Re: [Tagging] Best practice regarding addr:housenumber and POIs
Anthony wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: I guess the follow-up question then is: what if there are multiple POIs that have the same addr:housenumber? Should it be duplicated on all the POIs? If you're going to add a distinguishing address feature, such as addr:suite=*, you probably should. Otherwise, if the POIs are all located in one building, and all have the same address, it's better (and maybe even easier) to tag the building rather than multiple points within the building, no? (If the POIs are in different buildings, have the same housenumber, and don't have any distinguishing address features...eww, that could be a problem.) Or should suite numbers be part of addr:housenumber? 5102 Belmere Pkwy Apt 2 gets housenumber='5102' or housenumber='5102 Apt 2'? If it is truly a point of INTEREST, would you not want to tag it uniquely rather than just tagging the building? How about a relation between the building with addr:housenumber=123, and the multiple poi's inside it, which might include shop=toys, addr:suite=2A? -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
2009/10/15 sly (sylvain letuffe) li...@letuffe.org: On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: For the lake in the forest: do you agree that someone would say: the lake (pond) is in the forest? Like a way in the forest, which doesn't have trees growing on it, but still is in the forest. It is not excluded. That's a human language matter. I don't think it's good to stick a data model to verbs and words. it's not purely about language. It is about definitions, and the way you are looking at things. Between them, there should be interpretation, understanding, and questions answering. That is to say, programs. infomationstechnology-centric point of view Case of the lake in the forest, you could imagine multi-question to answer : - what surface is this forest ? Suppose I'm a wood lumber producer, I've got statitics about mean trees per square km. I'll surely want to exclude the lake's surface, as well as any road's surface going thru. - is the lake in a forest ? I suppose here I want to know if I can reach the lake by transporting my boat through grass fields. I'm not sure if someone counts the surface of forests he doesn't usually include lakes that belong to the forest. If you want to get the surface of tree-planted areas, you still will have to subtract streets, and potentially other included areas where there are no trees. - Probably you are right and it is a better approach to exclude lakes and even small ponds from the forest (the street-problem remains though). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kosher amenities
Liz schrieb: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Lennard wrote: BTW2: It's halal. What you lack in replying restraint, you make up for with extra letters? My keyboard doesn't write Arabic, but I'm quite sure it ain't halal or hallall or halall - that any transliteration is probably missing something I've seen both halal and hallal written in Nuremberg turkish cuisine restaurants. Anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal So we might want to use the term halal (for presets, rendering rules, ...), but hopefully won't get upset if some mappers use one of the transliterations :-) Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On vendredi 16 octobre 2009, Emilie Laffray wrote: 2009/10/16 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com +1, I agree. Inside a landuse=residential we could than map the different surfaces. I'd suggest to use the key surface for the ground-cover, or is there a problem with it? Having a ground-cover tag would be perfect. What about every thing but boundary is ground-cover surface ? (I haven't checked the whole map features) -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: It obviously failed at that completely. The most used tags (landuse=residential, industrial, farm, commercial, military, retail...) don't give any detail about ground cover. It has become so bad that I don't see a way to even try to fix this with the landuse tag. It has to go back to the drawing board without thinking about tags that are in use today. Ben It doesn't fail so much because most of the time, landuse values are exclusive (residential, industrial, forest, etc). It is already enough complicated to add polygones or multipolygones for landuse. We can see that this is only done in countrysides or small urban areas but not in towns/cities. We cannot ask people to create a second polygon which will most of the time be a copy of the landuse : land covered by buildings used for residential or land covered by trees used for trees farm. I think we should better enforce landuse to be exclusive by removing the non-exclusive values like military. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Residential isn't exclusive at all. Not to say that what it's actually used for in OSM can have different meanings amongst different mappers. You'll find many parks in OSM for example inside a residential polygon. I've never seen holes in a landuse=residential polygon at locations where shops are. By far most uses I've seen for landuse=residential are for areas which are generally used for where people live, and usually have entire villages or cities inside one polygon. That's not ground cover, that's telling what the area is used for. Proper ground cover would have no such thing as a residential area. It would have tags for building (and subtags for what kind of building it is), or garden. Well then ground cover isn't what we need. We need land use. Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to get down to the parcel level, or even more detailed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: Anthony wrote: Well then ground cover isn't what we need. We need land use. Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. The fact that OSM mappers make these huge polygons which cover entire towns is fine, as an approximation, but ultimately we should be striving to get down to the parcel level, or even more detailed. A typical example of a land use map: http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/mastermap2006www.jpg Well, we need both land use *and* ground cover. The former telling what people use the area for, the latter telling what you can actually see on the ground. The former says park, the latter says grass, trees... for the same area. University vs buildings, grass, garden, trees... Residential vs buildings, gardens, parks, construction sites... Military vs buildings, woods, crop fields, heath, meadows... etc Maybe we need ground cover. I'm not convinced of it, but maybe we do. But this is a completely different problem - it's the opposite problem of landuse=*, in fact. Instead of using one tag for multiple things, we're using lots of tags (amenity=*, man_made=*, natural=*, leisure=*) for what you're arguing to be one thing (as I said, I'm not yet convinced). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Land use is generally studied on a parcel by parcel basis. A typical example of a land use map: http://cityofypsilanti.com/maps/images/mastermap2006www.jpg Here is another typical example of a land use map: http://www.ifen.fr/typo3temp/pics/3e9fb4d1ad.jpg Just to say that we have different scales of land use. It can be country wide or at city level. It is not a reason to use different tags. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
