<div dir="ltr">I'm not sure what's the way to reply this, sorry about that...<br><div><ul><li> Martin Koppenhoefer: "there's also a tag shop=herbalist" but i
think is not the best tag for this, because the supplements can be or
can't be herbs and herbalist definition: Shop focused on selling herbs,
often for medical purposes. </li><li>Warin: Thanks for your comments, i will change the definition. I mentioned the
past proposal in Examples section and in the Talk section.
</li></ul></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-08-03 2:35 GMT-05:00 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tagging-request@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">tagging-request@openstreetmap.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send Tagging mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:tagging-request@openstreetmap.org">tagging-request@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:tagging-owner@openstreetmap.org">tagging-owner@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."<br>
<br>Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction<br>
footway vs path (geow)<br>
2. landcover=trees definition (Daniel Koć)<br>
3. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction<br>
footway vs path (Ilpo Järvinen)<br>
4. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction<br>
footway vs path (Warin)<br>
5. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Warin)<br>
6. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements) (Warin)<br>
7. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)<br>
(Martin Koppenhoefer)<br>
8. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Martin Koppenhoefer)<br>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: geow <<a href="mailto:kfsgeo@gmx.de">kfsgeo@gmx.de</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>Cc: <br>Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 15:06:00 -0700 (MST)<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path<br>Richard Z. wrote<br>
> ...<br>
> I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a<br>
> variant<br>
> of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles<br>
> unless<br>
> otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.<br>
> ...<br>
<br>
@Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5<br>
or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?<br>
<br>
Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"<br>
along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access<br>
properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway<br>
keys.<br>
<br>
The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and<br>
assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.<br>
<br>
geow<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
View this message in context: <a href="http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851515.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851515.html</a><br>
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: "Daniel Koć" <<a href="mailto:daniel@ko%C4%87.pl">daniel@koć.pl</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:55:48 +0200<br>Subject: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition<br>I have just discovered that while landcover=trees has no Wiki page, it's quite established tag (I wouldn't say "popular" here, because it's just about 1% of forest/wood uses) and we could officially define as a generic tag for trees areas, when it's not clear for the mapper if it's natural or not ("forest" vs "wood").<br>
<br>
Do you agree with this idea?<br>
<br>
-- <br>
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen]<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <<a href="mailto:ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi">ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 01:58:41 +0300 (EEST)<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path<br>On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:<br>
<br>
> Richard Z. wrote<br>
> > ...<br>
> > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a<br>
> > variant<br>
> > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles<br>
> > unless<br>
> > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.<br>
> > ...<br>
><br>
> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5<br>
> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?<br>
><br>
> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"<br>
> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access<br>
> properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway<br>
> keys.<br>
><br>
> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and<br>
> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.<br>
<br>
Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because<br>
of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could<br>
go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the<br>
same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).<br>
<br>
I personally would prefer that something would really be defined into<br>
highway=* for real paths that are not "constructed" (and that it would<br>
also render with default mapnik as otherwise the feedback satisfaction<br>
factor won't be there and it won't fly against highway=path mess that "at<br>
least renders"). That would probably make the issue slightly less<br>
convoluted eventually (and might allow easier migration between footway<br>
and path or even defining eventually footway == path as someone<br>
suggested). ...Sadly the highway=trail discussion lead to nowhere on this<br>
front [1]. There's informal=yes (and perhaps wheelchair=no too) but that's<br>
2-3 keys with no really good reason, IMHO.<br>
<br>
However, I'm painfully aware that also all these discussions are unlikely<br>
lead nowhere as highway=path only supporters seem to be unwilling to allow<br>
such differentiation (which, according to their claims is exactly same<br>
class as highway=path and therefore it would be trivial to match them in<br>
the data user end). I also don't believe that it would be that hard to use<br>
correctly in practice although some likely would try to claim that such<br>
highway class woule be very subjective.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
i.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-October/005417.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-October/005417.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:10:25 +1000<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path<br>On 3/08/2015 8:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Richard Z. wrote<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
...<br>
I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a<br>
variant<br>
of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles<br>
unless<br>
otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.<br>
...<br>
</blockquote>
@Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5<br>
or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?<br>
<br>
Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"<br>
along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access<br>
properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway<br>
keys.<br>
<br>
The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and<br>
assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.<br>
</blockquote>
Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because<br>
of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could<br>
go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the<br>
same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And that leads to the mess 'we' have.<br>
Taking this to an extreme there would be some 6(access)*6(surface)*6(set widths) of highway=path/footway (216 types)<br>
each with an individual tag<br>
just so some mappers would not be put to the trouble of entering the data!<br>
<br>
Oh .. and I have left off the cycleway/bridle way too so add another 3!<br>
<br>
Personally I am for the amalgamation of highway=path/footway.<br>
Not using the sub tag for detail ... is like using shop=yes ... you simply mark the presence of something and leave the detail for someone who cares.<br>
Most who don't use the sub tags are probably not correctly suing path/footway either.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:30:16 +1000<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging<br>On 3/08/2015 7:51 AM, Ruben Maes wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2015-07-23 0:12 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe <<a href="mailto:fl.infosreseaux@gmail.com" target="_blank">fl.infosreseaux@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Finally, and regarding mobile telecom networks, there is this chart which<br>
try to illustrate components and relations to be made on a mobile station<br>
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radio_antennas_mapping_proposal.png" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radio_antennas_mapping_proposal.png</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Is there a reason for using the key "azimuth" instead of "direction"? _______________________________________________<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Azimuth is used in the telecoms and antenna industries. Including GPS antennas. So it is a recognised term within those industries and would be easily recognised by people in those industries.<br>
<br>
Using a different term may lead to confusion and possible a reduction in data entry.<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.html</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:57:15 +1000<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)<br>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>On 2/08/2015 9:16 PM, Alberto Chung
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The proposal is on the wiki page
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/nutrition_supplements" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/nutrition_supplements</a><br>
<br>
And states <br>
"Definition: A shop selling vitamins and minerals; food
supplements."<br>
<br>
Does the shop have to sell BOTH vitamins and minerals?<br>
And the semicolon does not make sense. <br>
<br>
Perhaps Definition: A shop selling food nutrition supplements. ???<br>
<br>
Then states<br>
<br>
"Use for shops that offer vitamins and minerals, herbal supplements,
health and beauty items, strength and fitness supplements and weight
loss products."<br>
<br>
Might be better represents as a list ?<br>
<br>
"Use for shops that sells one or more nutritional supplements;<br>
<ul>
<li>vitamins</li>
<li>minerals</li>
<li>herbal</li>
<li>health</li>
<li>strength</li>
<li>fitness</li>
<li>weight loss"</li>
</ul>
<p>Though I think the first three cover the rest ? So might even
better as <br>
</p>
<p>"Use for shops that sells one or more nutritional supplements (of
vitamins, minerals and/or herbs) used for;<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li>health</li>
<li>strength</li>
<li>fitness</li>
<li>weight loss"</li>
</ul>
<p>----------------------------------------------------------<br>
The proposal should also mention the past proposal
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/supplements" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/supplements</a><br>
</p>
<p>I have removed the beauty thing ... are these used for that too?
If so include it in the above. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:25:38 +0200<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)<br><br>
<br>
sent from a phone<br>
<br>
> Am 03.08.2015 um 07:57 schrieb Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
><br>
> herbal<br>
<br>
<br>
there's also a tag shop=herbalist<br>
<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------<br>From: Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>Cc: <br>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:34:54 +0200<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging<br><br>
<br>
>> Is there a reason for using the key "azimuth" instead of "direction"?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
is there a good reason to use "direction" for the azimuth? The word suggests to mean a combination of azimuth and altitude but the suggested values indicate to mean azimuth.<br>
<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>