Jorge
> On Oct 1, 2019, at 8:25 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Send Tagging mailing list submissions to > tagging@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone' (Paul Allen) > 2. Re: Strange tags (Kevin Kenny) > 3. Re: Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / > abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes? (Kevin Kenny) > 4. Re: Strange tags (Paul Allen) > 5. Re: Strange tags (Martin Koppenhoefer) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 14:06:48 +0100 > From: Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone' > Message-ID: > <capy1doljqzq+bqdvvzs0sunsruckx0f3pq3p1h6kxhqbax-...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:34, santamariense <imagens...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am not sure about to keep "Km". It might be understandable by the >> key 'addr:milestone' itself. > > > It might. OSM uses highway=milestone to mean a road marker in general, > rather than a traditional milestone (which was a stone with distances in > miles carved on it). The OSM milestone may not have a distance marked > on it, but if the distance is given then it is assumed to be in kilometres > unless > a unit abbreviation follows. So "9" would be 9 kilometres but "9 mi" would > be 9 miles. The addresses that utilize ‘Km’ as part of the actual address are always related to a specific 'highway:milestone’ on that particular highway. For instance, the address for the Hilton Guatemala Vista Real Hotel in Guatemala - as it appears on their official website: [https://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/guatemala/hilton-guatemala-city-GUALLHH/index.html] - is ‘Km. 9.5 CA-1 East Vista Real Complex, Guatemala City, 01015’. What this means is the location is 500 meters from where the 'highway:milestone=9’ on that particular ‘CA-1 East’ highway... Other than the ‘Km’, there is no other reference for anyone to easily find this hotel. The same occurs for countless important (and not so important) POI's lined up on either side of highways throughout the country and throughout the entire Latin American region. The Km is the only true reference available to locate these. I agree that the abbreviation for kilometer -Km- is in most cases unnecessary in OSM, but in this case think it would be better if it were used. Using the same example above, the Hilton’s address in Guatemala - when entered as addr:street=CA-1 East + addr:milestone=9.5 would be: ‘9.5 CA-1 East...’ which I feel is harder to understand then if it were entered as addr:street=CA-1 East + addr:milestone=Km 9.5 for ‘Km 9.5 CA-1 East ...' This is of course mostly because of how the address system works in Guatemala and how anyone in Guatemala would search for this particular address. The main issue is to reach an agreement to create the tag itself: 'addr:milestone’. To use or not to use the ‘Km’ prefix while entering the actual data seems to have taken the spotlight within this proposal - which I believe should appear, while others may think otherwise - but in the end I feel either way would work. I have also written a draft in the wiki for this proposal which may be read at [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Addr:milestone]. Any comment is welcome and hopefully we may reach an agreement for this soon. > > I have to say that I think using "milestone" to mean a road marker that > isn't > a stone and probably isn't marked in miles was an incredibly bad idea. But > we're stuck with it. Even so, a default of kilometres for a thing called a > milestone is sub-optimal. > > What I'm unclear on is if these addresses refer to an actual road > marker, or an actual distance based upon interpolation between > actual road markers. If you have a road marker at 8km and another > road marker at 9km, would a house between the two have addr:milestone > 8, 9 or 8.5? If the address is of an actual road marker then addr:milestone > would be appropriate (given that we already misuse highway=milestone > to mean kilometre markers); if it's a distance that doesn't correspond to > an actual road marker then we need a better name. > > -- > Paul > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191001/01186421/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:44:21 -0400 > From: Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Strange tags > Message-ID: > <CALREZe98CLBrh72CTkxLiTUC=+KVUGcbUBxA8JBr9dqK=tt...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:39 AM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the >> wikipedia >> page. Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought that >> was >> a semi-official designation. I now realize these things are arbitrary lists >> and >> that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls. Even if no more >> lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and >> pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world. > > Later, in the same post: >> If we were to restrict OSM to only those items of interest to me, it would >> be a very >> sparse map. I, too, am reluctant to discriminate against hillbaggers whilst >> catering to cyclists and walkers. > > Uhm, so which is it? In one paragraph, you argue that we mustn't do > it, and in another you argue that we should. > > It's true that you or I could have come up with kevin=yes or paul=yes. > But where's the verifiability for a Paui or Kevin list? > > To continue the New York examples, the Adirondack 46 are well enough > known that over seven thousand people have put in with the club for > their 46er badge. The Catskill 3500 Club also well known, with some > two thousand people (and a few dogs) having completed the requirements > and applied for membership (dogs can be associate members if someone > pays their fare, but can't vote at club meetings. They needn't have > signed the logs if a member vouches for them.). I don't get to the > West often enough to have even started on a list like the Colorado > Fourteeners, but I know they're there. I've never been to the UK, but > I've surely heard of the Munros and know that scramblers pursue them > with passionate intensity. All of these lists have multiple guidebooks > and maps in print, and organizations with custody of the lists that > vet award applicants. (It's mostly on an honour system, but I know > that for the Catskill 3500's the club makes spot checks against the > log books cached at a dozen or so of the trackless peaks, and assumes > that if you can climb those, you've no reason to lie about the rest.) > > At the time that the Marshall brothers identified the Adirondack 46 > and resolved to climb them all with their intrepid guide Herbert > Clark, or Bill and Kay Spangenberger got the idea to climb the > Catskills' highest summits, their lists were no more significant or > verifiable than a list of 'Pauls' or 'Kevins'. But after Rev. Ryder > and his Sunday School class got the idea of following in the > Marshalls' footsteps, and the officers of the Mid-Hudson Chapter of > the ADK got the idea of founding a Catskill 3500 Club, the ideas began > to gain traction, and now they have a substantial following. As with > most things OSM, it's a judgment call what deserves inclusion, but > these two lists have almost certainly passed that point. > > 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'm weakly inclined to the latter (despite what I > said in an earlier post) only because of the technological problems of > maintaining a relation that spans a broad geographic area. A list like > the Northeast 111 (summits above 4000 feet and a certain prominence in > the Northeastern US) has an awkwardly large number of members and an > awkwardly large geographic range (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and > New York - the other Northeastern states have no peaks that meet the > criteria). > > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 10:07:18 -0400 > From: Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the > disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes? > Message-ID: > <calreze_ee2nufqay9f4p_v1jc5txc8wwb+he60gjcjdr6rg...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:26 AM Martin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> actually St. Paul's does have walls, the name is "outside the walls" >> intending outside the city walls. ;-) > Yes. I know it has walls! 'Without the walls' is a traditional, > literary translation for 'extra moenia' (which in turn is rendered in > Italian as 'fuori le mura'), using another sense of the word 'without' > as an antonym to 'within.' The usage still shows up in phrases like > 'the enemy without the gates.' > >> 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. > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:15:18 +0100 > From: Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Strange tags > Message-ID: > <CAPy1dOLxm0MYG038P=bpsdgqxbnqd8jn8oqqavhbmdhpeed...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 14:45, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, >> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:39 AM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the >> wikipedia >>> page. Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought >> that was >>> a semi-official designation. I now realize these things are arbitrary >> lists and >>> that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls. Even if no >> more >>> lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and >>> pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world. >> >> Later, in the same post: >>> If we were to restrict OSM to only those items of interest to me, it >> would be a very >>> sparse map. I, too, am reluctant to discriminate against hillbaggers >> whilst >>> catering to cyclists and walkers. >> >> Uhm, so which is it? In one paragraph, you argue that we mustn't do >> it, and in another you argue that we should. >> > > I didn't say we mustn't do it, I said that the way we're currently doing it > isn't sensible. > Tagging objects as Pauls, Kevins and every other list that may be created is > silly and unsustainable (the same peak could appear in dozens of lists). > Use a relation, or namespacing, or link to a hillbagging reverse-lookup > service > (if one exists). > > I don't think there's a good reason to object to adding these lists to OSM, > but I'm not happy with how it's been done so far. Does that clarify things > for > you? > > It's true that you or I could have come up with kevin=yes or paul=yes. >> But where's the verifiability for a Paui or Kevin list? >> > > I'll mail you a copy of my list. You can verify that it's the same list > that I > say it is. Happy? You ought to be, because it is exactly as verifiable, > and verifiable > in exactly the same way, as all the other lists. The only difference is in > the number > of people who make use of it and how well publicized it is. > > The point is that while Pauls may never be a thing (unless I make a list of > all the peaks > I'd never climb, which is all of them) and Kevins may be unlikely to be a > thing, there is > nothing to prevent other lists being created and becoming popular. There's > no > real limit. > > 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'm weakly inclined to the latter (despite what I >> said in an earlier post) only because of the technological problems of >> maintaining a relation that spans a broad geographic area. > > > Ah, I'd forgotten about the problem with editors. Unless I've missed > something, > it's incredibly difficult to add geographically-dispersed members of a > relation > using iD. So namespacing gets my vote. > > -- > Paul > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191001/cb24bc0e/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 16:25:26 +0200 > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Strange tags > Message-ID: > <cabptjtco0ys9hkktxoawht-+u7aalp-n+kepgo9nxr4mcx1...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Am Di., 1. Okt. 2019 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> 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'm weakly inclined to the latter (despite what I >>> said in an earlier post) only because of the technological problems of >>> maintaining a relation that spans a broad geographic area. >> >> >> Ah, I'd forgotten about the problem with editors. Unless I've missed >> something, >> it's incredibly difficult to add geographically-dispersed members of a >> relation >> using iD. So namespacing gets my vote. >> > > > I'm also in favor of tags, because with relations you would have to find > the relation to add a new member, which is not very practical for dispersed > objects in any editor. More specific keys (call it namespacing) are better > for context and conflict prevention, +1 > > Cheers > Martin > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191001/2c98082d/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 121, Issue 4 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
