Minh and I are in the same jurisdiction (California) regarding guns, but I
agree with Graeme that we want to be careful with our terminology here. Minh
says "A gun store specializes in firearms and ammo..." whereas I'm pretty sure
most people (who use guns) would say "A gun store specializes in
Postscript: I find Minh's examples (a drive-through liquor store with live
fishing bait, a supermarket with mattresses and tool sheds, a laundromat with
treadmills, a car wash and tanning beds...) to be each and every one of true,
well-researched and delightfully mirthful.
On Jun 19, 2023, at 9:35 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> Jun 20, 2023, 01:36 by g...@lexort.com:
> In English, the adjective for the shop tends to be singular, when that
> adjective is a noun. The plural just sounds funny. For example we have
> "car dealer", "grocery store", "grocery s
On Jun 23, 2023, at 7:12 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> English varies by country and sometimes we can't understand each other.
> Changing semantics by regional English is no more reasonable than changing by
> other language word collisions. My point is that a tag defines a semantic
> concept and
On Jun 23, 2023, at 2:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 03:37, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> but I have never seen a convenience store selling auto supplies,
>
> Do you have stores attached to service stations, selling bread, milk, snacks,
> drinks etc?
> If so, they
My point, and I think it is "well-absorbed" by the thread and its participants,
is not that we must get all hyper-legal about any or every tag, but rather that
in the case of shop=firearms, this would-be tag is TOO legal and not generic
enough, while shop=guns (or gun, I could go either way but
On Aug 6, 2023, at 1:35 PM, NickKatchur via Tagging
wrote:
> Care to give any reasoning?
The carriers (at least in North America; Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile...) already
publish these data. They are blocky, shitty, maybe slightly hazy or helpful,
but OSM doesn't chase what "they" say (already).
An interesting concept: "emoji-supported!" While I'm not disagreeing, I find
it a novel approach...interestingly new and "not wrong."
The reason for my "support" (to deprecate...hm, wasn't my original intent, but
I'm nodding my head that deprecation might be a good idea) was because I have
al
In my mind "designated" means "for this infrastructure / mode-of-travel pair,
DO use this." Like legislatively or because a sign says so and quotes a local
ordinance or traffic code statute. "We built this, use it." (Say, for your
own safety and/or comfort).
With "yes" you certainly can use
And
"should" or "must" (use this infrastructure with this mode-of-travel)
more-or-less = "designated."
Finally,
"can" more-or-less = "yes."
That's a lot of quotes, but I think you get the drift.
> On Apr 29, 2024, at 4:02 PM, s
On Apr 29, 2024, at 6:15 PM, Natfoot wrote:
> But if a trail, road, or cycle tract does not have route markers for use then
> no route=* even if designated.
> -natfoot
I'm nodding my head so far at what I see here. I appreciate Natfoot's reminder
about routes: we're not exactly talking abou
This is USA-specific in the example I now offer, though notable nonetheless in
this context: there are routes, such as United States Bicycle Routes, which
after they are Approved (by AASHTO), are, in a legal sense, "designated."
However, some states have an aggressive signage program (MUTCD M1
Oops, M1-9, not M1-8.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I'll second that, Brian. What you outline could be a nice template for
(similarly-profiled) proposals going forward. I know that's a taller hill to
climb, I do. More of us can both talk about and do such things, so, yeah.
Challenges are good, especially when more mutually suggested, like th
e with something less
severe? On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate that we map any of this,
please say so.
Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have
worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters,
SteveA
California (who has returned home after evacuation, r
r data to delineate where substantial "re-mapping" almost
certainly must take place.
Thank you for your quick reply!
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
residential areas where re-population / re-building will NOT take place,
landuse as well).
It's wonderful to be able to ask and receive answers here (thank you),
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I very much appreciate your reply, Rob; thanks.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
e" (and by contrast to landuse=forestry), we do use the natural=wood
tag for "predominantly wooded areas where there is no active logging" or
logging is known to not be permitted.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
d damage.
Thank you, that is interesting and relevant! So, preliminary results are that
such tagging is rare, but it does happen.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ese semantics. We'd do well to improve these, but I'll agree with
anybody who says "this is difficult work."
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
similar value, too and agree that "sharing" such data, as OSM
does, is both valid and valuable (to some) data to map.
After all, we don't want to "hold back people from using (such data) in
creative, productive, or unexpected ways," do we?
Thanks for great fe
ellite instead of
> hand traced and vectors in OSM.
The latter define the bounds of the former, as the former become available.
And not just for tracing / better mapping with newer imagery (as above), but
for “map data consumers” (hikers…) alike (as above).
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
emphasize again: I'm not saying that the data is useless.
> I just think it is better put elsewhere.
I respect and welcome intelligent discussion on which data belong “in or out”
of OSM, and why (or why not). Perhaps this topic is (or is becoming) partly or
mostly exactly that.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
p data"
(rather than "this is all burned"). A Tasking Manager could be used for this,
but it needs such a polygon to identify the area of interest.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
into account "what already is" in OSM, and if you seem to need to "tag
your way around this" you might be on the wrong track. But if you find a
certain harmony with existing tags, keep working in that direction as it is
often a more correct track, especially for people to und
of fruit, being seasonal if they are and I can. Drive along
the coast between Half Moon Bay and Castroville, you see a dozen or more of
these. I think they (or something very much like) are somewhat frequent in
much of rural, populated Earth.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
s and
they are always a hit. Kids love to pick out pumpkins in mid-to-late October.
Even Wikidata says that shop=farm is sometimes called a "farm stand" by locals.
It's good to eat local, it's good to map local!
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
(highways, railways, bike routes, PT routes,
boundaries...) in OSM? Two? Four? Six? Eight? It's more than one, for
sure, and that's OK. That's OSM. We have newer data and methods and older
data and methods simultaneously, it does get better. There are seldom
for good ideas
that are well-stated and agreeable. That actually happens. And when it does,
good for us.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
nk we were talking about railway=station areas, yes?
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
escribing the
entire semantic richness of the situation.
A tag like maxstay is a good beginning. An additional tag of something like
towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Oct 21, 2020, at 1:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> towing_penalty=no means your car is towed away for free? In Nederland, towing
> always comes with a penalty, even if you don't want your car back.
>
> Maybe a tag for consequences should be introduced. I suggest or_else=cargone.
What I mean b
local knowledge, skills, vision for the future, people skills
like community development, writing skills like wiki documentation, or even
just simply that you know the hours of when the coffee shop opening now happen
an hour earlier on weekdays, please, contribute what you can to OSM. As I do
so, I find the rewards are amazing. May you, as well.
SteveA
California
OSM Volunteer since 2009
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ot;the map is always getting better." When I put those two together,
it keeps me going in OSM. We all have our favorite issues we might solve, may
you find that focusing your efforts results in you (and others) achieving what
you wish to see. It can be done, I'll attest. Certainly, this takes effort
and often head-scratching, lengthy, sometimes difficult interactions with
others and learning new things, yet those are part of the magic, charm and
rewards I find contributing to OSM.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
to the view that development is glacial even if
> a lot happens under the surface. Sure people like us usually don't like
> website fashion, but we can't just ignore how OSM is experienced from the
> outside. Oh well, we can, but I don't think it's a good idea long-term.
Thank you for your opinions.
> Garmin has a vector rendering of openstreetmap in their connect fitness web
> app, they also have Google and HERE as alternative layers. The vector
> openstreetmap layer is no way showing near what actually is in the current
> database, and there's various artifacts. A huge lake where I live is missing
> alltogether (probably because the polygon is made in some way that vector
> engine can't understand). I think this is just one example what happens with
> the fragmented landscape of OSM map providers and that our own maps are not
> able to fulfill the needs of typical applications. Garmin as being hugely
> popular in Sweden among fitness and outdoor people showing OSM in a rather
> bad way. That's not helping the widespread view here that OSM is becoming
> "obsolete".
Thank you for your opinions.
Anders, we want to help. Let's take bite-size chews here, so we can masticate
and swallow, without choking. Rome wasn't built in a day.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Nov 8, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Anders Torger wrote:
> I believe the processes available are limited in terms of fixing structural
> problems.
You say you have long experience in open projects, that is a fantastic
launchpad from which to join OSM and improve it, even criticize it. I read
that you
Oops, "dearth" of data, not "death."
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
"organizational" suggestions (expert
groups, how to organize imports, community growth, marketing / "selling," OSMF
board "roadmap,"...) and those that are specific to mapping issues (which you
characterize as "basic cartographic features missing&
Anders gets back to me and we continue to hash
out what I hope are understandings, with his permission I'll re-post those
"results" back up here. I HOPED that this wasn't too tedious, thanks for
letting me know that being wo
electricity or electricity:source (which introduce at the
same time), I haven't any specific suggestion on a key, tag or namespace, but I
think it important to mention what I haven't seen in this discussion.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ose sniffing up my, um, house).
Really, there isn't any way to know, without getting creepy - snoopy.
SteveA
> On Nov 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Lukas Richert wrote:
>
> If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected houses
> that I mentioned in the last examp
ail and in one
place as such a specific topic deserves. While I don't write this to
discourage posts to this list (I don't, as this list is a valuable place to
discuss), I have also noticed a trend towards formal proposals. "Ponds" seems
like an excellent candidate
our future. Let's find ways to keep both going strong, whether
it's moving more to formal proposals (or not), other more formal methods (or
not) and keeping great, inclusive, respectful dialog alive as we do so.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
up as one) allows us, as other tagging
schemes do, to apply tags sparsely if only sparse details are known about a
feature to be mapped. If greater detail is known, the syntax structure
specifies how to denote it. That’s an excellent example of one important part
of good syntax design.
SteveA
mony to continue. This can be difficult, and even (like
here) sometimes must be explicitly spelled out, but with clarity, we can
understand how to solve the difficulties of such dialectical ambiguities.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
T
Joseph, Kevin, Paul, Clifford, Martin, Peter, Tom, Brian, Andy,
Graeme...everybody else here: I love these conversations, thank you.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
d in OSM before) take the same care to design
well-constructed syntax / tagging schemes. Our map data deserve the most crisp
syntax, fully devoid of ambiguity, that we are able to devise.
SteveA
On Nov 14, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Lukas Richert wrote:
> I've been thinking more about this and
Outstanding! Here we see Lucas well-separating "meaning spaces" apart at the
same time he's both looking towards the future as he offers others to sensibly
extend the table given the structure he has started it with. Bravo, sir. Good
things grow like this, with all the right ingredients in th
ngle) source of
those data.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I mean, “Hm, may I ask how
you came about your edit on this particular element of OSM?”)
Good dialog here.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
is the divergence I note here), moreso via
a changeset comment that identifies that most or all of my data are from a
single source (like one layer of satellite imagery, for example).
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
quality
(recent enough, accurate enough…) to enter into OSM. If they are not, don’t
import them. That’s all I’m saying here. I offer you my sincere apologies if
I misinterpreted you.
SteveA
On Nov 17, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
> On 17/11/2020 18:56, stevea wr
;
going forward. This is how OSM works. Talking about it is fine. We're
generating light, not heat.
A lot of people (Simon, Phake, Dave F, Clay, Mateusz, Christoph, Brian, Seth,
Richard, more...) are quite right here. Let's listen to each other. We're all
much MORE in agreement than disagreement.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
rvice year after year. Some even advertise that they are free:
it may be that an insurance certificate / card must be provided, rarely, though
sometimes, even this is not required, especially for elderly / senior citizens.
I hope this helps.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Michael: I suggest you explore our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:busway .
Best,
SteveA
> On Dec 9, 2020, at 6:36 AM, Michael Tsang wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road
> Central is considered one of t
those tagged
boundary=*), independently as far as renderers are concerned. It is easy to
get confused, confusion exists in the map: semantics are blurry in some cases.
This gets better with worldwide consensus, over years. This (how we learn to
best tag and render) is an ongoing long-term OSM pro
t will be rendered. This is (partly) how our map
data have grown, it is how our map data continue to grow.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
t
in Swedish or maybe an equivalent-to-British-English word if that's possible)
can open up possibilities for OSM can be the map Anders dreams of. I think it
can. With explanation, some process being followed and some time, it can.
Yes, it IS nice when OSM has distinctions where distincti
xperiences with Carto when I tried tagging methods x, y and z"). Putting on
your thinking cap (maybe collaborating with another local mapper thinking about
and trying to solve the same things) about coming up with solutions are good
next steps. Eventually, you might put a proposal toget
l we develop a path to get us there. That starts with
clear explanations, good intentions, skilled people and time. This project
does amazing things as we give ourselves these simple ingredients.
SteveA
> On Dec 13, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> My answer only target
te semantic on
them, contradicting their existing meaning in our map.
Maybe I (we) should be discussing this in the proposal's Talk page rather than
in this mail-list, I don't know.
SteveA
> On Dec 13, 2020, at 11:25 AM, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> https://wik
Fascinating thread, fascinating activities it seems to have given rise to! I
applaud this dialog as I enjoy it.
> On Dec 14, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Ture Pålsson via Tagging
> wrote:
>> 14 dec. 2020 kl. 22:30 skrev Anders Torger :
>>
>> Cool! It would be really nice to see a demo :-)
>
> Rijmmoáhp
prove OSM, people DO improve
OSM.” Then, the thread started to veer off the road again. Keep it
constructive, people, please!
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
That is stated even better than I meant to state. Yes, JOSM's relation editor
is "the best there is."
On Dec 15, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> stevea :
> (Personally, I find JOSM’s relation editor to be one of its most elegant
> features for a d
+1. Joseph's suggestion is a fine example of "OSM can and does coin new tags
on occasion." Adding a nice boost, there is a suggestion that "similar"
tagging be used as an example of how to define / use / document the new tag.
Great!
On Dec 15, 2020, at 6:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Re
That's a good question, Brian. On its face, it would be more consistent to
keep this in the place=* key. I like both of your choices, as the concept
doesn't really have a single word to describe "lakes" in the plural as distinct
from the singular (as archipelago does for island). The communit
To share a local varietal, we have "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park" and we
have "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall Creek Unit)," slightly
non-contiguous but managed together. In the real world (too) this sort of
"grouping between things that belong together or are part of a same thing" c
t;consider this proposal a starting point." I'm saying "it's at least a good
one, I'll even go 'excellent.'"
I believe the more voices we hear, the better.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ke holding up three fingers in a certain way. Or Ex-Wye-Zed vs.
Ex-Wye-Zee. It's a big world. Lots of long, straight roads, lots of long,
windy roads.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Dec 20, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Anders Torger wrote:
> I'm doing further mapping of Swedish national parks, now in the mountains,
> and I have noted that natural=fell (habitat over tree line) is not rendered.
>
> Looking into why it seems that OSM-Carto implementors want more specific
> landcover
cking for this tag.
"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” I have wishes that Carto renders
this, or that, or in a particular way. But wishing that renderings are this or
that really isn’t what OSM is about. Entering true-to-the-ground map data is.
Rendering is a bonus you migh
On Dec 21, 2020, at 7:10 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2020-12-21, pr, 16:52 Anders Torger rašė:
>> But what to do if the things you want doesn't
>> really fit into what OSM currently is and strives to be...
>
> We are ALL OSM community. If somebody tells you that "I am OSM and
> only A is right"
a point to say that any wiki which does that should say so
explicitly.
Good luck in your endeavors!
SteveA
On Dec 21, 2020, at 9:56 AM, Anders Torger wrote:
> I just discovered a strange(?) thing with the "natural=fell" tag which I
> missed at first: on the wiki page there&#x
On Dec 21, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Anders Torger wrote:
> Cluttering could be a problem, but is an easy thing to solve with filters. As
> I edit i national parks now I have this huge national park polygon covering
> all work, which renders as a flat although half-transparent color in JOSM.
> It's ea
seye.
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 09:43, stevea wrote:
> “Names in nature” is an interesting, complex, challenging, yes, even
> strategic topic. I think we can get closer to “better,” here on this list,
> with good, respectful, effective dialog. I look forward to that.
>
> In
opportunities (sometimes requiring a permit from state Fish
& Game department, sometimes not). Somebody wants to charge me money for a
permit to fish on private land, I'll pass, thanks. I realize that in some
parts of the world, though, "that's how angling happens."
Two
We have a spot on the ocean shore, right at (below, at sea level) the entrance
to a state park, in an urban area: it's known locally as "the toilet bowl" and
it's node/3370641047.
It's tagged hazard=yes (best I could do at the time, I suppose; I tagged it in
2015) and "dangerous area, no swimm
s that OSM's data entry continues
to grow, without them complaining that renderings aren't to their liking.
I'm reluctant to say it: be constructive (ask relevant, judgement-free
questions, offer relevant perspective...), or be gone.
I'd like to see this list extract some value from this discussion (I'm going to
go take a refreshing shower). I hope we can gain some value from the topics
discussed. In my opinion, we should not dwell on the mechanics of what has
happened here, but rather its potential fertility, rather than its actual
futility.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sep 21, 2022, at 10:23 AM, Adam Franco wrote:
> For anyone who isn't follow all 3 threads, this topic is being discussed in:
>
> * OSM Community: RFC: Highway=Mountaineering
> * OSM Community: RfC: Highway=Scramble
> * [Tagging]: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble
>
> While the thrust
Please allow me to add that what I'll call grade1 which ISN'T truly paved (or
once was), but is essentially surface=compacted, is a distinctly different kind
of road when it is wet, muddy or actively raining (at least for such
tracks/roads around here). These become pretty slick and even "iffy"
On Sep 25, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Georg wrote:
> stevea wrote Sun Sep 25 2022 00:43:53 GMT+0200
> > Is tracktype=grade1 surface=compacted a valid combination?
>
> while the EN wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
> does not explicitly exclude it but "onl
On Sep 26, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Georg wrote:
> Dear all,
> stevea wrote Mon Sep 26 2022 01:36:26 GMT+0200
>
>>>> Is tracktype=grade1 surface=compacted a valid combination?
>>>
>>> while the EN wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
>&
This person's opinion: I very much like capacity with amenity=bench,
especially when it is "significantly greater than two or three," though I also
see great merit in saying capacity=1 to emphasize "single-seat only" in some
cases where that might be or is unusual, or even usual!
Y'know, this
Water "tap" implies at least some (even if crude) control of the flow.
I don't know where the rest of it goes, but if you are "tapping" water (at a
drinking fountain, a sink, as a plumber...), you strongly imply, if not
guarantee, that you allow some control over the flow of it. To call it a wa
I'll go this: "A water tap is a human-made construction providing access to
potable water" and leave out "supplied by centralized water distribution
system." That might be "a bucket near the roof of this building." Honestly, I
think it helps to connote "with a handy, accessible, user-friendly
As a native speaker (though US English, not "the King's" or RP), a "bubbler"
(what we Yanks call "drinking fountain") is a water tap.
Some of these "aim at our lips," some of them are "better suited in a downward
direction, perhaps for hand-washing, perhaps for drawing into a hydration
bottle..
With those, no need to say potable/drinkable, yeah. I do see signs that say
"using recycled water" or "not drinkable, use for radiator only" signs (fewer
of the latter, but I do recall those from decades ago). This might be marked
with a "do not drink" glyph / red circle-with-slash over a huma
Maybe it's west coast / east coast, but I hear "drinking fountain," and maybe
I'm hearing more-often in Rhode Island "water fountain." That latter, to my
California ear, is a broad category that does include "bubblers" (to spray up
at your lips and you take a drink right now) but "water fountai
Some of this I know, some of this we (maybe now) know better because of your
sharpening of focus. Thanks, Martin! That's a nice, rich list of six separate
tags that mean six separate things. Related, many can agree, sometimes
sensibly combined, though often not.
> On Sep 30, 2022, at 6:03 PM
On Oct 1, 2022, at 12:54 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/10/22 08:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> I should have said that if you need to manipulate something to make the
>> water come out, then it's a tap!
>
> 'taps' also come with other things for example showers. It you map a s
Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders wider
understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and while his
perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), these don't seem far
apart or even different at all, and there may likely be a further possib
collection (which would be a
public use).
Sometimes we need to type these things out loud to "riff through the
possibilities." Hey, they don't call these "talk lists" (well, mail-lists,
too) for nothing.
> On Oct 1, 2022, at 3:25 AM, stevea wrote:
>
> Makes
On Oct 1, 2022, at 4:41 PM, Davidoskky via Tagging
wrote:
>> This is why I said "if it's got a user-friendly valve," like if you press a
>> button (and a stream shoots up to your lips to drink), wiggle a stem so
>> water falls down (on your hands to wash), step on a lever (and the flow
>> begi
On Oct 3, 2022, at 1:55 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> It seems that entire drinking water scheme is a horrific mess
> and filled with confusing terms, many of them misinterpreted
> by mappers, what makes it even more confusing :)
>
> The mentioned discussion concerns
> https://wik
On Oct 4, 2022, at 12:51 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/10/22 08:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Am Mo., 3. Okt. 2022 um 10:07 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>> I don't think this is a drinking fountain, another mapper does.. what is
>> your opinion?
>>
>> https://
Yeah, this "lion spitting" non-potable water is what I might describe as a
"decorative fountain fixture," not a "water tap" (no valve or flow control) and
isn't drinkable (not a "drinking fountain," but it IS a "fountain") because the
sign warns the water isn't safe to drink.
With much of Earth
Yes, I agree with Mateusz: I would find deprecation of amenity=drinking_water
to be highly problematic. It is a very long-established tag.
On Oct 6, 2022, at 10:06 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even
> if technical
"Viewing from higher altitudes" here, it should be said that "tagging," tagging
improvements, "how we better tag into the future..." all seem to be getting
more difficult as OSM grows. One fundamental that just emerged is "no need for
such a feature since it overlaps with other features and cou
On Oct 7, 2022, at 12:22 AM, Davidoskky via Tagging
wrote:
>> But I am very dubious about deprecation of amenity=drinking_water, even
>> if technically possible.
>>
>> Yes, I agree with Mateusz: I would find deprecation of
>> amenity=drinking_water to be highly problematic. It is a very
>> l
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
