Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects
Hi Serge, On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de wrote: I've created a proposal for imagery objects and other objects that are only used internaly in osm. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/osm Aerial Imagery: --- With the new Bing images many new relations have been created that contain boundaries of hires images. I think it would be cool to have a uniq tagging for such objects. Examples without unified tagging: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1291579 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/396170 These are features of Bing, not of the earth. They belong with the Bing dataset, or else another dataset which collects metadata about imagery, but I don't think it belongs in OSM. The data is already in the osm database. I'm just proposing to add uniq tags to make it easier to work with them. Robert Naylor postet a the link to the bing coverage with lots of ways/areas of hires bing maps. I've no opinion whether the data should be in the database or not. Worksets, Experimental Tagging, ... - Sometimes mappers are creating objects with experimental tagging or collections of objects for personal use. They can do that on a dev server. Mappers that do QA work sometimes delete or change that objects. They shouldn't be doing QA work on the production dataset. QA work is only required in the production dataset. Nobody cares of the data in the dev server. These messages can only be read by human mappers, not by bots. To make it easier for the QA mapper, the bots and the mappers that are working on new things it would be nice to have a uniq tagging for such objects. The proposed tags are: osm=experimental; osm=test; osm=temporary; osm=workset Comments and additional ideas are welcome. We have a mechanism for people to experiment with; that's the dev server. Yes, but some users are adding experimental/new stuff to the osm database. I've just proposed to add tags to make it obvious. In the proposal, I wrote too, that the mappers are responsible to delete the stuff as soon as it's no longer needed. If you're saying that's not sufficient, I'd like to hear why and what we can/should be providing to aid mappers's experimentation without effecting our production dataset. Sorry, I don't know how to tell _all_ mappers to use the dev server for experiments. If you like to avoid test/experimental/new stuff in the production database, you have to restrict the commits to known/official tags. Regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects
Hi Robert, On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Robert Naylor wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:08:37 -, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de Examples without unified tagging: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1291579 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/396170 These are features of Bing, not of the earth. They belong with the Bing dataset, or else another dataset which collects metadata about imagery, but I don't think it belongs in OSM. Also see top of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage Please use this page for recording coverage. Do not use boundary relations. Large, detailed relations can be exceptionally slow to retrieve and cause very high server load, especially when accessible via an OpenLayers slippymap client. Significant problems have already been caused by people trying to map coverage with a relation, and then posting the relation URL. Just a short note: With proper tags on the areas/ways you could generate the whole wiki page out of the osm data. Regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects
On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Robert Naylor rob...@pobice.co.uk wrote: Also see top of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage Please use this page for recording coverage. Do not use boundary relations. Large, detailed relations can be exceptionally slow to retrieve and cause very high server load, especially when accessible via an OpenLayers slippymap client. Significant problems have already been caused by people trying to map coverage with a relation, and then posting the relation URL. I think the best proposal we can do is to delete such boundaries from OSM. That's what I will do If I find one in my working area. If that's your serious opinion, you can start deleting the ways/relations now. Robert postet the link to the data. Regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bus depot?
2010/12/16 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net: On 12/15/10 5:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Dave F.dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Personally I'd go for landuse=bus_depot. but I'm open to suggestions. So landuse=* is going to be the new dumping ground? :) I had thought landuse=* was for general categories, like there is industrial activity in this area without picking out a particular item. Could we break out into a new top level tag: transport=depot, depot=bus? (Because presumably we also want tram depots, etc etc.) transportation departments have depots for highway maintenence school districts have bus depots there are commercial bus depots as well, and public transit bus depots. maybe transport is ok, but let's make sure we enumerate the choices so we're reasonably complete. That was our reasoning, in fact. On talk-it we also discussed depot areas where not only vehicles are stored; for example there may be maintenance buildings or other various pieces of equipment. I'm announcing the proposal ASAP, so we can discuss it there. richard Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
Hi everyone, here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag. Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm leaving the draft open for a while, so that more experienced users can review it and point faults with the proposal itself. Also, because I'm not familiar with the detailed mechanics of the process, I would like assistance as to timeframes and announces to do. Thanks, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Depot ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
2010/12/16 Gleb Smirnoff gleb...@glebius.int.ru: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:33:25PM +0100, Simone Saviolo wrote: S here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag. S S Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm S leaving the draft open for a while, so that more experienced users can S review it and point faults with the proposal itself. Also, because I'm S not familiar with the detailed mechanics of the process, I would like S assistance as to timeframes and announces to do. S S [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Depot Can't that be a subclass of industrial landuse? landuse=industrial industrial=depot The benefits would be that objects of this class will instantly be supported by all renderers and converters, including those that don't track new and yet rare map features. As I said, this is intended to describe *any* kind of depot. It may be used for industrial activities, for transport services, or even by retail sellers (for example, storage of goods). While the most common use is bus depots, which may fall under the transport=* key, I think this would somehow limit the flexibility of the concept. I'm aware that making it a subtype would help renderers, but think of bus depots: they're not really transport features. Moreover, if the renderer ignores the subtag there is still little point in detailing it. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.comwrote: Why landuse=depot ? I don't like to use amenity for everything but it's very closed to the already existing amenity=parking which is not landuse=parking Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
2010/12/16 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: Why landuse=depot ? I don't like to use amenity for everything but it's very closed to the already existing amenity=parking which is not landuse=parking It is not only about reserved parking lots for buses or vehicles. A parking has no maintenance equipment; depots may even have whole buildings designed for maintenance, storage or security. Also, the depot may just be a storage area. We proposed the use of landuse because it really seems that simple: what is the land used for? to deposit things, such as vehicles or goods, and, in general, to take care of them. In this sense, it may even include storage buildings - there's no need for a depot to be an open-roofed parking lot. Pieren Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
On 12/16/10 10:36 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2010/12/16 Pierenpier...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Simone Saviolosimone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: Why landuse=depot ? I don't like to use amenity for everything but it's very closed to the already existing amenity=parking which is not landuse=parking It is not only about reserved parking lots for buses or vehicles. A parking has no maintenance equipment; depots may even have whole buildings designed for maintenance, storage or security. Also, the depot may just be a storage area. depots around here frequently include vehicle equipment repair facilities and highway depots will usually have storage for gravel and salt (or other de-icing agents), as well as storage for truck attachments that are for seasonal usage (e.g. plows and salt distribution devices get put on town vehicles for winter use only.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
Seems a very broadly defined tag. I passed a depot d'ordures the other day in France. Does anybody have a better idea for such crap? - L On 16 Dec 2010, at 13:33, Simone Saviolo wrote: Hi everyone, here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag. Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm leaving the draft open for a while, so that more experienced users can review it and point faults with the proposal itself. Also, because I'm not familiar with the detailed mechanics of the process, I would like assistance as to timeframes and announces to do. Thanks, Simone [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Depot ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Laurence Penney l...@lorp.org wrote: Seems a very broadly defined tag. I passed a depot d'ordures the other day in France. Does anybody have a better idea for such crap? Not sure if that was a joke, but the proposal here is clearly around places where commercial or public vehicles are stored overnight. Maybe a more explicit word would help: industrial=vehicle_storage Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot
Depot d'ordures sounds like a place for stockpiling manure. I suppose you could have such, around a stockyard complex or a group of stables, but it seems more likely to have been a joke. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot From :mailto:stevag...@gmail.com Date :Thu Dec 16 22:26:08 America/Chicago 2010 On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Laurence Penney l...@lorp.org wrote: Seems a very broadly defined tag. I passed a depot d'ordures the other day in France. Does anybody have a better idea for such crap? Not sure if that was a joke, but the proposal here is clearly around places where commercial or public vehicles are stored overnight. Maybe a more explicit word would help: industrial=vehicle_storage Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- 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
