Re: [Tagging] 3d-tagging

There is now a new way: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3D_Model_Repository I suggest using this. IMHO this is a better way to add 3d data to OSM because you can make the model much nicer, with textures and little details. In OSM you can add data for routing inside the building, like doors an

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

sent from a phone > On 5. Jun 2018, at 10:02, Peter Elderson wrote: > > E.g. replace landuse=village_green with landuse=decorative (defaut > rendering=greenish) then add landcover=scrub|trees|bushes|sand|gravel as > needed. > “decorative” is not a good name, if the intention is mapping onl

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

This issue has a long history... seems to me tagging awaits rendering, and rendering awaits tagging. In such cases, you need a commitment from both sides, with enough support to fuel trust. Then things can get rolling. I am pretty sure about the tagging side - the problem is recognized, there are

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

Just look at the issues related to landcover for carto-css on github, e.g. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548 * not rendered elsewhere * not enough instances * what's the difference with landuse are some of the arguments I've seen. On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:48 PM, P

Re: [Tagging] 3d-tagging

Thanks, that is nice for monuments and so on but i'm not sure that would work properly with a big castle with various buildings. For now i will tag it this way: tag the way properly, join with a node at the building walls and so on, tag the way with tunnel=building_passage, height=* and width

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

Yeah, saw that exchange before but missed the last ugly part. Mexican standoff? Deadlock? Hm, let's call it an impasse. I'll think about it. 2018-06-06 13:02 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > Just look at the issues related to landcover for carto-css on github, > e.g. https://github.com/gravitystorm/open

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > Just look at the issues related to landcover for carto-css on github, > e.g. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548 > > [...] > * not enough instances > And if it gets used a lot the argument will be that there are to

[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

On 06/06/2018 11:48, Peter Elderson wrote: This issue has a long history... seems to me tagging awaits rendering, and rendering awaits tagging. In such cases, you need a commitment from both sides, with enough support to fuel trust. Then things can get rolling. Speaking as someone who both ad

Re: [Tagging] about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 13:37, Andy Townsend wrote: On 06/06/2018 11:48, Peter Elderson wrote: This issue has a long history... seems to me tagging awaits rendering, and rendering awaits tagging. In such cases, you need a commitment from both sides, with enough support to fuel trust. Then things can g

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On 06/06/2018 12:48, Paul Allen wrote: Actually, there is a difference. If grass is grown for a purpose (be it grazing or mere decoration) it's landuse.  If it's there naturally and not used (by man) for any purpose (or incidental to man's purposes) then it's landcover.  At least, that's h

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

Le 06. 06. 18 à 15:02, Dave F a écrit : > municipal_maintained=yes operator=name_of_the_municipality and/or operator:type=public :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

sent from a phone > On 6. Jun 2018, at 14:37, Andy Townsend wrote: > > your road different). The wiki page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass says "It is typical > that landuse=grass is misused and should be changed to landcover=grass ". > I'd argue that that's wron

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

You have implemented rendering of landcover alongside landuse? Is it a major technical thing? It's not a question of replacing, I think, but rendering both? Landcover would basically always be over another landuse. At the moment, landuse-over-landuse is rendered according to some logic? 2018-0

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On 06/06/2018 14:14, marc marc wrote: Le 06. 06. 18 à 15:02, Dave F a écrit : municipal_maintained=yes Yes, as an additional tag. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 14:15, Peter Elderson wrote: You have implemented rendering of landcover alongside landuse? Yes Is it a major technical thing? Depends on the renderer, but in my case no. It's not a question of replacing, I think, but rendering both? Yes. Landcover would basically always

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06-06-18 15:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If I draw an area in iD and type “grass” in the search field I get a hit named “grass” with a generic green icon. Done (and I have added another landuse object). The tagging question is not only about documentation and rendering, but also for a ve

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > there is unanimous (?) consensus that landuse is about the usage of land (“For > describing the primary use of areas of land.”) > > how can “grass” fit into a system like this? > Because the grass is there intentionally and is mainta

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

6. Jun 2018 15:15 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > > there is unanimous (?) consensus that landuse is about the usage of land (“> > For describing the primary use of areas of land.”) landuse=forest is used for tree-covered areas, not for a forestry landuse. ___

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

6. Jun 2018 15:56 by m...@jeroenhoek.nl :     is there a way forward in such a situation? For start - is there a well written proposal? Is there a JOSM preset that people can manually enable? JOSM has default preset and library of optional presets. Is there a wel

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06-06-18 16:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: For start - is there a well written proposal? Is there a JOSM preset that people can manually enable? Is there a well written issue proposing support in JOSM, iD, Vespucci (if already Good points. Perhaps I'll give it a go to write a concept for

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

2018-06-06 15:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> there is unanimous (?) consensus that landuse is about the usage of land >> (“For describing the primary use of areas of land.”) >> how can “grass” fit into a sy

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

6. Jun 2018 16:22 by m...@jeroenhoek.nl : > On 06-06-18 16:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> For start - is there a well written proposal? >> >> Is there a JOSM preset that people can manually enable? >> Is there a well written issue proposing support in JOSM, iD, Ves

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andy Townsend wrote: > > This issue has a long history... seems to me tagging awaits > > rendering, and rendering awaits tagging. In such cases, you need a > > commitment from both sides, with enough support to fuel trust. Then > > things can get rolling. > > Speaking as

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > there is unanimous (?) consensus that landuse is about the usage of > land (“For describing the primary use of areas of land.”) I don't think so. There probably is a strong majority among OSM mappers that (rightfully) think key semantics

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-06 16:39 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > there is unanimous (?) consensus that landuse is about the usage of > > land (“For describing the primary use of areas of land.”) > > I don't think so. > > There probably is a strong majo

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

This comes up for discussion on iD’s issue tracker sometimes, and I always close it as something we won’t change. The usage numbers just don’t support it. https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4272 https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issue

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 15:34, Christoph Hormann wrote: Anyway what i am absolutely certain of is that rendering different tags identically in a map has never encouraged mappers to consistently differentiate between them. :-) The "long tail" of different shop tags begs to differ with that!  If what you

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Point is of course, that you would not need another landuse type if you could simply tag smaller areas within the more basic landuse areas (e.g. residential or commercial) with patches of landcover (grass, sand, trees, scrub). Would need to indicate decorative or separative use, it's just different

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > landuse=forest is used for tree-covered areas, > > not for a forestry landuse. > Which leaves us with no reasonable way to express the latter. That's why this discussion keeps coming up - at least around here, there are significant area

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Anyway what i am absolutely certain of is that rendering different > > tags identically in a map has never encouraged mappers to > > consistently differentiate between them. :-) > > The "long tail" of different shop tags begs to differ with that! 

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > So we have available to us: > > landcover=trees - seldom used, but available and unambiguous > natural=wood - controversial, what qualifies a woodland as being 'natural?' > There's next to no land anywhe

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 16:38, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : Nothing really fits "This land is used for production of forest products" So be tag should be invented by someone who cares about it. I've used h

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 16:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andy Townsend wrote: Anyway what i am absolutely certain of is that rendering different tags identically in a map has never encouraged mappers to consistently differentiate between them. :-) The "long tail" of different

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

landuse=forestry seems a logical choice. On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, 17:38 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com: > > So we have available to us: > > landcover=trees - seldom used, but available and unambiguous > natural=wood - controversial, what qualifies a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Cancel - scenic

I canceled to proposal of the tag "scenic" to properly close the discussion. Although I thought it was a truly wonderful idea I don't really seem to be in the majority. I had some more ideas to formulare clearer criteria - but the more I think about them the more it became clear that I always refe

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 07/06/18 02:06, Andy Townsend wrote: On 06/06/2018 16:38, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : Nothing really fits "This land is used for production of forest products" So be tag should be invented by s

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 07/06/18 00:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-06-06 16:39 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann >: On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > there is unanimous (?) consensus that landuse is about the usage of > land (“For describing the prima