Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

What do I see on the map when I use the stacked amenity model? A campsite symbol with a restaurant below it or a restaurant symbol with a campsite below it? A search in OsmAnd will give me the campsite in all cases, but it cannot always show all tags below it, so I don't know all amenities by looki

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

Some participants in this discussion feel we are making little progress. The cause is that contributors have two different agenda's: 1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the relation between the land owner and the camper 2. Get a classification of regular campsites

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

Bryce, This is not the right example. All tags in your example are attributes that belong to the camp_site, no need for extra nodes; you are fully correct there. What I am talking about is multiple namespace tags in a single node: tourism=camp_site amenity=restaurant;shower;bar;swimming_pool shop

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

Conclusion for my own mapping efforts from the discussion so far: start with stacked amenities until you know something about the campsite topology, then make nodes/polygons per amenity. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Am 28.03.2015 um 12:26 schrieb Marc G

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

Hi Dave, I agree with that. I am thinking about camp_type=*. Also usable for scout camps? On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:11 AM David Bannon wrote: > > > On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > 1. Get a high level of classification of campsit

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

> > > > What if I know the camp site has a showers, a swimming pool and a dump > station, but I don't know where on the site they are? > Thus: > > *tourism=camp_site* > *showers=yes* > *swimming_pool=yes* > *dump_station=yes* > > > It means that you create new tags for objects for which approved ta

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

So what is the voting for then: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process? On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:57 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> >>> It means that you create new tags for objects for which approve

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

I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in the tourism section. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski wrote: > You have to edit the Map Features template. > > Michał > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: >

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

I just followed the post voting instructions that ask for the listing. There is no condition for a minimal number of votes. I believe it is good to have a single list with all approved tags. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:48 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Am 28.03.2015 um 22:12 schrieb Michał

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

lready various other attributes defined on that page and it would be > natural to include your tag there as well. > > Ole / opani > > On 28/03/2015 22:35, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in > > the tourism se

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

I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our discussions. It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation) and does no longer classify on facility level, ease of access or pricing. It can be found here . Re

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

I decided not to include the scout camp, because it then still might be confused with a place where ordinary campers can stay (like is the case with all options in the proposal). After the long discussion I have tried to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else will st

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*

. Proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D* Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*

re" > (or in character) that will make it grammatically correct. > > Cheers, > Dave > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > >> After an intensive discussion (see [Tagging] Tagging established, >> unofficial and wild campings) that has resulte

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*

Corrected where applicable On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:33 PM Pieren wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > > > Not sure about the typo : is it "non-designated" or "non_designated" ? > > Pieren > > ___

Re: [Tagging] RFC - proposal page for camp_site=

Does any formal definition of a postfix to a key exist? A prefix in prefix:key like in abandoned:shop tells something about the state for the key. In a proposal like camp_site:restaurant=yes it means that restaurant belongs to camping (a kind of site relation in a line). In practice in this exam

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

I will definitely use the proposed tag where applicable. The issue of adding a relation is close to the ongoing discussion about mapping amenities on camping sites: *Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites.* >> This is the only critically important aspect IMO. For a building hosting > multiple

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM Dan S wrote: > 2015-04-03 10:22 GM

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

This is an example of a more general discussion: the distinction between land use (what it looks like) and what function it has. Similar cases are being discussed for a building that looks like a church, but is not used for religious services or a reception desk that is hidden in a non-descript bui

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published > and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag > without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't e

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

Is "supported" reasonable? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 03.04.2015 11:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of "Approved" to > > read "Published" > > I would prefer to stay with "approved". Using "published" would not > act

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

I like recommended by 25 users, but then I would also want to know how many users oppose the idea: 25-0 is not the same as 25-24. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:14 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recomme

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

I don't say that tourist, scout, refugee should be outside OSM. My statement is that the group key (tourism, shop, highway, ...) is not needed, as all information is in the value (hotel, supermarket, motorway, ...). Attribute tags that give more information about the main key (opening_hours=...) re

Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=

Mosques often have separate entrances for men and women. On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:34 AM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Sounds good. > > Is there a similar dual entrance concept for other classes of building, or > is this just a school thing? > > -- > Many western buildings have a service entrance, but t

Re: [Tagging] Straw pole Temperature=objective default unit?

I would prefer a degree symbol. Otherwise you never can be sure that C is meant by a mapper from a F region. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:13 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > I think that, as for elevations, it should default to degrees Celsius. > That is, taking the number 20 as a value would mean 20 degr

Re: [Tagging] Straw pole Temperature=objective default unit?

As a physicist I don't like any value without units. The degree symbol is not needed, but C would be great: 21 C, 70 F. On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 6:43 AM John Willis wrote: > If it's 42 f, you'd go into hypothermia almost instantly. =} > > Assuming c unless explicit should be enough for mapping. >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/camp type=*

The voting was officially closed by today, but I'll leave it open for another week. So far 13 people have voted. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > I agree that we should not use

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram rather than money_transfer:moneygram=yes to be consistent with other businesses like gas station

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

Alternatively you could use brand=moneygram;western_union;orlandi_valuta On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:28 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services > > (like

Re: [Tagging] inuse, defacto

Why is it important? The main thing that matters is than only one definition exists for an item, irrespective of how often it is used. On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:46 PM Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 18.04.2015 09:31, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > So far we have 3 parameters: number of OSM objects, numb

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this discussion ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*) was to cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that are use

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

Dave, I wasn't intending to have another try at camp_type=*. We'll leave on our next trip in less than two weeks from now, so I don't have the time. I also will be not able to complete another voting cycle until I'll be without decent internet again. Furthermore I haven't seen better proposals la

Re: [Tagging] Meeting point

Amenity is definitely better. I used them more as a business traveller than as a tourist. On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Yes, that would be OK. > > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:41:33 +0900 > John Willis wrote: > > > I think the meeting point has a name beyond "meeting poin

<    1   2