[Tagging] Do we need more different tagging for telephone covers?
pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 12:51:47 UTC 2020
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 12:35, Lukas via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> 1. covered=booth for closed phone-boxes, but some mappers do not really
> like that.
The author of iD is one of the mappers who doesn't like it. So much so
removed that option from the preset for phone=*. Unless you can persuade
him to change his mind (you can't) then you can forget using covered=*
unless editors support it, few mappers will use it.
To be fair, he has a fairly sensible reason for his opposition. The values
covered=* for phones and for other things are wildly different. Since he
populates those values from the wiki (or associated wikidata) the list
presented to mappers is confusing. You're not going to change his mind
on that, so forget about using covered=*.
I think covered=booth and booth=* to specify the type of booth (or to tag
> that there is a booth at all, both variants are used) were added to the
> wiki 2010 without discussion.
You can thank the author of iD for that. He needed something after removing
covered=* from the preset for phone=* and that's how he decided to do it
a little discussion on github).
> 2. Some mappers say "booth" is not really a good key name for phone boxes.
I agree. It's also more American than British usage. But it's probably too
late to change now.
> My suggestion here would be to add something like covered=closed_phone_box
> (instead of covered=booth), covered=phone_hood and covered=roof for these,
> but the question is whether key covered=* is suitable for this. Or should
> we stay with a stricter covered=yes/no and maybe add something like
> covered_by=phone_hood or something?
Forget covered=*. It won't fly. I don't think we need closed_phone_box
you have an example of an open_phone_box, so phone_box would be fine. Hood
is probably better than roof, because most of these are acoustic hoods. In
few case where there is a sloped roof, then building=roof mapped as an area
may be better.
Namespacing it would avoid having to put "phone_" everywhere, and avoid
possible future key collisions. So how about
And to answer my own question, it's probably too late to make a change like
that given the number already in use.
> 4. And what are we going to do with phones like this:
> https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/539646770_464dffea77_b.jpg ? The
> phone itself is covered, but the user of it will be not. Is that
> covered=yes or covered=no?
I'd say no. From the viewpoint of somebody looking for the nearest phone
he or she can drive to that will provide protection from the rainstorm, that
isn't suitable. Calling it covered would be misleading.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging