Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC - Pipe valves

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

I think the document is complete, with all expected keys and values for
this step
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_proposal

Let me know if any question remains unanswered.

Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 01:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> I had no idea what a 'globe valve' was .. wikipedia has it  ... what I
> had called 'jumper valves' as that is the bit I have replaced many times.
>

Glad to learn another way to name them too
Jumper valve sounds like the domestic name for globe it seems


>
> Probably best to have a picture to describe them .. you can use the
> wikipedia pictures such as
>
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Globe_valve_diagram.svg/220px-Globe_valve_diagram.svg.png
>

I'll surely use them to create the dedicated valve=* values pages if
accepted
These are really good quality pictures

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 06:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> In Australia, there are two indigenous peoples - the *A*boriginal (not 
> *a*boriginal)
> people
>

& when I go back & read what I wrote, I've put it down incorrectly :-(

Should be Indigenous & Aboriginal peoples!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 04:16, Alan McConchie 
wrote:

Good work with getting this proposal resurrected, Alan

2 comments thanks, one of which is *very* nit-picky!

This proposal is for mapping the official reservation boundaries of
> recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples. These areas go by a
> variety of names in different countries, such as Indigenous Protected Areas
> in Australia,


In Australia, there are two indigenous peoples - the *A*boriginal (not
*a*boriginal)
people & the Torres Straight Islanders. This page
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples
goes into quite a bit of detail, but the prime bit is:

"
A note on terminology

The 'A' in 'Aboriginal' is capitalised similar to other designations like
'Australian', 'Arabic' or 'Nordic'. The word 'aboriginal with a lowercase
'a' refers to an indigenous person from any part of the world. As such, it
does not necessarily refer to the Aboriginal people of Australia.

'Aboriginal people' is a collective name for the original people of
Australia and their descendants, and does not emphasise the diversity of
languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. This diversity is
acknowledged by adding an 's' to 'people' ('Aboriginal peoples').
'Aboriginal people' can also be used to refer to more than one Aboriginal
person.

The 'I' in 'Indigenous' is capitalised when referring specifically to
Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The lower case
'i' for 'indigenous' is only used when referring to people originating in
more than one region or country such as the Pacific region, Asiatic region,
Canada or New Zealand"

As I said, very nit-picky, but do you need to make reference to A / a & I /
i ?



> • These regions are mutually recognized between the aboriginal
> peoples and the occupying/colonizing government,
>

I'm not sure about the term "occupying / colonising government", as to me,
it comes across as having happened last week! Federal / State Government
perhaps?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Alan McConchie]

You are both correct that despite my attempted cleanup of the proposal, there 
still wasn't a good description of what these features actually are in the real 
world. I added a new description at the top of the page. That's my fault, sorry 
that I didn't include that before I started the vote. 

I tried to summarize the discussion about what these features actually are, and 
what they should include and not include. Specifically I hope this clarifies 
that we are only mapping the official boundaries of reservations, not the 
traditional pre-colonial territories of aboriginal people.

You can read and comment on the new proposal here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands#Proposal



Here is the content of that new section:


This proposal is for mapping the official reservation boundaries of recognized 
aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples. These areas go by a variety of names 
in different countries, such as Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia, Indian 
Reserves in Canada, Indian Reservations in the United States, Terra Indígena 
(Indigenous Territory) in Brazil, Territorio Indigena in Colombia, or Territory 
of Traditional Natural Resource Use in Russia, to name some common examples.

While the specific status of these areas differs by country, they generally 
share two things in common:

• These regions have special legal status for the benefit of aboriginal 
peoples, and different laws may be enforced within these regions. The 
aboriginal groups usually have some form of self-governance in these areas.

• These regions are mutually recognized between the aboriginal peoples 
and the occupying/colonizing government, and their boundaries are not in 
dispute. (The fact that some aboriginal groups may claim much larger areas and 
may be negotiating for an expansion of their reservations does not change the 
fact that the existing boundaries are mutually recognized as the current legal 
situation).

This proposal does not cover:

• Larger land claims that have not yet been mutually finalized between 
the aboriginal group and the occupying/colonizing government. In many 
countries, notably in parts of Canada, treaty negotiations are ongoing. These 
disputed areas should not be mapped using the boundary=aboriginal_lands tag.

• Lands outside of reservations that are owned by aboriginal groups, 
but which do not have special legal status. In these areas, the aboriginal 
groups act as a landowner like any other landowner. OpenStreetMap does not map 
land ownership.

• Areas outside of reservations where aboriginal groups may have 
special rights, such as traditional fishing or hunting grounds.

• The traditional or pre-colonial lands of aboriginal people. These may 
be appropriate for Open Historical Map, but they cannot be accurately mapped or 
verified within OpenStreetMap. For a good map of traditional aboriginal 
territories around the world, see https://native-land.ca/.



Alan



> On Nov 25, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> The proposal should be edited to say that this tag should be used for 
> official boundaries of recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples, 
> for example, American Indian Reservations,  Canadian First Peoples, 
> Aboriginal Australian etc (Plus the proper terminology for Brazil and 
> other countries if relevant). 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:44 PM Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
> 25. Nov 2018 01:38 by alan.mcconc...@gmail.com:
> 
> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for all 
> come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the 
> discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom: 
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
> 
> 
>  I would start from RfC. For example it is still not documented what is 
> mapped this tag
> 
> (and no, it is not obvious - I am hoping that it is some officially declared 
> boundary, but
> 
> I am not sure).
> 
> ___
> 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 - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Doug Hembry]

This is a bad proposal. We should stick with the boundary=protected_area 
tag family. As a whole, it's a successful attempt to bring some rational 
organization to what will over time (or to some extent already has) 
otherwise develop into a hodge-podge of top level boundary types: 
boundary=national park, =county park, =city park, State Ecological 
Reserve, Wild, Scenic & Recreation River (USFS), EPA Superfund site, 
water_shed area, Open_Space, recreation_area,  Nature Conservancy Fee 
Land, and, of course, now:  =aboriginal_lands. There are hundreds of 
them, and they vary from country to country. What binds them together is 
that they all designate some purpose and level of control over general 
"outsider" activities in an area. And capturing such information in OSM 
is significant - particularly in countries with large areas of 
non-urban  lands plus high levels of outdoor activity.
Someone has already done the work of mapping different countrys' titles 
into the formal IUCN categories, and I fail to see how much more 
difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24" 
than "boundary=aboriginal_lands". And no-one has yet pointed out that 
the protect_title=* tag allows (actually recommends) a local string 
description to be added for the area (ie, protect_title=Aboriginal Lands)
Apparently a lot of mappers seem to agree because there are already over 
600 uses of protect_class=24, versus just over 200 of 
boundary=aboriginal_lands, mostly, it seems in the north-east and 
north-west of the US (?)
Moreover, if an aboriginal_lands area should also be considered an 
administrative unit in its own right, then there's nothing wrong with 
two coincident boundary definitions - one describing it as a protected 
area and a second describing the administrative boundary, is there?
To extrapolate a little, personally I think it's very unfortunate that 
boundary=protected_area still is is not better supported in OSM. There 
are already 73,000 uses, worldwide. We badly need the tag to at least be 
rendered in carto, ideally with differentiation based on class and the 
access=* tag. Certainly it is unproductive to try to erode it's use by 
introducing new arbitrary top-level "convenience" tags like 
boundary=aboriginal_lands. I'll be voting against.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The proposal should be edited to say that this tag should be used for
official boundaries of recognized aboriginal / indigenous / native peoples,
for example, American Indian Reservations,  Canadian First Peoples,
Aboriginal Australian etc (Plus the proper terminology for Brazil and
other countries if relevant).

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:44 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 25. Nov 2018 01:38 by alan.mcconc...@gmail.com:
>
> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for
> all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the
> discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
>
>
>  I would start from RfC. For example it is still not documented what is
> mapped this tag
>
> (and no, it is not obvious - I am hoping that it is some officially
> declared boundary, but
>
> I am not sure).
> ___
> 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 - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I would not care too much about support in data consumers, checking what magic 
number meansduring development is not too problematic.
But it is horrible, horrible for mappers that edit tags directly. Maybe this 
can be hidden in iD,but magic number are obnoxious for all other mappers.

25. Nov 2018 02:22 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alan McConchie <> alan.mcconc...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? Or 
>> should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and 
>> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
>>
>
> My gut feeling is that protect_class is an abomination.
> Numbers are fine, where numbers are appropriate.  Like the address of a 
> house, or the service> number for a bus, or the elevation of a peak.  
> Protect_class is a horrible, ugly mess.  You cannot> easily figure out which 
> value to use (first check with the WDPA, then try to figure out from a 
> gigantic> look-up table which value to use).  To make it easy for mappers, 
> instead of just having a list of> possible values like "national_park," 
> "historical_reserve" or whatever, editors will need a look-up>  table (not 
> difficult to code, but unnecessary) from natural concepts like "nature 
> reserve" to 57> (or whatever the number is).  All data consumers like apps 
> will need a lookup table to translate from>  number to concept so users can 
> make sense of it (or put up with the information that "You are now>  entering 
> a 37").  People using the query tool with the standard carto will either have 
> to then go through>  the wiki to do a lookup or such a lookup will have to be 
> built into the code that handles queries.
> Gut feeling, late at night: anything has to be better than protect_class.  I 
> must be missing something> since it presumably went through the approval 
> process and passed, and people actually use it, but> right now it looks like 
> Satan conceived it to torment mappers before they die.
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25. Nov 2018 01:38 by alan.mcconc...@gmail.com 
:


> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and for all 
> come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review the 
> discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom: 
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
>  
> 




 I would start from RfC. For example it is still not documented what is mapped 
this tag

(and no, it is not obvious - I am hoping that it is some officially declared 
boundary, but

I am not sure).

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

[Tagging] How to map a sliding section of the Alaska Pipeline

[Michael Patrick]

> ... There is a short section of the Trans-Alaska pipeline that crosses a
well-known fault line where it is attached to slides to allow lateral
movement in case of an earthquake. I split the pipeline way and added a
note to the section but that probably isn't visible to most data consumers.
Any ideas?

OMG, Thank You Dave!

I love ontological edge cases -  and this is certainly good one. :-)

I'd add something like "Deliberate Operator Movement" or "Directed
Movement" or some such to my description. These sort of joints are quite
common once one is cued to notice them.

A friend of mine pointed on that a clear distinction was the pure
unidirectional ( along one path ) of rail-lines, whether it's road trains,
maglevs, or rail roads. There's no up/down or side ways component except
through a split, curve, or join in the track, where in the case of a
movable gantry there is usually a lifting, rotating, or conveying occurring
in addition to along the track axis. And as an additional note, regardless
of the type of point of contact ( rail, tire, magnetic ) the term for what
directs the travel is a 'track' ( unfortunately already occupied by the
road term ).

> If it is moveable it is a gantry crane.  A gantry per se can be immobile,
right?

The immobile case ( like the fixed support for signs ) isn't that common,
as far as I could tell - in the sign case, the immobile case was more
commonly more simply called a 'bridge', probably because the spanning part
on even movable gantries and cranes is called a bridge.

> Maybe not a rail line in the conventional sense, but I tagged an
(unfortunately disused) children's train in Ashgabat
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429019713 as a railway even though it
goes around and around, or used to, and has no destination.

Another excellent case. Although it might be said t the origin and
destination merely have the same location, and differ along time and
direction path, , and as I noted, it's primary feature is as a conveyance,
not 'positioning' something for an action. Here the 'rails are rails' in
two uses (
http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0001-dh-thornaby-roundhouse.jpg
), but only one is the 'conventional sense' of a rail line - the other rail
is for positioning.

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