[Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

European Water Project europeanwaterproject at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 09:11:24 UTC 2020


>
>   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.eisenberg at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
>         restaurant
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAP_2vPh+xD+1X5SB6Yyf0Uig87drzDUrQubf8ytE2jd5ZGgOfQ at 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 <europeanwaterproject at 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 <pla16021 at gmail.com>
> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> >>         restaurant
> >> Message-ID:
> >>         <
> >> CAPy1dO+9qZYKsZzMoyFoGzrkFD94Sfh3nXVxno4W7kfrpJ9P6w at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >>
> >> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler <mail at 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.eisenberg at gmail.com>
> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> >>         restaurant
> >> Message-ID:
> >>         <CAP_2vPjBzwK0uUtCrabDp4G=
> >> co7YXDvDO+q6kusvTc-QySxDmw at 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 <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>         <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to
>         pedestrians?
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CABPTjTCTcC0qVwEtbL19bMwpzEfymQH9QZvT+wjCKJaKB1HnXA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenberg at 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 at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 82
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200114/e0220519/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list