[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 30

Sat Jan 10 19:18:53 UTC 2015

The ID editor already has multifaith as a selectable pull-down item for the religion= tag. 

On January 9, 2015 7:23:54 PM EST, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
>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: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature	question
>      (Dave F.)
>   2. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature	question
>      (Dan S)
>   3. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature	question
>      (Dave F.)
>   4. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Sturdy)
>   5. Re: religion=multi* ? (Philip Barnes)
>   6. Re: religion=multi* ? (Andreas Neumann)
>   7. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Willis)
>   8. Re: religion=multi* ? (SomeoneElse)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:12:48 +0000
>From: "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com>
>To: Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu>,  "Tag discussion, strategy and
>	related tools" <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature
>	question
>Message-ID: <54AFC5C0.3030500 at madasafish.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:
>>
>>> I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes
>layer,
>>> that's separate (& hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the
>>> layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let
>alone
>>> a newbie..
>>
>> Well the problem is that what you see as a "button to turn on the 
>> notes layer" is what I see as a "button to add a new note" ;-) That 
>> button was intended to encode the "add a note" action, not the "view 
>> notes" action.
>
>OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. 
>Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a 
>note' function.
>
>> If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, I
>
>> would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer.
>
>On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user?
>
>>
>>
>>>> The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add
>note
>>>> control is disabled is that it might already have been on before
>you
>>>> started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we
>had
>>>> turned it on or if it was already on .
>>>
>>>> Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the
>notes
>>>> layers on and off manually while the add note control is active
>just
>>>> introduces even more levels of complication...
>>>
>>> By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that
>>> complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers!
>>
>> No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm
>saying 
>> it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of
>view.
>
>I don't really see it as that confusing:
>
>I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view notes', 
>but lets assume it does:
>
>* The 'add note' button turns both the add & view layers on & should 
>them off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden 
>option under Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on.
>
>* If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible, 
>turn 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a
>note.
>
>Cheers
>Dave F.
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:17:42 +0000
>From: Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com>
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature
>	question
>Message-ID:
>	<CANuikkqvzrLNgqA5jHogDyBVOMcwCut2pzr7HxE=D8bChcVGfQ at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>This appears to be nothing to do with "tagging" - you've presumably
>sent to this list by mistake...
>
>2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>:
>> On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes
>layer,
>>>> that's separate (& hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn
>the
>>>> layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let
>alone
>>>> a newbie..
>>>
>>>
>>> Well the problem is that what you see as a "button to turn on the
>notes
>>> layer" is what I see as a "button to add a new note" ;-) That button
>was
>>> intended to encode the "add a note" action, not the "view notes"
>action.
>>
>>
>> OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'.
>> Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a
>note'
>> function.
>>
>>> If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button,
>I
>>> would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer.
>>
>>
>> On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add
>note
>>>>> control is disabled is that it might already have been on before
>you
>>>>> started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we
>had
>>>>> turned it on or if it was already on .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the
>notes
>>>>> layers on and off manually while the add note control is active
>just
>>>>> introduces even more levels of complication...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that
>>>> complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers!
>>>
>>>
>>> No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm
>saying
>>> it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of
>view.
>>
>>
>> I don't really see it as that confusing:
>>
>> I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view
>notes', but
>> lets assume it does:
>>
>> * The 'add note' button turns both the add & view layers on & should
>them
>> off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden
>option under
>> Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on.
>>
>> * If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible,
>turn
>> 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a
>note.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Dave F.
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:21:10 +0000
>From: "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com>
>To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature
>	question
>Message-ID: <54AFC7B6.5050301 at madasafish.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>Apologies & Thanks.
>
>On 09/01/2015 12:17, Dan S wrote:
>> This appears to be nothing to do with "tagging" - you've presumably
>> sent to this list by mistake...
>>
>> 2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>:
>>> On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>>> On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes
>layer,
>>>>> that's separate (& hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn
>the
>>>>> layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let
>alone
>>>>> a newbie..
>>>>
>>>> Well the problem is that what you see as a "button to turn on the
>notes
>>>> layer" is what I see as a "button to add a new note" ;-) That
>button was
>>>> intended to encode the "add a note" action, not the "view notes"
>action.
>>>
>>> OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view
>notes'.
>>> Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a
>note'
>>> function.
>>>
>>>> If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button,
>I
>>>> would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer.
>>>
>>> On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add
>note
>>>>>> control is disabled is that it might already have been on before
>you
>>>>>> started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if
>we had
>>>>>> turned it on or if it was already on .
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the
>notes
>>>>>> layers on and off manually while the add note control is active
>just
>>>>>> introduces even more levels of complication...
>>>>>
>>>>> By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that
>>>>> complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of
>computers!
>>>>
>>>> No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm
>saying
>>>> it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of
>view.
>>>
>>> I don't really see it as that confusing:
>>>
>>> I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view
>notes', but
>>> lets assume it does:
>>>
>>> * The 'add note' button turns both the add & view layers on & should
>them
>>> off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden
>option under
>>> Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on.
>>>
>>> * If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is
>visible, turn
>>> 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a
>note.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Dave F.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> http://www.avast.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:52:28 +0000
>From: John Sturdy <jcg.sturdy at gmail.com>
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
>Message-ID:
>	<CAFJf9KPwAYzpMCbK32izYH0vQm+KL8izt2KXXwXWOkp=1FBF7g at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination" tag
>out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or
>denomination?
>
>__John
>
>
>On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>
>wrote:
>> On 09/01/2015 01:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-01-09 00:56:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> denomination=none
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice, but we need to stay on the religion= level
>>>
>> But couldn't the sharing be inter-denominational, rather than
>> inter-religion?
>>
>> As I see it:
>>
>> 1. No specific religion, such as rooms at hospitals, airports etc.
>> 2. Shared places where different religions/denominations
>preach/perform
>> services at separate times.
>> 3. Shared places where different religions/denominations
>preach/perform
>> services at the same time. I'm guessing this would more likely be
>> denominations than religion.
>>
>> Dave F.
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:43:49 +0000
>From: Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>
>To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
>Message-ID: <1420818229.2132.2.camel at trigpoint.me.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 12:52 +0000, John Sturdy wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination" tag
>> out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or
>> denomination?
>> 
>> __John
>> 
>I think religion=multi is a good tag for this type of facility.
>Multi-faith is a term that is common in real world usage and also
>indicates that the mapper has surveyed and mapped what they have seen.
>
>Leaving religion blank on a place of worship is going to bring in the
>error checkers and increase the risk of them being armchaired.
>
>Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 16:58:30 +0100
>From: Andreas Neumann <andr-neumann at gmx.net>
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
>Message-ID: <54AFFAA6.8040509 at gmx.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>On 09.01.2015 13:52, John Sturdy wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination" tag
>> out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or
>> denomination?
>> 
>> __John
>
>Hi,
>
>I see this problem:
>Where is the difference between a multifaith place and an object with
>missing religion-tag?
>
>Andreas
>
>
>-- 
>Andreas Neumann
>http://Map4Jena.de
>http://Stadtplan-Ilmenau.de
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: signature.asc
>Type: application/pgp-signature
>Size: 648 bytes
>Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
>URL:
><http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150109/27c8c5f8/attachment-0001.sig>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:17:17 +0900
>From: John Willis <johnw at mac.com>
>To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
>Message-ID: <82639A05-9329-4E57-8FAE-61783F92A169 at mac.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>"multi" fits the sports tagging scheme well, and I think it is best for
>the religion tag too. 
>
>"All"is not good, as most sports places don have a clay sumo ring or a
>sandy pit for beach volleyball set up, so "all" would be wrong. 
>
>Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's
>prayer room might get you arrested. 
>
>Multi seems the best fit. 
>
>Javbw
>
>> On Jan 10, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Andreas Neumann <andr-neumann at gmx.net>
>wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09.01.2015 13:52, John Sturdy wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the "religion" or "denomination"
>tag
>>> out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or
>>> denomination?
>>> 
>>> __John
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I see this problem:
>> Where is the difference between a multifaith place and an object with
>> missing religion-tag?
>> 
>> Andreas
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andreas Neumann
>> http://Map4Jena.de
>> http://Stadtplan-Ilmenau.de
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:23:45 +0000
>From: SomeoneElse <lists at atownsend.org.uk>
>To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
>Message-ID: <54B07111.1040002 at atownsend.org.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>On 10/01/2015 00:17, John Willis wrote:
>> Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's
>prayer room might get you arrested.
>>
>
>Not even poodles? :)
>
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020847.html
>
>Cheers,
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: Digest Footer
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 30
>***************************************

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150110/2c6e2bc1/attachment-0001.html>