Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
2010/9/6 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com: In practice, it seems unlikely that any one will try to tag every tree in a forest It's entirely possible to map every tree in a city. I agree to both of you. For subtagging I think that there is already some documentation in the wiki (not all are already on the tree-page): - species - height - circumference (of the trunk) - start_date (for the age, maybe also estimated age + note-tag) and others like landmark=yes, monument=yes have been suggested on the MLs or discussion pages. Even tourism=attraction might exist. I'd actually prefer an estimated start_date over a generic historic=yes tag. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
To describe the problem more fully: The definition of natural=tree in the Wiki is lone or significant tree. This corresponds to the way trees are handled in topographic maps. If it is a landmark or of some significance, it is noted in the map. All other trees are collected as wooded area. The definition has been unchanged since 2006. The tag has been used 372,969 times (tagstat). Only recently, people have started adding every single tree along a road, in a park or even every single tree in a forest. All examples I know are from urban areas. There has been an additional tag added to the wiki denotation to further describe the specific (un)importance of the tree. Usually, trees are not rendered or not rendered prominently. I develop a hiking map in which landmark trees are rendered more prominently with a small tree icon. From my experience, outside of cities there are many landmark trees that have been mapped according to the present definition and that are very useful for orientation. Where people have tagged the urban trees properly with the additional tag denotation=urban, they can just be filtered away. Therefore it would be helpful to use the denotation tag more widely for non-significant trees. It is fairly simple to mass select all tree nodes in a city park and add the proper tag. But it would be destructive to change the base meaning of a tag that has been unchanged for 4 years and used 372,969 times. It would mean a loss of information for all real landmark trees which are properly tagged according to the current definition. Basically invalidating 4 years worth of good mapping. In short: There already is a compatible extendsion of the tagging, we just need to use it. We do not need an incompatible, destructive change of meaning. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5502331.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation
Andre, On 4 September 2010 15:11, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote: There are still some mismatches between source and method. e.g. generator:source=nuclear, generator:methode=fission A nuclear fission do not creates electricity it only creates a steam to power a turbine. This is really unecessary and pedantic. Every person with any application in mind for real-world generators (as opposed to school physics lessons on the theory of generation) would understand and appreciate what is meant by the proposed tags. Nobody needs the tag to be generator:method=fission-creating-steam-to-power-a-turbine-that-induces-an-electric-current, or generator:method=gasifiying-the-waste-municipal-wood-which-is-then-burnt-at-a-high-temperature-to-avoid-tar-buildup-to-produce-steam-driving-an-electromagnetic-induction-method-turbine. And I still did not know how to tag a heating (only) station without braking the current software. [3] See also: 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/generator_rationalisation 2. http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/RFC-generator-for-power-generator-features-td5465129.html#a5465129 3. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/41/Power_line-in-germany.png That's extremely simple to answer. If Bahnpirat wanted to maintain that image only showing _electricity_ generators he/she would simply make use of the generator:output tags to filter out any that produce heat/steam/other outputs. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation
On 6 September 2010 18:40, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Feel free to propose another tag! generator:method=fission fission=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de: The definition has been unchanged since 2006. The tag has been used 372,969 times (tagstat). Are you seriously pretending that all those are mapped according to your interpretation of the wiki? My guess is that the ones you would think that fit into this definition are less then 1%. No. I say that we don't know how many of them have been used that way - but I have been building and using a hiking map for 1,5 years now, rendering and observing those tree tags, and I know that a large number has been used properly. Taking into account that the wiki definition has stood for 4 years, you'd think it has seen some use. I would think that maybe 20% of the nodes are significant landmark trees. So even if your assumtion is correct, 1% means throwing away 3729 well-tagged nodes, in my expectation it would be throwing away some 75000 good nodes. I am always opposed to needlessly destroying the work of those mappers. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5502679.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de: Are you seriously pretending that all those are mapped according to your interpretation of the wiki? My guess is that the ones you would think that fit into this definition are less then 1%. No. I say that we don't know how many of them have been used that way - but I have been building and using a hiking map for 1,5 years now, rendering and observing those tree tags I guess this depends on the area / availability of hires aerial imagery and completeness of the map in general. In your area this wasn't probably available, so nobody cared to map trees. years, you'd think it has seen some use. I would think that maybe 20% of the nodes are significant landmark trees. Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? So even if your assumtion is correct, 1% means throwing away 3729 well-tagged nodes, in my expectation it would be throwing away some 75000 good nodes. I was at no point speaking about throwing away nodes. I would expect a special tree to be described by it's specialties, and I would never expect one simple tag like natural=tree to refer to something extraordinary and special. I am always opposed to needlessly destroying the work of those mappers. me too. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? That is not true. There already is an extension tag, denotation=avenue or denotation=urban and some people have used it when mass-mapping generic trees. This is compatible extension. Some people mass add generic trees with no further tagging, that is the problem as the trees are misinterpreted. So not all of those 80% are tagged against the definition, but an unknown part of them. The alternative is: - use natural=tree and denotation=* to distinguish trees - fix the new generic trees in the cities to use denotation=urban - keep the default meaning for trees without denotation as landmarks, compatible with existing definition bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5502843.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de: - fix the new generic trees in the cities to use denotation=urban - keep the default meaning for trees without denotation as landmarks, compatible with existing definition as you seem to insist I propose to go voting for this. I just don't see the point in adding additional tags for usual objects and keep one generic tag reserved for special objects. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:20 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de: Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? +1 Sometimes the wiki and what people map just don't match up. There are other examples I could bring up of this. Fundamentally the question, whether you think it's 1% (Martin and I do) or 20%, as you do), is Do you propose 80-99% of all trees be retagged, or 1-20%? As mentioned, we already have tags to indicate prominence. A tree might be a landmark, it might be historic, etc. Things which stand out are marked as standing out. It's silly to mark something as ordinary. In this case, I think the issue of lone tree is a bit ambiguous anyway. What is a lone tree? I think of a lone tree as a single tree, probably one not in a forest. But in an urban setting, unless you're in a park, all the trees are lone trees. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC: new values for surface=*
Hello, Here is the proposal originating from Russia: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface:all_weather. Basically, it involves splitting surface=unpaved into two more specific categories (more details on the proposal page). Your comments are welcome on the discussion page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Surface:all_weather. I am not sure whether I should cross-post this to t...@. Feel free to forward this message there if necessary. -- Best regards, Dmitry V. Granovsky ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new values for surface=*
Hi, Martin, Sorry that I have not mentioned that the proposal isn't mine (I am nothing here but a translator) and I am not really eager to discuss it. So perhaps it would be better if the discussion took place at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Surface:all_weather. Thank you. 2010/9/6 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2010/9/6 Dmitry Granovsky dima.granov...@gmail.com: Hello, Here is the proposal originating from Russia: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface:all_weather. Basically, it involves splitting surface=unpaved into two more specific categories (more details on the proposal page). Your comments are welcome on the discussion page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Surface:all_weather. I am not sure whether I should cross-post this to t...@. Feel free to forward this message there if necessary. IMHO surface=paved/unpaved are to be considered deprecated. Please use more specific values (asphalt, dirt, cobblestone, etc.), see your page for some of the suggested values (e.g. I don't agree in all categorization you did, IMHO grass_paver is a paved value, but it doesn't matter as long as you tag what is there): (your own list): * paved o asphalt o cobblestone o concrete o metal o paving_stones * unpaved (not recommended) o all_weather + compacted + gravel + pebblestone + grass_paver + wood o ground + earth + mud + grass + sand + dirt o ice_road cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Best regards, Dmitry V. Granovsky ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation
2010/9/6 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: On 4 September 2010 15:11, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote: There are still some mismatches between source and method. e.g. generator:source=nuclear, generator:methode=fission A nuclear fission do not creates electricity it only creates a steam to power a turbine. This is really unecessary and pedantic. Every person with any application in mind for real-world generators (as opposed to school physics lessons on the theory of generation) would understand and appreciate what is meant by the proposed tags. Nobody needs the tag to be generator:method=fission-creating-steam-to-power-a-turbine-that-induces-an-electric-current, or generator:method=gasifiying-the-waste-municipal-wood-which-is-then-burnt-at-a-high-temperature-to-avoid-tar-buildup-to-produce-steam-driving-an-electromagnetic-induction-method-turbine. But there is a difference between using a steam turbine, a sterling engine or a magnetohydrodynamic generator, but all these can be fired by coal or fission. Fission energy could be used by heating water to power a steam turbine or by using a radioisotope thermoelectric generator or a betavoltaics. Fission power plants could use 'clean' uranium 238 or (with a special license) a plutonium uranium mixture (MOX) or Thorium MOX. Ciao André ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging single trees
That is not true. There already is an extension tag, denotation=avenue or denotation=urban and some people have used it when mass-mapping generic Glad that somebody documented it properly in the Wiki right from the start. Oh bummer, nobody did. It was mentioned, but not documented, on the project of the week page about adding trees, but even there only after the week was already over. Every tree deserves additional tags, just add data. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation
2010/9/6 André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com: Fission power plants could use 'clean' uranium 238 or (with a special license) a plutonium uranium mixture (MOX) or Thorium MOX. does this on the other hand suggest I don't need a special license to run my fission reactor in the attic with ordinary Uranium 238? :D cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation
On 6 September 2010 23:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: does this on the other hand suggest I don't need a special license to run my fission reactor in the attic with ordinary Uranium 238? :D A 17 year old has already attempted to do something like this in their mother's back shed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation
2010/9/6 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2010/9/6 André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com: Fission power plants could use 'clean' uranium 238 or (with a special license) a plutonium uranium mixture (MOX) or Thorium MOX. does this on the other hand suggest I don't need a special license to run my fission reactor in the attic with ordinary Uranium 238? :D You need a license to run a fission reactor, but the special license ;-) BTW it is easy to find stones with a low density of uranium 238 so you only need a uranium enrichement machine in your backyard to start this trial :o) Ciao André ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power generator rationalisation
On 6 September 2010 13:46, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/9/6 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: Nobody needs the tag to be generator:method=fission-creating-steam-to-power-a-turbine-that-induces-an-electric-current, or generator:method=gasifiying-the-waste-municipal-wood-which-is-then-burnt-at-a-high-temperature-to-avoid-tar-buildup-to-produce-steam-driving-an-electromagnetic-induction-method-turbine. But there is a difference between using a steam turbine, a sterling engine or a magnetohydrodynamic generator, but all these can be fired by coal or fission. Fission energy could be used by heating water to power a steam turbine or by using a radioisotope thermoelectric generator or a betavoltaics. Fission power plants could use 'clean' uranium 238 or (with a special license) a plutonium uranium mixture (MOX) or Thorium MOX. All that is true. It is also the case that some parks are surfaced with perennial ryegrass whilst others make more use of fescue varieties. But it doesn't follow that somebody proposing tags for parks should start out with such a level detail before using leisure=park. We don't have leisure=park-with-70-percent-perennial-rye-grass-and-30-percent-creeping-red-fescue, do we? I proposed the range of generation methods in the wiki, with suggestions and contributions from other mappers, because the itch I want to scratch is: how environmentally sustainable is this power generator? I was also mindful of the sorts of information generally valued by people who actually work in the energy and built environment industries, i.e. what they would want to know when they asked what sort of generator is this? The tagging schema, as proposed, allows us to answer those questions and meet some other general needs proposed by other mappers. It does so without requiring mappers to necessarily enter this level of detail -- they can simply tag an object as power=generator and be done with it. If you want to extend the proposal to reach a further level of detail - the precise chain of processes used to turn the generator:source into the generator:output - then by all means write out such a proposal. If you can do so without requiring that mappers happy with generator:method=gasification be forced to instead enter a more complicated mixture of tags to describe those precise processes, then I wouldn't argue against your proposal. It wouldn't interest me, but it also wouldn't get in my way. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
NopMap wrote: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? That is not true. There already is an extension tag, denotation=avenue or denotation=urban and some people have used it when mass-mapping generic trees. According to tagstat, denotation is used ~2,600 times, which is less than 1% of the 372,969 trees. So maybe Martin's statement that ~80% didn't consider the wiki definition authoritative isn't true, but does ~79% didn't consider the definition authoritative really change the situation? I /do/ agree that additional tags such as denotation is a solution for the problem, though. But imo, we shouldn't rely on tagging all ordinary trees with a nothing special about this tree tag. Instead, we should tag those trees that are something special - which also allows us to indicate what's so special about that tree. If a tree doesn't have additional tags, the obvious interpretation would be that it's, well, just an ordinary tree. This is compatible extension. It's not compatible with ~79% of the existing uses according to your own estimate. It's not compatible with JOSM's presets either (they assume that natural=tree means tree, and mappers using them relied on this). And it's certainly not compatible with the intention of unsuspecting mappers who used natural=tree without looking up a definition - because the meaning seemed completely obvious to them. A failure to adapt the wiki definition to majority use by removing the lone or significant limitation would start an eternal struggle against the massive influx of trees tagged incorrectly by mappers relying on their common sense. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? That is not true. There already is an extension tag, denotation=avenue or denotation=urban and some people have used it when mass-mapping generic trees. The solution seems pretty simple to me. Add something like denotation=landmark, and then you always know when you have your significant landmark tree. If you also want to add denotation=urban on other trees, that's good also. If you find a tree without any denotation, then you know you found a tree without denotation. If you want specific status, one way or the other, tag it with denotation. Don't trust the absence of a key to tell you something important. - Alan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] VOTING amenity=ice_cream
I'm following a plead by Federico Cozzi and announce that there is voting going on for the tag amenity=ice_cream. Personally I already opposed this tag in the currently proposed form. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ice_cream#Voting cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Additionally: If you know, that the trees you have added in the past are conform to the definition as single or significant feel free to change that to all trees you mapped in the past. That should be relatively simple by fetching all trees with your username and retagging them. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Alan Millar-2 wrote: The solution seems pretty simple to me. Add something like denotation=landmark, and then you always know when you have your significant landmark tree. If you also want to add denotation=urban on other trees, that's good also. If you find a tree without any denotation, then you know you found a tree without denotation. If you want specific status, one way or the other, tag it with denotation. Don't trust the absence of a key to tell you something important. That is not a solution. For 4 years people have done valid tagging, using the definition in the wiki for significant trees. If you change the meaning, no denotation=landmark will magically appear there, so the information gets lost. The mappers who originally contributed them have no idea that you changed the meaning on them, so nothing will happen to fix the damage. I have done a statistical analysis of the distribution of tree nodes in Germany. The result indicates that 4585 trees are actually single trees. (They don't have another tree within 50m). That makes about 15.8 %. Assuming the same rate globally, you'd throw away the information for about 59000 nodes that actually describe a lone and significant tree. Statistics also show that the real significant trees are much older. Average change set id is 3.1M as opposed to 19.2M on the badly tagged generic trees. Your chances are much better that the mappers are still around who did the mass generic tree tagging to fix it. And as those trees are clustered in bunches of up to 2500 at a time, they can be very quickly fixed. So again, the conlusion is: Fix the new nodes, don't destroy significant information on 59000 nodes! bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5504061.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de: I have done a statistical analysis of the distribution of tree nodes in Germany. The result indicates that 4585 trees are actually single trees. (They don't have another tree within 50m). That makes about 15.8 %. Assuming the same rate globally, you'd throw away the information for about 59000 nodes that actually describe a lone and significant tree. I can't see which information you are throwing away. You can do the same analysis you did now and find, which tree has no other tree within 50m (or any other distance you define). If there is another tree, it is not a lone tree. Simple as that, you don't need a special tag for it, but you need all trees mapped. Statistics also show that the real significant trees are much older. interesting. How did you check this? Are these trees inside forests? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On 9/6/10 2:55 PM, NopMap wrote: That is not a solution. For 4 years people have done valid tagging, using the definition in the wiki for significant trees. If you change the meaning, no denotation=landmark will magically appear there, so the information gets lost. The mappers who originally contributed them have no idea that you changed the meaning on them, so nothing will happen to fix the damage. i think the situation is that the information is already lost. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Homeless Shelter
Thanks for all the good feedback. I just got back from a long-weekend away and I plan to go through the comments and respond first thing tomorrow morning. Sean On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 08:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/9/4 Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com: a key 'social' does work for homeless_shelter, are there any other values (that are in other keys) that would fit with this social key? bingo_hall I don't know these well, but I thought they would more belong to leisure? ... community_center (with a tagging war lol) +1 ... beer_garden ... pub to discuss tagging wars. -1, I'd keep them where they are. 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
