stcraftie59
 Joined: 11/02/07
Places: 4441
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0   |
[quote="bio2935c":3peyf0un][quote="stcraftie59":3peyf0un]Another one... Consumers Energy Co
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="old.wikimapia.org/#lat=43.3900204&;lon=-84.670098&z=18&l=0&m=b">old.wikimapia.org/#lat=43.390020 ... 18&l=0&m=b<!-- m -->[/quote:3peyf0un]
Depends on what they do at that location. Looks like a maintenance yard and some offices.
[electric grid company]??[/quote:3peyf0un]
That one ([electric grid company]) never cam up on search... <!-- s:!: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" /><!-- s:!: --> |
|
|
|
kirandariyanani7
 Joined: 24/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| [quote="stcraftie59":u6qqknon]That one ([electric grid company]) never cam up on search... <!-- s:!: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" /><!-- s:!: -->[/quote:u6qqknon]Does so for me... Just typed "electric" and it was the last one on a list of about 20, 327 objects. |
|
|
|
stcraftie59
Joined: 11/02/07
Places: 4441
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
Got a new one... Thermo King. Very big company, 'invented' freezer trucks. There is a link to WP on the tag.
They should have their own tag, and a general tag for other companies that do the same work. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="old.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.4790639&;lon=-75.5589906&z=18&l=0&m=b&show=/29994351/Thermo-King-Chesapeake">old.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.479063 ... Chesapeake<!-- m --> |
|
|
|
RK77
 Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="stcraftie59":2l6hzgia]Got a new one... Thermo King. Very big company, 'invented' freezer trucks. There is a link to WP on the tag.
They should have their own tag, and a general tag for other companies that do the same work. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="old.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.4790639&;lon=-75.5589906&z=18&l=0&m=b&show=/29994351/Thermo-King-Chesapeake">old.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.479063 ... Chesapeake<!-- m -->[/quote:2l6hzgia]
[url=http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.4790639&lon=-75.5589906&z=18&l=0&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=57704&lng=0&tab=main:2l6hzgia]Done[/url:2l6hzgia] for Thermo King. What do you suggest for a general tag? |
|
|
|
stcraftie59
Joined: 11/02/07
Places: 4441
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":1mlpktg0]
[url=http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.4790639&lon=-75.5589906&z=18&l=0&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=57704&lng=0&tab=main:1mlpktg0]Done[/url:1mlpktg0] for Thermo King. What do you suggest for a general tag?[/quote:1mlpktg0]
[Refrigerated truck / 'reefer' repair]
A refrigerated truck is known as a "reefer" in trucking jargon. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="stcraftie59":nb6fhkyr][quote="RK77":nb6fhkyr]
[url=http://old.wikimapia.org/#lat=38.4790639&lon=-75.5589906&z=18&l=0&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=57704&lng=0&tab=main:nb6fhkyr]Done[/url:nb6fhkyr] for Thermo King. What do you suggest for a general tag?[/quote:nb6fhkyr]
[Refrigerated truck / 'reefer' repair]
A refrigerated truck is known as a "reefer" in trucking jargon.[/quote:nb6fhkyr]
OK, [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=38.479063&lon=-75.558992&z=18&m=b&tag=45907&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=57709&lng=0&tab=main:nb6fhkyr]done[/url:nb6fhkyr]. |
|
|
|
kirandariyanani7
Joined: 24/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| What would you use for "an organization with a wide range of specializations in the field of prevention and protection at work."? I can't find anything relating to health & safety at the workplace... |
|
|
|
bio2935c
 Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jimbella63":1owoy3mw]What would you use for "an organization with a wide range of specializations in the field of prevention and protection at work."? I can't find anything relating to health & safety at the workplace...[/quote:1owoy3mw]
[safety]??
It's got an eclectic group of objects already, some of which seem to be related to workplace safety.
[size=85:1owoy3mw](Sorry. That's all I can find.)[/size:1owoy3mw] |
|
|
|
kirandariyanani7
Joined: 24/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
When I see supermarkets I see (for Belgium) of course [Supermarket], and also [Colruyt (supermarket)], [Delhaize (supermarket)], [carrefour], [Lidl] and [Aldi]. Two questions:
-Is there a reason for the format-difference? (and worldwide I see other supermarkets without brackets - shouldn't all be aligned?)
-Can [Smatch (supermarket)] be added? They have about 60 stores in Belgium, and others in Hungary and Romania. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jimbella63":2vo9p6bo]When I see supermarkets I see (for Belgium) of course [Supermarket], and also [Colruyt (supermarket)], [Delhaize (supermarket)], [carrefour], [Lidl] and [Aldi]. Two questions:
-Is there a reason for the format-difference? (and worldwide I see other supermarkets without brackets - shouldn't all be aligned?)
-Can [Smatch (supermarket)] be added? They have about 60 stores in Belgium, and others in Hungary and Romania.[/quote:2vo9p6bo]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=51.210325&lon=3.234100&z=10&m=b&tag=58618&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=58618&lng=en&tab=main&search=Smatch:2vo9p6bo]Smatch[/url:2vo9p6bo] has been created. Unfortunately, category moderation tools are not functioning properly at the moment so [Smatch] cannot be appended with "(supermarket)" nor can it be added as a child of the [supermarket] category. The tools don't work in FF, Chrome or Opera (haven't tried IE) so hopefully this problem will be resolved soon. |
|
|
|
wgsj
 Joined: 15/11/08
Places: 1880
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| [b:2affi15j][color=#0000BF:2affi15j]RK[/color:2affi15j][/b:2affi15j], the necessary corrections were made. I added the parent category and edited Smatch to [Smatch (supermarket)]. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="wgsj":3r8o6a05][b:3r8o6a05][color=#0000BF:3r8o6a05]RK[/color:3r8o6a05][/b:3r8o6a05], the necessary corrections were made. I added the parent category and edited Smatch to [Smatch (supermarket)].[/quote:3r8o6a05]
Thanks wgsj. Coincidentally, cat mod tools are now working! |
|
|
|
kirandariyanani7
Joined: 24/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":3aol2d86][quote="wgsj":3aol2d86][b:3aol2d86][color=#0000BF:3aol2d86]RK[/color:3aol2d86][/b:3aol2d86], the necessary corrections were made. I added the parent category and edited Smatch to [Smatch (supermarket)].[/quote:3aol2d86]
Thanks wgsj. Coincidentally, cat mod tools are now working![/quote:3aol2d86]Thanks, guys! |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":1zd5pyti][quote="wgsj":1zd5pyti][b:1zd5pyti][color=#0000BF:1zd5pyti]RK[/color:1zd5pyti][/b:1zd5pyti], the necessary corrections were made. I added the parent category and edited Smatch to [Smatch (supermarket)].[/quote:1zd5pyti]
Thanks wgsj. Coincidentally, cat mod tools are now working![/quote:1zd5pyti]
Sorry not working at all in New Wikimapia. Only works in old. |
|
|
|
awadzaki
Joined: 04/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| i think the "province" and "state" should be under the first level administrative division instead, and "city" and "regency" should be under the second one, and "district" under the third one |
|
|
|
cityrat
 Joined: 17/09/08
Places: 47
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| I think [truck dealer] have to be a subcategory for [automobile / car dealer (sales)]? |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="cityrat":13ae2lyf]I think [truck dealer] have to be a subcategory for [automobile / car dealer (sales)]?[/quote:13ae2lyf]
Sounds reasonable to me. Done (and a few other "dealer"s too). |
|
|
|
ocanada
 Joined: 13/02/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I have a question,
In regards to the "medical" category hierarchy should not the category "medicine" be the parent to all medical related categories instead of "medical"?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=28.459033&lon=-56.601563&z=3&m=b&tag=2788&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=1275&lng=0&tab=hierarchy">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=28.45 ... =hierarchy<!-- m -->
Medicine Definition from Wikipedia:
Medicine (also called conventional, scientific, or mainstream medicine, especially when compared with alternative medicine or traditional medicine, UK English Listeni/ˈmɛdsɨn/, US English Listeni/ˈmɛdɨsɨn/) is the field that mixes applied science with art in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. It encompasses a variety of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness in human beings. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| [medicine] has a count of 1607, but it certainly could be cleaned so that the name can be assigned as a synonym to [medical] since it covers the whole scientific field including diagnosis, treatment and disease prevention, and this is certainly consistent with the purpose of the medical category. However, I get the feeling there will be some who will fear it will be used for medicines as in drugs, and therefore, misused for pharmacies and the like. I favour descriptive English terms in the English language pages so I have no problem assigning it as a synonym to [medical] or even a dual name like [medicine / medical] |
|
|
|
seafordian
 Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| I like the dual name suggestion...we are only talking about a noun to adjective difference here... |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| I've started cleaning [medicine] in the UK region to pave the way for [medicine] to be added to [medical]. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
Which one is better?
[img:2hy89jvj]http://i.imgur.com/rc2xV0e.png[/img:2hy89jvj]
or
[img:2hy89jvj]http://i.imgur.com/figZRMN.png[/img:2hy89jvj]
I prefer the second version as it keeps traffic island categorization simple. Furthermore, I feel [traffic island] (in the first image) will seldom be used because of the two distinct variants nested under it.
Please note: [pedestrian refuge (traffic island)] cannot be interchanged with [splitter divisional island (traffic island)] because pedestrians have access to one but not the other. [junction island] will be merged with [circular traffic island] and nested under [road island traffic control]. This parent category will be 'do not use' since it is only intended as an umbrella category for searches. |
|
|
|
TLU2008
Joined: 02/01/08
Places: 379
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I don't know, the "splitter/divisional island" seems like it would be too subject of abuse. The thin wedges are one thing:
[img:vmfd6jok]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8243916/Screen%20shot%202014-07-08%20at%208.13.10%20PM.png[/img:vmfd6jok]
...but I can easily imagine people marking whole medians and such. I guess stuff like this tilts Wikimapia in the "quantity" side of the spectrum over "quality", amirite? <!-- s:roll: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_rolleyes.gif" alt=":roll:" title="Rolling Eyes" /><!-- s:roll: --> |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I would only identify abuse where a polygon was drawn incorrectly, guesstimated in a low zoom-level country where such objects are not visible or assigned the wrong category (e.g. [island]). If its a question of speed-tagging and the aforementioned issues were proliferated on a grand scale, then yes I would regard it as abuse.
I've though about medians/central reservations and I personally would not recommend marking long stretches because they cease to qualify as islands when they are as long as the roads they are dividing. I would exclude them as markable objects. Will misuse occur whereby a user will start marking whole medians? It is likely. However, we have to acknowledge that every feature has been misused and will continue to be misused; it is our job to clean it up and educate offenders into correcting their work. While we have measures to combat misuse, we can't stem the flow of information because then nothing would be marked.
There is a big issue about marking objects some people regard as "mundane" or "overkill" but what I urge these people to absorb is Wikimapia has been designed to allow users to mark all non-movable objects as long as they have a properly constructed outline and this means users have a big menu to choose from. Yes, this is a very relaxed approach and users have marked objects which wouldn't be seen on a conventional map; but Wikimapia isn't conventional and out-of-left-field objects have been marked. If these objects can be marked, they should also have a category which describes their function.
So, is Wikimapia tilting towards quantity over quality? Only if you start comparing it to a conventional mapping site. Wikimapia is unique and that is one reason it is successful and makes it stand out from the rest. Also, I believe 'quality' is a subjective term because everybody will have a different interpretation.
BTW, thanks for posting your concern. Which structure do you prefer? |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":1ic4zn16]BTW, thanks for posting your concern. Which structure do you prefer?[/quote:1ic4zn16]
It's no use asking for opinions, if you have already executed according to your own whims and fancies.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=18.986818&lon=72.826309&z=11&tag=59719&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=59719&lng=0&tab=history">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=18.98 ... ab=history<!-- m --> |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
Let's be clear here, the changes can always be changed again if there's conflicting problems with categorization. I've shown two ways to categorize traffic islands and they can be altered if the need arises.
Secondly, it's a little hypocritical to call the kettle black when the pot has been doing changes too. This aside, I'm requesting you to not participate if you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. Let's keep things amicable in the forum please. |
|
|
|
Teresa
 Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| I prefer the second option. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":17iaff5t]I prefer the second option.[/quote:17iaff5t]
You are a senior category moderator and your opinion is most valued. Also, you have a wider scope in understanding category applicability around the world because of a) your Anglo-Chinese expertise b) you are a well-travelled person who can appreciate things in a broader perspective. |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
I added my constructive opinion backed by proof on the other topic. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=255069#p255069">viewtopic.php?p=255069#p255069<!-- l --> Nonetheless you took it from there but the above approaches do not follow it technically. And, about the changes I did, It was part of the changes 'agreed' on that topic. The pot corrected some mistakes of kettle which I don't want to publicize. It isn't appropriate to put to trash a amicable solution.
No matter I would like to put my concerns on the above and hope it gets resolved :
1. The name [road island traffic control] - its confusing and has no backed up proof from where it originates. The name bears confusion with organization incharge of traffic control. It should be restored to [traffic island]
2. Divisional island and Refuge Island are good. But the junction island category should be the third type [channelizing island] which will make the relationship complete. Nonetheless, to keep 'circular island', then it should be a child of [channelizing island]. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
Your opinion was noted but large-scale misuse of a category intended for something else is not evidence to support the continued misuse; it just proves we need an alternative solution to clarify categorization. The "solution" provided therein did not satisfy categorization of traffic islands as discernible - thus markable - objects on the map. Let's not delve into each other's "mistake" corrections because I have a dossier (compiled with the help of other cat mods) which I do not wish to publicize too. Let's keep our differences aside and work together to achieve a workable solution everywhere.
I do welcome your suggestions:
1) If it is confusing, I have thought of [road traffic channelization] as a [u:31kqtb3a]possible[/u:31kqtb3a] solution. I cannot entertain [traffic island] as the parent name because research on the term suggests roundabout / junction islands cannot be regarded in the same vein as traffic islands since the traffic islands [u:31kqtb3a]segregate[/u:31kqtb3a] traffic by dividing or channelizing traffic flow [u:31kqtb3a]separately[/u:31kqtb3a], whereas junction islands [u:31kqtb3a]unifies multiple traffic flows[/u:31kqtb3a] around an island from the convergence of multiple roads. This may seem like a minor problem but the definitions are quite clear; therefore, I favour a solution which will not contradict definitions but instead provide the best possible way to categorize [u:31kqtb3a]all[/u:31kqtb3a] traffic-channelling islands under one tree.
2) I don't see a problem with introducing [channelizing island] but channelizing islands cannot be regarded as similar to junction islands for the reasons mentioned in (1). [roundabout / junction island] should remain as a child under the parent while [channelizing island] can be the fourth child in its own right. Also, [circular traffic island] was merged with [roundabout / junction island] since they are all circular in nature. However, channelizing islands can be a variety of shapes with different traffic flow attributes.
This is the revised nesting for all mentioned categories:
[code:31kqtb3a] [road traffic channelization] (or ?)
┌────────────────────────────┬───────────┴──────────────┬──────────────────────────┐
[roundabout / junction island] [channelizing island] [splitter / divisional island] [pedestrian refuge][/code:31kqtb3a] |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
You don't need to threaten me with a dossier or so, because my mistakes I have always accepted and everybody knows of them even the Wikimapia Team. If you have something new, You better submit it to the Team and have me removed from Wikimapia. No matter, [url=http://wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=254870#p254870:3iihqd93]you agree[/url:3iihqd93] to a discussion but conspicuously disapprove it.
To put myself away from this topic, I would favor with Teresa's opinion above.
Thankyou. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
As I said before there is no need to publish your large dossier because your overall category work has been good - and there is no need to go to the lengths of talking about having you removed from Wikimapia - I have not said such things nor do I endorse it. There is a difference between 'agree[u:2atruhjt]able[/u:2atruhjt]' and 'agreement', look it up in an English dictionary.
Thanks for your agreement and involvement. |
|
|
|
detgfrsh
Joined: 08/07/09
Places: 2076
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
RK, I'm concerned that you're essentially making up your own terminology. "road island traffic control" and "splitter / divisional island" are not common terms, nor are they used in engineering practice. Therefore, I don't think they are useful categories, as a user who has not read this forum is not going to understand all the different kinds of "traffic island" and understand which one to use.
Same goes for "junction island", it's not going to be understood in the US. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
Paul, although it may seem like it, it is not my intention to "make up" my own terminology; I've only given the best name from my perspective. As it stands, the name can be changed [u:28ekl4f3]any time[/u:28ekl4f3] to something more understandable across the globe. It is not set in stone nor am I being rigid about its naming. [road traffic channelization] already seems like a better fit, IMO.
Originally, [splitter / divisional island] was meant to encompass both channelising islands and divider islands because I wanted to avoid splitting hairs with the differences. From what I have gathered from my research, a channelising island splits opposing lanes of traffic into separate turns. These are most common at the entrances to roundabouts or forced-turn t-junctions (see below):
[img:28ekl4f3]http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tvm/1111_nptel/565_Channel/plain/img20.png[/img:28ekl4f3]
The second type of traffic island is a divisional or divider island (like a shortened median) which is the most common type of island that splits opposing lanes of traffic in the same road (see below).
[img:28ekl4f3]http://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/tvm/1111_nptel/565_Channel/plain/img21.png[/img:28ekl4f3]
The two island types above are categorized under [splitter / divisional island] to keep things simple. Pedestrians do not have access to divisional / divider islands or channelising islands but they do have access to pedestrian refuges which share the same configuration to both previously mentioned islands and thus deserves its own category:
[img:28ekl4f3]http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/cost-pedestrian-refuge.jpg[/img:28ekl4f3] [img:28ekl4f3]http://i.imgur.com/7RixDwo.jpg[/img:28ekl4f3]
The categories may not be useful to everyone but they are created and [u:28ekl4f3]ready[/u:28ekl4f3] to be useful, just like every other niche category in existence. Users who don't read the forums won't read the Docs either so it is reasonable to conclude they won't understand our guidelines if they haven't been educated. Is this a reason to not introduce categories which have been deemed satisfactory additions, I think not. As I have said before, we have many localized categories which will not see the light of day anywhere else in the world, but they are useful where they are used and that is enough reason to keep them.
jatayu added 'roundabout' to junction island thus making it [roundabout / junction island]. If it is confusing in the US, we have synonyms to make categories understandable there. This categorization is mainly directed at the UK region, but is designed to be global-friendly. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| Well roundabout is common here (synonymous with traffic circle)...I think island junction is sufficient. I mean, what other terminology do we use here Paul? Median, Median strip, we do use "traffic island" in some instances...I can't think of too many other words for these objects. <!-- s:? --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" /><!-- s:? --> |
|
|
|
detgfrsh
Joined: 08/07/09
Places: 2076
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
Terminology: median, island, refuge, ... ?
Actually, most of the terminology and the design codes focus on the road itself (turnouts, channelization, traffic calming, etc.). The islands are essentially an afterthought, the space left over after you've designed the road for speed, turning radius, and so on. There are regulations for the slope of the curb and the height of raised medians but that's all that comes to mind right now.
Why not just leave it at [traffic island] with [pedestrian refuge] as a child? I think the meaning of those two is pretty straightforward.
The other reason I think we should keep it simple is that there aren't very many traffic island tags. There are plenty of roundabouts tagged, but I can't think of a single median, triangle, or pedestrian refuge tag. And in my opinion, that's probably a good thing. Title & category is about the best you can do, there's not much to add in the way of description, and the outline of the island is already there in map view if the roads are drawn well. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="detgfrsh":26x73tv2]
The other reason I think we should keep it simple is that there aren't very many traffic island tags. There are plenty of roundabouts tagged, but I can't think of a single median, triangle, or pedestrian refuge tag. And in my opinion, that's probably a good thing. Title & category is about the best you can do, there's not much to add in the way of description, and the outline of the island is already there in map view if the roads are drawn well.[/quote:26x73tv2]
Exactly my point...we should burn that bridge only if it happens, right? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
OK, splitter / divisional island will give way to traffic island with pedestrian refuge as its child. However, I don't think roundabout / junction island should be a child of traffic island as there is a difference in functionality between it and traffic islands. So, the tree below isn't feasible.
[code:1pf225c5] [traffic island] (?)
┌──────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐
[roundabout / junction island] [pedestrian refuge][/code:1pf225c5]
However, I will support this:
[code:1pf225c5] [road traffic channelization] (or alternative) {do not use}
┌─────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐
[roundabout / junction island] [traffic island]
│
[pedestrian refuge][/code:1pf225c5]
I believe there is sufficient cause to categorize roundabout / junction island separately. Traffic island has been generalized because we don't want to split that hair, but it will be useful to have a pedestrian refuge as that is functionally different. In this case, road traffic channelization will help for traffic island and roundabout / junction island searchability. |
|
|
|
detgfrsh
Joined: 08/07/09
Places: 2076
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
| Alright, that's fine. |
|
|
|
cityrat
Joined: 17/09/08
Places: 47
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
OMG, we have no difference between airfield and airport but we havе 4 (four!) category for traffic islands
Tell me please WHO NEED TO SEARCH pedestrian refuges WORLDWIDE?!?! |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="cityrat":1v86lxh4]OMG, we have no difference between airfield and airport but we havе 4 (four!) category for traffic islands
Tell me please WHO NEED TO SEARCH pedestrian refuges WORLDWIDE?!?![/quote:1v86lxh4]
<!-- s:roll: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_rolleyes.gif" alt=":roll:" title="Rolling Eyes" /><!-- s:roll: --> |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="cityrat":3m8vj041]OMG, we have no difference between airfield and airport but we havе 4 (four!) category for traffic islands
Tell me please WHO NEED TO SEARCH pedestrian refuges WORLDWIDE?!?![/quote:3m8vj041]
Perhaps the folks who marked every sidewalk/footpath in Moscow? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->
Jesting aside, if you require a clarification on airfields/airports (or even aerodromes), please request it but don't compare the matter with traffic islands which is now closed.
Since you requested the [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=52.526147&lon=-1.463445&z=18&m=b&tag=59867&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=59867&lng=en&tab=main:3m8vj041][station building][/url:3m8vj041] category, can you please clarify the nesting to be done for it. This is the current nesting:
[code:3m8vj041] ┌────────── [railway]
│ └─────────────────┐
│ [train station]
│ │
└───────────────── [station building (railway)][/code:3m8vj041] |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=255566#p255566">viewtopic.php?p=255566#p255566<!-- l --> My request to forum moderators to link up the posts so that it does not create confusion. Personal Interests should not dominate personalities.
[quote="jatayu":3trugh3f] [size=120:3trugh3f]It is NOT a good and valid reason to nest an object on the basis of 'location it is found'. The railways infrastructure is being categorized under the [railway] stub in Wikimapia.
There is issue in search ability if everything 'found at a train station' is nested with train station itself - it will make the [train station] category worthless ! because anyone finding [train station] will see a plethora of objects on the map but hardly would 'find' a train station amongst the red dots.[/size:3trugh3f][/quote:3trugh3f]
It is also the view of other category moderators.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=255500#p255500">viewtopic.php?p=255500#p255500<!-- l -->
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=254434#p254434">viewtopic.php?p=254434#p254434<!-- l --> |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
Excuse me further about the RK77 currently adding the parent [station building] to [railway reservation counter]
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=23.725012&lon=80.156250&z=4&m=w&tag=55124&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=55124&lng=en&tab=main">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=23.72 ... n&tab=main<!-- m -->
A railway reservation counter is only seldom located in the station building, and that to because of planning constraints. They are located under the FOBs, on the Skywalks, attached to toilets, canteens, majority of the times just after entrance to the station and opposite the administrative building. And, India launched a year ago railway reservation counters in post offices. It is not possible at all, that the station building houses the reservation centers at all times and in every country.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=21.152854&lon=79.087883&z=19&tag=55124&show=/user/tools/watchlist/?mode=categories">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=21.15 ... categories<!-- m --> |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
If we search for railway objects using [railway]. The search result will return the train station, marked platforms, the station building (essentially every individually marked object which has a dedicated category nested under [railway] will be seen:
[img:3c6ow1m5]http://i.imgur.com/0koJont.png[/img:3c6ow1m5]
A search for [station building] will return results for the building itself:
[img:3c6ow1m5]http://i.imgur.com/oKSxFzL.png[/img:3c6ow1m5]
A search for [train station] will yield results for the train station and the station building:
[img:3c6ow1m5]http://i.imgur.com/nCRul5r.png[/img:3c6ow1m5]
If train stations are to be searched, station buildings will be returned too since it is a child of train stations. This [i:3c6ow1m5]could[/i:3c6ow1m5] be useful to locate the building selling tickets and offering passenger facilities too, but the important point is do we want to see station buildings returned too in a train station search? If yes, we can keep the nesting. If not, station building will need to be removed. What is the best solution? |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="jatayu":3bfp1fqh]Excuse me further about the RK77 currently adding the parent [station building] to [railway reservation counter]
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=23.725012&lon=80.156250&z=4&m=w&tag=55124&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=55124&lng=en&tab=main">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=23.72 ... n&tab=main<!-- m -->
A railway reservation counter is only seldom located in the station building, and that to because of planning constraints. They are located under the FOBs, on the Skywalks, attached to toilets, canteens, majority of the times just after entrance to the station and opposite the administrative building. And, India launched a year ago railway reservation counters in post offices. It is not possible at all, that the station building houses the reservation centers at all times and in every country.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=21.152854&lon=79.087883&z=19&tag=55124&show=/user/tools/watchlist/?mode=categories">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=21.15 ... categories<!-- m -->[/quote:3bfp1fqh]
I agree, some countries may not have facilities under one roof. I visited a train station in India whose ticket office was a small building on a platform. |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[u:163iktb3]Off Topic[/u:163iktb3]
[quote="RK77":163iktb3]I agree, some countries may not have facilities under one roof. I visited a train station in India whose ticket office was a small building on a platform.[/quote:163iktb3]
In my town, we only have one platform and no ticket office at all, nor is there a ticket machine. Many a times I had to get off the train and got so worry because the staff had not came round with his portable ticket machine as I do not want to be persecuted for dodging the fare. Thank goodness often it was in the nick of time I got the ticket from the staff before I got off the train! |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":2229cfwc][u:2229cfwc]Off Topic[/u:2229cfwc]
[quote="RK77":2229cfwc]I agree, some countries may not have facilities under one roof. I visited a train station in India whose ticket office was a small building on a platform.[/quote:2229cfwc]
In my town, we only have one platform and no ticket office at all, nor is there a ticket machine. Many a times I had to get off the train and got so worry because the staff had not came round with his portable ticket machine as I do not want to be persecuted for dodging the fare. Thank goodness often it was in the nick of time I got the ticket from the staff before I got off the train![/quote:2229cfwc]
Off Topic...why worry? If you got a free ride, that's their fault not yours <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> |
|
|
|
detgfrsh
Joined: 08/07/09
Places: 2076
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
There are also ticket offices outside of train stations in Switzerland. I agree it's not a good idea to make the ticket office a child of [station building].
Off topic: Some countries are definitely better at checking tickets than others! I always get checked in Switzerland, but one time I made it from the Swiss border to Florence (Italy) without anyone ever asking for my ticket! |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 12 years ago |
0 |
jatayu has already unnested [railway reservation counter] from [station building], so that has been solved.
I'd like to touch upon a point made by detgfrsh. As of now, it is standard practice to assign distinctly descriptive categories, in their noun form, to their corresponding places. We try to avoid parent/child nesting for distinct categories purely for the reason that we must assume a user who is searching for a particular place type (e.g. train station) only wants to search for that place type. He/she may not want to see filter dots for ticket offices, platforms or the station building itself. In this instance, the categorization of distinct objects underneath a generalized or indistinct parent category (e.g. railway) is the most effective solution because only a generalized umbrella term can return a host of categories which are dissimilar to each other due to their distinct functions.
detgfrsh says ticket offices are not inside train stations so that's fine, but would it be useful to return the train station, halt/stop or platform too (on the map via filter dots) via a search for the ticket office for the purposes of making that particular search effective? Granted, we've determined categories aren't analogous to the place within place nesting feature, and categories don't necessarily apply to places within places, but [i:3ts1lgbc]could[/i:3ts1lgbc] it be helpful to associate categories which share a relationship but aren't intrinsic to each other? Bear in mind we don't want to lose the focus of the primary search and see the search category lost in a see of dots, but is there a fine line to be effective and direct with minimal impact?
Just a few philosophical questions. |
|
|
