User talk:Emvee

Amenity=recycling

On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Drecycling&diff=next&oldid=1256921 you've added "location=underground for an underfloor-container" but according to location description, "location=underground Used where a feature is under ground, not visible on the surface." It doesn't match your use case, does it?

--Nospam2005 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, location=underground is not 100% correct for a recycling container that is (largely) under ground but everybody immediately understands what is meant and I see no better location value that is more correct. Do you have a better proposal? -- Emvee (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

location=semi_underground or location=semi_buried or location=half_buried or location=partly_buried, I don't mind (I'm not an English native speaker and http://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/search?query=semi-enterr%C3%A9 has all those proposals). Looking on my reference for translation - IATE (I must admit that I'm European too), gave only the French term back: http://iate.europa.eu/FindTermsByLilId.do?lilId=379661&langId=fr. Maybe using the Dutch term, you'll be more lucky.

location=half_buried may be to precise. As location=underground exits, I would prefer location=semi_underground or location=partly_underground.

It would be a new value for location, sure but IMHO it makes sense. If we go this path it has to be accepted and the wiki page should reflect the change.

--Nospam2005 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Like Nospam2005, I was a bit annoyed by the fact that it's not fully hidden. However, in Wallonia, these are referred to as "bulles à verre enterrées" (underground/buried containers) and they're actually hidden, save for the pipe. So I'm leaning toward the use of location=underground. The RedBurn (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As can be seen on the Tercol website, the containers for which all the content (not the visible part) is underground are called "enterrés" (underground/buried) whereas those for which a part of the content is underground are called "semi-enterrés" (semi_underground/half_buried). So the distinction could be made if necessary. Anyway, in my opinion, recycling_type=underfloor-container (63 uses) should be replaced by recycling_type=container + location=underground (512 uses), or location=semi_underground/semi_buried/(...) where/if necessary. The RedBurn (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, those that are half buried could just forego the use of location= since they are well visible on the outside (isn't it the point of the tag?). The RedBurn (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was checking the two models (half buried and buried) as I received a modification notice on this page.

So we may add on the location page that underground means that the main part is not visible giving those containers as example.

For recycling_type=underfloor-container, the best is to drop a message to the few users to see if they agree. Currently I can't do that but as the users are in not English speaking country and the tag is not described, I'm pretty sure they meant position=underground.

--Nospam2005 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I see why just underground is not good is that the Wiki currently has "not visible on the surface" with the location=underground description, if that was not there I think nobody would have "noticed", so maybe we should remove that. Everybody understands amenity=recycling + location=underground and for example amenity=parking + location=underground does not mean everything is underground.

Following The RedBurn for French, these types of containers are called "Ondergrondse afvalcontainers" in Dutch, see for example http://ondergrondsecontainer.nl/, nothing "semi" or "partly".

Combining this I do not see why adding a new location like location=semi_underground or location=partly_underground would make things better.

Emvee (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you OK with a wording like "Used where a feature is under ground, entirely or mostly not visible on the surface.".

I think saying underground means underground doesn't help, "not visible from the surface" helps people not understanding the word underground to get it.

--Nospam2005 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Under ground" is simpler English AFAIK than "not visible on the surface" and there are examples in the first part of the page, so one option for me is still to remove it completely.

Actually this part of the discussion should be on Talk:Key:location I think

Emvee (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

dunea watertap punten

Beste Emvee, ik zag op Bestaande_geodata_hergebruiken dat je bezig was geweest om toestemming te krijgen voor Brabant Water. Ik heb net 4 Dunea drinking_water punten toegevoegd in Den Haag, die ik zelf bezocht heb. Dunea heeft er vele tientallen, die op hun eigen kaart staan die een OSM mash-up is, inclusief coordinaten e.d. Klopt het dat ik eerst toestemming moet vragen om op basis van die kaart alle punten toe te voegen? Er is een telefoonnummer dat ik zou kunnen bellen. Maar moeten ze schriftelijk bevestigen naar een bepaald adres (zoals bij Wikipedia OTRS) FYI: ik ben nieuw bij OSM, wel al lang bezig met Wikipedia bewerken. Groet, Infodisiac (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ik heb via email contact opgenomen met Brabant water en ze om toestemmening gevraagd en dat heb ik per email gekregen; de aanvraag heb ik gewoon via de website gedaan. Op zichzelf is het denk ik goed "schriftelijk" (email) toestemming te hebben. Emvee (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Dank voor het snelle antwoord. Als ik die toestemming krijg kan ik die dan ook ergens uploaden of is die voor mijn persoonlijk archief? Ter vergelijk: bij Wikipedia moet ik toestemming voor gebruik van afbeeldingen die anderen gemaakt hebben naar een vast email adres sturen (OTRS) waar die dan centraal garchiveerd wordt. Geldt hier iets soortgelijks? Infodisiac (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Zover ik weet is het niet nodig om het naar een centraal archief te mailen maar misschien is dat goed om op het Nederlandstalig forum na te vragen. Emvee (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Key:crossing

Hi! Regarding your edit: adding highway=traffic_signals doesn't work in case of a pedestrian crossing without traffic signals (either "uncontrolled", i.e. marked, or unmarked). Regards --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for letting me know, let me add that. -- Emvee (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Page updated. Thinking it over adding something like "highway=kerb" for uncontrolled crossing to match highway=traffic_signals/stop/give_way would make sense to me -- Emvee (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Question on your edit on Key:crossing

Hi! regarding your edit that added the sentence "This is not the preferred way of tagging." to this page: what is the base for this statement?. As far as I know this is in contradiction with widespread use and also, to some degree, with the first paragraph of the present wikipage: "For tagging pedestrian crosswalks as separate ways, use highway=footway and footway=crossing.". Also the corresponding footway=crossing wiki page does not mention that this tagging is discouraged.

Regards --voschix (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I remember adding something like this to a discussion (i.e. my opinion) but as far as I see it is and has not been on Key:crossing.

"For tagging pedestrian crosswalks as separate ways, use highway=footway and footway=crossing." -- I can not find this text literaly on Key:crossing, the text there is more documenting that is happening "Some mappers tag a way way segment..."

Emvee (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I made mistake. The change in question is on the Tag:highway=crossing wiki page. This is the change: "22:14, 26 January 2020‎ Emvee". My apologies. --voschix (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I see the change has already been undone and looking at it again I am not unhappy with it.

The current text "footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing can be used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node" is . As far as I know bicycle routers they will not route a bicycle over ways with (only) "cycleway=crossing" and likewise pedestrian routers will not route over a way with only "footway=crossing" so I think this should be rephrased.

My initial thinking was that things like highway=traffic_signals and highway=give_way also marked the extend of the crossing and these are used by some routers. Thinking about a simular tag for crossings without lights or signs I came to kerb=* but lookiong at that again I now think that is not the best idea.

Emvee (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you look at that section at talk page?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#Unclear_.22if_all_the_ways_crossing_are_not_accessible_to_cyclists.22 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Question on your opposite_lane removal

Hi! During these modifications https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle&direction=next&oldid=2032512 you have removed "opposite_lane" on case M3b. But with these tags you can't understand that the right cycleway lane is for bicycle moving in the opposite direction. --StephaneP (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

See the FR_talk:Bicycle, there I added more than 5 months ago background on why -- Emvee (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)