and fill up the tank of your car yourself 24/7 like > I seem them all over the place in the Netherlands? In the situation you > describe I really prefer shop=*. > Regards, Jan > > At these places

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

tween designated (in the broader sense), non designated (not much discussed here, but for me the most important reason to start the topic) and informal. We could decide to recombine the current *Standard*, *Designated *and *Trekking.* Indeed we could leave the other details to attributes. Regards, Ja

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

Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close to what I had in mind with camp_site=designated. So the updated proposal would become: - Designated - standard, designated (duplication of tourism=caravan_site), trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with

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

In Africa we have been desperately looking for such places. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM, David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote > > > > Are we better saying - > >

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

w attributes in this proposal as each of them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the discussions. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ​Before I update the proposal ​ ___ Tagging maili

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

What we discuss here is a classification of campgrounds. In addition we need tags that spell out available facilities. Those tags should be separate discussions (this is already complex enough to bring to closure :-( ). See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site and http://

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

> Using a relation in any case you see all amenities: when I find a > campground on the map I see a restaurant in its direct neighbourhood, etc., > even if the relation isn't handled at all by the renderer. I am not so > afraid of mapping relations. The site relation is very simple. > If I don't

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

I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities in a relation. I really do want to keep *non-designated* as currently proposed. It was

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Dave, > > > IMHO these amenities are not "stand alone", they are attributes of the > camp ground itself. For things like fire places and BBQ, might be one > for every pitch. I'm not into micro mapping ! > > This is correct for BBQ's, but not for big amenities like restaurants, bars and shops, wh

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

> > Need to start another topic for this? That would separate it out from > "established, unofficial and wild campings". > Makes sense. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___

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

nated category. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > > > I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was > > my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is no

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

Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation between the camper and the land owner: - Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is) i

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

an see the quality of the places varies wildly. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on > availability of services, whil

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

2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated > > campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia, > > Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and > > enjo

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

Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not listed. For overlanders this information is too important not to have it mapped somehow. Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that shou

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

he is > nothing “Wild” about it. > > All of these examples can be covered by existing tags. > > Jonathan > > ----------- > http://bigfatfrog67.me > > *From:* Jan van Bekkum > *Sent:* ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎12‎:‎36 > > *To:* Tag discuss

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

Fortunately we had those as well: https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641 > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

ing? > > Jonathan > > http://bigfatfrog67.me > > *From:* Jan van Bekkum > *Sent:* ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎11 > > *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > > Fortunately we had those as well: > https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 > rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: > http://wiki.openstre

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

After yesterday's discussion I thought about the wording a bit more: - We can use *camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality* for the hotels, hostels etc. that don't have a separate camping area or amenities but offer a place at their parking and some way of access to amenities for payment a

[Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

g of nodes incorrect if layout of camping area is not known, (2) use of relations felt to be difficult by some mappers. All in all I personally prefer option 4. Opinions? Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

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

more of an issue in Africa than in Europe, but in countries without a camping culture you need this. In my earlier mail I have given a number of examples of such places that we visited. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan van Bekkum >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

So if you don't know the real shape of the polygon it would be best to create a placeholder polygon (like a circle - it will be clear that it is a placeholder) and put all amenities inside it until the real shape is known. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:33 AM Marc Gemis wrote: > Overpass understands

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

True On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:24 PM Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > > Hi Pieren, > > I have mapped those myself only in cases other reasons > > existed to map than. > > But this is not what the first section sugge

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

> > m > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> So if you don't know the real shape of the polygon it would be best to >> create a placeholder polygon (like a circle - it will be clear that it is a >> placeholder) and put all amenit

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

So, explicit mapping is needed. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:20 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28/03/2015 1:48 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> However, places you select for security or for av

Re: [Tagging] How does an end user use camp site data ?

I don't agree that we don't make progress, but we have different agendas. I put a proposal how to solve this in the original mailing list. If I am in a country with abundant campsite (France) I start looking for a campsite one hour before I want to stop and I base my choice on location and facilit

  1   2   >