Re: [Tagging] Education on topic for music schools

Am Do., 5. Sept. 2019 um 09:59 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Pardon me. The question is about music schools and how to tag them - they > are educational facilities. > ... > See > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative > > Have you consid

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a milk_shake shop?

sent from a phone > On 5. Sep 2019, at 16:32, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'd kind of expect a beverages shop to sell drinkable products not for > consumption on > the premises, that’s also what I thought, for the milk shake place I would use amenity, like for ice cream parlors, cafes, bars, fa

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

I agree with your definition for marker: marker= The node corresponds to a marker seen on ground but then the actual values that you propose do not (or only implicitly) refer to the marker but to the "thing" the marker refers to: "pipeline" - Indicate that a pipeline is buried next to the mar

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

Actually I just found out, placement also exists, but for a different purpose: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aplacement Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2019, at 13:47, Chris Hill wrote: > > To me a sports centre is a place that's dedicated to sport in its own space > or grounds. It may have outdoor pitches,courts etc as well as indoor > provisions. I think it could have a gym, i.e. a space with gym equipment to

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

sent from a phone On 7. Sep 2019, at 02:35, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> +1, this is exactly how I see it as well > > Is this how the tag has been used in Rome and in other areas that you > know? I'd like to add this to the page Tag:leisure=sports_hall to help > clarify how it's different from

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2019, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Per taginfo, building=yes is used 7500 times with leisure=pitch, and > covered=yes is used 1017 times, so I suppose it's more common to match > the pitch with the same outline as the building rather than using > covered=

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2019, at 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > however, depending on location and denomination, > you might also build a church using a blueprint for a plain community > centre. In that case would it still be building=church becasue that was > the original, intended use

Re: [Tagging] Populated settlement classification

adding to what Christoph has explained, as we try to have globally meaningful and comparable tags, I believe we should focus on functional (which services + functions are present) and maybe cultural (how is the place regionally seen/valued, which often has also to do with political and historical s

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

Am Sa., 7. Sept. 2019 um 02:06 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > Why not using marker=* to give its nature and another key utility=* with > values... > > Because most mappers only add 1 tag to each new object. (Folks like > you and me are an exception - and a year ago

Re: [Tagging] map of international institutions, such as EU institutions in Brussels

Am Sa., 7. Sept. 2019 um 17:20 Uhr schrieb Robert Riemann : > I looked for quite some time to find approriate tags, but I believe now we > need to introduce at least one new tag. > > 1) there is office=government and government=* > > This does not cover the special jurisdiction. The European Parli

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - appointment

sent from a phone > On 8. Sep 2019, at 22:11, Simon Poole wrote: > > Isn't this semantically in the end not the same as "unknown" (as in any > application would have to equate this to "you have to inquire if it is > open")? it may be the same for apps, it isn’t for mappers, “unknown” is an

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

I believe we should tag passenger numbers a year. We would not have to tag all airports with this, especially for small airports these might be hard to get, and we do not necessarily need up to date numbers, just a number of one of the past years. This will usually be available for the big airports

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 02:35 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Thank you for making a proposal, Francesco. > > “A tourist bus stop is a stop reserved to tourist buses.” > > The main issue is describing the term “tourist bus” clearly. > > The related wiki page Key:tou

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 04:39 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com >: > My main concern is that some bus stops could be both for tourist buses and > for public buses. Using ptv2 instead, with public_transport=platform + > coach=designated or tourist_bus=designated would be easier. > if

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Am Di., 10. Sept. 2019 um 13:54 Uhr schrieb Janko Mihelić : > Then in OSM city and city-state are different things. In Wikidata we only > have an article about the city-state. This article also talks about the > city, but the overall theme is the city-state. That means, only the > admin_level=2 sh

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - appointment

I would use the "phone" key rather than mixing phone numbers in the opening hours value. If there are several phone numbers and one is dedicated for making appointments, it could be a phone subtag like phone:appointments=### Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging ma

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Janko Mihelić : > sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 13:04 Martin Koppenhoefer > napisao je: > >> One problem is that wikidata does not allow to have the same wikipedia >> article for several wikidata objects. >> > > Yes it doe

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 15:12 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 10:43, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> Usually these tourist bus stops are set up in areas with a lot of traffic >> and few parking space, in these settings you would not want tourist buss

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

Am So., 8. Sept. 2019 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Good idea. A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it > is information that > may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow > the > display of descriptions. It's useful to know that the art s

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

By the way, there are currently 5 objects with the tagging on the same object. { "type": "way", "id": 59218539, "tags": { "addr:housenumber": "8", "addr:street": "Pier Place", "building": "church", "leisure": "sports_centre", "name": "Alien Rock", "note": "former St

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

FWIW, there is in many jurisdictions a vehicle class for busses which is currently covered by the value: "tourist_bus" defined as bus not acting as a public service vehicle. As I have stated before, "motorbus" would have been a better (more consistent hence self-explaining) choice for the key name

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > 11 Sep 2019, 15:32 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > > Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata > items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM > tag? > > i

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > AFAIK it is about structural needs of > Wikidata itself. Entries about shop brands > (used in name suggestion index) got deleted. > >From personal experience I was more fortunate in Wikidata so far, but m

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

>From what I have seen in an open defecation google image search I got to the impression we cannot map these as landuse features. I can understand someone could draw a map and mark the "open defecation areas", on a city scale, but likely not on a street scale, these are not punctual features like t

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Rule 1: We only tag terminal instantiations which are unique objects, not > categories. > It is appropriate to use wikidata=Q275 for the Forth Railway Bridge; it is > not appropriate > to use wikidata=Q8471277 (category railway bridges) fo

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 11. Sep 2019, at 20:23, Paul Allen wrote: > > The > question I'd consider important is have you mapped those two things as > distinct OSM objects? with the current state I am not sure what wikidata is describing here, or if these are maybe duplicates. At some point i

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 11. Sep 2019, at 20:23, Paul Allen wrote: > > Where wikipedia articles in a language do not match the wikidata then the > article or the wikidata > is incorrect. the problem is not black and white, things can match in wikipedia, partially. And several wikipedia arti

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 11. Sep 2019, at 23:24, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > Art or memorial installations like Stolperstein[1], which are distributed, > but have one wikidata item. It's hard to imagine every Stolperstein will get > its own article. And a relation with all these nodes makes no se

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 12. Sep 2019, at 00:03, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'll just > go and look at wikidata for stolperstein... It's not identified as a > category, but it clearly is one. It's > a sub-class of commemorative plaque. It makes no more sense to apply > Q26703203 to every > stolp

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

sent from a phone > On 12. Sep 2019, at 10:49, Peter Elderson wrote: > > If there is agreement that this actually is something worth mapping, I don't > see a problem there. this is how wikipedia works, in OpenStreetMap you do not need approval of others that something is “worth” mapping,

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

sent from a phone > On 12. Sep 2019, at 02:44, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The Key:bus has this definition currently > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bus): > > "A bus is a large motor vehicle used for public transport of passengers that’s a brand new page you have created b

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

sent from a phone > On 12. Sep 2019, at 11:18, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I don't think this is good mapping. agreed, I didn’t imply it was good mapping, what I said was that it can be mapped without question, because it is there, visible a verifiable. No need for a relation at all, and I agr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

sent from a phone > On 12. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Do we even have a remote hope of achieving a > level of completeness and timeliness that makes this usable? if your apprehension comes true and we became the default go-to business directory, then definitely yes (but we

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features / landuse=open_defecation

open_defecation=yes seems a better tag for all situations where it is a significant phenomenon, while landuse=open_defecation would be ok for areas that are either designated for open defecation or are mainly used for it. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging ma

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

I am leaning to supporting the tag, because it offers a standard way to give specific hints for some special cases. The risk is that the tag could in theory be added with infinite value lists to any object, but we should not expect it to happen ;-) Cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=music_school back on Map Features

Am Sa., 14. Sept. 2019 um 07:05 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > I've added "amenity=music_school" back to the Map Features list, since > it looks like there is consensus that this is different than > amenity=college and there is not other tag for this feature at this

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 13. Sep 2019, at 17:28, Paul Allen wrote: > > part_of_a_group=yes tag. And even without any of that, > an overpass query in the general area for artwork_type=statue + other tags > they have in > common will find them. actually there is a relation for groups: type=gro

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reusable packaging

Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 14:09 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > > In British English (which OSM generally uses) "bulk" means "being large > in size, mass or > volume (of goods, etc.)." See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bulk > it also means "Unpackaged goods when transported in large volumes, e.g. c

[Tagging] Roman roads - was Re: "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 13. Sep 2019, at 19:42, Paul Allen wrote: > > BTW, a better way for marking Roman roads would be to use > historic=roman_road. It's a > lapsed proposal, and doesn't show even on lutz's historic places map, but it > would allow > a simple overpass-turbo query and might

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 13. Sep 2019, at 21:13, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Can we agree that these should all be removed, or replaced with > suitable sub-tag, ASAP? the sub-tag might be, say: > > historic:wikidata=Q2961670 -1 to this kind of redundancy (or outsourcing of definition authority,

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 15:20 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the > building as a church even if it now functions as something else. > > Buildings don't h

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > In the part of the country where I live, the vernacular architecture > is based on an idea of hardline Protestantism that rejected trappings. > The older buildings tend to be symmetric boxes (albeit with > more-o

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both *real and > current*" > > > building!=yes = 65 221 930 > this is actually an encouraging number, given that it is around 20% while not so lon

Re: [Tagging] Roman roads - was Re: "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Am Sa., 14. Sept. 2019 um 22:08 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 19:22, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> yes, or historic=road with historic:civilization=ancient_roman >> >> I’ve used both variants in the past but just had a second thought

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

sent from a phone > On 14. Sep 2019, at 16:08, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > And type=site - but none of those three types of relation are widely > supported by database users. site is a mess, but the other two could be easily supported, they’re just not sufficiently important (used) yet..

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

sent from a phone > On 12. Sep 2019, at 02:44, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I agree that "[motor]coach=" might have been clearer, but I'm ok with > keeping "tourist_bus=*" since it may actually be easier to translate > into most languages, and "coach=*" can also be ambiguous, since it > used

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2019, at 08:07, Jo wrote: > > What about long_distance_bus, if you don't like coach? motorbus doesn't > really convey much information. All buses we are talking about have a motor. Sorry, it may not have been clear, “motorbus” would be used as a generic term

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

Am Mo., 16. Sept. 2019 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:30, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> So, solving the original poster's problem is now out of scope? :shrug: >> > > Not entirely out of scope. But we shouldn't let whatever he or she was > trying to > achieve twist our t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

sent from a phone > On 17. Sep 2019, at 08:29, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I didn't think shop=laundry would work for a laundry room at a campsite. I agree this seems strange, shop=laundry is about a laundry business, while a camping is about a camping business and the “laundry service”

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

I am honestly confused by the discussions about types and features of buses. Are these relevant in the mapping context? Are there any road regulations referring specifically to coaches? Because there are for buses. Not just buses in public service, but buses intended as a kind of vehicle (in all

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

sent from a phone > On 18. Sep 2019, at 09:22, Simon Poole wrote: > > My point was more that you should ignore the shop classification and > assume that that this is simply facility that in some form provides > access to clothes washing machines and space, because even a completely > normal la

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Am Mi., 18. Sept. 2019 um 10:58 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole : > Then nearly all amenities and leisure objects would be shops, consider > for example amentity=toilets Which, as you likely know :-), exist both > in free and paid versions. Providing access to a facility for use, > regardless if free or n

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

Am Mi., 18. Sept. 2019 um 11:28 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt < vosc...@gmail.com>: > > Unfortunately in OSM the term "bus" > is used for public-transport > buses only: > +1 > " *Buses*, *coaches* and *trolley buses* are forms of public transport >

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

btw.: those "sightseeing buses" that have been mentioned before, might merit their own tags, too. In Rome these are quite common (hence locals don't like them because they are competing for space in the traffic), they are not public transport (I guess they can not use bus lanes for example), but th

Re: [Tagging] refugee camp

Sent from a phone > Am 20.06.2019 um 02:18 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > It is a land use, residential .. at least on a temporary basis. possibly > landuse=residential, residential=migrants? Sorry for replying late, just found this draft and sending it for the archives: I would gen

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

Am Mi., 18. Sept. 2019 um 12:59 Uhr schrieb Jo : > I would also like to be able to map the stops/waiting areas of those long > distance bus lines. At the moment, I was simply using highway=bus_stop for > them and an approximate itinerary. > seems common and correct tagging, why are you mentionin

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

sent from a phone > On 18. Sep 2019, at 14:18, Paul Allen wrote: > > I had a look at the road sign you mentioned later in your message. I > couldn't tell if the symbol > meant a bus, a coach, or both. So I ran it through Google Translate. This > is what came back > for "Kraftomnibus": "bu

Re: [Tagging] oneway street with two combined foot-cycle lanes

sent from a phone > On 18. Sep 2019, at 15:05, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > What In addition I need to express that the lanes are oneway for bicycles in > opposite directions. they aren’t, bikes will have to drive on the right in both directions, opposite directions would mean they have to dr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

Am Mi., 18. Sept. 2019 um 16:48 Uhr schrieb Tobias Zwick : > Hey there > > What is the best way to tag meadow orchards? > > this has been discussed 10 years ago, but I don't recall the results (if any). I think by the time it was to not introduce a new landuse value like meadow_orchard > Most

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

sent from a phone > On 18. Sep 2019, at 20:05, Markus wrote: > > I dislike both landuse=meadow + meadow=meadow_orchard and > landuse=orchard + orchard=meadow_orchard because they imply a primary > usage (meadow or orchard respectively), which i think is impossible to > determine. Therefore i p

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

sent from a phone On 18. Sep 2019, at 20:46, Paul Allen wrote: >> AFAIK, silvopasture describes a forest that is also used for grazing >> livestock. > > From the wikipedia article on silvopasture: "Silvopasture is compatible with > fruit, nut, > and timber production." I agree the term s

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

sent from a phone > On 18. Sep 2019, at 17:36, Paul Allen wrote: > > In simple signage, yes. But if you asked most people do those signs apply to > coaches > you'd get a variety of answers, because most people think buses and coaches > are > different things (except for long-distance coache

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone WAS Re: Multiple tags for one purpose

Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:20 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Let me summarize > > Why `phone`: > - It's more used > - It's shorter > - Better to find in wiki > > Why `contact:phone`: > - It's more structured because it's a subkey of `contact` > - It's better

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I agree the term silvopasture is not a synonym for meadow orchards. A >> meadow orchard is specifically low density/sparse trees, while silvopasture >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

Am Do., 19. Sept. 2019 um 12:57 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > I didn't write it was "dense", I wrote it was "denser", compared to a >> meadow orchard. >> > > I see a range of tree densities in the Wikipedia article. > > it is using the term "woodland". For meadow orchards, I would use the term >> "m

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

sent from a phone > On 20. Sep 2019, at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why not landuse=agriculture? As a broad brush it could do well. Could > includes all types of agriculture practice. we already have a broad brush for this field: landuse=farmland Cheers Martin _

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

sent from a phone > On 21. Sep 2019, at 01:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And orchard, vineyard and meadow are excluded from landuse=farmland so the > 'brush' is not so broad. actually pasture was there for almost 10 years and only “recently” removed: https://wiki.openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

sent from a phone > On 23. Sep 2019, at 16:19, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Here in Italy you may dial a number that looks like a landline but is in > reality a mobile number. > I would very much prefer a list of numbers, and not have to do tricks like > phone_1, phone_2 ... but also not to hav

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

Am Di., 24. Sept. 2019 um 13:17 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > So the distinction of mobile and landline is a problem. Is there any > possibility to distinct between landline and mobile also in Italy? I don't see the problem, can you explain? By the way, thi

Re: [Tagging] Draft: landuse=open_defecation vs landcover=open_defecation vs open_defecation=yes

If I had to decide between landuse and landcover, I would also prefer landcover. Still I am not sure whether landuse is a good tag for this, as it is about the prevalent use of land, while the open defecation seems more an additional property (e.g. landuse=residential and open_defecation=yes (inten

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

Am Mi., 25. Sept. 2019 um 14:10 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:04, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> I don't see the problem, can you explain? >> > > [Note: some simplifications ahead. Broadly true but there are many > excepti

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Am Mi., 25. Sept. 2019 um 13:08 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > I saw that the wiki page Key:disused: > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:) had a status of > "approved", but I only found a proposal approving the tag disused=yes > (see > https://wiki.ope

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

sent from a phone > On 25. Sep 2019, at 18:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > It is very much on topic because it is the basis of whether or not there is > any point in making > a distinction between a mobile and a landline. If there are no charge > differences then they're > both just phone numbers

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Am Mi., 25. Sept. 2019 um 16:24 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > E.g. an abandoned:building is probably more a ruin than a building, while >> a disused building is still a building. >> > > Either way, the bui

Re: [Tagging] Barrier defaults

sent from a phone > On 26. Sep 2019, at 10:01, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Now i discovery the contrary. Every data consumer has to make > a long list of every barrier possible and the default settings. > > Does that make sense? explicit access tagging for barriers is generally preferable bec

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Tagging two main features on one object isn't good practice anyway (see >> wiki page One feature, one OSM element). >> >>> >> True. It's not good practice. But it happens. Postel's Law, aka the > Robustness Principle, ought > to apply:

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 18:37 Uhr schrieb Markus < selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:30 Andy Townsend, wrote: > >> On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote: >> > >> > Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged: >> > >> > disused:building=toilets >> > >> No, it's still a building.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Markus < selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for > indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for > that? > > Not sure if we need a different tag (in both cases), but f

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone > On 26. Sep 2019, at 19:18, Paul Allen wrote: > > One question is should they be rendered, and most > people seem to agree that they should. Should the buildings be tagged as > disused? So > the wiki implies. If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, then > how

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

sent from a phone > On 28. Sep 2019, at 11:48, Chris Hill wrote: > > Removing seemingly similar tags and so homogenising the OSM database is a > very risky path to take. We risk removing subtlety and obscuring mappers' > real intent. The world we live in and try to represent with map data is

Re: [Tagging] How to map a homeless encampment/colony?

sent from a phone > On 29. Sep 2019, at 16:48, Michal Fabík wrote: > > Technically speaking, it could be considered a special case of a > landuse=residential because the people sort of _reside_ there, only there are > no residential buildings and the mode of residence is very different from

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone > On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > Many buildings that have distinctive styles have other tags indicating > their function, so the reasoning is that you don't need building=church if > you have > amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian. the point o

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone > On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > Another counter-argument: we don't have any tag indicating residential usage > other > than building=house we do, there are terrace, duplex, villa, apartments, caravan, detached and probably more. They are implying reside

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 03:41 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > I've not tried to add the information because I eschew controversy. that's fine, I probably wouldn't have either > I > know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even > challenge adding

Re: [Tagging] How to map a homeless encampment/colony?

Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 02:22 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > how big are these areas, are these spots for a handful or a few dozens > (or even hundreds or thousands) of people? > > > The larger ones local to me may be a dozen? Not something I look for or > map. They tend to want

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone > On 27. Sep 2019, at 13:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > Many buildings that have distinctive styles have other tags indicating > their function, so the reasoning is that you don't need building=church if > you have > amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian. there’s a dif

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > A couple of weeks ago, while following links in the hope of getting > information > about something, I stumbled across a page about the Ordnance Survey in the > UK > and its early history. For local place names they quizzed local people >

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone > On 30. Sep 2019, at 14:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > And then there are basilicas, both major and minor, which > rank higher than cathedrals. yes, this is one meaning of the word basilica, especially in catholicism, there is also another, art historic one, which describes a

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

sent from a phone > On 1. Oct 2019, at 08:18, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > We have such addresses in Germany too. In Italy you can find them as well, they are not uncommon for properties along through roads outside of settlements and for highway rest areas. Currently I’m either using addr:full

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone On 30. Sep 2019, at 16:49, Paul Allen wrote: Some denominations have strict ranks. Others are far more egalitarian. And what rank is the only place of worship of a very small denomination? the tag was introduced for those denominations where rank is well defined and importa

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 17:03 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > Examples: In Rome, St Peter's, St Mary Major, and St Paul's Without > the Walls are all basilicas, but none of these is a cathedral. actually St. Paul's does have walls, the name is "outside the walls" intendi

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

Am Di., 1. Okt. 2019 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > > > Whether we have a relation `type=group name=Munros` or whether we have >> a tag: `hillbagging:munro=yes` (and yes, I agree that if we go the >> latter route, a namespace is a good idea) is something to which I'm >> largely indifferent. I

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone On 1. Oct 2019, at 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> The 6 papal basilicas are the 4 major basilicas in Rome plus 2 minor >> basilicas in Assisi. > Nitpick: 7. The minor basilica of San Lorenzo fuori le Mura in Rome is > also a papal basilica. it seems it was a patriarchal basi

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

Am Mi., 2. Okt. 2019 um 13:33 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > NO. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. That's how we end up with bad tags. Like > highway=milestone. > Outside of OSM, a milestone is a stone with a distance in miles marked > upon it. Outside > of OSM, this is a milestone: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

Am Mi., 2. Okt. 2019 um 22:55 Uhr schrieb Agustin Rissoli < aguztin...@gmail.com>: > I think we can add a clarification, which says that these directions are > not exact, but usually based on the approximate position with respect to a > milestone on the road. > Actually I have 2 different cases

[Tagging] railway crossings with cycleways

sent from a phone The wiki defines railway=level_crossing as a crossing of rails and a road, while railway=crossing is for a pedestrian crossing of railway tracks. What about cycleways? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Arailway%3Dlevel_crossing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ta

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 09:09 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > What would be the best tagging for guard booth minibuildings? > > I think that building=guard_booth would be the best one for objects > constructed > as guard booth. > I agree on the selection of building f

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features landuse=open_defecation RFC Proposed under way 2019-10-07

>From what I have read (few personal experience) I find it difficult to use the landuse-key for this, because it implies to me that the area is mainly used for open defecation (and has significant extent). If this is what you want to describe, the tag is fine. In many other cases I believe we would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

sent from a phone > On 7. Oct 2019, at 22:40, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I think that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. Certainly, the > complexity of the contact:* schema and the variety of both editors and > data consumers has proven to be a barrier to widespread acceptance. frankly I a

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >