[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 71, Issue 5
Alberto Chung
isc.chungvazquez at gmail.com
Mon Aug 3 23:06:25 UTC 2015
I'm not sure what's the way to reply this, sorry about that...
- 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.
- Warin: Thanks for your comments, i will change the definition. I
mentioned the past proposal in Examples section and in the Talk section.
2015-08-03 2:35 GMT-05:00 <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. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path (geow)
> 2. landcover=trees definition (Daniel Koć)
> 3. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path (Ilpo Järvinen)
> 4. Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path (Warin)
> 5. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Warin)
> 6. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements) (Warin)
> 7. Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
> (Martin Koppenhoefer)
> 8. Re: Telecoms Tagging (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: geow <kfsgeo at gmx.de>
> To: Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 15:06:00 -0700 (MST)
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path
> Richard Z. wrote
> > ...
> > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
> > variant
> > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
> > unless
> > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
> > ...
>
> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5
> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
> properties. That way we could replace all
> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
> keys.
>
> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and
> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
>
> geow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851515.html
> Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: "Daniel Koć" <daniel at koć.pl>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:55:48 +0200
> Subject: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition
> 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").
>
> Do you agree with this idea?
>
> --
> "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
> down" [A. Cohen]
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen at helsinki.fi>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 01:58:41 +0300 (EEST)
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
>
> > Richard Z. wrote
> > > ...
> > > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
> > > variant
> > > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and
> vehicles
> > > unless
> > > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
> > > ...
> >
> > @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really
> need 5
> > or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
> > along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
> > properties. That way we could replace all
> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
> > keys.
> >
> > The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags
> and
> > assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
>
> Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
> of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
> go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
> same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).
>
> I personally would prefer that something would really be defined into
> highway=* for real paths that are not "constructed" (and that it would
> also render with default mapnik as otherwise the feedback satisfaction
> factor won't be there and it won't fly against highway=path mess that "at
> least renders"). That would probably make the issue slightly less
> convoluted eventually (and might allow easier migration between footway
> and path or even defining eventually footway == path as someone
> suggested). ...Sadly the highway=trail discussion lead to nowhere on this
> front [1]. There's informal=yes (and perhaps wheelchair=no too) but that's
> 2-3 keys with no really good reason, IMHO.
>
> However, I'm painfully aware that also all these discussions are unlikely
> lead nowhere as highway=path only supporters seem to be unwilling to allow
> such differentiation (which, according to their claims is exactly same
> class as highway=path and therefore it would be trivial to match them in
> the data user end). I also don't believe that it would be that hard to use
> correctly in practice although some likely would try to claim that such
> highway class woule be very subjective.
>
>
> --
> i.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-October/005417.html
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:10:25 +1000
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
> footway vs path
> On 3/08/2015 8:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
>>
>> Richard Z. wrote
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
>>>> variant
>>>> of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
>>>> unless
>>>> otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>> @Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really
>>> need 5
>>> or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
>>> along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
>>> properties. That way we could replace all
>>> highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
>>> keys.
>>>
>>> The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags
>>> and
>>> assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
>>>
>> Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
>> of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
>> go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
>> same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).
>>
>
> And that leads to the mess 'we' have.
> Taking this to an extreme there would be some 6(access)*6(surface)*6(set
> widths) of highway=path/footway (216 types)
> each with an individual tag
> just so some mappers would not be put to the trouble of entering the data!
>
> Oh .. and I have left off the cycleway/bridle way too so add another 3!
>
> Personally I am for the amalgamation of highway=path/footway.
> 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.
> Most who don't use the sub tags are probably not correctly suing
> path/footway either.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:30:16 +1000
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging
> On 3/08/2015 7:51 AM, Ruben Maes wrote:
>
>> 2015-07-23 0:12 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Finally, and regarding mobile telecom networks, there is this chart which
>>> try to illustrate components and relations to be made on a mobile station
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Radio_antennas_mapping_proposal.png
>>>
>>
>> Is there a reason for using the key "azimuth" instead of "direction"?
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
> 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.
>
> Using a different term may lead to confusion and possible a reduction in
> data entry.
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:57:15 +1000
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
> On 2/08/2015 9:16 PM, Alberto Chung wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The proposal is on the wiki page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/nutrition_supplements
>
> And states
> "Definition: A shop selling vitamins and minerals; food supplements."
>
> Does the shop have to sell BOTH vitamins and minerals?
> And the semicolon does not make sense.
>
> Perhaps Definition: A shop selling food nutrition supplements. ???
>
> Then states
>
> "Use for shops that offer vitamins and minerals, herbal supplements,
> health and beauty items, strength and fitness supplements and weight loss
> products."
>
> Might be better represents as a list ?
>
> "Use for shops that sells one or more nutritional supplements;
>
> - vitamins
> - minerals
> - herbal
> - health
> - strength
> - fitness
> - weight loss"
>
> Though I think the first three cover the rest ? So might even better as
>
> "Use for shops that sells one or more nutritional supplements (of
> vitamins, minerals and/or herbs) used for;
>
> - health
> - strength
> - fitness
> - weight loss"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> The proposal should also mention the past proposal
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/supplements
>
> I have removed the beauty thing ... are these used for that too? If so
> include it in the above.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:25:38 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (nutrition_supplements)
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 03.08.2015 um 07:57 schrieb Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:
> >
> > herbal
>
>
> there's also a tag shop=herbalist
>
>
> cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:34:54 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging
>
>
> >> Is there a reason for using the key "azimuth" instead of "direction"?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150803/1c84b8d9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list