Re: [Tagging] Dangerous waterways tagging
On 24 July 2018 at 06:48, François Lacombe wrote: > > Then what could be the best way to tag it? > No existing tag sounds suitable for this, even the idea of a single > "permanence" key. > I think intermittent would still be correct, because the water is only sometimes there? Saw reference to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank#Varying_water_level_river which also suggests use of a flood_prone=yes tag, which may also work, possibly together with a max_depth tag? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:08, Jmapb wrote: > > woke up to the conclusion that the attached/detached/semi-detached > distinction is not a great use of the building tag. As mentioned by André, we > can literally see on the map if these house footprints are attached via > shared party wall. it is not possible to do it reliably for terraced houses, because they are not only characterized by being attached. > So there's really no need to describe the attached-ness using the building > tag. So the building tag is freed up to describe the characteristic > style of the building -- hut, shed, bungalow, house, apartments, villa, > static_caravan if you agree with the list above it seems more consistent not to drop detached in favor of residential; detached, semi-detached and terraced are all subtypes of houses, there is some overlap with bungalows and villas. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > How about building=residential to replace house/terrace/detached? > > > -1, there are several established tags for residential buildings in osm, > e.g. apartments, The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them. We have many tags for residential buildings and the result is that they're used inconsistently. > and as the example shows, it isn’t possible to reliably identify terraced > houses just by analyzing the geometry, so > why would we want to remove the details? If someone is only interested in > a detail level like “residential”, they won’t have to care about the > differences in meaning and can normalize them all locally to residential. > That's what we do with some other types of buildings. We separate form from function. We have industrial buildings and then specify the industry. We can have building=bungalow but that is redundant when it just means building:levels=1. We can have building=detached, building=semi, building=house with most people using them incorrectly or inconsistently or we can have building=residential and let the footprint indicate the type. Or, if you insist, add residential=* where clarification is desirable. We've just had a lot of people say "The wiki says this should be building=detached but I always use building=house." That indicates the tags don't map well to how people actually think. It also means that you can't rely on the value used indicating what it is meant to. We can carry on with the current muddle or we can try to do better. You vote muddle. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > How about building=residential to replace house/terrace/detached? -1, there are several established tags for residential buildings in osm, e.g. apartments, and as the example shows, it isn’t possible to reliably identify terraced houses just by analyzing the geometry, so why would we want to remove the details? If someone is only interested in a detail level like “residential”, they won’t have to care about the differences in meaning and can normalize them all locally to residential. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:02, Colin Smale wrote: > > The use of house=terrace may be justified for a transitional situation where > a whole terrace has been mapped as a single building and not yet split into > individual units. When it is split, it is just a house - the geometry (shared > nodes) will show that it connects to the adjacent properties and allow you to > derive that it is terraced. You cannot see from the footprint geometry alone if these are terraced houses, because not every attached houses are terraced houses, they are expected to be “a series” (same or similar type, same style, architect, etc.) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Dangerous waterways tagging
Hi, As the discussion about intermittent/seasonal/... on waterways goes on, there is another thing to map: how waterways banks can be dangerous due to sudden rise or lower water level. It is actually related to what we intend to map with intermittent or seasonal. For example in France, we often find such warning signs: https://imgur.com/a/QUxuPem Precise sections of streams or rivers are marked as dangerous even in good weather. It is stronger than simple intermittence or seasonality because of industrial activities running upstream (mainly hydroelectric power generation or dam operation). Nevertheless, I didn't find any global database or public information displaying data about such particular flooding situations. OSM can be one of this kind. Here is a public display next to a power plant in French Alps (with a nice piece of OSM without attribution) https://imgur.com/a/TLhZcgE Then what could be the best way to tag it? No existing tag sounds suitable for this, even the idea of a single "permanence" key. All the best François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
On 7/23/2018 11:02 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Let's stop conflating concepts and worrying about what things are "called", and describe indisputable characteristics of objects, in this case how many floors and how/whether the dwelling is connected to its neighbours. The use of house=terrace may be justified for a transitional situation where a whole terrace has been mapped as a single building and not yet split into individual units. When it is split, it is just a house - the geometry (shared nodes) will show that it connects to the adjacent properties and allow you to derive that it is terraced. Had a good sleep in my single-storey building=shed last night, lulled to sleep by rain on the roof, and woke up to the conclusion that the attached/detached/semi-detached distinction is not a great use of the building tag. As mentioned by André, we can literally see on the map if these house footprints are attached via shared party wall. So there's really no need to describe the attached-ness using the building tag. For number of floors, we have building:levels=*. So the building tag is freed up to describe the characteristic style of the building -- hut, shed, bungalow, house, apartments, villa, static_caravan -- or just residential or yes -- and if we want to know how attached it is or isn't, look at the footprint. (Ignoring for the moment the fact that buildings can also be mapped as footprint-less nodes.) I still see the value of building=terrace for using a single building way to map an entire row. Especially for those that really are physically constructed as single buildings. And I could also see the case for building=duplex (though it's not currently endorsed by the wiki) because many duplexes are top/bottom, and even in side-by-side duplexes it's not always easy for a mapper to see where the party wall lies in order to divide the footprint into two houses. (Currently I'd just tag these building=residential. Wiki-abiding, and it avoids the march towards triplex, quadplex, etc.) J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses there could be a > cultural interest in something like terraced bungalows and there is also an > energetic advantage from reducing external walls, but overall there’s > little danger this will become a widespread concept for housing. > Actually, it's already widespread in the UK. An increasing percentage of the population are single people rather than members of families. There is increasing pressure from government to build "social housing" (cheap housing that people can actually afford to live in). It doesn't just have the advantage of better energy efficiency, it also allows more residences to be built on a plot of land, maximizing profit for the builder. Yes, a terraced "two up, two down" would allow even more residences on the same side plot, but those have stairs and regulations concerning disabilities mean the costs of equipping those with lifts would outweigh the savings. I live in a "terraced bungalow." The builder (who is also my landlord) has built many such across the county and neighbouring counties. I wouldn't describe it as a terraced bungalow, though. I'd not heard the phrase until this thread started, and I doubt many people not reading this thread would recognize (or even understand) the phrase. But they're becoming very common amongst new build. To add even more exceptions to this, I recently mapped two buildings that were originally chapels when built one or two hundred years ago (and had the traditional appearance of chapels). Both had been deconsecrated and converted into two residences. So building=chapel overall but building=house twice over. This whole thing is getting rather messy. That's because the real world is messy. What about a detached house that has been converted into several flats? As somebody else said, building=terrace is useful for quick mapping with a number range, not individual residences but is not really useful (or sensible) for mapping individual residences in a terrace. Visual inspection of the map tells you if a building is detached, semi-detached or part of a terrace; there's no need for deeper tagging unless you're a police team planning on releasing hostages by breaking down walls between residences in a terrace (so then you'd need a routeing algorithm, if you were too stupid to just look at the map). How about building=residential to replace house/terrace/detached? And maybe replace bungalow too, because building:levels=1 already encompasses that case. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
Martin, you might not agree with some of the past architectural choices
in the UK, but the point is that a "single-floor dwelling" (i.e. ground
floor only) is a called a bungalow, and this can exist in many forms. It
can be detached, terraced, end-of-terrace or semi-detached. The last two
can be only subtly different - if there is a terraced house in the
middle, you would call it end-of-terrace and not semi-detached; if there
are only two dwellings joined together, they are semi-detached. All as
per (British) English usage of course. An end-of-terrace house may also
have an identical layout to the terraced house next door - it might not
have any extra windows or land at the side.
There are also houses which are joined only at the first floor level (or
possibly some other combination of levels), which I learnt to call
link-detached.
The point is that whether a dwelling is a bungalow or not, is orthogonal
to whether it is {detached, semi-detached, terraced, end-of-terrace}. It
is perfectly possible for a semi-detached bungalow to be attached to a
semi-detached non-bungalow.
So "bungalow" as an attribute is actually just an alias for something
like "floors=1" where the floor is the ground floor.
The RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) ought to know:
http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/glossary/residential-property-types-definitions/
Let's stop conflating concepts and worrying about what things are
"called", and describe indisputable characteristics of objects, in this
case how many floors and how/whether the dwelling is connected to its
neighbours. The use of house=terrace may be justified for a transitional
situation where a whole terrace has been mapped as a single building and
not yet split into individual units. When it is split, it is just a
house - the geometry (shared nodes) will show that it connects to the
adjacent properties and allow you to derive that it is terraced.
To help you visualise what terraced bungalows look like, here's an
example:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kinsaley_Lane_Terraced_Bungalows_-_geograph.org.uk_-_530719.jpg
Let's ban house=bungalow. It's a house because it is intended for people
to live in it.
By the way, the Dutch national register of buildings allows for a
complex mapping of dwelling units to physical buildings. A dwelling,
which has an address, may be composed of multiple building units (e.g. a
granny flat or outbuilding can be part of the same dwelling). A building
may be composed of multiple building units (e.g. apartments). Not all
buildings are part of a dwelling unit, and not all man-made
constructions are buildings. How do we link parts of a dwelling together
in OSM? I guess a relation with type=house containing the parts as
building=house?
On 2018-07-23 15:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 23. Jul 2018, at 14:13, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> The owner would say he lived in a bungalow. No stairs, ground floor only.
>
>> I don't think "terraced bungalow" exists as a phrase, but as a concept it
>> certainly does.
>
> it does not seem to be a very promising concept though. Terraced houses are
> usually seen as a compromise for people who want an independent house, but
> cannot afford a detached one. Terraced houses are cheaper because they need
> less ground (i.e. you can usually find them where the ground is expensive to
> buy), expensive ground means you'll try to use it intensively, which is
> contradicting the bungalow concept.
> Terraced houses are almost always narrow, deep and relatively high.
>
> Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses there could be a
> cultural interest in something like terraced bungalows and there is also an
> energetic advantage from reducing external walls, but overall there's little
> danger this will become a widespread concept for housing.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2018, at 14:13, Colin Smale wrote: > > The owner would say he lived in a bungalow. No stairs, ground floor only. > I don't think "terraced bungalow" exists as a phrase, but as a concept it > certainly does. it does not seem to be a very promising concept though. Terraced houses are usually seen as a compromise for people who want an independent house, but cannot afford a detached one. Terraced houses are cheaper because they need less ground (i.e. you can usually find them where the ground is expensive to buy), expensive ground means you’ll try to use it intensively, which is contradicting the bungalow concept. Terraced houses are almost always narrow, deep and relatively high. Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses there could be a cultural interest in something like terraced bungalows and there is also an energetic advantage from reducing external walls, but overall there’s little danger this will become a widespread concept for housing. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
The owner would say he lived in a bungalow. No stairs, ground floor only. I don't think "terraced bungalow" exists as a phrase, but as a concept it certainly does. On 23 July 2018 10:44:30 CEST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >2018-07-23 6:17 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > >> >> In British English a bungalow is a single storey dwelling, I. E. It >refers >> to the vertical axis. Nothing is implied about its juxtaposition. >There are >> also terraced bungalows. > > > >are "terraced bungalows" really part of the natural language, or is >this >maybe an advertising euphemism created by the real estate industry? > >Cheers, >Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Mike H <1jg...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems that detached is supposed to be a more detailed value than house. > I went through as many house type values for building as I could find of > taginfo, and put them into a table quite a few of them look to be > duplicates/typos. I've attached that table to this email. I used the parent > column there to list the more general option above the current row, or if > the value was a duplicate I added that in there. > > I also came up with this tree of values as best as I could (sorted by > usage): > > -+yes > +-+residential >+-+house > +detached > +terrace > +static_caravan > +semidetached_house > +manor > +villa > Also houseboat. Which can also be non-residential, even if the wiki doesn't say it. There's an Indian restaurant near me on a converted boat (sometimes you have to map with the tags you have, not the tags you want, as Donald Rumsfeld didn't quite say). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
2018-07-23 6:17 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > > In British English a bungalow is a single storey dwelling, I. E. It refers > to the vertical axis. Nothing is implied about its juxtaposition. There are > also terraced bungalows. are "terraced bungalows" really part of the natural language, or is this maybe an advertising euphemism created by the real estate industry? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
2018-07-23 3:09 GMT+02:00 Jmapb : > > That's about the size of it. People will most likely continue tagging > freestanding houses as "house" because, hey, it's a house. Luckily, it's > not incorrect. I can imagine a theoretical mapper wanting to retag them as > "detached" instead, and I'd tell that mapper: "Nah. Let those houses be. > They're fine." > yes, houses are residential buildings, can be freestanding (detached) but do not have to. Currently the wiki says houses are usually single household buildings, I am not sure I would agree with this. I have been tagging houses in historic villages as houses that usually have 2 floors, generally with independent entrances from outside (individual doors from the street, upper floors via outside stairs), these are not apartment buildings, but neither are they one-unit single family buildings. The generic "house" from my understanding does apply. examples: https://www.settemuse.it/viaggi_italia_lazio/VT_calcata/foto_calcata_040.JPG https://www.settemuse.it/viaggi_italia_lazio/VT_calcata/foto_calcata_056.JPG https://www.settemuse.it/viaggi_italia_lazio/VT_calcata/foto_calcata_047.JPG > > Oh, and then there are bungalows and cottages, which count as houses in > OSM, so are tagged as > building=detached. > > > Nb, the wiki does offer building=bungalow, and there are nearly 50k of > them out there. I'd consider bungalow a special subset of detached (which > is a special subset of house, etc.) > +1 Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2018, at 01:27, André Pirard wrote: > > So, we have building=house and building=yes at least. > If we start using building=detached we no longer know if it's a house or a > plain building, do we? > So, detached is not a type of building but an attribute of it. I agree „detached“ is not a very nice tag, because it is mostly used as a short form of „detached_house“ but this is not obvious for non-native speakers. I don’t agree detached house isn’t a type of building. It is a residential building, usually for one family, without touching neighbouring buildings (detached building), and with a garden around it (usually). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
