Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On 15 May 2010 15:51, Liz wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010, John Smith wrote: >> Market gardens grow vegtables in a small plot smaller than a farm, but >> not always joined to a house. >> > farms differ in size - particularly between one part of Australia and another > so just a "small" farm for market_garden size Here is some market gardens near Sydney airport: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-33.945663,151.151646&z=19&t=h&nmd=20100427 and some more the other side the airport near a cemetery: http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-33.975649,151.232434&z=18&t=h&nmd=20100427 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On Sat, 15 May 2010, John Smith wrote: > Market gardens grow vegtables in a small plot smaller than a farm, but > not always joined to a house. > farms differ in size - particularly between one part of Australia and another so just a "small" farm for market_garden size ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Chris Hill wrote: > No I didn't assume anything, except that what you have is land attached > to a house. That is a garden. Green or not, maintained or not. Decked, > paved or grassed, cultivated or not. A meadow is agricultural land. > still wrong, the area under discussion was a vineyard, separated from the "house garden" by a physical barrier ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] land cover/surface=* tagging Re: Landuse border alignment
On 15 May 2010 13:37, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the thing is: the amount of different values makes it already hard to > actually use these e.g. in bicycle-routing (there is x types of paving > stones, ...). When this started there were only 2-3 values: paved, > unpaved and cobblestone. Untill now there are 22 different values. If > we add another 100 landscape-surface values, and people add those to > highways, it will be even harder. But they aren't just for highways, that was the whole point of stating land cover, such as back yards being grass... And I don't think you route through back yard gardens... > the ones usually used for non-highways are these (probably to be extended): > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Natural This was already covered in another thread, at which point I think Roy updated one or more of the surface=* tags to be applicable to other things, such as golf bunkers aren't natural=beach, they are surface=sand and so on and so forth... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] land cover/surface=* tagging Re: Landuse border alignment
2010/5/15 John Smith : > On 15 May 2010 11:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> yes, we should. Most of them are already present in "nature". > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface the thing is: the amount of different values makes it already hard to actually use these e.g. in bicycle-routing (there is x types of paving stones, ...). When this started there were only 2-3 values: paved, unpaved and cobblestone. Untill now there are 22 different values. If we add another 100 landscape-surface values, and people add those to highways, it will be even harder. the ones usually used for non-highways are these (probably to be extended): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Natural cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] land cover/surface=* tagging Re: Landuse border alignment
On 15 May 2010 11:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > yes, we should. Most of them are already present in "nature". http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] land cover/surface=* tagging Re: Landuse border alignment
2010/5/14 John Smith : > On 15 May 2010 05:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Thanks for opening a new thread. > I filed a bug for surface=grass, we also possibly need one for > natural=beach, surface=sand|gravel etc... +1 >> encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for >> the renderers: because it is sad to tag "correct" and you don't see >> anything on the map ;-). I don't promote a cluttered or coloured map: > > I wonder if there is anything that could be done to stream line this > process, I guess a new thread on all possible surfaces and possible > and then figuring out how they should render, and finally submitting a > patch or at least a bug report. the thing is: you can't render landuse AND landcover the same time (well, you could maybe draw textures / line-fills above colored areas) > Before working out colours, or at least in conjunction with, perhaps > we should try to compile a list of land covers and document them. yes, we should. Most of them are already present in "nature". cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On 15 May 2010 11:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > and other plants grown in a decorative and structured way, but not if > they were growing herbs or vegetables (but yes again if they were > growing stuff with scientific interest),... ;-) Market gardens grow vegtables in a small plot smaller than a farm, but not always joined to a house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_gardening ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/15 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >> but before neither ;-) > > I disagree, it was pretty simple to ask myself if the area is "Place > where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured > manner or for scientific purposes." - Botanical garden - yes, Japanese > garden belonging to a tea-house - yes, lawn behind a family house - no, OK, it was good to tell: this is somehow cared for green grown either for decorative or scientific purposes, but it was not good enough if you care for the difference between a japanese garden, a botanical garden, the rose garden of a castle, some private garden with flowers and other plants grown in a decorative and structured way, but not if they were growing herbs or vegetables (but yes again if they were growing stuff with scientific interest),... ;-) > But I'm slowly changing my mind and a good subtagging could be the right > way to go... the problem is that currently leisure=garden alone is used > for a lot of different areas and it's becoming useless without better > usage description on wiki. +1, I agree, some subtags would be usefull. Probably some of them could be applicable to other tags as well (leisure=park, landuse=orchard, ...) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/15 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > That's the thing, I'm not convinced that a lawn should be tagged as > leisure=garden just because it's behind a fence around a family house. To me it isn't the lawn that makes the garden, but the fact that the garden can be viewed as a relaxation area adjoining the home outside. > But I'm slowly changing my mind and a good subtagging could be the right > way to go... the problem is that currently leisure=garden alone is used > for a lot of different areas and it's becoming useless without better > usage description on wiki. highway=road is equally useless, but it's used as a place marker until someone adds additional information, you need to think of OSM as an evolutionary process going from nothing to something approaching a complete map... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a): > 2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : >> That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly >> changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at >> the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely >> different (although it was marked as a stub). > > > OK, I see what you mean (I was confused anyway because I remembered > also a different content ;-) ). Still the old version is IMHO not > useful either. On one hand it is an identical meaning to park. On the > other "decorative" and "structured" are highly subjective terms when > it comes to gardens. Are you aware of the two main lines of European > garden history? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden > > Reading your post I get the feeling that you think mainly about garden > as a French Garden. Still I'm missing the difference from > "leisure=garden" and "leisure=park", that's why I think it's not a bad > idea to change the meaning of leisure=garden also officially in OSM. I'm glad we're "on the same page" now ;-) I know the difference between the English and French style of gardening, but still in both cases I would say that the main feature is displaying the plants. The English garden could be pretty close to the park, but imho park is mainly grassy, open area (in the sense of not covered by dense vegetation). >> Yes, a lot of those areas are here in Czech Republic, that's why I >> brought this up, because we were discussing it in talk-cz and did not >> came to any definite conclusion - some think this is an inappropriate >> usage (like I do), some think it's ok. > > > you see. leisure=garden has for a long time not corresponded to the > wiki definition, that's probably why someone changed it. I'm still fuzzy on what is the wiki definition of garden. >> Anyway, the page of leisure=garden was recently significantly changed >> not only in the level of detail, but the meaning of this tag seems to be >> shifted by this added content. In current state I can't see any clear >> definition/description of what this tag should be used for. > > > but before neither ;-) I disagree, it was pretty simple to ask myself if the area is "Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes." - Botanical garden - yes, Japanese garden belonging to a tea-house - yes, lawn behind a family house - no, park is a bit grey area, but I wouldn't say that the area was covered with plants in a decorative manner, etc. >> As you said there is already a lot of leisure=garden areas, so the clear >> criteria for its usage should be resolved rather sooner then later, when >> the number grows even bigger. If anyone is able to give me a clear >> description of the meaning of this tag (that would include cut grass >> behind a family house), I'll shut up and use it according to that >> definition. > > > what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a garden. That's the thing, I'm not convinced that a lawn should be tagged as leisure=garden just because it's behind a fence around a family house. But I'm slowly changing my mind and a good subtagging could be the right way to go... the problem is that currently leisure=garden alone is used for a lot of different areas and it's becoming useless without better usage description on wiki. Regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
2010/5/15, John Smith : > On 15 May 2010 06:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote: >>> >> Oh and I forgot: >>> >> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 >>> > >>> > Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance? >>> >>> >>> you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional >>> geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a >>> given area in a generalized way. >> >> Eh, I am not insisting anything - that was an example of bad editing IMHO. >> There really should be tags for rendering-hints to mapnik - until mapnik >> handles everything. That way people could tag correctly and still get the >> appearance they wanted... > > He was commenting on my comment about separating land use and land cover > tags... > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
Liz wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010, Chris Hill wrote: > >> You have animals grazing? Or perhaps you cut it for hay or silage? If >> not then it's just an unkempt garden, just letting the grass grow >> doesn't make it a meadow, except perhaps in pretentious gardening >> programmes :) >> >> > I guess you assumed I lived in a city area. I don't. > So if you leave your garden alone it reverts to meadow. > I am no longer supporting a plant monoculture but a variety of plants which > vary with the seasons. > 10 years of drought give a low likelihood of feeding any animal from what is > grown there. > No I didn't assume anything, except that what you have is land attached to a house. That is a garden. Green or not, maintained or not. Decked, paved or grassed, cultivated or not. A meadow is agricultural land. Cheers, Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On 15 May 2010 07:04, Liz wrote: > I guess you assumed I lived in a city area. I don't. > So if you leave your garden alone it reverts to meadow. > I am no longer supporting a plant monoculture but a variety of plants which > vary with the seasons. > 10 years of drought give a low likelihood of feeding any animal from what is > grown there. My grandfather used to live on a farm, but still had a house yard fenced differently to the rest of the farm. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Chris Hill wrote: > You have animals grazing? Or perhaps you cut it for hay or silage? If > not then it's just an unkempt garden, just letting the grass grow > doesn't make it a meadow, except perhaps in pretentious gardening > programmes :) > I guess you assumed I lived in a city area. I don't. So if you leave your garden alone it reverts to meadow. I am no longer supporting a plant monoculture but a variety of plants which vary with the seasons. 10 years of drought give a low likelihood of feeding any animal from what is grown there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/14 Liz : > On Sat, 15 May 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a >> garden. >> > My grass is rarely cut (climatic reasons) and we have left the main grassed > area to become /meadow/. > It's not a garden now in any English term, and is a /yard/. OK, maybe we should go for yard, is this what you suggest? I can't get off my German roots, and in German yours would still be your "Garten" (probably dependant on the size, if it gets agricultural dimensions it will usually not be called a "Garten" anymore) ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
Liz wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a >> garden. >> >> > My grass is rarely cut (climatic reasons) and we have left the main grassed > area to become /meadow/. > It's not a garden now in any English term, and is a /yard/. > > You have animals grazing? Or perhaps you cut it for hay or silage? If not then it's just an unkempt garden, just letting the grass grow doesn't make it a meadow, except perhaps in pretentious gardening programmes :) Cheers, Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On Sat, 15 May 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a > garden. > My grass is rarely cut (climatic reasons) and we have left the main grassed area to become /meadow/. It's not a garden now in any English term, and is a /yard/. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
On 15 May 2010 06:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote: >> >> Oh and I forgot: >> >> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 >> > >> > Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance? >> >> >> you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional >> geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a >> given area in a generalized way. > > Eh, I am not insisting anything - that was an example of bad editing IMHO. > There really should be tags for rendering-hints to mapnik - until mapnik > handles everything. That way people could tag correctly and still get the > appearance they wanted... He was commenting on my comment about separating land use and land cover tags... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/5/14 John Smith : > > On 15 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > >> Oh and I forgot: > >> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 > > > > Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance? > > > you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional > geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a > given area in a generalized way. Eh, I am not insisting anything - that was an example of bad editing IMHO. There really should be tags for rendering-hints to mapnik - until mapnik handles everything. That way people could tag correctly and still get the appearance they wanted... > Unfortunately this is not true when > it come to OSM: just open your eyes. Have you ever downloaded a piece > of Berlin? You would be astonished ;-). Our landuse is often > fragmented (IMHO not bad, because if there is different stuff, how > else should you point that out? It is easier to summarize different > landuses to one according to type and size than it is to divide 1 big > generalized landuse automatically into all of it's subparts). > > How many landcover-tags are there in OSM? Is grass, garages or > landfill a landuse? Another example: cut off (burned down) forest: > this would probably still be called landuse=forest in an official map, > but in OSM if there are no trees it will not be a forest. > > On the other hand: I would like to see this mess tidyed up. In this > case I suggest to first change (extend) render rules and then > encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for > the renderers: because it is sad to tag "correct" and you don't see > anything on the map ;-). I don't promote a cluttered or coloured map: > I do promote rendering of lots of tags, but they don't have to get all > different colours. Also few colours (i.e. many features/tags with the > same colour) can be a way to do it. > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On 15 May 2010 06:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> garden=english_garden|french_garden|japanese_garden|water_garden|horticulture|lawn > > > -1, this seems pretty inconsequential ;-). If you go for structuring > garden tagging, you cannot mix landcover (lawn), typology (english / > french) and others. Well as I see it, lawn is both land cover and land use, although if you wanted to be more specific you could use garden=residential,surface=grass ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/14 John Smith : >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden > > I don't really see what the big deal is, leisure=garden can mean a lot > of different things to a lot of different people, so it needs to be > sub-tagged, +1 and one possible way would be how I suggested: > leisure=garden +1 > then > > garden=english_garden|french_garden|japanese_garden|water_garden|horticulture|lawn -1, this seems pretty inconsequential ;-). If you go for structuring garden tagging, you cannot mix landcover (lawn), typology (english / french) and others. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] land cover/surface=* tagging Re: Landuse border alignment
On 15 May 2010 05:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional Even you seem to agree this is a good idea... > geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a > given area in a generalized way. Unfortunately this is not true when > it come to OSM: just open your eyes. Have you ever downloaded a piece > of Berlin? You would be astonished ;-). Our landuse is often > fragmented (IMHO not bad, because if there is different stuff, how > else should you point that out? It is easier to summarize different > landuses to one according to type and size than it is to divide 1 big > generalized landuse automatically into all of it's subparts). OSM is all about evolving and improving over time, just because something was done in the past, like ways with > 2000 nodes, doesn't mean it should be done in future, especially when it would be nice to tag both land use and land cover on the same area. > How many landcover-tags are there in OSM? Is grass, garages or > landfill a landuse? Another example: cut off (burned down) forest: grass would be a land cover, garages would be land use (buildings would be land cover), landfill could be both, although they may have put grass on top of a former landfill. > this would probably still be called landuse=forest in an official map, > but in OSM if there are no trees it will not be a forest. landuse=forest, surface=scorched_earth :D > On the other hand: I would like to see this mess tidyed up. In this > case I suggest to first change (extend) render rules and then I filed a bug for surface=grass, we also possibly need one for natural=beach, surface=sand|gravel etc... > encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for > the renderers: because it is sad to tag "correct" and you don't see > anything on the map ;-). I don't promote a cluttered or coloured map: I wonder if there is anything that could be done to stream line this process, I guess a new thread on all possible surfaces and possible and then figuring out how they should render, and finally submitting a patch or at least a bug report. > I do promote rendering of lots of tags, but they don't have to get all > different colours. Also few colours (i.e. many features/tags with the > same colour) can be a way to do it. Before working out colours, or at least in conjunction with, perhaps we should try to compile a list of land covers and document them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
My view was that baby=yes was shorthand for minage=0, maxage=about 4 - more a recommendation of age appropriateness than a hard limit. Also it was intended for the equipment rather than the whole play area - though in the unlikely case of an entire play area being for babies there wouldn't be any reason not to apply it to the whole area. Swings are the most common case, though there are baby slides and roundabouts near us as well. I suppose what makes it for babies is that there is some postural support, or some form of restraint for small children who don't have the sense not to stand up and wander off while they are (say) at the highest point on a swing! The age is inexact, which makes it hard to specify. Or the equipment is very small, such that a fall from the top of it wouldn't damage a very young child. minage and maxage are in fairly common usage which is why I put them on the proposal - to cover the cases where the operators of the play area give a specific age/height range. Antony. On 14 May 2010 20:10, John Smith wrote: > On 15 May 2010 04:37, Erik Johansson wrote: >> Sure, I only want to use baby=yes to tag if there is toys for babies. >> This is mostly used for swings so I'm not entirely sure it's needed. >> :-) > > There could be an exclusive area for toddlers, another for children > and so on, imho instead of saying babies, put age in years, eg 0-0.5 > or 0.5 to 2 or 2 to 7 etc... > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
2010/5/14 John Smith : > On 15 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote: >> Oh and I forgot: >> * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 > > Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance? you're insisting on this one? Yes, you are right: in traditional geoscience landuse is a precise term, it describes the usage of a given area in a generalized way. Unfortunately this is not true when it come to OSM: just open your eyes. Have you ever downloaded a piece of Berlin? You would be astonished ;-). Our landuse is often fragmented (IMHO not bad, because if there is different stuff, how else should you point that out? It is easier to summarize different landuses to one according to type and size than it is to divide 1 big generalized landuse automatically into all of it's subparts). How many landcover-tags are there in OSM? Is grass, garages or landfill a landuse? Another example: cut off (burned down) forest: this would probably still be called landuse=forest in an official map, but in OSM if there are no trees it will not be a forest. On the other hand: I would like to see this mess tidyed up. In this case I suggest to first change (extend) render rules and then encourage people to change tagging. This is all because of tagging for the renderers: because it is sad to tag "correct" and you don't see anything on the map ;-). I don't promote a cluttered or coloured map: I do promote rendering of lots of tags, but they don't have to get all different colours. Also few colours (i.e. many features/tags with the same colour) can be a way to do it. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
Well the area around where I live is a wonderful mish-mash of overlapping landuses, and many roads sharing nodes with landuse-borders and I think it's too much work to get it straight for now... In the case of the grass/forest overlap: That was a grassy-looking area containing houses (so actually residential) next to a forest-looking area, with part of the forest entering the grassy-area, and instead of a clean separation someone just overlapped the forest and set the grass to layer=-1 to get rendering right. -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
2010/5/14 Jonas Minnberg : > OK, some real world examples; > * Two overlapping wood-areas, one named, the other not. Generally it's a good idea to tidy up your area, given you know the area, so in this case: either you know the extent of the named area in real life, or you shouldn't touch it. > * Grass inside grass landuse, rock inside grass landuse etc - is the rule > that wholly interior (possibly sharing nodes with the exterior) areas are > always rendered on top of its exterior area? no, there is no such rule and even if the rendering is correct, the mapping in the rock-grass case isn't: either there is grass or rocks, i.e. you should model a multipolygon-relation. Grass inside grass: are there any other tags? What is there (is the outer grass-polygon really completely grass?). Noone can give you hints just by reading tags and not seeing what is there or what is mapped exactly. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
On 15 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > Oh and I forgot: > * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 Are you mixing up landuse and land cover by any chance? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
2010/5/14 Jonas Minnberg : > Oh and I forgot: > * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 is this inside a building or are there platforms or what is the purpose of this layer-tag? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
Oh and I forgot: * landuse=grass overlapping landuse=wood, grass set as layer=-1 On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote: > > OK, some real world examples; > > * Two overlapping wood-areas, one named, the other not. > > * Grass inside grass landuse, rock inside grass landuse etc - is the rule > that wholly interior (possibly sharing nodes with the exterior) areas are > always rendered on top of its exterior area? > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
OK, some real world examples; * Two overlapping wood-areas, one named, the other not. * Grass inside grass landuse, rock inside grass landuse etc - is the rule that wholly interior (possibly sharing nodes with the exterior) areas are always rendered on top of its exterior area? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
On 15 May 2010 05:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > OK, I see what you mean (I was confused anyway because I remembered > also a different content ;-) ). Still the old version is IMHO not > useful either. On one hand it is an identical meaning to park. On the > other "decorative" and "structured" are highly subjective terms when > it comes to gardens. Are you aware of the two main lines of European > garden history? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden I don't really see what the big deal is, leisure=garden can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, so it needs to be sub-tagged, and one possible way would be how I suggested: leisure=garden then garden=english_garden|french_garden|japanese_garden|water_garden|horticulture|lawn you could also expand horticulture to cover things if there is a predomonite type of gardening occurring, eg horticulture=flowers|vegetables ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On 15 May 2010 04:37, Erik Johansson wrote: > Sure, I only want to use baby=yes to tag if there is toys for babies. > This is mostly used for swings so I'm not entirely sure it's needed. > :-) There could be an exclusive area for toddlers, another for children and so on, imho instead of saying babies, put age in years, eg 0-0.5 or 0.5 to 2 or 2 to 7 etc... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly > changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at > the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely > different (although it was marked as a stub). OK, I see what you mean (I was confused anyway because I remembered also a different content ;-) ). Still the old version is IMHO not useful either. On one hand it is an identical meaning to park. On the other "decorative" and "structured" are highly subjective terms when it comes to gardens. Are you aware of the two main lines of European garden history? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_garden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_garden Reading your post I get the feeling that you think mainly about garden as a French Garden. Still I'm missing the difference from "leisure=garden" and "leisure=park", that's why I think it's not a bad idea to change the meaning of leisure=garden also officially in OSM. > Yes, a lot of those areas are here in Czech Republic, that's why I > brought this up, because we were discussing it in talk-cz and did not > came to any definite conclusion - some think this is an inappropriate > usage (like I do), some think it's ok. you see. leisure=garden has for a long time not corresponded to the wiki definition, that's probably why someone changed it. > Anyway, the page of leisure=garden was recently significantly changed > not only in the level of detail, but the meaning of this tag seems to be > shifted by this added content. In current state I can't see any clear > definition/description of what this tag should be used for. but before neither ;-) > As you said there is already a lot of leisure=garden areas, so the clear > criteria for its usage should be resolved rather sooner then later, when > the number grows even bigger. If anyone is able to give me a clear > description of the meaning of this tag (that would include cut grass > behind a family house), I'll shut up and use it according to that > definition. what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a garden. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On 15 May 2010 04:42, John Smith wrote: > On 15 May 2010 04:23, Phil! Gold wrote: >> Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated' >> or 'baby=official'? > > It might be confusing to tag something arbitary as baby, wouldn't it > be better to tag age appropriateness? and height appropriateness for > that matter. > > For example I often see playgrounds tagged 0-7 years, or 100-200cm or > 120+ cm tall etc... > age:min=0 age:max=7 height:min=1.2 height:max=2 etc... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On 15 May 2010 04:23, Phil! Gold wrote: > Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated' > or 'baby=official'? It might be confusing to tag something arbitary as baby, wouldn't it be better to tag age appropriateness? and height appropriateness for that matter. For example I often see playgrounds tagged 0-7 years, or 100-200cm or 120+ cm tall etc... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Erik Johansson [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]: >> If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it >> exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes >> shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there, >> and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies. >> >> Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive? > > Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated' > or 'baby=official'? Sure, I only want to use baby=yes to tag if there is toys for babies. This is mostly used for swings so I'm not entirely sure it's needed. :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
* Erik Johansson [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]: > If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it > exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes > shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there, > and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies. > > Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive? Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated' or 'baby=official'? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
> you are talking about "abusing" a tag, and then citing > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden where the > third sentence is: "The most common form is known as a residential > garden." That's the part of copied text from wikipedia, that really significantly changed the meaning of leisure=garden page on OSM wiki. Take a look at the history, only few weeks ago the content said something completely different (although it was marked as a stub). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dgarden&oldid=437641 > You can argue here as much as you like but I know many areas where > residential gardens are already tagged with leisure=garden so there is > not much to do (If you don't want to check all 27550 current uses of > leisure=garden (tagwatch)). Yes, a lot of those areas are here in Czech Republic, that's why I brought this up, because we were discussing it in talk-cz and did not came to any definite conclusion - some think this is an inappropriate usage (like I do), some think it's ok. Anyway, the page of leisure=garden was recently significantly changed not only in the level of detail, but the meaning of this tag seems to be shifted by this added content. In current state I can't see any clear definition/description of what this tag should be used for. As you said there is already a lot of leisure=garden areas, so the clear criteria for its usage should be resolved rather sooner then later, when the number grows even bigger. If anyone is able to give me a clear description of the meaning of this tag (that would include cut grass behind a family house), I'll shut up and use it according to that definition. But right now, all I know is that in last few weeks the OSM wiki page changed its description from quite a clear and narrow meaning to a vague description of general "green" areas. Regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [english 95%] Re: Tagging Problem, name not shown
Hi John, Thanks, now it's working like it should! Kai - Original Message - From: "John Smith" To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:53 PM Subject: [english 95%] Re: [Tagging] Tagging Problem, name not shown > On 15 May 2010 02:47, k...@vielevisels wrote: >> Hi, >> i added tags to a shop (a way representing a building) and expected the >> name >> to show up on the main map. But if you zoom in, the name appears only in >> one >> zoom level and disappears in the highest zoom level. Other buildings in >> the >> area are tagged in the same way and do not show this behaviour. Can >> anyone >> help me? > > The tile was cached on the server, I marked it dirty and then the name > showed. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Problem, name not shown
On 15 May 2010 02:47, k...@vielevisels wrote: > Hi, > i added tags to a shop (a way representing a building) and expected the name > to show up on the main map. But if you zoom in, the name appears only in one > zoom level and disappears in the highest zoom level. Other buildings in the > area are tagged in the same way and do not show this behaviour. Can anyone > help me? The tile was cached on the server, I marked it dirty and then the name showed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging Problem, name not shown
Hi, i added tags to a shop (a way representing a building) and expected the name to show up on the main map. But if you zoom in, the name appears only in one zoom level and disappears in the highest zoom level. Other buildings in the area are tagged in the same way and do not show this behaviour. Can anyone help me? Kai The way is # 42990609___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Micromapping
While preparing the proposed playground equipment tagging schema, it occurred to me that there are lots of instances of 'micro mapping' where detail is being added to cover stuff like litter bins, gates, playground equipment, grass verges etc, rather than 'big' stuff like roads, parks and so on. I don't recall seeing a category for such things on the wiki - any thoughts anyone? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft - new barrier values
On 15 May 2010 00:32, Richard Finegold wrote: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:barrier is > the template used for barriers in the Map Features wiki page. The > existence of this template arguably makes the tags consequential in > the entire scheme, as Map Features is self-described as "a core > recommended feature set and corresponding tags". So what? Here's the rest of what I wrote so as I can't be taken out of context again: > Perhaps I was too succinct, in my opinion if you plan to use a tag and > nothing similar is already documented you should document it but it's usually > pointless requiring a vote on anything that will have an inconsequential > effect on OSM or other tags, especially if all you are doing is extending an > existing tag key to have some minor values documented. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king wrote: > Hi all, > > We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for > the last couple of months, And you did a very good job, I've always wondered what to call those hanging roundabouts myself. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, antony.king wrote: > Hi all, > > We've been slowly mulling over the proposed playground extensions for > the last couple of months, and I hope that we've covered all the > ground that needs to be covered by now. Could those that care to vote, > cast your votes on the page? If you disapprove, please say why and > maybe we can continue the RFC stage for a little longer so as to get > it right. I'm aware that there are a few people who have had input on > this who disapprove of the whole voting concept; I'm not proposing we > open that can of worms here but I am keen to formalise this properly. > > Here's the page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Playground_Equipment > > Regards, If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there, and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies. Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
This is, at least in part, a difference between different dialects of English. Your definition A below (place where plants are grown in a structured and decorative manner) would be classified in both Britain and the USA as a "flower garden". Both places would also use the term "vegetable garden" or "kitchen garden" to mean a place where plants are grown for food. A place where plants are grown for scientific purposes would be described in both places as a "botanical garden". Definition B, "open, green area for recreation", is used in British English but not in American English. Americans call that a "yard", not a "garden". ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited) >From :mailto:xific...@gmail.com Date :Fri May 14 10:42:56 America/Chicago 2010 Roy Wallace napsal(a): > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith wrote: >> >> leisure=garden >> garden=residential > > Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden. I don't see in what sense is this better - your own remark 'someone lives in the garden?' applies here as well, and it's even worse, because imho residential=garden suggest that this part of residential land is garden, but garden=residential suggests that this garden is for residential purposes. And the added bonus of abusing leisure=garden tag... Let me one more time explain what I think is wrong on this tag, so here is an example: Step one: Take a look at this area: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.008617,15.799091&spn=0.000565,0.001706&z=20 Step two: Which one of these lines better describes the area? A) Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes. B) Open, green area for recreation. Step three: Take a look where did I get those descriptions: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark Seems like recently the page about leisure=garden was significantly changed by copying a text from wikipedia, which makes an impression that almost any recreation ground can be called garden. Looking at the original wikipedia page, it lacks any clear definition of a garden. Second remark I have - is really definiton of OSM tag leisure=garden equivalent to the explanation from wikipedia? Regards, Petr Morávek -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
2010/5/14 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" : > And the added bonus of abusing leisure=garden tag... Let me one more > time explain what I think is wrong on this tag, so here is an example: > Step two: Which one of these lines better describes the area? > A) Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and > structured manner or for scientific purposes. > B) Open, green area for recreation. > Step three: Take a look where did I get those descriptions: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark you are talking about "abusing" a tag, and then citing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden where the third sentence is: "The most common form is known as a residential garden." Most of the description actually is about residential gardens and the functions are described like this: "A garden can have aesthetic, functional, and recreational uses: * Cooperation with nature * Observation of nature * Relaxation * Growing useful produce " You can argue here as much as you like but I know many areas where residential gardens are already tagged with leisure=garden so there is not much to do (If you don't want to check all 27550 current uses of leisure=garden (tagwatch)). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
* Jonas Minnberg [2010-05-14 16:39 +0200]: > What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having > different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as > separate but with shared nodes? I feel that separate ways that share nodes along the joint wall makes the most sense from an accuracy standpoint. It allows you to tag the appropriate areas with the building's address and type, which can be useful, since the renderers can color different building types differently. I osciallate on how much I do this, though. For dense commercial/retail areas, I might make distinct ways for the largest buildings (a supermarket in a strip mall, for instance) and just a few other ways that encompass all the smaller buildings; for example: http://osm.org/go/ZcIoRxTbc- . For residential areas, I often don't even bother with the buildings; because they're so small, they take a lot of time to make. There are examples in the residential areas just east of the shopping center I linked above. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- The router thinks it's a printer. -- BOFH excuse #118 --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)
Roy Wallace napsal(a): > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:20 AM, John Smith wrote: >> >> leisure=garden >> garden=residential > > Much better. This clearly means you are tagging a particular *type* of garden. I don't see in what sense is this better - your own remark 'someone lives in the garden?' applies here as well, and it's even worse, because imho residential=garden suggest that this part of residential land is garden, but garden=residential suggests that this garden is for residential purposes. And the added bonus of abusing leisure=garden tag... Let me one more time explain what I think is wrong on this tag, so here is an example: Step one: Take a look at this area: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.008617,15.799091&spn=0.000565,0.001706&z=20 Step two: Which one of these lines better describes the area? A) Place where flowers and other plants are grown in a decorative and structured manner or for scientific purposes. B) Open, green area for recreation. Step three: Take a look where did I get those descriptions: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark Seems like recently the page about leisure=garden was significantly changed by copying a text from wikipedia, which makes an impression that almost any recreation ground can be called garden. Looking at the original wikipedia page, it lacks any clear definition of a garden. Second remark I have - is really definiton of OSM tag leisure=garden equivalent to the explanation from wikipedia? Regards, Petr Morávek signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
Jonas Minnberg wrote: > > When is it OK to remove an overlapping landuse ? In some places I > found 3 overlapping landuses and it's not clear which one has priority... When you have visited the area and found out what the real landuse is? Cheers, Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
2010/5/14 Jonas Minnberg : > What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having > different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as > separate but with shared nodes? IMHO the more you can separate them, the better. Usually I would expect (in a "final" stage) each building as a separate area/relation and even parts of the same building but with different heights separately (because this is useful when making "3D", i.e. assigning heights to buildings). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Landuse border alignment
So as I'm adding things I also try to fix bad alignments, doing things like: * Make bordering landuses share nodes, moving the nodes for the least "static" ie if a forest lies next to a lake, move the forest nodes since the lake may be derived from real data, whereas the forest is probably just placed from satellite imagery. * Unglue roads that share borders with landuses and move them into the "correct" one (a residential road into the residential area etc). But i am wondering; What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as separate but with shared nodes? When is it OK to remove an overlapping landuse ? In some places I found 3 overlapping landuses and it's not clear which one has priority... -- Sasq ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft - new barrier values
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 21:21, John Smith wrote: > On 14 May 2010 13:12, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Do we agree there is a basic goal of getting everyone to tag the same >> way? Perhaps the "propose-comment-vote-implemented" lifecycle is not >> right, but "just start using these values" is too weak. How would you >> know if anyone else was using some similar scheme but with different >> tags? > > You missed the important point I made, which was the bit about these > types of tags being incosequential in the entire scheme of things, > documenting them is more important than any vote when it won't have > any great effect on anything else. > > Besides some people already advocate tagging should be based on usage > as a defacto standard, rather than a vote which only a fraction of a > tiny minority bother to have anything to do with, 15 out of 200,000+ > users doesn't really say much, or even 15 out of 10,000+ active > users... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:barrier is the template used for barriers in the Map Features wiki page. The existence of this template arguably makes the tags consequential in the entire scheme, as Map Features is self-described as "a core recommended feature set and corresponding tags". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft - new barrier values
2010/5/14 John Smith : > You missed the important point I made, which was the bit about these > types of tags being incosequential in the entire scheme of things, > documenting them is more important than any vote when it won't have > any great effect on anything else. I (obviously) don't agree with you here. We have for example gate, kissing_gate, lift_gate cliff, retaining_wall, wall, city_wall and others as current barrier types. Why should turnstiles and chains not fit into this "logic"? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
