> > 3. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant > (Joseph Eisenberg) >
>>>>> Joseph, on the contrary. The bluntness demonstrates the clarity of the system. We want a tagging system that is acceptable to the community and widely adapted (with enforcement). free_water = I think allowing yes is ambiguous and can lead to confusion, but if that is what is most acceptable fine. Someone could use yes to describe customers. I would suggest free_water = <no, anyone, customers> > I am glad we see similar views on the free_water:container. Any of the permutations below seem fine to me. > free_water:container =<own,establishment> - this seems fine? > Other options: > free_water:container = "bring_your_own" (maybe a little clearer?) > and > free_water:container = "available"? or maybe "provided"? > Best regards, Stuart Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:47:16 +0900 > From: Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > restaurant > Message-ID: > < > cap_2vph+xd+1x5sb6yyf0uig87drzdurqubf8yte2jd5zgg...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > What do you think of ? > > free_water = <anyone,consumer> > > free_water:container =<own,establishment> > > The standard "access" values that openstreetmap uses, relevant to this > discussion are: > > "yes" (this means "anyone" / "everyone" / "the general public") > "no" (this means "no for all the categories below") > "customers" (this means "only for customers" that is, for people who > have paid a fee or bought something) > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values > > These values are commonly used for access to parking lots, for > example, so most people who add things to the map will know about > them. > > So the values of "free_water=" should be: > > free_water = yes > and > free_water = customer > > This will make it easier for mappers like us to understand your new > tags and use them correctly. > > free_water:container =<own,establishment> - this seems fine? > Other options: > free_water:container = "bring_your_own" (maybe a little clearer?) > and > free_water:container = "available"? or maybe "provided"? > > Thank you for discussing this here! Many people just make up their new > tags without getting advice from the rest of the community, so you are > doing a good thing. Please forgive us for any overly blunt or direct > criticism - there are many different cultures and communication styles > represented here. > > (If you want, there is a whole, detailed "proposal process" that you > can follow if you want to get these tags official approved. It is not > required, but sometimes it can be helpful if you want more people to > discuss your ideas and the new tags to be displayed more prominently > on the wiki. > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process for this option.) > > - Joseph Eisenberg > > On 1/14/20, European Water Project <europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> 1. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant (Paul Allen) > >> > > > >>>>> Paul, thanks for your comment, I see your point > > What do you think of ? > > free_water = <anyone,consumer> > > free_water:container =<own,establishment> > > > > 2. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant > >> (Joseph Eisenberg) > >> > >> >>>> Joseph, makes sense , I removed free_water:table > > What do you think of ? > > free_water = <anyone,consumer> > > free_water:container =<own,establishment> > > > > For the European Water Project, we would include cafes, bars, restaurants > > with > > free_water = anyone > > free_water:container =own > > > > and the other three combinations seem to sufficiently cover the other use > > cases > > > > Best regards, > > > > Stuart > > > > > > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:58:09 +0000 > >> From: Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> > >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > >> <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > >> restaurant > >> Message-ID: > >> < > >> capy1do+9qzykszzmoyfogzrkfd94sfh3nxvxno4w7kfrpj9...@mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> > >> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler <m...@hauke-stieler.de> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > What does "must_consume" mean? > >> > > >> > >> free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says. Anybody who > >> enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it. Or else. So > >> we need a tag to specify the punishment if they refuse to consume the > >> free water (such as being ejected, fined, or killed). > >> > >> Not, in my opinion, a good value for the key. > >> > >> -- > >> Paul > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: < > >> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/89a75c48/attachment-0001.htm > >> > > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 06:49:47 +0900 > >> From: Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > >> <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, > >> restaurant > >> Message-ID: > >> <CAP_2vPjBzwK0uUtCrabDp4G= > >> co7yxdvdo+q6kusvtc-qysx...@mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >> > >> free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places > >> that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small > >> fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc. > >> > >> The word "customers" should be included, since what you are trying to > >> specify is that "you can only get free water if you buy something > >> else", and "customers" is the standard term in Openstreetmap for this > >> idea. > >> > >> - Joseph Eisenberg > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:47:32 +0100 > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to > pedestrians? > Message-ID: > < > cabptjtctcc0qvwetbl19bmwpzefymqh9qzvt+wjckjakb1h...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > > > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction > > applied to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because > > "oneway" already has no implication for pedestrian > > > > That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database > > user assume that? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical > > to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel. > > > > > yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the oneway > restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive your feet, > do you agree? > > > > > > It is the same as a database user designing a routing application or > > renderer - you are not going to assume that a tag is meaningless > > (unless it looks like it came from a bad import). > > > > > you will have choose the tags you will evaluate and you will likely drop > all the rest as meaningless (for your usecase) or insignificant. > > > > > > > (This sort of pedantic arguement is like claiming that "I don't got no > > money" means "I have money" because it is a "double negative", but in > > fact double negatives are extremely common in spoken languages as a > > means of emphasis, and are perfectly "standard" in many (like Spanish, > > Indonesian, and many dialects of English).) > > > > > this is a completely different issue, because as you state, the double > negative is well defined in English as a means of emphasis. It would be > different in German, where it would indeed mean I do have money. Tags, > similar to language, depend on conventions, and for OSM tags my opinion is > that we should not have the double negative to mean negative, because it > seems quite confusing. In logics, "not no" means yes (or unknown etc., it > means anything but no). Lets see tags more like a programming language and > less like natural language. > > Cheers > Martin > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200114/27828fc8/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 82 > **************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
