Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*
Oct 30, 2020, 14:51 by colmmoor...@hotmail.com: > Hi, > > Apologies to the list and Mateusz for the confusion. :) Also apologies if I > step on religious toes. > >> From: Mateusz Konieczny >> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=* >> >> Disclaimer: I never visited Ireland >> >> 27 paź 2020, 14:41 od colmmoor...@hotmail.com: >> >> > 3. Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman >> > Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins. >> >> Are they still used by pagans/new age people? For OSM purposes current usage >> matters, not origins. >> > > I concur that current usage matters. I suppose I'm wondering what the other > tags should be. The below seem inadequate, not least that > amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian is interpreted as a church, not > an open-air location like a Mass Rock (a location where Roman Catholic mass > was said when Roman Catholicism was suppressed). > amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian would be perfectly fine tagging if that is a place where masses are still conducted. If it is not such a place - how it is used? Very rare (yearly?) masses? Occasional worship (acting as a historic=wayside_shrine)? Some memorial plaque/tourism information board/tourism attraction? > name=Holy Well > natural=spring > religion=christian > denomination=roman_catholic > Is it a prayer location? Former prayer location? Tourism attraction? Pilgrimage target? > name=Mass Rock > amenity=place_of_worship > religion=christian > denomination=roman_catholic > Maybe disused:amenity=place_of_worship? If it is an actual rock then tagging rock itself also would be a good idea (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rock ) >> > 8. There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should >> > these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up? >> >> How this tags are used? >> > > Mostly for schools and cemeteries. In some cases, I suspect their use hasn't > considered all nuances, e.g. some state-owned schools also have religious > patrons or representation on the school board. > I would say that just religious patron would not make school religious, in the same way as it would not make sense to add religion=* to Saint Barbara street, where only name is of religious origin. (though as it turns out many schools in Ireland are actually religious). ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*
I am really sorry for offtopic and quoting offlist message. Not sure what happened, I just used standard reply. Oct 28, 2020, 19:54 by talk-ie@openstreetmap.org: ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*
Huh, I though that secularization/atheisation of Ireland was quite far reaching and nearly complete. (good thing that I included that diclaimer) "crucifixes in most classrooms" applies also to Poland, but "school boards pray at the start of board meetings" would be likely to be considered as ridiculous. AFAIK "teachers need to be certified to teach religion" applies only to teachers teaching religion here and "Religious organisations own the vast majority of schools" does not apply (mostly result of WW II damage and communist occupation). Oct 28, 2020, 15:13 by colmmoor...@hotmail.com: > Hi, > > This email is off-list. Thank you for the feedback - I'll wait for more > people to comment before I answer your questions.. > > In the Republic of Ireland, religion is fairly all-pervasive in schools. > Religious organisations own the vast majority of schools, school boards pray > at the start of board meetings, there are crucifixes in most classrooms, > teachers need to be certified to teach religion or it is difficult to get a > job, there are no Sunday schools. Inter-Denominational and > Multi-Denominational schools only account for 5% of schools and 7% of > students. Non-Denominational schools are essentially non-existent. The > religious organisations subvert the Department of Education. > > Northern Ireland isn't much different. > > The below data is for primary schools in the Republic of Ireland. > > Colm > > Mainstream Schools % Special Schools % Total % > Catholic 2,760 88.9% 105 78.4% > 2,86588.4% > Church Of Ireland1725.5%0.0% > 172 5.3% > Inter Denominational17 0.5% 1 0.7% >18 0.6% > Jewish1 0.0%0.0% 1 > 0.0% > Methodist 1 0.0%0.0% > 10.0% > Multi Denominational 1364.4% 1914.2% > 155 4.8% > Muslim2 0.1%0.0% 2 > 0.1% > Presbyterian16 0.5%0.0% 16 > 0.5% > Quaker1 0.0%0.0% 1 > 0.0% > Other/Unknown9 6.7% 90.3% > Total 3,106 100.0% 134 100.0% 3,240 > 100.0% > > > -- > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:04:55 +0100 (CET) > From: Mateusz Konieczny > Cc: "talk-ie@openstreetmap.org" > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=* > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > Disclaimer: I never visited Ireland > > 27 paź 2020, 14:41 od colmmoor...@hotmail.com: > >> 3. Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman >> Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins. >> > Are they still used by pagans/new age people? For OSM purposes current usage > matters, not origins. > >> 4. Some objects have dual tagging, e.g. religion=christian;pagan or >> denomination=protestant;roman_catholic Are people happy to have such tagging? >> > If say church is shared by Roman Catholic parish and Protestant congregation > and not > used by other denominations then denomination=protestant;roman_catholic is > 100% fine. > >> 5. Many religious-run schools do not have the religion or denomination >> tagged. >> > It is a bit tricky as at least some religious-run schools have absolutely no > trace of religion > in running of school, there is simply a religious owner/operator. > > In such cases operator:type=religious would fit better than religion tag > >> 8. There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should >> these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up? >> > How this tags are used? > > denomination=none seems fine for say ecumenical chapel used by all kinds of > denomination > of a given religion... > >> multifaith 47 < >> > This may be actually valid. > > -- > > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] religion=* and denomination=*
Disclaimer: I never visited Ireland 27 paź 2020, 14:41 od colmmoor...@hotmail.com: > 3. Holy wells, mass rocks and the like. These are predominantly Roman > Catholic, but possibly with pagan origins. > Are they still used by pagans/new age people? For OSM purposes current usage matters, not origins. > 4. Some objects have dual tagging, e.g. religion=christian;pagan or > denomination=protestant;roman_catholic Are people happy to have such tagging? > If say church is shared by Roman Catholic parish and Protestant congregation and not used by other denominations then denomination=protestant;roman_catholic is 100% fine. > 5. Many religious-run schools do not have the religion or denomination > tagged. > It is a bit tricky as at least some religious-run schools have absolutely no trace of religion in running of school, there is simply a religious owner/operator. In such cases operator:type=religious would fit better than religion tag > 8. There are religion=no, religion=none and denomination=none tags. Should > these tags be rationalised or otherwise tidied up? > How this tags are used? denomination=none seems fine for say ecumenical chapel used by all kinds of denomination of a given religion... > multifaith 47 < > This may be actually valid. ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Some of the 3300 parks in OSM Ireland are just patches of grass.
18 paź 2020, 15:25 od br...@hollinshead.net: > I understood that adding to the amount of land area that was > classified with a landuse category was a good addition to the map. > > Yes, and mapping leisure=park area is enough to classify area as used as a park > My > research showed that we have some 3,300 patches of land mapped but excluded > from the landuse tag. > OSM tagging is organically grown and is not very systematic. leisure=park also marks land use > For private citizens or public officials seeking data from OSM for > structured park areas (with planting /benches.sports/keep fit apparatus > etc) it makes the parks easier to find if they are tagged as landuse=park > as well as leisure=park > Maybe, but introducing duplicate tag to small subset of parks is not helpful and just increases confusion. > how you tag these areas when mapping in your home country. > In Poland urban parks are marked as leisure=park > I note you suggest removing the leisure=park tags. I feel it would be > presumptive of me to consider that those who used the tag some 3,300 times > to have been mistaken or ill-judged in what they did. without me knowing > the local conditions. > Yes, it would require verification. From your email I understood that you verified some cases and found it to be a bare grass area without park. > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 13:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie < > talk-ie@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Oct 18, 2020, 11:59 by br...@hollinshead.net: >> >> > As part of my researches into what features we have on OSM that might >> > interest someone wishing to make use of outdoor facilities, I find on the >> > Island of Ireland we have close to 3,300 parks to choose from, wow! >> > (leisure=park). On closer inspection I find that many of these in South >> > Dublin at least are green areas of grass in housing estates, maybe 4 >> houses >> > long by 8 houses wide. I tend to tag those as per the presets with >> > landuse=grass. >> > >> I would remove leisure=park from them. Note that some people added >> fake parks to manipulate outcomes in Pokemon Go that is >> using OSM data. >> >> > Yesterday I ran overpass landuse=park and got nil response! >> > >> Good! >> >> > This morning I have added landuse=park to about 24 of the parks already >> on >> > OSM and listed as parks by DLR, South Dublin and Fingal. >> > >> What is the point of this duplicate of leisure=park? >> >> ___ >> Talk-ie mailing list >> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Some of the 3300 parks in OSM Ireland are just patches of grass.
Oct 18, 2020, 11:59 by br...@hollinshead.net: > As part of my researches into what features we have on OSM that might > interest someone wishing to make use of outdoor facilities, I find on the > Island of Ireland we have close to 3,300 parks to choose from, wow! > (leisure=park). On closer inspection I find that many of these in South > Dublin at least are green areas of grass in housing estates, maybe 4 houses > long by 8 houses wide. I tend to tag those as per the presets with > landuse=grass. > I would remove leisure=park from them. Note that some people added fake parks to manipulate outcomes in Pokemon Go that is using OSM data. > Yesterday I ran overpass landuse=park and got nil response! > Good! > This morning I have added landuse=park to about 24 of the parks already on > OSM and listed as parks by DLR, South Dublin and Fingal. > What is the point of this duplicate of leisure=park? ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] some of my inconsistent tagging - cure sought
Sep 20, 2020, 11:20 by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 21:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie > wrote: > >> >> For start note >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct >> - but fixing your own edits falls under one of exceptions >> > > It says: > > Acceptable usage > > Correcting your own work. If you know that you made a systematic > mistake then you may correct this systematically using an automated > process. Do however be aware of the risk that your process changes > data beyond the scope you intended. > > For cases such as the one currently under discussion, "Correcting your > own work" should be changed to, say, "Correcting your own work (or > that of another individual, at their express request)". > Changed - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct=2036167=1870850 ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] some of my inconsistent tagging - cure sought
For start note https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct - but fixing your own edits falls under one of exceptions Typical such edit would use Overpass Turbo ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_turbo ) to find elements for editing and exporting it to either JOSM or level0. In JOSM one may use usual filter/search/mass edit tools. In level0 one may copy text description to file and use regular search and replace and then copy back and save. Note that in both cases one needs to follow rules for automated edits and be careful. Sep 18, 2020, 17:12 by br...@hollinshead.net: > During the lockdown I added a lot of Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland > Parishes to OSM. > I carelessly described 686 of them as anglican=Church Of Ireland instead of > anglican=Church of Ireland. > > You can see them in overpass using type=boundary and anglican="Church Of > Ireland". Is there some way one of you can please easily alter these at one > fell swoop? > > It would be great if you could afterwards then detail the how-to as I have > some smaller groups to cure and others besides me might also like to learn > this useful skill, but maybe perhaps others don't need it as much as I do! > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Tagging of LEAs that changed in 2019
Is it a former administrative boundary? I would comply delete it if it no longer administrative boundary. 11 Sep 2020, 13:27 by br...@hollinshead.net: > Under Si 615 of 2018 many of the LEAs in Dublin were altered. After > creating the new ones, I added historic=yes and end dates to the ones that > were changed and left boundary=political as the category. see > openstreetmap.org/relation/4655804. > Please is this the preferred method at large, and if not what is? Perhaps I > need to change the 24 I did this with. > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Estimate of number of building=* in Ireland
May 15, 2020, 00:04 by davecor...@gmail.com: > The fact that so many buildings are being mapped as building=yes when more > accurate tagging is plainly obvious makes this an utterly frustrating > project. > > Saying that others can come along after and correct it is a totally > avoidable requirement by using more appropriate tagging in the first place. > Its also unlike to ever get corrected as evidenced by the volume of data in > Ireland that was created and never improved upon. > If there is not enough mappers then likely mapping more building as building=yes is more efficient than using specific building value anyway. And anyone may map whatever (s)he wants, it is perfectly fine to map roads without mapping buildings, map trees instead of mapping roads, map buildings as building=yes, map bicycle parkings and map no shops at all... Note also that for example StreetComplete allows newbies and beginners to build on build on initial not finished data and for example specify more exact building types. > The logical approach should be to map it as house/garage/shed etc and ONLY > use building=yes if you cannot make an educated guess. > > Doing otherwise puts this data on the level of the tiger import. > No. TIGER import had plenty of outright invalid, incorrect and insane data. This is merely missing not very important part of info. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:TIGER_fixup_example_before.jpg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Braided-streets-example.jpg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_fixup ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Estimate of number of building=* in Ireland
both building=residential and landuse=residential are valid tagging (though, if possible then building=house or other more specific value is preferable) May 14, 2020, 12:47 by t4d...@gmail.com: > The residential tag should be used for an area not a house. > > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 14:38, Donie Kelly wrote: > >> Don’t buildings have tags? Did I see a residential tag? Is it used in all >> cases? >> >> > On 13 May 2020, at 13:24, Colm Moore wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > Inspired by seeing the estimate in the Microgrant application of 5.5 >> million buildings on the island of Ireland, I did some number crunching. >> > >> > I downloaded the populations of Kilkenny townlands (1,500+) from the CSO >> and analysed the population against the number of buildings per civil >> parish (100+) for County Kilkenny. This is assuming Kilkenny has all or >> nearly all buildings mapped. Based on my inspections, this is largely true. >> > >> > The CSO data is somewhat distorted for the Kilkenny city area (100+ >> townlands), due to the way the CSO have arranged the townlands and civil >> parishes. I could look at this in more detail, but there would be a few >> hours of effort (unless someone has a simple way of calculating number of >> buildings per area, for a large number of areas). >> > >> > I calculated the 'number of buildings per civil parish' using the >> Overpass Turbo query [building=* in "civilparishname, Kilkenny"]. Overpass >> Turbo gives a summary of the data in the bottom right corner of the screen, >> e.g. >> > >> > Loaded – nodes: 4261, ways: 867, relations: 2 >> > Displayed – pois: 0, lines: 0, polygons: 866 >> > >> > I took the number of polygons to mean the number of buildings (this >> might not be perfect - I don't know how those numbers add up). >> Additionally, some polygons, e.g. building=terrace represent several >> buildings, while in other cases buildings may have been crudely split or >> joined-up. >> > >> > Depending on the civil parish, we're looking at 0.32-2.29 polygons per >> capita (0.44-3.15 people per building). Rural areas ten to have more >> polygons per capita, especially due to farm outbuildings, while urban areas >> have fewer polygons per capita, due to apartments buildings and >> semi-detached buildings (e.g. two square houses joined together might have >> only six nodes). >> > >> > I also calculated 4.40-5.83 nodes per polygon. This means some civil >> parishes have predominantly rectangular polygons / buildings, whereas >> others have many L-shaped or other-shaped polygons / buildings. >> > >> > As I wasn't able to immediately get some 'number of buildings per civil >> parish' numbers (Overpass Turbo had problems returning them, possibly due >> to duplicate names and variations in name spellings), I had to calculate >> them from their component townlands, using the Overpass Turbo query >> [building=* in "townlandname, civilparishname, Kilkenny"]. >> > >> > Depending on the townland, we're looking at 0.23-8.00 polygons per >> capita (0.13-4.37 people per building) and 3.91-6.45 nodes per polygon >> (i.e. some townlands have large numbers of semi-detached or terraced >> buildings, whereas others have a high number of complicated-shape polygons >> / buildings or buildings with too many mapped nodes). It is usual to see >> more extreme spreads when looking at smaller areas. >> > >> > I'm coming up with about 5.4 million (close enough!) buildings for the >> whole island, assuming the pattern is the same everywhere. However, as >> shown by analysing the smaller areas, there is variation and the 'final' >> number will vary from that. Of course, given that OSM is an ongoing >> project, there will never be a final number. >> > >> > Colm >> > VictorIE >> > ___ >> > Talk-ie mailing list >> > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> >> ___ >> Talk-ie mailing list >> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> > ___ > Talk-ie mailing list > Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Tagging in the building tasks
Tagging everything as houses without checking would be wrong. This way you damage data and turns building=house into duplicate of building=yes Please, do not make this kind of thing. 25 Jan 2020, 09:51 by n...@sqrt.co.uk: > Since the majority of buildings are houses, you could mass tag them all as > houses since that would be the least wrong tagging overall. > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020, 08:48 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie, <> > talk-ie@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> It is typically much faster to add just >> geometries. Maybe whoever was doing >> this is not so interested in value of >> building tag? >> >> Or maybe a mistake was made somewhere? >> >> 25 Jan 2020, 09:43 by >> davecor...@gmail.com>> : >> >> > I'll rephrase the question. >> > >> > Why are these buildings being tagged with the least descriptive tag >> rather than utilising a more descriptive tag which can be easily done in >> approx 90% of cases from imagery? >> > >> > As I said, maybe I'm missing something here and there is a logical >> explanation as to why this is being done, I just can't see it. >> > >> > Dave >> > >> > >> > On Sat 25 Jan 2020, 07:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie, <> >> >> talk-ie@openstreetmap.org>> > > wrote: >> > >> >> 24 Jan 2020, 23:05 by >> >> davecor...@gmail.com>> >> : >> >> >> >> > I'm wondering if there is something I'm missing here. Why are we not >> >> > tagging buildings with the correct tagging? >> >> > >> >> building=yes is correct >> >> >> >> Adding specific building type is also >> >> correct and desirable, but mapping all >> >> buildings as building=yes is also correct >> >> >> >> mapping just landuse=residential without >> >> mapping any buildings is also correct >> >> Similarly, mapping shops just with >> >> shop typeshop=convenience/supermarket/etc >> >> without specifying name=*, opening_hours=* >> >> and other similar tags is also correct. >> >> ___ >> >> Talk-ie mailing list >> >> >> >> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> >> >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-ie mailing list >> >> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Tagging in the building tasks
It is typically much faster to add just geometries. Maybe whoever was doing this is not so interested in value of building tag? Or maybe a mistake was made somewhere? 25 Jan 2020, 09:43 by davecor...@gmail.com: > I'll rephrase the question. > > Why are these buildings being tagged with the least descriptive tag rather > than utilising a more descriptive tag which can be easily done in approx 90% > of cases from imagery? > > As I said, maybe I'm missing something here and there is a logical > explanation as to why this is being done, I just can't see it. > > Dave > > > On Sat 25 Jan 2020, 07:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-ie, <> > talk-ie@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> 24 Jan 2020, 23:05 by >> davecor...@gmail.com>> : >> >> > I'm wondering if there is something I'm missing here. Why are we not >> > tagging buildings with the correct tagging? >> > >> building=yes is correct >> >> Adding specific building type is also >> correct and desirable, but mapping all >> buildings as building=yes is also correct >> >> mapping just landuse=residential without >> mapping any buildings is also correct >> Similarly, mapping shops just with >> shop typeshop=convenience/supermarket/etc >> without specifying name=*, opening_hours=* >> and other similar tags is also correct. >> ___ >> Talk-ie mailing list >> >> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie >> ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Tagging in the building tasks
24 Jan 2020, 23:05 by davecor...@gmail.com: > I'm wondering if there is something I'm missing here. Why are we not > tagging buildings with the correct tagging? > building=yes is correct Adding specific building type is also correct and desirable, but mapping all buildings as building=yes is also correct mapping just landuse=residential without mapping any buildings is also correct Similarly, mapping shops just with shop typeshop=convenience/supermarket/etc without specifying name=*, opening_hours=* and other similar tags is also correct. ___ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
