Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:natural=mesa and Tag:natural=butte

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> "I know a number of landforms which have the name Plateau and are exactly "an 
> flat-topped landform that is elevated above the surrounding terrain and 
> surrounded by cliffs.".

In this case, my recommendation is to tag these features as
natural=mesa. You can map this as an area (closed way or multipolygon)
that matches the cliffs.

I did not try to change the definition of  "natural=plateau", because
it is already used for many other types of generally flatish highland
features, including high plains, high valleys, terraces, and general
highland areas.

That's why natural=mesa is proposed as a new tag with a more specific
definition, which happens to match the geological use of "mesa" as
well as being pretty close to the every-day meaning of "mesa" in at
least some dialects of English.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:natural=mesa and Tag:natural=butte

[Andrew Harvey]

I think more needs to be done to distinguish when to use natural=plateau vs
natural=mesa. I know a number of landforms which have the name Plateau and
are exactly "an flat-topped landform that is elevated above the surrounding
terrain and surrounded by cliffs.".

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I agree that this isn't a very specific tag. I don't intend to do
> anything else with the natural=plateau proposal page, but since the
> tag is already in use I wanted to suggest that it only be used for
> nodes, since mapping plateaus as an area isn't verifiable. Currently
> some mappers are using it on areas, and it would be good to have a
> wiki page that suggests tagging on nodes only. Also, it shows why the
> more precise natural=mesa and natural=butte tags are needed, instead
> of just using natural=plateau for all of them.
>

I've used natural=plateau on area ways. I think this is highly recommended
as I've mentioned before is needed for reverse geocoding (to know if you're
on the plateau or not) and to aid map making (so you can label the feature
based on size).

It's 100% verifiable where the plateau is an elevated landform surrounded
by mostly cliffs, it's pretty clear the extend of the plateau.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:natural=mesa and Tag:natural=butte

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On 4/26/19, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> As i understand it a butte is not generally assumed to be flat topped in
> common language use, the key elements here are height larger than width
> and cliffs on all sides.

That's true. The top is only relatively flat compared to the surrounding cliffs.

> For mesas i already mentioned the fairly precise criterion that the
> elevation variance along the top (or more precisely the derivation from
> flatness - some amount of tilt in geology is fairly common) needs to be
> significantly smaller than the overall height of the structure.
> Combined with a firm requirement for cliffs on all sides this would
> make a fairly precise definition.

It's difficult to think of a good way to word this. I'll try to add a
clarification that explains what is meant by "flat."

> It should also be mentioned that these tags are not meant to be a
> substitute for locally mapping the actual cliffs - which while by
> definition surrounding the whole structure can be staggered of course.

The tag natural=cliff was mentioned in the proposals and cliffs are
part of the definition, but I'll add something explicit about the
importance of mapping the cliffs.

I'll also add some visual examples that show the cliffs sharing the
same nodes as the natural=mesa way when mapped as an area.

> For natural=plateau i don't see a chance of this becoming a meaningful
> tag.  Too much inherent vagueness in the very idea.  If you'd try to
> define it more precisely it would almost certainly be advisable to use
> a different tag that is not misleading the mapper to have a much
> broader scope.

I agree that this isn't a very specific tag. I don't intend to do
anything else with the natural=plateau proposal page, but since the
tag is already in use I wanted to suggest that it only be used for
nodes, since mapping plateaus as an area isn't verifiable. Currently
some mappers are using it on areas, and it would be good to have a
wiki page that suggests tagging on nodes only. Also, it shows why the
more precise natural=mesa and natural=butte tags are needed, instead
of just using natural=plateau for all of them.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:natural=mesa and Tag:natural=butte

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dmesa
> need to make it clear in the description how it differs from plateau/butte
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dbutte
> need to make it clear in the description how it differs from plateau/mesa

A mesa can be large. The defining characteristic is that the top is
flat, but  it is surrounded by cliffs: it looks like a table-top.

I've tried to make it clear how butte and mesa differ:

A butte is a hill where the peak is surrounded by cliffs, but the
diameter of the circle of cliffs is less than the height of hill. The
top is flatter than the cliffs around it, but not necessarily
table-flat.

In contrast, a mesa is wider or longer than it is high, and the top
must be flat, and surrounded by cliffs.

Perhaps I need to add an image showing a comparison.

>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dplateau
>
> The smallest horizontal dimension of a plateau could be 1.6 km ( 1 mile).
> This would distinguish it from mesa/butte.

I don't think there is a clear definition for plateau. That's why I
created the proposal for natural=mesa and natural=butte, which have
clear definitions and can be mapped as an area in some cases.

While some dictionaries claim that a plateau should be mostly or
partially surrounded by an escarpment, some features that are named
plateaus do not have this characteristic, and are more like high
plains or valleys.

I don't actually intend to vote on natural=plateau - the only reason I
made a proposal is that this tag is already in use, and I think it is
useful to document how it is used.

Also it is a good idea to clarify that vague features like plateaus
should only be mapped as nodes, rather than as areas.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] unused tags and properties

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27 Apr 2019, 01:54 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> A few people continue to add unused tags and properties to feature 
> definitions, e.g. looking at the page for tourism=guesthouse, which is quite 
> long in the meantime, you can find "proposed" values with names like
> "fridge"
> "stove"
> "drying:room"
> "dinner"
> which all hardly reach a 2 digit number of usage.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dguest_house 
> 
>
> For the "view" tag there isn't even a definition.
>
> I believe treating the wiki like this will generally lead to a decline in 
> quality of our documentation, because immature tags are pushed that haven't 
> undergone any kind of peer review (aparently).
>
> Am I the only one with these concerns?
>
No, you are not the only one. In case of such barely used tags added in the 
form of 
an unreadable table I think that immediate revert of such edit is the best 
solution.

Inventing new tags is OK, using new tags is OK, documenting new tags is OK and 
desirable.

But linking your tag that is barely used everywhere is an unwelcome spam.

In such situation I revert edit as soon as I spot it, especially for users who 
did it already
many times and have aggressive usernames that claim to not be experts rather 
than newbies.

example of previous spam wave (mass spamming of broken shop=street_vendor tag):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dvending_machine=prev=1835047
 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=ES:Tag:amenity%3Dvending_machine=prev=1835048
 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=FR:Tag:amenity%3Dvending_machine=prev=1835049
 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=NL:Tag:amenity%3Dvending_machine=prev=1835051
 

and in many other languages, also for other shop types
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging