[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 52, Issue 65

pmsg pmsg2010 at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 23 15:22:27 UTC 2014


Hello Frederik,

From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>Perhaps it could work to draw the boundary in the same way as the
>company draws it themselves. If they have, on their web site,
>instructions on how to find them - possibly a map, or a description -
>then they can be placed on the map. If they don't, or try to hide their
>actual location from visitors of their web site, then they can't be on
>OSM either.

+1 as general guidance, with the addition that we can also map offices
with "landmark" character, even if the webpage does not provide
driving instructions.

Bye, pmsg


2014/1/23  <tagging-request at openstreetmap.org>:
> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
>         tagging at 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-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         tagging-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. tag "covered" questions (Richard Z.)
>    2. Re: Ski_jump_take_off (Janko Miheli?)
>    3. Re: tag "covered" questions (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>    4. Re: Ski_jump_take_off (Richard Z.)
>    5. Re: tag "covered" questions (Richard Z.)
>    6. Re: Bitcoin and Online shops (Frederik Ramm)
>    7. Re: Bitcoin and Online shops (Frederik Ramm)
>    8. Re: Bitcoin and Online shops (Frederik Ramm)
>    9. Re: Bitcoin and Online shops (Peter Wendorff)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:15:36 +0100
> From: "Richard Z." <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] tag "covered" questions
> Message-ID: <20140123121536.GB13358 at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi,
>
> considering a fairly short way that is partially covered in several
> places by one or more buidlings:
>
> (1) should the way be split in sections and covered applied striclty only
>     to the covered sections
> (2) or is it good enough to mark a larger section with covered and interpret
>     it to the effect that the "covered" only defines a covered-relation where
>     there is actualy an object that can cover it - somewhat similar to the
>     the way layer has only a defined meaning where two or more objects
>     intersect.
>
> Related, in cases where covered is used without a layer tag should there be
> a common node in the place the way is crossing the building boundary in the
> same way there are supposed to be common nodes when streams cross riverbanks
> or weirs?
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:33:41 +0100
> From: Janko Miheli? <janjko at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off
> Message-ID:
>         <CAA=vpS-MKiCFSCh4PBZxvvsmfWgAHXfcd_BD394BcgxxqqfdwQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 2014/1/23 Richard Z. <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>
>
>> * sport=* is used for something different. His intention was to describe
>> the
>>   details of a technical structure, not to say what kind of sport facility
>> it is.
>>   Would you map ski-pistest with sport=*? How?
>> * 97 is a high percentage ski jump sites that were mapped. There is no
>> reason
>>   to compare it with unrelated sports.
>> * sport=* is really lacking form many purposes, which is the reason that
>> most
>>   sports that can profit from detailed mapping don't use it. We don?t mark
>> hiking
>>   trails with sport=hiking, via ferrata's with sport=, waterways with
>> sport=kayaking.
>>
>
> In all those cases sport=* is used to describe what sport can be played on
> a particular physical object. Sport=hiking is put on a highway=path,
> sport=kayaking is put on waterway=river.
>
> Following that logic, we should have sport=ski_jumping put on a
> leisure=ski_jump_hill. sport=ski_jump_take_off makes no sense, because
> that's not a sport, that is a facility.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140123/93cd2b84/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:34:42 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tag "covered" questions
> Message-ID:
>         <CABPTjTCHMkF6cXOKnLeMbYwFLXLLmDRQaKPqpO6Ni6t89xDDBw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 2014/1/23 Richard Z. <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> considering a fairly short way that is partially covered in several
>> places by one or more buidlings:
>>
>> (1) should the way be split in sections and covered applied striclty only
>>     to the covered sections
>>
>
>
> yes, as always you should add tags only to the parts of an object to where
> they apply.
>
>
>
>>
>> Related, in cases where covered is used without a layer tag should there be
>> a common node in the place the way is crossing the building boundary in the
>> same way there are supposed to be common nodes when streams cross
>> riverbanks
>> or weirs?
>>
>
>
> IMHO there should always be a layer tag to store topology.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140123/c06eb132/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:54:31 +0100
> From: "Richard Z." <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off
> Message-ID: <20140123125431.GE13358 at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:33:41PM +0100, Janko Miheli? wrote:
>> 2014/1/23 Richard Z. <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>
>>
>> > * sport=* is used for something different. His intention was to describe
>> > the
>> >   details of a technical structure, not to say what kind of sport facility
>> > it is.
>> >   Would you map ski-pistest with sport=*? How?
>> > * 97 is a high percentage ski jump sites that were mapped. There is no
>> > reason
>> >   to compare it with unrelated sports.
>> > * sport=* is really lacking form many purposes, which is the reason that
>> > most
>> >   sports that can profit from detailed mapping don't use it. We don?t mark
>> > hiking
>> >   trails with sport=hiking, via ferrata's with sport=, waterways with
>> > sport=kayaking.
>> >
>>
>> In all those cases sport=* is used to describe what sport can be played on
>> a particular physical object. Sport=hiking is put on a highway=path,
>> sport=kayaking is put on waterway=river.
>
> not even mentioned in the respective pages
> * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
> * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports
>
> Regarding cycling, is it a sport, leisure or just a mean of transportation?
> Some ways should be marked with all three.
>
>> Following that logic, we should have sport=ski_jumping put on a
>> leisure=ski_jump_hill. sport=ski_jump_take_off makes no sense, because
>> that's not a sport, that is a facility.
>
> I think you listed two valid points in this paragraph but I don?t see
> how they follow the same logic. They are just different uses for different
> purposes.
>
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:58:25 +0100
> From: "Richard Z." <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tag "covered" questions
> Message-ID: <20140123125825.GF13358 at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Related, in cases where covered is used without a layer tag should there be
>> > a common node in the place the way is crossing the building boundary in the
>> > same way there are supposed to be common nodes when streams cross
>> > riverbanks
>> > or weirs?
>> >
>>
>>
>> IMHO there should always be a layer tag to store topology.
>
> there are many cases where you can not apply a layer tag meaningfully. There
> is a way going through a building - which means the building is on both sides
> of the way, above the way and supposedly also some underground levels bellow
> the way.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:07:53 +0100
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
> Message-ID: <52E11429.6000406 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi,
>
> On 01/23/2014 12:30 AM, Janko Miheli? wrote:
>> Don't you think a visualization of the spatial distribution of online
>> businesses would be interesting to someone? Are there more on the east
>> or on the west coast of USA?
>
> Two answers
>
> A - get a list of online businesses with addresses, geocode, voila. No
> need to add them into OSM.
>
> or
>
> B - by all means add them to URL just make sure you leave out their URL,
> this will allow all the interesting uses you speak of and will help the
> delivery driver to find them but that way we can be sure OSM will not be
> abused for spam.
>
>> Also, a little widget that shows you where is the office of the page you
>> are currently on.
>
> Why would you be insterested?
>
>> And then there's all those ways of using that information we don't know yet.
>
> Yes, for example to drive up search engine rankings.
>
> We have to weigh the potential positive and the potential negative uses
> here; placing the URL of a business into OSM when that business derives
> all their revenue through people actually knowing the URL is just asking
> to be abused.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:09:32 +0100
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
> Message-ID: <52E1148C.1090406 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> On 01/23/2014 12:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I completely agree that adding online businesses at fake locations is spam, but your relevance criteria seem too tight.
>
> I'd rather have too tight criteria (and leave out an occasional URL that
> might be useful) than be too open (and give spammers an excuse to abuse
> OSM).
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 14:12:58 +0100
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
> Message-ID: <52E1155A.9050309 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> On 01/23/2014 09:26 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
>> At a real, existing office with working people, it's possible that I
>> want to go there to apply for a job, to talk to them about an idea, in
>> special cases to buy something in personal, even if they usually don't
>> do that by personal contact there.
>
> Perhaps it could work to draw the boundary in the same way as the
> company draws it themselves. If they have, on their web site,
> instructions on how to find them - possibly a map, or a description -
> then they can be placed on the map. If they don't, or try to hide their
> actual location from visitors of their web site, then they can't be on
> OSM either.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:00:06 +0100
> From: Peter Wendorff <wendorff at uni-paderborn.de>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops
> Message-ID: <52E12066.60100 at uni-paderborn.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Sounds like a good starting point at least.
>
> regards
> Peter
>
> Am 23.01.2014 14:12, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 01/23/2014 09:26 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
>>> At a real, existing office with working people, it's possible that I
>>> want to go there to apply for a job, to talk to them about an idea, in
>>> special cases to buy something in personal, even if they usually don't
>>> do that by personal contact there.
>>
>> Perhaps it could work to draw the boundary in the same way as the
>> company draws it themselves. If they have, on their web site,
>> instructions on how to find them - possibly a map, or a description -
>> then they can be placed on the map. If they don't, or try to hide their
>> actual location from visitors of their web site, then they can't be on
>> OSM either.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 52, Issue 65
> ***************************************



More information about the Tagging mailing list