date:20180807


On 08/08/18 12:52, Bill Ricker wrote:



On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:





On 7 August 2018 at 21:56, Daniel Koć mailto:daniel@ko%C4%87.pl>> wrote:


For example nobody would say that a city is a point 



I'm not disagreeing with you, but people do refer to them, &
somehow even measure them, as points!

I'm sure that you have the same situation in your country but an
e.g. is my State capital, Brisbane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane
, which

covers an area of 15842 km2, but is still apparently found exactly
at:
...


Quite so.
To measure distances between towns/cities, some point is needed.
While in theory someone wishing to do so could query for the Admin 
level outline and compute the centroid, when a government entity has 
declared a named point to match the Admin level boundary, it's 
convenient if everyone uses the same one.
If there are countries which for which open-licensed town centers 
aren't available, the local mapping communities can decide what is 
right for them. Postoffice, Town Hall, Centroid, Flagpole, whatever.


The centre of a place is a little cultural, a little of frequent use and 
a little from signs.
In Europe I suspect it is the railway station ..lots of signs pointing 
there.
In rural Australia I would go with the post office, though the pub is 
quite popular. :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Points instead of areas

2018-08-07 Thread Bill Ricker

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On 7 August 2018 at 21:56, Daniel Koć  wrote:
>
>>
>> For example nobody would say that a city is a point
>
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you, but people do refer to them, & somehow even
> measure them, as points!
>
> I'm sure that you have the same situation in your country but an e.g. is
> my State capital, Brisbane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane, which
>
> covers an area of 15842 km2, but is still apparently found exactly at:
> ...
>
>
Quite so.
To measure distances between towns/cities, some point is needed.
While in theory someone wishing to do so could query for the Admin level
outline and compute the centroid, when a government entity has declared a
named point to match the Admin level boundary, it's convenient if everyone
uses the same one.

The old Boston Milestones measured distance from the entrance to town at
Boston Neck; but modern distances usually measure to the center of the
Statehouse Dome.
The US Geodetic Survey includes City, Town, and settlements among their
point data for annotating maps -- this is where the label goes when a USGS
GIS system makes a draft map, until a cartographer moves it for aesthetics.
(I rather suspect the town names on OSM.org renderings come the same way
and not from Admin level boundary ways.)

I don't know if those were imported with Tiger or imported separately, but
i think they're in OSM already.

Should we delete the USGS named town points because they don't match a
verifiable marker on the ground at that location?
No.
Let's not take ourselves so seriously that we reject open-licensed data
freely given.
The mapping ground truth dictum was a reaction to the UKOS's refusing to
open-license their taxpayer owned data; some have made a virtue of a
necessity of ground-truth field-mapping, GPS-on-bicycle, but let us rejoice
that some governments have learned the folly of the closed shop. It's not
that we Yanks are lazy arm-chair mappers, it's our US Gov did something
right for a change.
   (We did have a decade when the new weather radar data was only available
via private contracts, which helped offset the radar hardware and software
upgrades, but with the rapid growth of the WWW they sensibly chose not to
renew that contract; and likewise the National Library of Medicine
collection of Abstracts -- which i was trying to profiteer on when VP Gore
freed it. I'm glad; our marketing dept was made of fail anyway.)

If there are countries which for which open-licensed town centers aren't
available, the local mapping communities can decide what is right for them.
Postoffice, Town Hall, Centroid, Flagpole, whatever.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] undersea tourist route

Every once in a while, there's a suggestion made of establishing a offshore
tourist route via a submersible vessel of some sort!

How would that go - ferry route?

Thanks

Graeme

On 8 August 2018 at 10:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/08/18 09:01, marc marc wrote:
>
>> Le 08. 08. 18 à 00:26, Warin a écrit :
>>
>>> A scuba or snorkel route - some concrete drums with a chain between then
>>> and signs for people to follow. Like an under sea path.
>>>
>> highway=path + location=underwater ? :)
>>
>
> Humm
>
> highway=path
>
> layer=-1
>
> surface=water
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

Yep, Kevin's proposal solves a lot of problems.

Let's try to push it along & get it approved.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

On 8 August 2018 at 05:00, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
>
>
> Before making any changes in wiki I would like to find final agreement on
> that topic.
> "Flood level" (highest water table) is usually only one of several
> informations we can find on "flood mark". Others can be date of flood,
> inscription, etc.
> Physical object mapped in OSM is rather mark, not just water/flood level.
> So "historic=flood_mark" is probably more generic.


Yes, flood_mark would be a better wording than flood_level


>
>> Yes.
>> Complication .. a historic king tide combined with a storm event may be
>> considered a historic flood level.
>> But 'normal' high tides should be part of the water way tagging system.
>>
>>
> This can be sometimes hard to distinguish. But tide+storm I would consider
> rather as flood event - probably higher level comparing to periodic tides.
>

Quite definitely - a storm surge becomes a flood, not just a very high tide


> In such a case we can find in on place two types of marks:
> * historic=highwater_mark - with information about periodic highest water
> level (no date provided),
> * historic=flood_mark - with information about flood event (with date)
> So existence of date on such mark could be a good information for proper
> tag assignment. I'm not familiar with tides, so please correct me if this
> is not the case.


High tide is defined as " the highest level which can be predicted to occur
under average meteorological conditions and any combination of astronomical
conditions"
https://www.ausmarinescience.com/marine-science-basics/tides/highest-astronomical-tide/

IMHO, the high tide mark as such shouldn't really be shown in OSM as it
should be the line marking either the coastline or riverbank.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread Nelson A. de Oliveira

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:
> Nelson, there are several places I have seen in our wiki, e.g. [1], which
> discourage duplication of information if it can be avoided. name is a
> special case - it helps mappers to quickly identify what the object
> represents. If we duplicated everything, than each part of a railroad
> station should have duplicate web site URL, hours of operation, operator
> name, and tons of other info. Having duplicates lead to inconsistencies,
> harder to maintain, etc.  For example, if two parts of the station have
> different hours of operation - is that a mistake (someone forgot to update
> both), or is it intentional? Which one of two is correct? Having a rule to
> keep common info in a relation unless it is different makes data more
> valuable and less error-prone.

I was talking about any object.
And I fail to see what exactly is *wrong* in having multiple parts of
an object with the same wikidata; it's not really duplication.

We don't create relations to avoid repeating surface, lanes, name, etc
on every part of a highway, for example.
Using relations also has the drawback of creating complexity for most
of the users in OSM (and sometimes even for the data consumers),
specially if the main objective here is to solely avoid non-unique
wikidata values.

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

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread Yuri Astrakhan

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 1:53 AM Nelson A. de Oliveira 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
> wrote:
> > Why would you want railroad stations tagged differently
> > and duplicate the same wikidata tag on every part of it?
>
> Having the same "wikidata" on every part representing an object seems
> to be as correct as having "name" on every part of a highway, river,
> etc.
>
> Nelson, there are several places I have seen in our wiki, e.g. [1], which
discourage duplication of information if it can be avoided. name is a
special case - it helps mappers to quickly identify what the object
represents. If we duplicated everything, than each part of a railroad
station should have duplicate web site URL, hours of operation, operator
name, and tons of other info. Having duplicates lead to inconsistencies,
harder to maintain, etc.  For example, if two parts of the station have
different hours of operation - is that a mistake (someone forgot to update
both), or is it intentional? Which one of two is correct? Having a rule to
keep common info in a relation unless it is different makes data more
valuable and less error-prone.

[1]:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master#Other_useful_tags
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] undersea tourist route


On 08/08/18 09:01, marc marc wrote:

Le 08. 08. 18 à 00:26, Warin a écrit :

A scuba or snorkel route - some concrete drums with a chain between then
and signs for people to follow. Like an under sea path.

highway=path + location=underwater ? :)


Humm

highway=path

layer=-1

surface=water


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

2018-08-07 Thread Dave Swarthout

> use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.

I agree.

And I have already used such tagging for a few lakes in Alaska that require
exactly the sort of permit Kevin is talking about. The permit to fish those
lakes is more or less a formality; anybody can get one and they are free of
charge — you just have to go through the process to obtain it before you
can go fishing.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:58 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. Aug 2018, at 21:53, Szem  wrote:
> >
> > How can I support it to make progress?
>
>
> use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] undersea tourist route

2018-08-07 Thread Johan Jönsson

Hi!I would use the scheme for 
scuba_diving:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=scuba_diving

sport=scuba_diving
scuba_diving:type:intro=yes(or make up a new :type:path=yes)
But maybe the scuba_divers doesn't approve of this snorkeling_path, who knows.
Anyway, we got some in Sweden too (called snorklingsled or trail for snorkeling)
http://goteborg.se/wps/wcm/connect/e710693c-16cd-43d5-ab26-d36a020f3a38/Tv%C3%A5viksbroschyr_+snorkelled_webb.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

/Johan Jönsson
p.s.
It's been a while since I posted, I hope this comes out right.
d.s.

-

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2018 08:26:56 +1000
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
    
Subject: [Tagging] undersea tourist route
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Hi,

Here is one for puzzling over.


A scuba or snorkel route - some concrete drums with a chain between then 
and signs for people to follow. Like an under sea path.

http://watertourist.com/listing/gordons-bay-underwater-nature-trail/


How would you tag such a thing?

Presently:
Way: Gordons Bay Underwater Trip (614747238)
   Tags:
     "chain"="yes"
     "surface"="water"
     "phone"="+61 2 9583 9662"
     "name"="Gordons Bay Underwater Trip"
     "note"="chain along seafloor as route to follow"
     "source"="https://www.abyss.com.au/sites/GordonsBay_pf.jpg;
     "email"="d...@abyss.com.au"
     "oneway"="yes"




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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

Le 08. 08. 18 à 00:59, Dave Swarthout a écrit :
>  > use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.

and/or understand the criticisms and try to improve the proposal.
because when I read in a message that everyone approved... either a lot 
of messages are lost, or it's vapoware...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] undersea tourist route

Le 08. 08. 18 à 00:26, Warin a écrit :
> A scuba or snorkel route - some concrete drums with a chain between then 
> and signs for people to follow. Like an under sea path.

highway=path + location=underwater ? :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread Nelson A. de Oliveira

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:
> Why would you want railroad stations tagged differently
> and duplicate the same wikidata tag on every part of it?

Having the same "wikidata" on every part representing an object seems
to be as correct as having "name" on every part of a highway, river,
etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

Le 07. 08. 18 à 15:53, Colin Smale a écrit :
> On 2018-08-07 15:43, marc marc wrote:
> 
>> I think there's too much redundancy in using is_in:continent.
>> it is useless, for example, to say that a street + the municipality
>> + the region + the country is all in the same continent.
>> it is enough to tag the largest polygon with is_in:continent and erase
>> those that provide the same information redundantly on objects included
>> in that polygon.
>> this would limit the number of is_in:continent to one per country or a
>> few per country for countries with very scattered territories (e.g.
>> overseas territories for France)
> There are several countries that span multiple continents... Russia, 
> Turkey, Spain and indeed France for example.
> This possibly demonstrates at least two sorts of continent: "political" 
> and "geographic." Other continent types are available.

true, but with both political or geographic "is_in:continent" meaning,
no need to duplicate the tag to all the houses, nor all the roads,
nor all the cities.

it's enought to put it at the highest possible level (country or 
one-level under for the few country spanned accrose several continent)

I will propose cleaning in the local communities where I am active and 
it would be useful for other countries/regions to do the same.

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

Re: [Tagging] Points instead of areas

On 7 August 2018 at 21:56, Daniel Koć  wrote:

>
> For example nobody would say that a city is a point

I'm not disagreeing with you, but people do refer to them, & somehow even
measure them, as points!

I'm sure that you have the same situation in your country but an e.g. is my
State capital, Brisbane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane, which

covers an area of 15842 km2, but is still apparently found exactly at:

Location

   - 732 km (455 mi) N of Sydney [3]

   - 945 km (587 mi) NNE of Canberra
   [4]

   - 1,374 km (854 mi) NNE of Melbourne
   [5]

   - 1,600 km (994 mi) NE of Adelaide
   [6]

   - 3,604 km (2,239 mi) NE of Perth 
   [7] 

The Dept of Main Roads also agrees that there is a defined point known as
Brisbane! https://goo.gl/images/FbTLCt

(I believe that, once upon a time, Main Roads measurements were taken to
the Post Office as being the centre of each town?)

OSM also shows it at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/-27.4917/153.0325,
which has the City tag located in / on the centre of Brisbane City Hall.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread Yuri Astrakhan

Martin, the goal is not to make OSM fit to Wikidata needs (I'm not even
sure what those needs are). The goal is to make it easier to consume OSM
data.  Pretty much every single OSM data consumer I spoke with complained
of how difficult it is to use OSM data - let's try to help them.

For this specific case, the railroad stations consumer would probably want
a single raiway station, not multiples, so they are easier to analyze,
easier to query by matching it up with wikidata, etc. Railroad station can
have multiple parts, but so do many other things, and we tend to put common
things in a relation for them. Why would you want railroad stations tagged
differently, and duplicate the same wikidata tag on every part of it?

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 12:13 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. Aug 2018, at 18:36, peterkrauss 
> wrote:
> >
> > It seems the basic premise,
> >  "Wikidata references should be unique as possible",
> > I will use your phrase from here.
>
>
> I don’t see the need for this, what is the problem with having 2 osm
> objects pointing to the same wikidata object?
> The alternative seems to be either modify wikidata so that it suits OSMs
> needs, or OSM so that it fits with the existing wikidata structure.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] undersea tourist route

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


How would you tag such a thing?


layer=-1?

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

[Tagging] undersea tourist route


Hi,

Here is one for puzzling over.


A scuba or snorkel route - some concrete drums with a chain between then 
and signs for people to follow. Like an under sea path.


http://watertourist.com/listing/gordons-bay-underwater-nature-trail/


How would you tag such a thing?

Presently:
Way: Gordons Bay Underwater Trip (614747238)
  Tags:
    "chain"="yes"
    "surface"="water"
    "phone"="+61 2 9583 9662"
    "name"="Gordons Bay Underwater Trip"
    "note"="chain along seafloor as route to follow"
    "source"="https://www.abyss.com.au/sites/GordonsBay_pf.jpg;
    "email"="d...@abyss.com.au"
    "oneway"="yes"

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

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread peterkrauss


Em 2018-08-07 05:00, Christoph Hormann escreveu:

On Monday 06 August 2018, peterkrauss wrote:


Seems a commom quality problem of part/whole confusion in the
Wikidata attribution or OSM's POI reference... And where there are a
need for "enveloping parts into a whole".

[...]


The fact that there is no agreement on the nature of the relationship
between Wikidata objects and OSM objects


hum... Is time to do some agreement (!), use of Wikidata is growing, and 
will be difficult

in the future to review the caos.


has been an important point of
critique of the whole 'adding wikidata IDs to OSM' movement.  You can
read this up in the previous discussion here and in talk.



Can you send the main links?

PS: ideal is to summarize a list of topics and its "agreement vs 
under-discussion" status...
something like 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata/Critical_topics



OSM aims to map based on local verifiability.  Therefore many things we
map in OSM have no equivalent in Wikidata (because they do not satisfy
the criteria for inclusion there) and many things in Wikidata cannot be
mapped verifiably in OSM.


The point is to separate things that are delimited and things that are 
not.
We have good definition for 90% of "type=boundary" and 90% of 
"type=route"...
The best is perhaps to begin with a pragmatical view, and only later 
discuss the problematic ones.



And inventing some kind of collector
relation that collects all objects that by some wikidata
interpretation 'belong to' a certain Wikidata ID and thereby implements
a 1:n relationship would not change that (it would just be pointless
non-maintainable, non-verifiable dead weight in the database).

My favourite example for this is the Amazon rainforest (but you can use
other large eco-regions like the Sahara desert as well).  You won't be
able to verifiably map the Amazon rain forest in OSM as an entity.
What we aim to do in OSM is to accurately map the woodlands of South
America - which is still a very long way to go.  But if this should
happen it will happen locally because natural=wood/landuse=forest is
locally verifiable while the abstract concept of naming some of this
woodland the Amazon rainforest is not.


... All make sense, but my suggestion is only to annotate it for a 
future debate,

after resolved the pragmatical cases, where no ambiguity exist.

PS: about "object vs field" debate, see the this 1992's article
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~good/papers/172.pdf


--
Peter Krauss

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route


On 08/08/18 01:35, Eric H. Christensen wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

-‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 7, 2018 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for relations. 
Arr well.

I think there shouldn’t be “relations” at all as category for objects to which 
a tag can apply. Nodes, ways (linear), areas (ways) would seem sufficient for 
that. Relations can be set to unknown for everything ;-)

The relation category is misleading anyway because it doesn’t include 
multipolygon relations, and nobody knows what kind of relation will be invented 
or is already used that creates all kind of geometric thing where a tag could 
apply to or not.

I'm not certain of all the categories.  I'm envisioning this being more like an 
overlay route like what is used for bicycle routes and bus routes and the like. 
 What are those?

Eric


Those are a relation, type route ...

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route



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

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2018, at 18:36, peterkrauss  wrote:
> 
> PS: "type=site" was classified with status "abandoned", at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site

yes, someone set the proposal to abandoned some months ago, but the site 
relation is one of the mostly used relations and numbers are still growing, 
maybe it should be set to in use.

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

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2018, at 18:36, peterkrauss  wrote:
> 
> It seems the basic premise,
>  "Wikidata references should be unique as possible",
> I will use your phrase from here.

I don’t see the need for this, what is the problem with having 2 osm objects 
pointing to the same wikidata object?
The alternative seems to be either modify wikidata so that it suits OSMs needs, 
or OSM so that it fits with the existing wikidata structure. 

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)



sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2018, at 21:53, Szem  wrote:
> 
> How can I support it to make progress?


use the tag yourself and encourage other mappers to do the same.


Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Szem  wrote:

> I've tried and understand more or less. How can I support it to make
> progress?
>

Mention the page on this list.  We've done that.

Ask the list for suggestions/comments.

After a couple of weeks of that tell the list you're opening voting and
open the voting.  Some would say you should
wait for longer before voting, but this is an old proposal that has been
discussed before.

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)


Sorry I'm so stupid, but what link I could +1

2018.08.07. 21:58 keltezéssel, Javier Sánchez Portero írta:

+1 for access=permit
I support it

Regards, Javier

El mar., 7 ago. 2018 20:38, Paul Allen > escribió:


On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem mailto:szembiket...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks.I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :(
and I do not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand
truly the correlation of this method and writing the wiki :(((
So what's the next?


Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you
were asking for.  He used
"permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains
why.  That page is what you wanted to
write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And
gone nowhere.

There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal
already exists.  So try to drum up support for
that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.

-- 
Paul


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

+1 for access=permit
I support it

Regards, Javier

El mar., 7 ago. 2018 20:38, Paul Allen  escribió:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem  wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I do
>> not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the correlation
>> of this method and writing the wiki :(((
>> So what's the next?
>>
>
> Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you were asking
> for.  He used
> "permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains why.
> That page is what you wanted to
> write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And gone
> nowhere.
>
> There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal already
> exists.  So try to drum up support for
> that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

I've tried and understand more or less. How can I support it to make 
progress?


2018.08.07. 21:37 keltezéssel, Paul Allen írta:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem > wrote:


Thanks.I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I
do not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the
correlation of this method and writing the wiki :(((
So what's the next?


Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you were 
asking for.  He used
"permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains 
why.  That page is what you wanted to
write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And gone 
nowhere.


There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal already 
exists.  So try to drum up support for

that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.

--
Paul


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Szem  wrote:

> Thanks. I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I do
> not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the correlation
> of this method and writing the wiki :(((
> So what's the next?
>

Feed the text through google translate.  Because it's what you were asking
for.  He used
"permit" rather than "licence" or "authorization" but he explains why.
That page is what you wanted to
write.  Everything has already been done.  Two years ago.  And gone nowhere.

There is no point you writing a proposal because that proposal already
exists.  So try to drum up support for
that existing proposal or forget about the whole idea.

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

Thanks.I have three problems: it's a huge amount of texts :( and I do 
not speak english so good :(( and I do not understand truly the 
correlation of this method and writing the wiki :(((

So what's the next?

2018.08.07. 20:56 keltezéssel, Paul Allen írta:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Szem > wrote:


I've never done this before too. If I can help anyone I'll try...


I decided to start off a proposal page for you to flesh out.  And when 
I tried, I found it was already there.  Take a look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit  
It appears that ke9tv has already done

everything you could wish for, and more.

Note, however, the closing paragraph on that page:

This general function has been requested repeatedly. Several topics on 
the discussion page for the *access* key 
 refer to it. It 
was also the subject of a lengthy recent thread 
 
on the 'Tagging' mailing list. No existing tagging scheme appears to 
suffice for the desired function.


It's déjà// vu all over again...

--
Paul


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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-07 Thread Robert Szczepanek


W dniu 06.08.2018 o 01:48, Warin pisze:

On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it 
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to 
be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.


Before making any changes in wiki I would like to find final agreement 
on that topic.
"Flood level" (highest water table) is usually only one of several 
informations we can find on "flood mark". Others can be date of flood, 
inscription, etc.

Physical object mapped in OSM is rather mark, not just water/flood level.
So "historic=flood_mark" is probably more generic.



+1

Very sensible IMO.


Yes.
Complication .. a historic king tide combined with a storm event may be 
considered a historic flood level.

But 'normal' high tides should be part of the water way tagging system.



This can be sometimes hard to distinguish. But tide+storm I would 
consider rather as flood event - probably higher level comparing to 
periodic tides.

In such a case we can find in on place two types of marks:
* historic=highwater_mark - with information about periodic highest 
water level (no date provided),

* historic=flood_mark - with information about flood event (with date)
So existence of date on such mark could be a good information for proper 
tag assignment. I'm not familiar with tides, so please correct me if 
this is not the case.


regards
Robert

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek mailto:rob...@szczepanek.pl>> wrote:

W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the
same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also
the opposite, ordinary low water marks) which are based on
the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached
in certain, particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different
jurisdictions, but the concept seems to be clear to me
that there are two different things we want to tag.


I would like it to be so:
- flood marks as flood signs,
- highwater marks as tide signs.
But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so
clear.

Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
mark related to floods is described as
historic=highwater_mark

What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?

regards
Robert


I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water
to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

Thanks

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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Szem  wrote:

> I've never done this before too. If I can help anyone I'll try...
>

I decided to start off a proposal page for you to flesh out.  And when I
tried, I found it was already there.  Take a look at
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit  It
appears that ke9tv has already done
everything you could wish for, and more.

Note, however, the closing paragraph on that page:

This general function has been requested repeatedly. Several topics on
the discussion
page for the *access* key
 refer to it. It was
also the subject of a lengthy recent thread

on the 'Tagging' mailing list. No existing tagging scheme appears to
suffice for the desired function.

It's déjà vu all over again...

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)


I've never done this before too. If I can help anyone I'll try...
Szem

2018.08.02. 20:35 keltezéssel, Paul Allen írta:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Kevin Kenny 
mailto:kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Is there a documented process for putting a proposal?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

I'm certainly willing to draft the text, although I'm not going to
be able to do it before the weekend. Can someone else run the
proposal process or at least guide me through it?


I'm a proposal virgin too.  I'll let you get deflowered this time around.

--
Paul


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

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread Stefano

Il giorno mar 7 ago 2018 alle ore 18:37 peterkrauss <
pe...@openstreetmap.com.br> ha scritto:

>
> >
> > Using route or site relations when appropriate is a good solution.
>
> Ok, lets elect the OSM Map Features that are Wikidata-good-solutions
>
> * "type=boundary" (6,525,236 elements)
>
> * "type=route" (30,257,877 elements!) and complements as
> "type=route_master".
>
> * ... more good solutions?
>
> AssociatedStreet suggests to collect the etymology of the road name

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet


>
> PS: "type=site" was classified with status "abandoned", at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread peterkrauss



Em 2018-08-06 20:46, François Lacombe escreveu:

Hi Peterkrauss,



Thanks François, important topics...


I second the need you mention of a relation in a whole.
Wikidata references should be unique as possible in the db.


It seems the basic premise,
  "Wikidata references should be unique as possible",
I will use your phrase from here.

There are more cases in of sample-country DE where it is not unique,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Krauss/Wikidata-question2



Using route or site relations when appropriate is a good solution.


Ok, lets elect the OSM Map Features that are Wikidata-good-solutions

* "type=boundary" (6,525,236 elements)

* "type=route" (30,257,877 elements!) and complements as 
"type=route_master".


* ... more good solutions?


PS: "type=site" was classified with status "abandoned", at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site




All the best

François

2018-08-06 23:10 GMT+02:00 peterkrauss :


Hi,

Seems a commom quality problem of part/whole confusion in the
Wikidata attribution or OSM's POI reference... And where there are a
need for "enveloping parts into a whole".

Example:

* The railway-whole concept, Anhalt Railway
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q319837 [1]

* The railway-parts concept, a fragment of the Anhalt Railway,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/539934418 [2]

* The error: 197 fragments with the Q319837 concept

* The need: a relation to "envelope Anhalt Railway" as a whole

Details and more examples at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Krauss/Wikidata-question1
[3]

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [4]




Links:
--
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q319837
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/539934418
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Krauss/Wikidata-question1
[4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Peter Krauss

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

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?



sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2018, at 15:53, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> There are several countries that span multiple continents... Russia, Turkey, 
> Spain and indeed France for example


indeed, countries and continents are orthogonal concepts, and countries 
shouldn’t have an influence on how we model continents (if we do it at all)

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

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2018, at 10:20, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Do we really want to approximate whole continents with a point, and if
> we do, where is that point to be placed?

obviously there isn’t a correct position for a continent node that cannot be 
modified without changing it (similar to other place nodes which represent big 
objects, e.g. countries, states, regions, bays, etc.), but is this a real 
problem? Have there been edit wars about the positions of continent nodes in 
the past 14 years? 

Generally, kontinents are either delimited by the sea (e.g. australia) or are 
similar to other geographic regions (fuzzy, not clearly defined on a micro 
level). E.g. the border between Asia and Europe, or between the Americas.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

2018-08-07 Thread Eric H. Christensen

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

-‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 7, 2018 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> > On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
> > Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for 
> > relations. Arr well.
>
> I think there shouldn’t be “relations” at all as category for objects to 
> which a tag can apply. Nodes, ways (linear), areas (ways) would seem 
> sufficient for that. Relations can be set to unknown for everything ;-)
>
> The relation category is misleading anyway because it doesn’t include 
> multipolygon relations, and nobody knows what kind of relation will be 
> invented or is already used that creates all kind of geometric thing where a 
> tag could apply to or not.

I'm not certain of all the categories.  I'm envisioning this being more like an 
overlay route like what is used for bicycle routes and bus routes and the like. 
 What are those?

Eric
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
Comment: https://protonmail.com
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=+kwJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

sent from a phone

> On 6. Aug 2018, at 06:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
> Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for 
> relations. Arr well.

I think there shouldn’t be “relations” at all as category for objects to which 
a tag can apply. Nodes, ways (linear), areas (ways) would seem sufficient for 
that. Relations can be set to unknown for everything ;-)

The relation category is misleading anyway because it doesn’t include 
multipolygon relations, and nobody knows what kind of relation will be invented 
or is already used that creates all kind of geometric thing where a tag could 
apply to or not.

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

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread Colin Smale

On 2018-08-07 15:43, marc marc wrote:

> I think there's too much redundancy in using is_in:continent.
> it is useless, for example, to say that a street + the municipality
> + the region + the country is all in the same continent.
> it is enough to tag the largest polygon with is_in:continent and erase 
> those that provide the same information redundantly on objects included 
> in that polygon.
> this would limit the number of is_in:continent to one per country or a 
> few per country for countries with very scattered territories (e.g. 
> overseas territories for France)

There are several countries that span multiple continents... Russia,
Turkey, Spain and indeed France for example. 

This possibly demonstrates at least two sorts of continent: "political"
and "geographic." Other continent types are available.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread Colin Smale

This would (only) be possible if there was a (at least one)
deterministic way of establishing the location of the boundary. Would
you base it on the admin boundaries, coastlines and established
baselines? The IHO definitions? 

Indeed, why not have a polygon for the Med? 

On 2018-08-07 13:17, djakk djakk wrote:

> Why not a big polygon for each continent, subcontinent, ocean, sea ... ? 
> 
> djakk 
> 
> Le mar. 7 août 2018 à 12:28, Colin Smale  a écrit : 
> 
> As even continents now appear to be subjective, all uses of them should be 
> associated with the chosen frame of reference, much like one always 
> associates a currency with an amount. A given lump of rock can be in multiple 
> continents, each with its own authority, all correct in their own ways. 
> 
> On 2018-08-07 11:48, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: 
> 
> El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 10:33, Warin (<61sundow...@gmail.com>) escribió: 
> But "Officially, there is no centre of Australia." So say the experts. 
> Probably because they cannot reach consensus, sounds familiar :) 
> 
> We are extending on the "centre" problem, but there aren't even a consensus 
> in the number of continents. 
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Systemes_de_continents.gif 
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Part/whole confusion with Wikidata tag, and the need for enveloping parts into a whole

2018-08-07 Thread Yuri Astrakhan

Christoph, you are right that some loosely defined areas like rainforests
may not have exact boundaries. We can find limitations and issues in
defining/naming/linking pretty much anything, e.g. see discussion for
"[Tagging] place nodes for continents". That said, in a large number of
cases, it is beneficial to data consumers to have a 1:1 mapping, e.g. for
examples presented by Peter and François.  We do not have to extend that
approach to objects that it won't work well for.

So if it makes sense, it is ok to have a "concept-level" relation that
defines common properties, such as shared wikidata ID, perhaps a relevant
Unesco Heritage ID, a URL, or the hours of operation. It would be a bit
silly to repeat that info on every part of the location.

And for other types of objects, especially the ones without a clear
outline, perhaps it may not make sense to even add wikidata IDs at all.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:04 AM Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Monday 06 August 2018, peterkrauss wrote:
> >
> > Seems a commom quality problem of part/whole confusion in the
> > Wikidata attribution or OSM's POI reference... And where there are a
> > need for "enveloping parts into a whole".
> >
> > [...]
>
> The fact that there is no agreement on the nature of the relationship
> between Wikidata objects and OSM objects has been an important point of
> critique of the whole 'adding wikidata IDs to OSM' movement.  You can
> read this up in the previous discussion here and in talk.
>
> OSM aims to map based on local verifiability.  Therefore many things we
> map in OSM have no equivalent in Wikidata (because they do not satisfy
> the criteria for inclusion there) and many things in Wikidata cannot be
> mapped verifiably in OSM.  And inventing some kind of collector
> relation that collects all objects that by some wikidata
> interpretation 'belong to' a certain Wikidata ID and thereby implements
> a 1:n relationship would not change that (it would just be pointless
> non-maintainable, non-verifiable dead weight in the database).
>
> My favourite example for this is the Amazon rainforest (but you can use
> other large eco-regions like the Sahara desert as well).  You won't be
> able to verifiably map the Amazon rain forest in OSM as an entity.
> What we aim to do in OSM is to accurately map the woodlands of South
> America - which is still a very long way to go.  But if this should
> happen it will happen locally because natural=wood/landuse=forest is
> locally verifiable while the abstract concept of naming some of this
> woodland the Amazon rainforest is not.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

I think there's too much redundancy in using is_in:continent.
it is useless, for example, to say that a street + the municipality
+ the region + the country is all in the same continent.
it is enough to tag the largest polygon with is_in:continent and erase 
those that provide the same information redundantly on objects included 
in that polygon.
this would limit the number of is_in:continent to one per country or a 
few per country for countries with very scattered territories (e.g. 
overseas territories for France)

The other solution is to a merge of all polygons having the same 
is_in:continent value to make a (multi)poylgon, possibly simplified,
for each continent. this is neither more nor less verifiable than the 
information currently in the database. but it would strongly allow to 
simply use it (e.g.: how many power plants informed in osm in africa?)

Le 07. 08. 18 à 11:43, Javier Sánchez Portero a écrit :
> Maybe I'm extending the fork, but only a mention to consider. While 
> there are only 8 uses of place=continent, there are 179996 (whow!) uses 
> of is_in:continent=* that will be orphaned in that case.
> 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/is_in:continent
> 
> El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 10:15, Eugene Alvin Villar ( >) escribió:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, Javier Sánchez Portero
> mailto:javiers...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  > The same applies to other place nodes like oceans, seas, natural
> bays, straits, etc.
> 
> At the risk of forking this discussion to another topic, I'd like to
> point out that at least for oceans and major seas, bays, and
> straits, the International Hydrographic Organization has defined
> them as specific delimited areas.
> 
> For continents, nobody could even agree whether to treat North and
> South America as separate continents or as just one continent named
> the Americas. Not to mention whether to call the smallest continent
> as Australia, Australasia, or Oceania. (And let's not forget the
> geological debate about Zealandia.) On a more general note, are we
> talking about continent as a geopolitical entity (Europe vs. Asia),
> or as a geological entity (Eurasia)?
> 
> I am in favor of removing these continent nodes. They are "simple"
> and few enough that people who make maps and apps can decide how to
> treat them themselves. ___
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Points instead of areas

2018-08-07 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Tuesday 07 August 2018, Daniel Koc4� wrote:
> > A word regarding tolerance of coordinates and the implication that
> > they should be or have to be within the tolerance of measuring
> > devices - i don't think this is or should be the case.  The point
> > of verifiability in OSM is not a tolerance threshold, it is if
> > multiple independent determinations converge to a single data
> > point.  Standard deviation of that might be 50m or it might be
> > 500km.  If you ask a thousand mappers to position a place node for
> > Africa and 90 percent of them place it in or around the Central
> > African Republic you have a verifiable mapping IMO.
>
> The placing of points is always inaccurate this way or another, just
> as all the approximations. Well, for flagpoles that might be good
> enough from human point of view, but most of the objects have easily
> visible shape and size that one can measure (with GPS or with a plain
> measure tape). Building, country, pitch, bench...
>
> [...]

I think you have not understood the difference between measurement 
tolerance and convergence here.

In any case how geographical objects that can be verifiably mapped in 
principle are best represented in the OSM database is a matter of what 
is most efficient, most convenient and least prone to errors *for the 
mapper* (and not the data user!) to document the verifiable information 
available about the object in question.

For a bench for example you could:

* map it with a node with tags like direction, width/seats, depth, 
height, backrest etc.
* map it with a linear way (would need to be orientation sensitive which 
is kind of error prone)
* map it with a closed way outlining the bench geometry (plus direction 
tag since the closed way is not oriented)

For a plain rectangular footprint bench (>99 percent of benches) there 
is absolutely no difference in the achievable level of accuracy and 
detail in the representation of reality between these three variants.  
But there is an immense level of difference in efficiency and 
convenience of these representations for the mapper.

Any argument beyond that (like that there is something inherent about 
benches (or populated places or continents) that makes them more 
suitable to be represented as X in the database) is usually just stuff 
made up to convince mappers to map in a certain way for the convenience 
of certain data users.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Points instead of areas

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:

>
> The problem of how much continents there is and how are they named, is
> just parallel - it's
>
equally valid problem for points and areas.

Just to add to the confusion, the attribution of a location to a continent
depends upon context, even
when we decide what to call continents.

These days, geologists tend to think of continents in terms of tectonic
plates.  Turkey and Cyprus are on the
Anatolian plate, and this region was/is known as Asia Minor (a term not
used much these days, but in the
past it was termed a sub-continent) and is also known as Anatolia.
Geopolitically, both are considered to be
part of Europe despite being on a separate tectonic plate.

You *might* be able to make an argument for mapping tectonic plates.
They're not at the whim of politicians
and geography teachers.  Continents are a little more whimsical: when I was
a child India was a continent, later
a sub-continent.  Tectonic plates are much more permanent.  Or maybe we
need opengeologymap to render them
even if the data for them is held within the OSM database.  Or maybe
they're not worth the bother.

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

[Tagging] Points instead of areas

2018-08-07 Thread Daniel Koć

A continents discussion spin-off:

W dniu 07.08.2018 o 11:31, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> A word regarding tolerance of coordinates and the implication that they 
> should be or have to be within the tolerance of measuring devices - i 
> don't think this is or should be the case.  The point of verifiability 
> in OSM is not a tolerance threshold, it is if multiple independent 
> determinations converge to a single data point.  Standard deviation of 
> that might be 50m or it might be 500km.  If you ask a thousand mappers 
> to position a place node for Africa and 90 percent of them place it in 
> or around the Central African Republic you have a verifiable mapping 
> IMO.

The placing of points is always inaccurate this way or another, just as
all the approximations. Well, for flagpoles that might be good enough
from human point of view, but most of the objects have easily visible
shape and size that one can measure (with GPS or with a plain measure
tape). Building, country, pitch, bench...

For example nobody would say that a city is a point - it only makes
sense to see it like that when we see on the large scale and we can
generalize it a lot. But simply saying that it is a point in medium (and
even more in small) scale is much more inaccurate than even rough hand
drawn area. It just takes away some information. Well - this is the
whole point of generalization, but generalization is always related to
scale and visualization. From the database point of view there is no
such thing as "too much data", it may contain all the details in best case.

Another problem with point placing - there are multiple algorithms for
placing them within a shape. If the shape is very simple, like circle or
rectangle, it's trivial, but for anything more complicated there can be
multiple positions to place it.

When people put a node on a small scale, people do the same as machines
- first they take the shape they know (!) and then they try to find
centroid. How much more verifiable is this? For me it's less - first you
take some spacial object and then you either simply draw it, or you just
pretend you didn't know it and put a point, which location is based on
this shape, of course. If you don't consider the (approximate) shape,
how do you know where is the centre of it? Well - you don't. So the
shape is always there, but with points it's just hidden.

With small entities points might be nice approximation on big scale, but
for continents or anything like that there is not such scale that you
don't see it as an area. The problem of how much continents there is and
how are they named, is just parallel - it's equally valid problem for
points and areas.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]



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

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread djakk djakk

Why not a big polygon for each continent, subcontinent, ocean, sea ... ?


djakk

Le mar. 7 août 2018 à 12:28, Colin Smale  a écrit :

> As even continents now appear to be subjective, all uses of them should be
> associated with the chosen frame of reference, much like one always
> associates a currency with an amount. A given lump of rock can be in
> multiple continents, each with its own authority, all correct in their own
> ways.
>
>
>
> On 2018-08-07 11:48, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote:
>
> El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 10:33, Warin (<61sundow...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
>> But "Officially, there is no centre of Australia." So say the experts.
>> Probably because they cannot reach consensus, sounds familiar :)
>>
>
> We are extending on the "centre" problem, but there aren't even a
> consensus in the number of continents.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Systemes_de_continents.gif
>
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread Colin Smale

As even continents now appear to be subjective, all uses of them should
be associated with the chosen frame of reference, much like one always
associates a currency with an amount. A given lump of rock can be in
multiple continents, each with its own authority, all correct in their
own ways.

On 2018-08-07 11:48, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote:

> El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 10:33, Warin (<61sundow...@gmail.com>) escribió: 
> 
>> But "Officially, there is no centre of Australia." So say the experts. 
>> Probably because they cannot reach consensus, sounds familiar :)
> 
> We are extending on the "centre" problem, but there aren't even a consensus 
> in the number of continents. 
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Systemes_de_continents.gif 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 10:33, Warin (<61sundow...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> But "Officially, there is no centre of Australia." So say the experts.
> Probably because they cannot reach consensus, sounds familiar :)
>

We are extending on the "centre" problem, but there aren't even a consensus
in the number of continents.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Systemes_de_continents.gif
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

Maybe I'm extending the fork, but only a mention to consider. While there
are only 8 uses of place=continent, there are 179996 (whow!) uses of
is_in:continent=* that will be orphaned in that case.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/is_in:continent

El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 10:15, Eugene Alvin Villar ()
escribió:

>
>
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, Javier Sánchez Portero 
> wrote:
> > The same applies to other place nodes like oceans, seas, natural bays,
> straits, etc.
>
> At the risk of forking this discussion to another topic, I'd like to point
> out that at least for oceans and major seas, bays, and straits, the
> International Hydrographic Organization has defined them as specific
> delimited areas.
>
> For continents, nobody could even agree whether to treat North and South
> America as separate continents or as just one continent named the Americas.
> Not to mention whether to call the smallest continent as Australia,
> Australasia, or Oceania. (And let's not forget the geological debate about
> Zealandia.) On a more general note, are we talking about continent as a
> geopolitical entity (Europe vs. Asia), or as a geological entity (Eurasia)?
>
> I am in favor of removing these continent nodes. They are "simple" and few
> enough that people who make maps and apps can decide how to treat them
> themselves. ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

On 07/08/18 19:13, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, Javier Sánchez Portero
mailto:javiers...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> The same applies to other place nodes like oceans, seas, natural
bays, straits, etc.

At the risk of forking this discussion to another topic, I'd like to
point out that at least for oceans and major seas, bays, and straits,
the International Hydrographic Organization has defined them as
specific delimited areas.

For continents, nobody could even agree whether to treat North and
South America as separate continents or as just one continent named
the Americas. Not to mention whether to call the smallest continent as
Australia, Australasia, or Oceania. (And let's not forget the
geological debate about Zealandia.) On a more general note, are we
talking about continent as a geopolitical entity (Europe vs. Asia), or
as a geological entity (Eurasia)?

I am in favor of removing these continent nodes. They are "simple" and
few enough that people who make maps and apps can decide how to treat
them themselves.

Cough.

Australia has at least 5 different 'centres' depending on how you
calculate it;

Centre of gravity method
Lambert gravitational centre
Furtherest point from the coast
Median point
Johnston Geodetic Station

More detail?
http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/national-location-information/dimensions/centre-of-australia-states-territories

But "Officially, there is no centre of Australia." So say the experts.
Probably because they cannot reach consensus, sounds familiar :)

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

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Tuesday 07 August 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> How is a continent node verifiable, especially with regards to its
> position? What is our plan if two people should start edit-warring
> about whether the continent node should be at 51.002,
> -109.002 (as it currently is), or rather at 51,-109 or at
> 50,-108?
>
> Representing a tree or a pothole with a node is not exact either, but
> it's more or less within the accuracy of our available measurement
> devices. Representing a city with a node is much less accurate, but
> people seem to agree for most cities, placing the city node in the
> heart of the old city, or where the city hall is, or some such.
>
> Do we really want to approximate whole continents with a point, and
> if we do, where is that point to be placed?

If this is going where i think this is going (i.e. creating continental 
multipolygons) then hell no, please stay with the nodes.

My take on node mapping of large, primarily coastline delimited features 
can be found in:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2278#issuecomment-247841461

Together with the coastline data place nodes for oceans and continents 
contain most of the data necessary for determining location and extend 
of the features in question on a level of accuracy necessary for 
cartographic applications.  And the tagging of the nodes is largely 
verifiable data.

A word regarding tolerance of coordinates and the implication that they 
should be or have to be within the tolerance of measuring devices - i 
don't think this is or should be the case.  The point of verifiability 
in OSM is not a tolerance threshold, it is if multiple independent 
determinations converge to a single data point.  Standard deviation of 
that might be 50m or it might be 500km.  If you ask a thousand mappers 
to position a place node for Africa and 90 percent of them place it in 
or around the Central African Republic you have a verifiable mapping 
IMO.

If this is always the case for place=continent at the moment i am not 
sure.  Documentation of the tag does not provide any help.  At least 
the Oceania node seems more like an arbitrary labeling node - and the 
classification and definition of Oceania as a continent is quite 
culture specific as well.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, Javier Sánchez Portero 
wrote:
> The same applies to other place nodes like oceans, seas, natural bays,
straits, etc.

At the risk of forking this discussion to another topic, I'd like to point
out that at least for oceans and major seas, bays, and straits, the
International Hydrographic Organization has defined them as specific
delimited areas.

For continents, nobody could even agree whether to treat North and South
America as separate continents or as just one continent named the Americas.
Not to mention whether to call the smallest continent as Australia,
Australasia, or Oceania. (And let's not forget the geological debate about
Zealandia.) On a more general note, are we talking about continent as a
geopolitical entity (Europe vs. Asia), or as a geological entity (Eurasia)?

I am in favor of removing these continent nodes. They are "simple" and few
enough that people who make maps and apps can decide how to treat them
themselves.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 9:33, althio () escribió:

> I agree this position is debatable and finally arbitrary.
>

Hi Althio

Then should we delete this node or abstain to create place nodes for
continents? Or should we give a try to the debate and move to a better
position? The same applies to other place nodes like oceans, seas, natural
bays, straits, etc.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

Hi Frederik

You can find many examples of places that are verifiable by its boundary,
some countries, provinces, municipalities, but most of the names in
geography refers to diffuse places, from towns to the Amazon Forest (cross
link to Wikidata tag thread). Can't we map them in OSM? For such places,
the exact position of the node should not be a matter of conflict and if so
resolve it with consensus as usual here.

Javier


El mar., 7 ago. 2018 a las 9:21, Frederik Ramm ()
escribió:

> Hi,
>
> On 07.08.2018 10:04, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > It is a strange question, which can be applied to virtually anything in
> > OSM. Potholes — are they useful?
>
> Ok, I'll re-word:
>
> How is a continent node verifiable, especially with regards to its
> position? What is our plan if two people should start edit-warring about
> whether the continent node should be at 51.002, -109.002 (as it
> currently is), or rather at 51,-109 or at 50,-108?
>
> Representing a tree or a pothole with a node is not exact either, but
> it's more or less within the accuracy of our available measurement
> devices. Representing a city with a node is much less accurate, but
> people seem to agree for most cities, placing the city node in the heart
> of the old city, or where the city hall is, or some such.
>
> Do we really want to approximate whole continents with a point, and if
> we do, where is that point to be placed?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread althio

I agree this position is debatable and finally arbitrary.
And I find this particular position (for North America node) rather
strange, it feels too much North, as if it was biased for Mercator
projection maybe.

As arbitrary as it is, we could accept by definition something like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_of_inaccessibility#Continental_poles_of_inaccessibility



On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, 10:21 Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 07.08.2018 10:04, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > It is a strange question, which can be applied to virtually anything in
> > OSM. Potholes — are they useful?
>
> Ok, I'll re-word:
>
> How is a continent node verifiable, especially with regards to its
> position? What is our plan if two people should start edit-warring about
> whether the continent node should be at 51.002, -109.002 (as it
> currently is), or rather at 51,-109 or at 50,-108?
>
> Representing a tree or a pothole with a node is not exact either, but
> it's more or less within the accuracy of our available measurement
> devices. Representing a city with a node is much less accurate, but
> people seem to agree for most cities, placing the city node in the heart
> of the old city, or where the city hall is, or some such.
>
> Do we really want to approximate whole continents with a point, and if
> we do, where is that point to be placed?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?