Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

It would not get the diplomatic=* tag so still would not show up in an
overpass turbo search based on that tag plus the name.  Same goes for an
hotel tagged name=Embassy Suites.

On 10/30/2018 3:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Thanks - that makes sense now!
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:42, Steve Doerr  > wrote:
>
> Thanks, but you still haven't told us what's wrong with it.
>
>
> They've effectively called the pub / bar "The German Embassy"!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> 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] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

If it’s 40 storeys of apartments above a 3 storey mall, use landuse=retail
for the whole mall area, and building=apartment for the residential towers.
The whole, larger mall building could probably be building=mall; it sounds
like there are several tall but narrow residential towers around or on top
of a bigger mall.

Basically, retail is the most interesting landuse. Consider that Google
shows very few areas on its maps, but it does highlight retail areas as
“areas of interest”, because they contain the shops and restaurants that
people are most likely to want to search for.

You only look for a new job or residence very occasionally, but most of us
like to eat out and shop once a week or more (even in poor countries like
here in Indonesia).

Commercial areas are less important but are still more likely to be
destinations of trips, compared to residential and industrial.

I initially disliked the idea of only tagging retail landuse for mixed-use
urban centers, but it makes sense based on the need to tag one feature on
one area, and the limited options for rendering maps with overlapping
landuse.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:11 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:51, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> We should map the most intensive landuse, from a map user standpoint. So
>> a mixed-use area of tall buildings would be retail. There might be condos
>> and apartments on the 20th to 40th floor, offices on the 10th 20th floors,
>> a garage for cars from floor 2 to 9, but the first couple of levels are
>> retail, therefore it is just as interesting as a 1 or 2 Storey retail
>> building for map users.
>>
>
> But the wiki for apartments
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dapartments says in part
> "Some apartment blocks may also have retail outlets on the ground floor"
> with one example being
> *Residential tower* - The Taikoo Shing development on Hong Kong Island
> involved placing a large number of tower apartment blocks above a large
> shopping mall.
>
> So wouldn't that building you described also be a building=apartment with
> landuse=residential?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> 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] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:51, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> We should map the most intensive landuse, from a map user standpoint. So a
> mixed-use area of tall buildings would be retail. There might be condos and
> apartments on the 20th to 40th floor, offices on the 10th 20th floors, a
> garage for cars from floor 2 to 9, but the first couple of levels are
> retail, therefore it is just as interesting as a 1 or 2 Storey retail
> building for map users.
>

But the wiki for apartments
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dapartments says in part
"Some apartment blocks may also have retail outlets on the ground floor"
with one example being
*Residential tower* - The Taikoo Shing development on Hong Kong Island
involved placing a large number of tower apartment blocks above a large
shopping mall.

So wouldn't that building you described also be a building=apartment with
landuse=residential?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Steve Doerr]

No they haven't. They've called it 'Ständige Vertretung'. It doesn't 
contain the word 'German' or 'Embassy', plus it's explicitly a 
restaurant, so what's wrong with it?



Steve


On 29/10/2018 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


Thanks - that makes sense now!

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:42, Steve Doerr > wrote:


Thanks, but you still haven't told us what's wrong with it.


They've effectively called the pub / bar "The German Embassy"!

Thanks

Graeme

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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks - that makes sense now!

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:42, Steve Doerr  wrote:

> Thanks, but you still haven't told us what's wrong with it.
>

They've effectively called the pub / bar "The German Embassy"!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

We should map the most intensive landuse, from a map user standpoint. So a
mixed-use area of tall buildings would be retail. There might be condos and
apartments on the 20th to 40th floor, offices on the 10th 20th floors, a
garage for cars from floor 2 to 9, but the first couple of levels are
retail, therefore it is just as interesting as a 1 or 2 Storey retail
building for map users.

I believe one of the wiki pages already suggests mapping the “highest” /
most valuable landuse. In other words, retail > commercial > industrial /
residential.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:29 AM bkil  wrote:

> I use commercial and retail landuse a lot. If you plan to do some
> refactoring, please consider that a map is most informative if it has
> distinct colours. if we applied landuse=residential on hotels, it
> would blend in with other houses. To me, mapping non-housing areas
> where some kind of commercial activities are taking place in a
> different value is a bonus. However, we probably shouldn't have more
> than a handful of colors inside the same city center, maybe 4 tops.
>
> Also, has anybody got a rule of thumb when to map a multi-use area as
> retail considering that it is common to see shops and cafes on the
> first floor of tall buildings?
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:33 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 23:23, SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> - Hotels are more about services than sale, so i wouldn't use
> >> landuse=retail for them. Maybe landuse=residential?
> >
> >
> > I think that one would depend on what sort of hotel we're talking about?
> >
> > Is it a place to stay: tourism=accommodation, which would / could be
> =residential,
> > or a place to get a cold beer: amenity=pub, which I think would still be
> =retail?
> >
> >>
> >> - Cinemas: What about landuse=leisure?
> >
> >
> > There's probably a good case for landuse=leisure, but I think you'll
> probably get a few arguments against as well!
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Steve Doerr]

On 29/10/2018 22:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 29. Oct 2018, at 21:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote:



https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285


Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I missing something 
in translation?)



it is a pub which is called like the FRG representation in the GDR
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Representatives_of_Federal_Republic_of_Germany_and_the_German_Democratic_Republic



Thanks, but you still haven't told us what's wrong with it.


--

Steve



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Warin]

On 29/10/18 21:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
29. Oct 2018 11:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com 
:


At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name


Noone proposed to stop using name tag.



My intent was

Mappers can use the name tag to obtain the diplomatic tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Warin]

On 30/10/18 07:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:26, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:



here’s an example for a misleading name tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285


Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I missing something in 
translation?)


The name translated is "Permanent Representation" ... but it is a 
restaurant.



--

Yes, Martin there are exceptions to every rule.
But as a general guide - diplomatic posts have names that indicate there 
functions.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 29. Oct 2018, at 21:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285
> 
> 
> Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I missing something in 
> translation?)


it is a pub which is called like the FRG representation in the GDR
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Representatives_of_Federal_Republic_of_Germany_and_the_German_Democratic_Republic

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[bkil]

I use commercial and retail landuse a lot. If you plan to do some
refactoring, please consider that a map is most informative if it has
distinct colours. if we applied landuse=residential on hotels, it
would blend in with other houses. To me, mapping non-housing areas
where some kind of commercial activities are taking place in a
different value is a bonus. However, we probably shouldn't have more
than a handful of colors inside the same city center, maybe 4 tops.

Also, has anybody got a rule of thumb when to map a multi-use area as
retail considering that it is common to see shops and cafes on the
first floor of tall buildings?
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:33 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 23:23, SelfishSeahorse  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Hotels are more about services than sale, so i wouldn't use
>> landuse=retail for them. Maybe landuse=residential?
>
>
> I think that one would depend on what sort of hotel we're talking about?
>
> Is it a place to stay: tourism=accommodation, which would / could be 
> =residential,
> or a place to get a cold beer: amenity=pub, which I think would still be 
> =retail?
>
>>
>> - Cinemas: What about landuse=leisure?
>
>
> There's probably a good case for landuse=leisure, but I think you'll probably 
> get a few arguments against as well!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:26, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> here’s an example for a misleading name tag:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285
>

Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I missing something in
translation?)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 23:23, SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

>
> - Hotels are more about services than sale, so i wouldn't use
> landuse=retail for them. Maybe landuse=residential?
>

I think that one would depend on what sort of hotel we're talking about?

Is it a place to stay: tourism=accommodation, which would / could be
=residential,
or a place to get a cold beer: amenity=pub, which I think would still be
=retail?


> - Cinemas: What about landuse=leisure?
>

There's probably a good case for landuse=leisure, but I think you'll
probably get a few arguments against as well!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 23:30, marc marc  wrote:
>
> man_made=tank + usage=clarifier or usage=digester

+1

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29. Oct 2018 12:50 by pelder...@gmail.com :


> I can join two regular areas in JOSM, but I can't find how to join 
> multipolygon areas with a similar operation. 




The same is used for both. 


 

> But that wasn't really my question!

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[SelfishSeahorse]

I'm not very happy with our definition of landuse=commercial as it
isn't self-explanatory: it is mainly used for offices and warehouses,
while retail, although belonging to commerce, has its own landuse=*
value. In my opinion, it would make more sense either to tag retail as
landuse=commercial + commercial=retail or to tag different commercial
land uses with separate landuse=* values, e.g. landuse=offices,
landuse=wholesale or landuse=storage.

Concerning restaurants, hotels and cinemas:

- Restaurants are more similar to shops than to offices or
warehouses (what landuse=commercial is mainly used for), so i think
landuse=retails is ok.

- Hotels are more about services than sale, so i wouldn't use
landuse=retail for them. Maybe landuse=residential?

- Cinemas: What about landuse=leisure?

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Kevin Kenny]

On 10/29/18 2:48 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
But I'm still a bit confused about way:427547729. It's tagged as an 
outer in the Wilcox WF multipolygon but it's located inside of an 
enclosing way that's also an inner to the same relation. Does that 
mean the inner/outer roles alternate as you add more and more "nested" 
objects to the large multipolygon? For example,iIf there was a block 
of private property inside way:427547729 would that be tagged as inner?


You got it. That's why I chose that specific one as an example, to show 
how 'exclave within enclave' works. It's unusual, but it happens.


Just to touch on another topic because Kevin mentioned it. Sometimes 
it's fairly obvious that certain boundaries were meant to follow a 
riverbank or a coastline but at the present time don't. My first 
impulse is to delete segments of the original boundary and replace 
them with the more recent riverbank or coastline. That would probably 
be considered wrong by some but seeing as we do not and can not 
guarantee perfect accuracy with the placement of any boundary I don't 
see it as an absolute no-no. Plus, many of these boundaries use 
thousands of nodes that follow every little zig-zag to achieve legal 
accuracy. IMO, OSM doesn't need that level of detail.


Opinions?


I think you're right about the level of detail, and in fact I simplify 
ways fairly often.


Because partly of confusing advice here, in 'imports', in talk-us, and 
on the Wiki, when I did the reimport of the Adirondack protected areas, 
I did them as separate ways. In order to be able to simplify them, I 
used an 'erode' operation (a 'buffer' operation with negative size) 
where the size was slightly larger than the simplification tolerance to 
offset the ways before simplifying. At the time, I couldn't find such a 
beast in JOSM, so I used QGIS to do it.


What happened to change my mind was further discussion here about 
administrative boundaries, and the way that the offset ways looked 
around the corridors that were cut out of some areas for existing roads 
and railroads. I've been sporadically changing the borders from offset 
ways to shared ways. You can see a partly-done example at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/43.8523/-74.2274 where the west 
side of Gooley Club Road is conflated and shared, while the east side is 
not. That's actually a 'not-too-bad' example since the Primitive Area 
corridor extends a hundred feet (~30 m) from the road centerline on 
either side. (Gotta fix the road designation, too - it's yet another 
TIGER Residential!. Grrr.) The corridor at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/44.0071/-73.9362 applies 
'Primitive Area' protection to a three-rod right-of-way, and there was 
absolutely no way to get the ways simplified and aligned without 
conflating them (and in that case, why not make them a shared way?)


I still think my approach was valid for the initial import, particularly 
since the boundaries in the source data were drawn so as to require 
manual conflation otherwise. I discussed this issue at the time in 
'imports' and heard no complaints. In fact, one commenter thought that 
offsetting the ways automatically was fairly clever. For that reason, I 
haven't made the effort to go back and tidy everything. Still, if I 
happen to be maintaining an offset boundary for other reasons, I'll 
generally replace it with a shared way.



PS: This has been a most beneficial conversation. I feel enlightened.


That's gratifying. The more people who understand how multipolygons help 
with this sort of thing, the more we'll be able to dispel the idea that 
they're unworkable or unmaintainable.




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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Peter Elderson]

I can join two regular areas in JOSM, but I can't find how to join
multipolygon areas with a similar operation. But that wasn't really my
question!

Op ma 29 okt. 2018 om 11:15 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> 29. Oct 2018 10:51 by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> I have a question of my own: is it possible to define operations on
> multipolygons ? E.g. can you join two multipolygons, add a multipolygon to
> another, split a multipolygon by adding one or two cutting ways?
>
>
> If you want to join two areas, including multipolygons then JOSM has it
> implemented.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29. Oct 2018 11:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> > At the moment mappers can simply tag by  using the name 




Noone proposed to stop using name tag. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas - is it landuse=commercial?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I made first edits - documenting that restaurants, fast food places, fuel 
stations areconsidered retail for landuse purposes - see 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dretail=1686815=1685021
 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial=1686816=1636771
 



28. Oct 2018 22:30 by matkoni...@tutanota.com :


> > Based on my understanding of term "commercial ara" and how landuse 
> tagging is used in OSM> I think that area with restaurants, hotels, cinemas 
> fits landuse=commercial.
> But I want to confirm that before editing> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial 
> 
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:18, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name


here’s an example for a misleading name tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name 
> 
> embassy
> high commission
> nunciature
> consulate
> consulate _general
> 
> etc.
> 
> OSm normally sides with the mappers rather than the renders, keep the mappers 
> job easy and they will continue to add things. 
> Make it hard and they will give up.


a good system keeps things simple for basic information and makes it possible 
to add more detail if desired. While the name tag can give indications about 
these details, I believe we should also strive to formalize tags for these 
subclasses and properties, because it allows for semantic processing (e.g. 
searching for objects with specific properties).


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

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29. Oct 2018 10:51 by pelder...@gmail.com :


> I have a question of my own: is it possible to define operations on 
> multipolygons ? E.g. can you join two multipolygons, add a multipolygon to 
> another, split a multipolygon by adding one or two cutting ways?




If you want to join two areas, including multipolygons then JOSM has it 
implemented.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Warin]

At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name

embassy
high commission
nunciature
consulate
consulate _general

etc.

OSm normally sides with the mappers rather than the renders, keep the 
mappers job easy and they will continue to add things.

Make it hard and they will give up.

So I would continue with the present system where the mappers can use 
the name to determine the status. If the renders want they can chose;


do all diplomatic things the same (as in now the case)
or distinguish between things .. possibly combining things as you have. 
This could be sated on the wiki under rendering.


On 29/10/18 12:45, Allan Mustard wrote:


Here are some rules of thumb:

* If it displays a sign reading "embassy", "high commission", 
"nunciature", or "interests section", it is a safe bet that it should 
be tagged "embassy".


* If the sending side has made loud public pronouncements and 
published widely that its embassies are now called "people's bureaus" 
or some other formulation, it can be safely tagged "embassy".


* If it has a sign on it that says "consulate", it is a consulate, and 
the sign will specify what flavor of consulate.


After that it is safest to ask somebody at the institution in question 
whether it is part of the embassy or consulate (like my American 
Center) or not (like TIFA), though status can sometimes be divined by 
reading the institution's website. If all else fails, check the host 
country's diplomatic list and see if the chief of mission is on it.  
If s/he is not listed, the institution is not diplomatic 
(diplomatic=other).  If s/he is listed but has a non-diplomatic title 
(e.g., "director" or "coordinator" as opposed to "ambassador", "charge 
d'affaires", "minister", "counselor", "first/second/third secretary", 
or "attache") the mission is pretty clearly not under the VCDR 
(diplomatic=other).  Here we walk a fine line.  TIFA is an agency of 
the Turkish government, hence diplomatic=other. American Councils, 
which operates our American Corners in Turkmenistan, is an NGO 
operating under contract with the U.S. government, so our American 
Corners are not diplomatic, but rather NGO offices (office=ngo). 
Parsing all of this constitutes a good excuse to recruit diplomats to 
OSM to help with mapping :-)


Two more examples and I'll stop--I can hear the eyes rolling all the 
way from Ashgabat:


* The Apostolic Nunciature in Ashgabat is headed most of the time by a 
charge d'affaires because the nuncio is resident in Ankara and only 
visits periodically.  The charge d'affaires is nominally the "cultural 
attache".  Since it is a nunciature, we know it is under the VCDR.


* The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Asian 
Development Bank, and the United Nations missions in Ashgabat (there 
are two) enjoy diplomatic status under the Bretton Woods arrangement 
(the banks) and the UN Charter.  Technically that makes the EBRD and 
ADB diplomatic missions, but we tag them as banks, not as embassies 
(under the new construct we might however tag them diplomatic=other in 
addition to tagging them as banks).  The lead UN Mission, in a new 
construct with diplomatic=* as a primary tag, would be tagged 
diplomatic=other since its head is called "resident coordinator" and 
the UN Mission is covered by the UN Charter, not the VCDR.


Would the lay person know all this?  Not until reading the wiki 
articles we will need to compose if a primary diplomatic=* tag is 
adopted. Sometimes it is not completely obvious and you have to do a 
little research.


On 10/29/2018 3:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 02:32, Allan Mustard > wrote:



* The USAID office is part of the American Embassy but is in a
separate office flat in a building across town, so would be a
node tagged diplomatic=embassy, embassy=assistance office.
* The Turkish counterpart, TIFA, does not enjoy diplomatic status
so would be tagged diplomatic=other, other=assistance office.
* The Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be
diplomatic=other, other=trade office because it is accorded
diplomatic status by bilateral agreement, not the VCDR (there is
no Libyan Embassy here).
* The American Center would be a node in an office building
tagged diplomatic=embassy, embassy=cultural center, while the
Iranian Cultural Center would be a building with the same tags,
since both enjoy diplomatic status as sections of their
respective embassies.
* The Russian Consulate General has its own building and grounds
separate from the embassy, so would be an enclosed way tagged as
diplomatic=consulate, consulate=consulate general.


Thank you for a very detailed, very interesting post, Allan.

One question, please.

Is there any way that a layman such as myself would know that "The 
Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be diplomatic=other, 
other=trade office because it is accorded diplomatic status 

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Peter Elderson]

Thanks, Dave, for asking these questions. I am still struggling with the
practical consequences of the concept, but it really helped.

I have a question of my own: is it possible to define operations on
multipolygons ? E.g. can you join two multipolygons, add a multipolygon to
another, split a multipolygon by adding one or two cutting ways?

I know you can do it by hand, but can the operations be defined as formulas
(with hard checkable preconditions if needed)?

Eg. a join of two adjacent multipolygons. It looks to me that the
precondition would be that landuse/landcover are the same and there is only
one way (or combination) that they share.
The operation would then be to move the complete set of ways -including
roles- from one multipolygon to the other, removing double ways, save, then
delete the empty one. A tool could do this.

Right?  Probably already exists, then.
(Every time I think of something I find that someone else has done the same
long ago...the wheel, for instance...)

Op ma 29 okt. 2018 om 08:52 schreef Dave Swarthout :

> Thanks.
>
> After I posted my question I thought about it again. When I asked the
> question I was thinking in terms of a method of loading the entire external
> relation into the existing large one with one or two clicks. Then later, as
> I was watching Boston win the World Series, I realized that adding all the
> ways that make up an inner multipolygon to the large one making sure to set
> their roles as "inner" amounts to the same thing. The ways comprising the
> inner multipolygon remain "connected" spatially inside the big
> multipolygon.
>
> The Wilcox Lake Wild Forest islet is another good illustrative example
> since it simultaneously serves as an inner way and an outer way. That
> answers what was going to be my next question, i.e., how would you add a
> wetland inner to a multipolygon that is already an inner of an enclosing
> multipolygon?
>
> But I'm still a bit confused about way:427547729. It's tagged as an outer
> in the Wilcox WF multipolygon but it's located inside of an enclosing way
> that's also an inner to the same relation. Does that mean the inner/outer
> roles alternate as you add more and more "nested" objects to the large
> multipolygon? For example,iIf there was a block of private property inside
> way:427547729 would that be tagged as inner?
>
> Just to touch on another topic because Kevin mentioned it. Sometimes it's
> fairly obvious that certain boundaries were meant to follow a riverbank or
> a coastline but at the present time don't. My first impulse is to delete
> segments of the original boundary and replace them with the more recent
> riverbank or coastline. That would probably be considered wrong by some but
> seeing as we do not and can not guarantee perfect accuracy with the
> placement of any boundary I don't see it as an absolute no-no. Plus, many
> of these boundaries use thousands of nodes that follow every little zig-zag
> to achieve legal accuracy. IMO, OSM doesn't need that level of detail.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Dave
>
> PS: This has been a most beneficial conversation. I feel enlightened.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:33 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, next question.
>>>
>>> I added the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge to OSM yesterday .
>>> (I don't do much mapping in Texas but that place is special because I once
>>> did a water quality assessment there as a volunteer.) It's a fairly large
>>> multipolygon and the main relation holds the bulk of the refuge territory.
>>> However, there are scattered about several other areas, some of which are
>>> also multipolygons, that are part of the refuge.
>>>
>>> Simple areas can be easily included as "outers" in the main relation
>>> (Rel ID:885828). But what about other pieces that are multipolygons? I
>>> could simply add them as separate relations with identical tags but
>>> handling such areas that are connected administratively but not physically
>>> would seem to be one reason multipolygons were invented. But I'm thinking
>>> there must be a more elegant method. And what about inner areas that are
>>> also multipolygons? This case cannot be handled by my simplistic approach.
>>>
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with having more than one segmented outer ring.
>>
>> Have a look at relation 6362971 (use File->Download Object in JOSM) in
>> the relation editor, and you'll see just such an area, with muiltiple
>> segmented outer rings, and some of the segmentation is there to have shared
>> ways.  If you also download 6370357, you'll see how the two relations share
>> some, but not all, of the ways. Relation 8428216 might also interest you.
>> It's a case where the same protected area shares multiple, noncontiguous
>> segments with a lake shore, and multiple, also noncontiguous, segments with
>> an adjacent protected area.
>>
>> Way 427547737 is also interesting. It's tagged place=islet (because it
>> is).  It's 

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: “Does that mean the inner/outer roles alternate as you add more and
more "nested" objects to the large multipolygon?“

Yes, you’ve got it. This situation is rare but it does happen.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:52 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> After I posted my question I thought about it again. When I asked the
> question I was thinking in terms of a method of loading the entire external
> relation into the existing large one with one or two clicks. Then later, as
> I was watching Boston win the World Series, I realized that adding all the
> ways that make up an inner multipolygon to the large one making sure to set
> their roles as "inner" amounts to the same thing. The ways comprising the
> inner multipolygon remain "connected" spatially inside the big
> multipolygon.
>
> The Wilcox Lake Wild Forest islet is another good illustrative example
> since it simultaneously serves as an inner way and an outer way. That
> answers what was going to be my next question, i.e., how would you add a
> wetland inner to a multipolygon that is already an inner of an enclosing
> multipolygon?
>
> But I'm still a bit confused about way:427547729. It's tagged as an outer
> in the Wilcox WF multipolygon but it's located inside of an enclosing way
> that's also an inner to the same relation. Does that mean the inner/outer
> roles alternate as you add more and more "nested" objects to the large
> multipolygon? For example,iIf there was a block of private property inside
> way:427547729 would that be tagged as inner?
>
> Just to touch on another topic because Kevin mentioned it. Sometimes it's
> fairly obvious that certain boundaries were meant to follow a riverbank or
> a coastline but at the present time don't. My first impulse is to delete
> segments of the original boundary and replace them with the more recent
> riverbank or coastline. That would probably be considered wrong by some but
> seeing as we do not and can not guarantee perfect accuracy with the
> placement of any boundary I don't see it as an absolute no-no. Plus, many
> of these boundaries use thousands of nodes that follow every little zig-zag
> to achieve legal accuracy. IMO, OSM doesn't need that level of detail.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Dave
>
> PS: This has been a most beneficial conversation. I feel enlightened.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:33 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, next question.
>>>
>>> I added the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge to OSM yesterday .
>>> (I don't do much mapping in Texas but that place is special because I once
>>> did a water quality assessment there as a volunteer.) It's a fairly large
>>> multipolygon and the main relation holds the bulk of the refuge territory.
>>> However, there are scattered about several other areas, some of which are
>>> also multipolygons, that are part of the refuge.
>>>
>>> Simple areas can be easily included as "outers" in the main relation
>>> (Rel ID:885828). But what about other pieces that are multipolygons? I
>>> could simply add them as separate relations with identical tags but
>>> handling such areas that are connected administratively but not physically
>>> would seem to be one reason multipolygons were invented. But I'm thinking
>>> there must be a more elegant method. And what about inner areas that are
>>> also multipolygons? This case cannot be handled by my simplistic approach.
>>>
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with having more than one segmented outer ring.
>>
>> Have a look at relation 6362971 (use File->Download Object in JOSM) in
>> the relation editor, and you'll see just such an area, with muiltiple
>> segmented outer rings, and some of the segmentation is there to have shared
>> ways.  If you also download 6370357, you'll see how the two relations share
>> some, but not all, of the ways. Relation 8428216 might also interest you.
>> It's a case where the same protected area shares multiple, noncontiguous
>> segments with a lake shore, and multiple, also noncontiguous, segments with
>> an adjacent protected area.
>>
>> Way 427547737 is also interesting. It's tagged place=islet (because it
>> is).  It's an inner way of Lens Lake, and an outer way of Wilcox Lake Wild
>> Forest. Since the lake is not part of the Wild Forest, but is part of a
>> private inholding that is completely surrounded by the Wild Forest, its
>> west shore is an outer way of the lake and an inner way of the Wild
>> Forest.  And the inner ring to which that way belongs completely surrounds
>> the islet.
>>
>> (The shoreline looks wrong in places, but I'm not going to fix it,
>> because it's way too hard to tell land from water in orthos of beaver swamp.
>>
>> Because research is needed to find out whether, for instance, a nature
>> reserve boundary that appears to run along a shoreline actually follows the
>> shoreline or rather follows some survey line that was the shoreline in
>> times past, I generally do this sort of 

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

[Dave Swarthout]

Thanks.

After I posted my question I thought about it again. When I asked the
question I was thinking in terms of a method of loading the entire external
relation into the existing large one with one or two clicks. Then later, as
I was watching Boston win the World Series, I realized that adding all the
ways that make up an inner multipolygon to the large one making sure to set
their roles as "inner" amounts to the same thing. The ways comprising the
inner multipolygon remain "connected" spatially inside the big
multipolygon.

The Wilcox Lake Wild Forest islet is another good illustrative example
since it simultaneously serves as an inner way and an outer way. That
answers what was going to be my next question, i.e., how would you add a
wetland inner to a multipolygon that is already an inner of an enclosing
multipolygon?

But I'm still a bit confused about way:427547729. It's tagged as an outer
in the Wilcox WF multipolygon but it's located inside of an enclosing way
that's also an inner to the same relation. Does that mean the inner/outer
roles alternate as you add more and more "nested" objects to the large
multipolygon? For example,iIf there was a block of private property inside
way:427547729 would that be tagged as inner?

Just to touch on another topic because Kevin mentioned it. Sometimes it's
fairly obvious that certain boundaries were meant to follow a riverbank or
a coastline but at the present time don't. My first impulse is to delete
segments of the original boundary and replace them with the more recent
riverbank or coastline. That would probably be considered wrong by some but
seeing as we do not and can not guarantee perfect accuracy with the
placement of any boundary I don't see it as an absolute no-no. Plus, many
of these boundaries use thousands of nodes that follow every little zig-zag
to achieve legal accuracy. IMO, OSM doesn't need that level of detail.

Opinions?

Dave

PS: This has been a most beneficial conversation. I feel enlightened.


On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:33 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> Okay, next question.
>>
>> I added the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge to OSM yesterday .
>> (I don't do much mapping in Texas but that place is special because I once
>> did a water quality assessment there as a volunteer.) It's a fairly large
>> multipolygon and the main relation holds the bulk of the refuge territory.
>> However, there are scattered about several other areas, some of which are
>> also multipolygons, that are part of the refuge.
>>
>> Simple areas can be easily included as "outers" in the main relation (Rel
>> ID:885828). But what about other pieces that are multipolygons? I could
>> simply add them as separate relations with identical tags but handling such
>> areas that are connected administratively but not physically would seem to
>> be one reason multipolygons were invented. But I'm thinking there must be a
>> more elegant method. And what about inner areas that are also
>> multipolygons? This case cannot be handled by my simplistic approach.
>>
>
> There's nothing wrong with having more than one segmented outer ring.
>
> Have a look at relation 6362971 (use File->Download Object in JOSM) in the
> relation editor, and you'll see just such an area, with muiltiple segmented
> outer rings, and some of the segmentation is there to have shared ways.  If
> you also download 6370357, you'll see how the two relations share some, but
> not all, of the ways. Relation 8428216 might also interest you. It's a case
> where the same protected area shares multiple, noncontiguous segments with
> a lake shore, and multiple, also noncontiguous, segments with an adjacent
> protected area.
>
> Way 427547737 is also interesting. It's tagged place=islet (because it
> is).  It's an inner way of Lens Lake, and an outer way of Wilcox Lake Wild
> Forest. Since the lake is not part of the Wild Forest, but is part of a
> private inholding that is completely surrounded by the Wild Forest, its
> west shore is an outer way of the lake and an inner way of the Wild
> Forest.  And the inner ring to which that way belongs completely surrounds
> the islet.
>
> (The shoreline looks wrong in places, but I'm not going to fix it, because
> it's way too hard to tell land from water in orthos of beaver swamp.
>
> Because research is needed to find out whether, for instance, a nature
> reserve boundary that appears to run along a shoreline actually follows the
> shoreline or rather follows some survey line that was the shoreline in
> times past, I generally do this sort of conflation only when resolving
> conflicts or reimporting a particular boundary, so you'll see a lot of
> imported borders up in the Adirondacks that don't use shared ways yet. You
> can still use them as examples of how arbitrarily complex the topology can
> get.  That Wilcox Lake Wild Forest relation (6360587) to which that islet
> belongs is pretty crazy, because it's a