User talk:SelfishSeahorse

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sidewalks

This discussion originally begun on User talk:Mateusz Konieczny#Named sidewalks.

Hi! I'm sorry, I did revert your edit on the Sidewalks page. As has been discussed on the mailing list, naming sidewalks isn't bad tagging - on the contrary: sidewalks are part of the road, like two ore more separated lanes, which are also named each. Without name, there is no reference to the road, but this reference is necessary for voice guidance in routing apps. Cheers --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you link the mailing list discussion? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
There were many discussions about sidewalks - one started here. By the way, 23,116 uses of footway=sidewalk + name=* isn't 'not used'. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I looked through multiple posts and I see no consensus about name tagging. Can you give a better link? Also, only less than 1 in 25 sidewalks has name tagged (see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/footway=sidewalk#combinations ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
There isn't a gerneral consensus to name sidewalks, as there isn't a consensus to map separate sidewalks. However, as far as I can rembember, among those that prefer to map sidewalks separately and care about pedestrian routing, there is a consens that a reference to the carriageway is needed - either using a relation or adding the name tag to the sidewalk. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Drolbr mdv has added another link to the mailing list to the wiki page (that one I couldn't find). --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

wikibase

Hi, thanks for editing landuse=institutional (Q6120), but we should not point it to the proposed page as you did in this edit. The sitelink is used to identify the data entry, and to quickly find it, not to link to the corresponding wiki page. If you want, you can make a redirect from Tag:landuse=institutional to Proposed features/Tag:landuse=institutional, but the sitelink needs to stay as is. That's why the edit button for it was hidden (at least on the desktop wiki). Note that very soon the {{ValueDescription}} template will be replaced with {{ValueDescription/Sandbox}}, which means there will be an "edit" link in the infobox to link back to the data item too. See OpenStreetMap:Wikibase for more details. Thanks!! --Yurik (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Also, take a look at Item:Q104#P6 -- the status of the data item can contain a reference to the proposal discussion. --Yurik (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry, but i didn't change Item:Q6120 deliberately; it must have happened automatically when i moved Proposed features/Tag:landuse=institutional. Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, interesting, thanks! I will need to look into that then. --Yurik (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Mimics

Thanks for taking the time to read, vote, and leave comments on my proposal for Proposed_features/Mimics. It's my first time proposing a feature so I'm not familiar with how much structure to add when. I proposed values in the last paragraph of the Examples section and planned to include photographs of masts/towers of those types post-vote on the pages describing masts and tags. Happy to discuss and hope you'll reconsider your opposition. Thanks. –Erictheise (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 19:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I guess you agree that a tag needs a value (or several values) to make sense. If you don't define them in the proposal, you leave it to the mappers to use any key they like. This likely leads to a mess and a lack of clarity and finally more work for data users. Of course you can also propose values later or document the most used value, but in my opinion it would have made more sense to propose them together with the key. Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree. The proposal suggests broadleaves, eucalyptus, saguaro, palm, pine, "water tower" and the generic cactus and tree as values in the Examples section. –Erictheise (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It would have been better to propose these tags together with the key, not just as examples. But as i don't want to be spoilsports and as i otherwise like the proposal, i've changed my vote from no to abstain. Besides, values should not include a whitespace character (except in name=*, description=* and similar tags), but an underline instead. Therefore it should be mimics=water_tower, not mimics=water tower. Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


Fountain

Hi. You added the image

to the wiki page Tag:amenity=fountain. It's not a good example though. It does not match any of the descriptions further up the page under Summary. It is significantly different from the other fountain examples in that gallery. And it further confuses the issue between that tag and Tag:amenity=drinking_water. Such a fountain with a simple construction and drinking water output is commonly tagged as amenity=drinking_water in Switzerland --Taktaal (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Taktaal! You're right, there's an overlap between the two tags (and also with man_made=water_well), especially in Switzerland where many decorative fountains provide drinkable water. However, it seems to be preferred to use a more specific tag if possible, in this case amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes. Therefore, amenity=drinking_fountain is mainly used for drinking fountains and water taps. The fountain in question is decorative and thus qualifies as amenity=fountain. It's not a drinking fountain. I don't even know if it provides drinkable water. Note that, especially in other countries, many historic fountains, which were built to provide people with water for drinking and washing, don't provide drinkable water nowadays (that is, drinkable water according to current standards of hygiene). By the way, there's already a similar historic fountain on the page. Best regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
That other image is significantly different though. It's more decorative (statue in the middle, with gold decoration), it doesn't dispense drinking water (you can barely see a "No drinking water" sign on the inside right side) and it's in fact impossible to reach the spouts. Whereas the one in Rolle has two metal bars over the trough designed to hold a bucket for drinking water collection. And it's really not that decorative, the little bit of copper decoration and stonework was put on everything back in the day. I just believe that this is a particularly unsuitable candidate for a sample image, does not correspond to current usage (especially in Switzerland where the image is from), and furthers the confusion on when to decide whether to map an item as a fountain or a drinking_water. --Taktaal (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not about how decorative a fountain is or not – that is subjective and thus not verifiable –, but about the type or purpose of the fountain. There are many similar or simpler fountains to that in Rolle that don't provide drinkable water, for example this one. On the other hand, there are many more ornate fountains that provide drinkable water, e.g. this one. How would you tag them? Note that about a year ago, someone asked on the Swiss OSM mailing list when to use amenity=fountain and when amenity=drinking_water. There was no opposition to my explanation. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)