Re: [Tagging] "Living street" in Japan

[tomoya muramoto]

OK I will send a message to him.
muramoto
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

By default baselines match with mean low water spring, meanwhile 
natural=coastline is tagged at mean high water spring.


It would be good define some rules related to maritime boundaries don't 
agree with UNCLOS, .e.g. peruvian boundary extends up 200 miles away the 
coastline.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

I don't know the Australian baseline, this is only an example. Sometimes 
the countries define a straight baseline that close a bay. Of course, 
Andrew have the freedoom to use, e.g. the tag description=* to do the 
mentioned difference.


> No, it is not a political issue, the position of the baseline is not 
in doubt here. If Andrew wants to indicate the sheltered nature of the 
coast in some way via supplemental tags that seems perfectly fine - as 
long as these tags are documented and verifiable of course.
> In any case tagging the bay as natural=bay will already indicate this 
part of the coastline to be of special nature.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana <
jptolosanz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too
> arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use
> boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding internal waters from
> the open ocean, according of laws of the country. Check the article
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_waters
>

Speaking of maritime boundaries and bays and estuaries, the Rio de la Plata
estuary between Argentina and Uruguay is currently modeled in OSM as
*inside* the coastline. If you look at the OSM default carto layer at zoom
5 and lower, where inland waterbodies are not rendered, Montevideo and
Buenos Aires appear to be landlocked inland cities, which doesn't look
right.[1] (See the attached image.) The coastline there follows the UNCLOS
claimed baseline which isn't right because UNCLOS allows countries to
specify a baseline separate from the coastline that encloses parts of the
sea/ocean (thereby making those parts internal waters of the country) when
it meets certain geometric conditions. I think the coastline between
Argentina and Uruguay should include most of the Rio.

If we follow the practice of mapping the coastline along the claimed
baseline like in the Rio de la Plata elsewhere in the world, then the Gulf
of Sidra in Libya[1] would be considered as an inland waterbody, which does
not make sense. Note that the United States have protested as excessive
both the claimed baseline of Libya in the Gulf of Sidra (this resulted in
the Gulf of Sidra incident in 1981) and the joint claimed baseline of
Argentina and Uruguay in the Rio de la Plata.

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/-35.335/-56.382
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=5/31.961/17.249
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Living street" in Japan

[John Willis]

> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:57 PM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> 
> Hi, Javbw
> 
> >is this some systemic regional tagging change that is not documented? 
> There is no such agreement in Japanese community, AFAIK.
> So I think it's error of that mapper.

Thanks.  If you could message the user in (better) Japanese, that would be 
helpful. My simple Japanese probably sounded wrong. 

I found these living streets randomly around north Kanto. They are all from the 
same mapper. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.3896/139.3564


> Wiki:ja says "there is no 'living street' category in Japan" and "Tag such 
> street as highway=residential+maxspeed=20or30"
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:highway%3Dliving_street
> 
> I would make clear wiki document that living street should not be applied in 
> Japan,
> and I will check the translation of iD and JOSM.

Thanks. I will make an addition to the Japan Tagging page next week with the 
"living Street" crossed out. 

Thanks for your help! 

Javbw. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 29 March 2017, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana wrote:
> An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too
> arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. [...]

No, it is not a political issue, the position of the baseline is not in 
doubt here.  If Andrew wants to indicate the sheltered nature of the 
coast in some way via supplemental tags that seems perfectly fine - as 
long as these tags are documented and verifiable of course.

In any case tagging the bay as natural=bay will already indicate this 
part of the coastline to be of special nature.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana]

An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too 
arbitrary as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use 
boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding internal waters 
from the open ocean, according of laws of the country. Check the article 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_waters


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stećci - Bosnian medieval tombstones

[Michal Fabík]

On 29.3.2017 01:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:28, Michal Fabík  wrote:

historic=tombstone + tombstone=stećak

+ probably the most accurate
- not well established (just one occurrence of historic=tombstone according to 
taginfo.osm.org)
- not sure whether all of them are tombstones



I would probably use this one together with historic:civilization


I got in touch with an archaeologist in Bosnia and he confirmed that all 
the stećci were made as tombstones, so it looks like this approach could 
work. He also said that there's been a documented centuries-old practice 
of moving the stećaks away from their original site (i.e. the grave), 
often to be used as "architectural elements" (he didn't elaborate on 
what exactly that means). It would probably make sense to use something 
like "moved=yes", "original_location=no", "grave=no" etc. to account for 
this. As for historic:civilization=*, there's no general consensus among 
historians as to what the civilization in question should be called. In 
any case, as long as the tombstone is specifically tagged as stećak (or 
stecak?), I think the tag isn't really necessary because all the stećci 
were made by the same civilization.



Just to mention it: there is also a tomb key, but maybe the Stećci aren't tombs.


I certainly wouldn't call them tombs, they're just graves (i.e. holes in 
the ground) with very large gravestones covering them. There is no built 
structure (like a burial chamber or similar) underneath the stećak.



for necropolis there is a site_type for archaeological_site


I know this, only I was a little worried about the accuracy of such 
tagging. A typical stećak "necropolis" looks like this: 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Stecci_-_na_Blidinji_je_nekolik_skupin_techto_nahrobku_z_14..jpg 
- quite different from what the Wiki says about site_type=necropolis 
(and from the picutre there). I was thinking about something along the 
lines of site_type=burial_ground.


Regards,

--
Michal

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29 Mar 2017, at 14:00, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> I'd also like to consider how to tag rias, so we can differentiate
> between a ria and the open ocean.


the tag is natural=ria


cheers,
Martin 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Living street" in Japan

[tomoya muramoto]

Hi, Javbw

>is this some systemic regional tagging change that is not documented?
There is no such agreement in Japanese community, AFAIK.
So I think it's error of that mapper.

Wiki:ja says "there is no 'living street' category in Japan" and "Tag such
street as highway=residential+maxspeed=20or30"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:highway%3Dliving_street

I would make clear wiki document that living street should not be applied
in Japan,
and I will check the translation of iD and JOSM.

muramoto
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> sent from a phone
>
>> On 29 Mar 2017, at 01:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>> 
>>  a name for a particular location, generally known to the inhabitants
>>  of surrounding areas, and whose naming significant is other than as a
>>  name for a population center, such that one of the settlement
>>  hierarchy terms is not appropriate
>
> I'm generally in agreement with your post, but the part "generally
> known to the inhabitants of surrounding areas" might be too
> exclusive. I would be fine with toponyms that are only known to 10-20%
> (for example), e.g. a few old people, while I would read "generally"
> as >50-70%

That's totally fine with me.  I wasn't really thinking about exactly
what "generally" means, but you are right.

I agree that if the people who know the history best think a name is
appropriate, that's what counts, even if it's only some fraction of the
elders, the map/geo nerds, and members of the historical society.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29 Mar 2017, at 01:39, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
>  a name for a particular location, generally known to the inhabitants
>  of surrounding areas, and whose naming significant is other than as a
>  name for a population center, such that one of the settlement
>  hierarchy terms is not appropriate



I'm generally in agreement with your post, but the part "generally known to the 
inhabitants of surrounding areas" might be too exclusive. I would be fine with 
toponyms that are only known to 10-20% (for example), e.g. a few old people, 
while I would read "generally" as >50-70%

There might also be different toponyms that already have dedicated tags, 
besides settlements and dwellings.


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

[Andrew Harvey]

I've learned a lot from the comments here, based on others comments I
think the solution to my issue is to use a tag like like
coastline=pelagic (from wikipedia "A pelagic coast refers to a coast
which fronts the open ocean, as opposed to a more sheltered coast in a
gulf or bay.") on the oceanic coastline because I'd like separation of
these shorelines within these bays and the coastline facing the open
ocean.

I'd also like to consider how to tag rias, so we can differentiate
between a ria and the open ocean.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Living street" in Japan

[Andrew Errington]

I have a feeling that "living street" is being interpreted as "a street
that people live on", which really should be "residential".  Perhaps you
could ask the mapper for the reason behind the edits, and ask someone to
translate the "living street" wiki page to indicate clearly what it means
(in Japanese) and what it doesn't mean.

Best wishes,

Andrew

On Mar 29, 2017 3:49 PM, "John Willis"  wrote:

As I have been coming back to tagging recently, I noticed a lot of rural
residential/alley/driveway/track roads being mapped as a “living street” in
my region of Japan.

A prolific editor (2000+ edits) is one of the mappers doing it, so I Im
unsure about what is going on.

As far as I know, “living street” is a legal definition for some roads
found in Europe, and not for Japan.

The english/Japanese “Japan Tagging” page offers no suggestion for using
Living Street.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging

Is this an error of a single user, or is this some systemic regional
tagging change that is not documented?

either way, there is some corrections to be made.

Javbw.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] "Living street" in Japan

[John Willis]

As I have been coming back to tagging recently, I noticed a lot of rural 
residential/alley/driveway/track roads being mapped as a “living street” in my 
region of Japan. 

A prolific editor (2000+ edits) is one of the mappers doing it, so I Im unsure 
about what is going on.  

As far as I know, “living street” is a legal definition for some roads found in 
Europe, and not for Japan. 

The english/Japanese “Japan Tagging” page offers no suggestion for using Living 
Street.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Japan_tagging 


Is this an error of a single user, or is this some systemic regional tagging 
change that is not documented? 

either way, there is some corrections to be made. 

Javbw. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging