Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
2011/8/31 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: I'm a city dweller. We have some (and will soon have some very prominent) rooftop parks. That's fine, you can tag them with leisure=park (or maybe leisure=garden, and garden:type) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
On 30/08/2011 12:10, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 8/30/2011 6:40 AM, Dave F. wrote: You appear to be confusing the landuse tag with the boundary tag. No. You appear to be disagreeing with my use of the boundary tag. That as well. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
First off, I like this proposal too and think it's a long time coming. But, some references made me go and read the place=suburb wiki page again, and that tag seems very similar, so can that distinction be clarified? That is, why would one choose suburb over city/town/village or neighbourhood? The distinctive thing about suburb as far as I can tell is that it's an area located outside a city center, and this distinction is pretty much self-evident from the map itself. Maybe there's a particular country or culture where suburb makes more sense. Thanks, Brad On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/8/31 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 31/08/2011 02:04, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I encourage use of this type of tag /primarily/ on /nodes/. The boundaries in most case are far too fluid to use this on areas. I tend to agree with Bryce. Quite often in the UK there are disagreements where suburbs/neighbourhoods boundaries occur. There's also boundary creep when residents can address their property as being in an adjacent area when it's perceived to be a bit posher. The same situations occur in the USA. well, the proposal states that mapping as a node is fine. From a data user point of view I'd prefer areas because they allow to estimate the size (even if the boundaries might be fluid and not exact), but it's the mappers that decide which representation is the best. Neighborhood names can also shift over time. sure, everything changes. That's also one of the strengths of OSM (to cope with that). My neighborhood shows up on maps as Murray Heights, probably dating back to the original real-estate development in the 1950's. In the 19 years I have lived here, I have never heard anyone call it by that name, but I have heard it referred to by the names of the two larger, adjacent neighborhoods. so I guess in OSM your neighbourhood will get a different name then on maps. 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] RFC: place=neighbourhood
2011/8/31 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: First off, I like this proposal too and think it's a long time coming. But, some references made me go and read the place=suburb wiki page again, and that tag seems very similar, so can that distinction be clarified? That is, why would one choose suburb over city/town/village or neighbourhood? The distinctive thing about suburb as far as I can tell is that it's an area located outside a city center, and this distinction is pretty much self-evident from the map itself. Maybe there's a particular country or culture where suburb makes more sense. No, suburb is actually not necessarily outside the city (in OSM), it is used for central districts as well. The difference between suburb and neighbourhood is size. The size of several neighbourhoods make up one suburb (=quarter, district, ...), e.g. in New York this would be Queens, Manhatten, Brooklyn (all suburbs in OSM terminology). I am well aware that suburb in language does mean something else. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
On 8/31/2011 8:35 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I thought the issue was that there are two distinct concepts: boundaries, where there is some legal distinction and a precise edge place names, which have more or less indistinct boundaries. In my area, towns have boundaries, and there are village centers that have names like West Acton which have as far as I know no actual boundaries and no legal standing. There's a third possibility - the unincorporated suburb or exurb that nevertheless has a defined boundary, since it's planned or controlled by one company. I think Columbia, Maryland is this way; closer to me is The Villages, a huge retirement community that is its own Micropolitan Statistical Area (and where our governor goes when he needs tea bags). In New England, don't you have the concept of a 'thickly settled' area where lower speed limits apply? Could this be used to form boundaries of village centers? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
2011/8/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: I thought the issue was that there are two distinct concepts: boundaries, where there is some legal distinction and a precise edge +1 place names, which have more or less indistinct boundaries. just because they have no legal status does not mean there aren't distinct limits. Usually / often there are. There can be natural limits (cliffs, rivers, lakes, woods, ...) and man_made limits (big streets and motorways, railways, ...), the limits might also be soft or social / cultural / ethnic / economic / structural / typological / historic, ... In my area, towns have boundaries, and there are village centers that have names like West Acton which have as far as I know no actual boundaries and no legal standing. Try to analyze it. Where might West Acton end? Maybe you can come to a conclusion, it might also remain unclear for the moment where exactly it ends (try to look for limits like the above examples) but it will be clear for some parts that they definitely do form a part of West Acton. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2011-08-30 17:01 +0200]: Waiting for comments especially for the aspect, that you could apply this tag to all kind of settlement fractions including commercial and industrial (and of course mixed) areas. I guess the wording neighbourhood does suggest other. The proposed semantics exactly match a number of areas I've mapped in my area, which makes me happy with it. (e.g. a planned community that is part of an unincorporated area (that I've tagged place=village, I believe) where the planned community comprises several separate, named residential areas plus a couple recreation areas and a retail area.) -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I object to doing things that computers can do. -- Olin Shivers --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Use of place=suburb (was Re: RFC: place=neighbourhood)
* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2011-08-31 14:33 +0200]: No, suburb is actually not necessarily outside the city (in OSM), it is used for central districts as well. I've often been confused by the suburb tag and maybe someone can clear it up for me. The tags place=city, place=town, place=village, and place=hamlet are mutually exclusive; if a spot is in a place=village, then it's not in an adjacent place=town. It seems to be that place=suburb is regarded as hierarchically below place=city (at least); if a spot is in a place=suburb, it could also be in a place=city. Is that a correct understanding of the tag's usage? Could the proposed place=neighbourhood tag within a place=town or place=village be analogous to place=suburb within a place=city? (Assuming I'm correct here, I guess place=neighbourhood would strictly be hierarchically below place=suburb, so a suburb could comprise more than one neighborhood.) -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- dark eat Depends: cook | eat-out. But eat-out is non-free so that's out. And cook Recommends: clean-pans. -- Seen on #debian --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2011-08-31 08:50 -0400]: There's a third possibility - the unincorporated suburb or exurb that nevertheless has a defined boundary, since it's planned or controlled by one company. I think Columbia, Maryland is this way It is. Additionally, Columbia could benefit a lot from the proposed place=neighbourhood tag, because it's composed of several (twelve, I think) separate villages, each of which has its own village center with retail, commercial, and recreational facilities to serve the surrounding residences. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- ⊦:.α,β∈1.⊃:α∩β=Λ.≡.α∪β∈2 -- Theorem 54.43 from _Principia Mathematica_, which proves that 1+1=2 --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] short 2nd RFC for additional barrier values
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 01:38:48PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: please have a glimpse at those additional barrier values and details. The proposal is a little bit older and I will bring this to voting soon: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types I think I would tag some of the examples there more naturally as barrier=fence. For example, barrier=cable_barrier. There seems to be an overlap with fence: are these meant to supercede fence? In passing, barrier=cable_barrier would be better as cable_fence. In general a fence is an extended structure. But I do note the comments on post_and_chain. Thus I think post_and_chain and cable_barrier are varieties of fence. The others seem fine. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of place=suburb (was Re: RFC: place=neighbourhood)
2011/8/31 Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com: * Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2011-08-31 14:33 +0200]: No, suburb is actually not necessarily outside the city (in OSM), it is used for central districts as well. I've often been confused by the suburb tag and maybe someone can clear it up for me. The tags place=city, place=town, place=village, and place=hamlet are mutually exclusive; if a spot is in a place=village, then it's not in an adjacent place=town. +1, that's how I see it as well. I'd also include place=isolated_dwelling to this list. It seems to be that place=suburb is regarded as hierarchically below place=city (at least); if a spot is in a place=suburb, it could also be in a place=city. yes, I'd say it has to be part of some bigger entity (city, town, maybe even village). Could the proposed place=neighbourhood tag within a place=town or place=village be analogous to place=suburb within a place=city? yes, and it could also be a place within a suburb. (Assuming I'm correct here, I guess place=neighbourhood would strictly be hierarchically below place=suburb, so a suburb could comprise more than one neighborhood.) yes, there is some hierarchy, but I am not sure if it is _strictly_ hierarchical (a neighbourhood is smaller, but maybe there can be a neighbourhood whose limits despite being small do not perfectly coincede with those of the suburb hence making it part of 2 suburbs. I am not completely sure about this, maybe it's nonsense, I have no example from the real world that would prove the idea). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes: On 8/31/2011 8:35 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I thought the issue was that there are two distinct concepts: boundaries, where there is some legal distinction and a precise edge place names, which have more or less indistinct boundaries. In my area, towns have boundaries, and there are village centers that have names like West Acton which have as far as I know no actual boundaries and no legal standing. There's a third possibility - the unincorporated suburb or exurb that nevertheless has a defined boundary, since it's planned or controlled by one company. I think Columbia, Maryland is this way; closer to me is The Villages, a huge retirement community that is its own Micropolitan Statistical Area (and where our governor goes when he needs tea bags). I see your point, but there's a difference between a subdivision built by one company (we have them; they are just very much smaller) and a legal boundary. For ours, 10 years later, there is no real basis for calling it a boundary. But I realize land planning is different out of New England than here. In New England, don't you have the concept of a 'thickly settled' area where lower speed limits apply? Could this be used to form boundaries of village centers? We do (I think Massachusetts only), but it's only about (unposted) speed limits, and I don't think it has anything to do with people's notions about villages - just about fighting tickets :-). It is defined (MGL 90-1) as territory contiguous to any way where the dwelling houses are situated at such distances as will average less than two hundred feet between them for a distance of a quarter of a mile or over. One certainly could draw polygons around village centers, stopping where the landuse becomes residential vs village shopping. But that's about landuse, not about a boundary. One could also try to tile a town with polygons that try to capture the notion of do you live in West Acton or South Acton. But that's like asking if Acton is a suburb of Boston or Worcester, not about which which county it is in - so I don't think it makes sense to call that a boundary. It's not like there are rules that apply in one such village center and not the other, or taxes, or different representatives. pgpMZkofJp2cl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2011/8/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: place names, which have more or less indistinct boundaries. just because they have no legal status does not mean there aren't distinct limits. Usually / often there are. There can be natural limits (cliffs, rivers, lakes, woods, ...) and man_made limits (big streets and motorways, railways, ...), the limits might also be soft or social / cultural / ethnic / economic / structural / typological / historic, ... all true, but I'm not sure it matters. In my area, towns have boundaries, and there are village centers that have names like West Acton which have as far as I know no actual boundaries and no legal standing. Try to analyze it. Where might West Acton end? Maybe you can come to a conclusion, it might also remain unclear for the moment where exactly it ends (try to look for limits like the above examples) but it will be clear for some parts that they definitely do form a part of West Acton. The point is that there is no agreed-upon value, and it's of no consequence anyway. Different people can have different opinions, and not be wrong - it's not (in general) possible to answer the question am I in West Acton right now. I have always had the impression that for osm 'boundary' was inappropriate for things like this. Our current node-based place= tagging for things like this (from Populated Places items in the Geographic Names Information System) seems pretty sensible. pgpewunoIfCse.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
Currently, when we search 'quarter' in the wiki, we are redirected to 'suburb': http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Quarterredirect=no Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
On 08/31/2011 10:50 AM, Johan Jönsson wrote: A name to use for tagging stony ground. I am looking for a denomination to use for an area that have little or no vegetation so that the stony ground shows. Could there be a tag describing everything from coarse gravel, boulders, scree to exposed bedrock. There are well established land cover types used by various government data sources: I suggest OSM adopt one. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
On 08/31/2011 02:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/8/31 Bryce Nesbittbry...@obviously.com: I'm a city dweller. We have some (and will soon have some very prominent) rooftop parks. That's fine, you can tag them with leisure=park (or maybe leisure=garden, and garden:type) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification It was a stacking comment. The renderers seem to implicitly stack buildings on top of land use, so it won't created the desired results. The question is: should it be sufficient to imply that a landuse polygon wholly inside of another land use polygon belongs on top? Or is it really necessary to cut a hole in the outer polygon? The existing layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer=x tags are in fact active in mapnik at least: one can stack land use. I feel new mappers will be much more likely to get layers right, rather than relations/multipolygons. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of place=suburb (was Re: RFC: place=neighbourhood)
I've often been confused by the suburb tag and maybe someone can clear it up for me. The tags place=city, place=town, place=village, and place=hamlet are mutually exclusive; if a spot is in a place=village, then it's not in an adjacent place=town. It seems to be that place=suburb is regarded as In US usage, suburb is a word used to refer to a town or perhaps even city which is considered associated with a larger city. There's a notion that most of the people that live in the suburb do so in order to be close to the larger city - and that's really what makes a town a suburb. This is not crisp, and there's no official standing -- there is no right or agreed on truth status for town x is a suburb of city y for at least many x and y. So based on that, there shouldn't be any place=suburb on the map. If suburb has a different meaning elsewhere, and we use that meaning in osm, it will be import to define it clearly and warn US people that their normal interpretation of the word is completely at odds with the osm definition. pgpRf5B8NwXpn.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A name for stony ground?
On 8/31/2011 1:50 PM, Johan Jönsson wrote: A name to use for tagging stony ground. I am looking for a denomination to use for an area that have little or no vegetation so that the stony ground shows. Could there be a tag describing everything from coarse gravel, boulders, scree to exposed bedrock. We have a tag for scree: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscree ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
Brad, Where I live, suburbs are well known, have fixed borders (though they can be and are sometimes adjusted), and are part of your address according to the post office and local government. They are part of a larger residential area, which may be a city or town. Villages don't have multiple suburbs, though by some definitions you could say they have one. Where I live, the local government area has maybe 25-30 suburbs in it. Neighbourhoods are named areas of a larger place that are not suburbs. They are smaller (usually - not always), may not always be in one suburb (they can straddle boundaries), and are names that are not given by official organisations, but are known to locals and may be searched for. For example, I used to live near a housing subdivision on a hundred or so acres of land. It's part of a larger suburb, but all the locals know that area as Oak Grove, which is what the farm and then the housing development was called. The subdivision was finished 15+ years ago, but there's still a sign that says Oak Grove where the main entrance used to be, and people talk about it as a place. It's not an official suburb, and if you addressed a letter to 1 Smith St, Oak Grove I have no idea where it would end up, but it is a place name that would be useful on the map, and to be able to search for. Stephen On 31 August 2011 22:25, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: First off, I like this proposal too and think it's a long time coming. But, some references made me go and read the place=suburb wiki page again, and that tag seems very similar, so can that distinction be clarified? That is, why would one choose suburb over city/town/village or neighbourhood? The distinctive thing about suburb as far as I can tell is that it's an area located outside a city center, and this distinction is pretty much self-evident from the map itself. Maybe there's a particular country or culture where suburb makes more sense. Thanks, Brad ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
On 8/31/2011 9:27 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: Brad, Where I live, suburbs are well known, have fixed borders (though they can be and are sometimes adjusted), and are part of your address according to the post office and local government. In the US, the problem is that address place names depend on which post office serves the area, and there is no freely available accurate data showing this. Many suburban areas outside Orlando city limits have Orlando in the address, and there are some cases where a place in city A uses an address that is not city A. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of place=suburb (was Re: RFC: place=neighbourhood)
In Australia (and New Zealand) a suburb is a named, legally defined area that is part of your address. It is usually (always?) smaller than a local government area (My local government, Moreton Bay Shire, has 25-30 suburbs, could be more). The borders are routinely shown on street maps, or the names shown at the very least. Out in smaller towns and villages, the whole place would be one suburb, and we generally wouldn't use the term, it's usually only used when a place is big enough to have two or more. In large urban areas, a suburb is usually only a few km/miles across, sometimes less. If I talked about the suburbs it would be taken to mean the area outside the city centre, but even the city centre is one or more suburbs. The suburb at the centre of the city of Brisbane is called Brisbane City, for example. It gets confusing, so we generally talk about the CBD (Central Business District) or city centre instead in everyday talk, but it is still a suburb. It makes for hard searching. If I say a place is in Brisbane, I could mean the suburb of the city centre, or the Local Government area City of Brisbane (about 1 million people) or the larger contiguous urban area that Brisbane has grown out to and swallowed up (2 million or so). Stephen On 1 September 2011 08:23, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: In US usage, suburb is a word used to refer to a town or perhaps even city which is considered associated with a larger city. There's a notion that most of the people that live in the suburb do so in order to be close to the larger city - and that's really what makes a town a suburb. This is not crisp, and there's no official standing -- there is no right or agreed on truth status for town x is a suburb of city y for at least many x and y. So based on that, there shouldn't be any place=suburb on the map. If suburb has a different meaning elsewhere, and we use that meaning in osm, it will be import to define it clearly and warn US people that their normal interpretation of the word is completely at odds with the osm definition. ___ 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] RFC: place=neighbourhood
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 21:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 8/31/2011 9:27 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: Brad, Where I live, suburbs are well known, have fixed borders (though they can be and are sometimes adjusted), and are part of your address according to the post office and local government. In the US, the problem is that address place names depend on which post office serves the area, and there is no freely available accurate data showing this. Many suburban areas outside Orlando city limits have Orlando in the address, and there are some cases where a place in city A uses an address that is not city A. Then there's some parts of the country where what the post office considers to be in a particular town is larger than half of the states, which is common in Oklahoma. The tiny historic Talihina, OK post office has the longest mail routes in the continental US, which is about the only thing that's keeping the small, rural Indian reservation post office in the Ouachita Mountains open. Drove mail from Tulsa to that town for a few weeks last summer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 21:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Many suburban areas outside Orlando city limits have Orlando in the address, and there are some cases where a place in city A uses an address that is not city A. i'd argue that this is common. when the US post office sets up routes, they are unconcerned about the administrative boundaries of other governmental bodies. i've long gotten over being surprised at which PO serves which roads. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
