Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

thank you for the references to the specific standards. I’m going to look more 
into it. Problem is if these are hundreds of pages most people will not look 
the tags up ;-)



sent from a phone

On 7. Dec 2018, at 05:30, Michael Patrick  wrote:

>> FWIW, with regard to dictionaries, in the case of the misleading roofer 
>> description, it was copied exactly from the English wikipedia article on 
>> roofers, which is in itself not consistent there (mixes carpentry and 
>> roofing in the article).
> 
> 
> My text was not copied from Wikipedia -  I only work from original 
> authoritative source documents, in this case the U.S. Department of Labor,


yes, I was referring to the OSM wiki, concerning the problems on the roofer 
page mentioned before in this thread, the wiki authors had copied from 
wikipedia. Sorry if this wasn’t clear.

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

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

[Erkin Alp Güney]

Do they not have grade eight roofers in the US?

7.12.2018 01:38 tarihinde Michael Patrick yazdı:
>
> great you name carpenters, because there were actually some
> problems in the
> past classifying people working with wood. ... Can you explain the
> difference between a framer, a carpenter, a cabinet maker, a
> joiner, a finish carpenter, a timberman, a ring builder, a jerry
> man, a binder?
>
>
> There could only be a problem classifying trades if existing lexicons
> are ignored. At least in the U.S., currently, there are fairly exact
> definitions for trade classifications, down to the types of tools,
> specific materials, certification, and processes where required.
>
> Example: /"Grade 9 roofers must be fully skilled in installing new
> roofs. They must have the ability to apply the starter row of shingles
> to insure that they overlap properly and that they are securely
> fastened to the subsurface to eliminate possibility of leaks. On
> built-up roofs, they must be skilled in applying roofing felt, asphalt
> and gravel, or other topping material, and in sealing joints of
> roofing accessories with asphalt. In addition to work at the grade 7
> level, the grade 9 roofers must be able to install and repair the
> metal roofing accessories themselves, such as gravel guards,
> flashings, gutters, valleys, vents, pipes, and chimneys.They also must
> have the ability to cut and form metal accessories to meet roofing
> requirements, to fasten them to roofs with nails or screws, to solder
> metal joints, and to cut and shape shingles to fit around the
> accessories. In comparison with the grade 7 level, the grade 9 roofers
> also must be familiar with a greater variety of roofing materials and
> their uses and methods of installation. They must know how to apply
> wood, asbestos, slate tile, and composition shingles; metal roofing
> panels; roofing felt and asphalt. When required, they must be able to
> apply asbestos siding materials.In addition to the hand tools used at
> the grade 7 level, they must be skilled in the use of shingle cutters,
> metal snips and saws. "/
>
> International Open BIM systems standards ( Building Information
> Management, which covers the entire life cycle from natural site,
> through construction and operation, to demolition and site restoration
> ) have even finer grain of detail.
>
> Some of them might be synonyms, some reflect regional differences
> (e.g. AE
> vs. BE)?
>
>
> Since the labor and materials supply chain is international, there are
> multi-lingual crosswalk tables between the U.S. and E.U., between the
> E.U. and the member countries.
>
> A casual observer might observe a job site during a pour, and classify
> the workers as 'concrete workers', when they are actually Formwork
> /Carpenters./
>
> Folksonomies  like OSM have
> benefits, but as they expand, the downsides begin to matter, and there
> usually isn't an effective mechanism to refactor them.
>
> Sometimes the apparent complexity of these existing standards appear
> intimidating, but they all have a root, branches, and leaves, and one
> can select the level(s) of abstraction which are coincident with
> common language. i.e. in one place you can see what the differences
> /and similarities/ "... between a framer, a carpenter, a cabinet
> maker, a joiner, a finish carpenter, a timberman, a ring builder, a
> jerry man, a binder" are, and where your term lies in the hierarchy.
> Sometimes, the 'root' concept and groupings are not obvious.
>
> This also leaves room for reconciling it with other classifications -
> Japanese style carpentry roles are more or less orthogonal to Western
> style, more intensely aligned to product, the worker literally might
> select and fell the tree, mill that wood, and eventually carve it to
> shape in it's final position.
>
> It's a question, to a degree, of "re-inventing the wheel". There are
> already existing tagging schemes in the world ( some going back to the
> 1700's, from guilds and registries ). It might be worth a few minutes
> to seek those out, and adopt from those.
>
> Michael Patrick
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Rory McCann]

On 06/12/2018 20:49, Mark Wagner wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 Rory McCann  wrote:

natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?


"Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
it gets zero hits in TagInfo.


Nothing wrong with being the first use of a tag.


* Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
vents.


place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?


"locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
attraction".  "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
to the southwest of the actual point of interest.


I don't think so. There are 1.2M+ place=localities in OSM, most just
with a name. A bare "tourism=attraction" is hard to interpret. Is it a
sign? A plaque? A building? "place=locality" says "this whole little
area is the attraction". Which is much more information


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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 07.12.2018 o 12:23, Christoph Hormann pisze:

> The changes i refer to with my comment are in particular the 
> inflationary addition of new POI symbols many of which have been chosen 
> without considering the applicability to represent the feature type in 
> question across different cultures and different geographic settings. 

> The other group of changes i had in mind is the abuse of way_area 
> filtering as an universal cartographic importance rating, in particular 
> for point label placement.  

That sounds to me like a general complaint against changes you don't
like, not the answer about particular problem you have pointed out.

I don't see any of that is a "changed rendering in ways that provide
mapping incentives agaist
the established meaning of the tags" - especially the first one
(location of nodes for areas is already not verifiable, and you have
still not even answered how do you imagine finding the middle of
unverified shape). First of all, you are not referring to meaning of
tags in any way, let alone to changing it.


-- 

"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Of these two, “designation=*” is the best option, because it would be the
same key in all countries.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:50 PM Eugene Podshivalov 
wrote:

> I assume that the aforementioned issue with the official classification of
> settlement being deferent from the place tags values is faced in many
> countries.
> So some common approach is needed here. There were many solutioned listed
> above, but it seems that only the following two are suitable for defining
> the local classification:
> 1.  in the respective category tag appended with language code, e..g.
> "place:RU="
> 2.  in the "designation" tag
>
> пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 07:32, Michael Patrick :
>
>> you are right that there are dictionaries about this stuff, but you will
>>> have to have a basic idea in order to make use of them, particularly if
>>> English is not your native language, you might look up terms that you are
>>> familiar with, and might not be aware that you are missing another relevant
>>> term, or that the term is not a translation with more or less the same
>>> meaning but only loosely connected.
>>>
>>
>> Trade in goods and services is international - most countries publish
>> their classifications in their official language(s) and script. I looked
>> looked at Mozambique at random, it's 520 pages of similar tables as the
>> ISCO. The one that don't publish their own probably default to the ISOC
>> standard, or like North Korea, don't play well with others.
>>
>> (Sample extract ... some of the fonts for the Asian languages didn't copy
>> properly)
>> Ireland - CSO Standard Employment Status Classification
>> Israel - (SCO) די יחלשמ לש דיחאה גוויסה
>> Italy -  Classificazione delle professioni (CP 2011)
>> Jamaica - Jamaica Standard Occupational Classification (JSOC 1991)
>> Japan - (JSOC)
>> Korea, Republic of -
>> Latvia - Profesiju klasifikators (PK)
>> Lithuania -  Lietuvos profesijų klasifikatorius (LPK)
>> Malaysia -  Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO 2008)
>> Maldives - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
>> Mauritius - National Standard Classification of Occupations (NASCO-08)
>> Micronesia, Federated States of - International Standard Classification
>> of Occupations (ISCO)
>> Mozambique - Classificação das Profissões de Moçambique revisão 2 (CPM Rev2)
>> Nauru - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
>> Netherlands - Standaard Beroepenclassificatie 1992 (SBC 1992)
>> New Zealand - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of
>> Occupations (ANZSCO)
>> Norway - Standard for yrkesklassifisering (STYRK-08)
>> Palestine -  (PSCO) ل د ط ا ير ا ا ف
>> Panama - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO 2010)
>> Paraguay - Clasificación Paraguaya de Ocupaciones (CPO)
>> Philippines - 2011 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC)
>> Poland - Klasyfikacja zawodów i specjalności na potrzeby rynku pracy
>> (KZiS)
>> Portugal - Classificação Portuguesa das Profissões (CPP/2010)
>> Qatar - Occupations
>> Romania - Clasificarea Ocupatiilor din Romania (COR)
>> Russian Federation - Общероссийский классификатор занятий (ОКЗ),
>> Общероссийский классификатор профессий рабочих, должностей служащих и
>> тарифных разрядов (ОКПДТР)
>> Sao Tome and Principe - Classicação das Profissões (CNP)
>> Serbia - Jedinstvena nomenklatura zanimanj / Klasifikacija zanimanja (JNZ
>> / KZ)
>> Singapore - Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC 2010)
>> Slovakia -  Štatistická klasifikácia zamestnaní (ISCO-08)
>> Spain - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO-11)
>> Suriname - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08)
>> Sweden - Standard för svensk yrkesklassificering (SSYK)
>>
>> Language is reflecting reality, and if the way construction work is
>>> organized is different in different countries, also the terms describing
>>> the workers will not be matchable.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there are similarities and differences. The Japanese top-level
>> categories make a clear distinction between the wooden structure and other
>> structures that I guessed at in my previous post. But it is visible there.
>> The sub-items are what provide the ability to match. That is why there are
>> 'crosswalks', a means like a document or table describing a mechanism or
>> approach to translating, comparing or moving between standards, converting
>> skills or content from one discipline to another. If you don't want to use
>> the local one, there is an international one
>> , and eventually
>> someone can reconcile the local one.
>>
>> Additionally we are not going to add every single term that describes a
>>> profession as a tag, because there are synonyms and overlap. We usually try
>>> to create (not too) coarse classes/groups and use subtags to distinguish
>>> minor differences.
>>>
>>
>> Classification schemes are always a Goldilocks Problem
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 07 December 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or
> > changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist
> > the established meaning of the tags.
>
> Can you link issues opened on issue tracker that
> report this serious problems?
>
> I looked at it and I failed to find any that would be opened
> recently.

I have not recently followed all of the changes and i mostly stoppend 
reporting problems i see because when i did so these comments were 
universally dismissed and had no influence.

The changes i refer to with my comment are in particular the 
inflationary addition of new POI symbols many of which have been chosen 
without considering the applicability to represent the feature type in 
question across different cultures and different geographic settings.  
Many of these represent just the European urban cliché version of it.

The other group of changes i had in mind is the abuse of way_area 
filtering as an universal cartographic importance rating, in particular 
for point label placement.  The resulting initiatives of label drawing 
through non-verifiable polygon painting can be observed right now.  And 
tourism=attraction was one of the first tags to follow this principle 
in OSM-Carto so it is kind of a forerunner in that regard.

I don't really see much of a chance of a change in direction here (in 
other words:  it will likely get worse before it maybe gets better) but 
i none the less consider it important to point out that this is 
something that is visible right now to people who approach this with an 
open mind and open eyes.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

[Eugene Podshivalov]

I assume that the aforementioned issue with the official classification of
settlement being deferent from the place tags values is faced in many
countries.
So some common approach is needed here. There were many solutioned listed
above, but it seems that only the following two are suitable for defining
the local classification:
1.  in the respective category tag appended with language code, e..g.
"place:RU="
2.  in the "designation" tag

пт, 7 дек. 2018 г. в 07:32, Michael Patrick :

> you are right that there are dictionaries about this stuff, but you will
>> have to have a basic idea in order to make use of them, particularly if
>> English is not your native language, you might look up terms that you are
>> familiar with, and might not be aware that you are missing another relevant
>> term, or that the term is not a translation with more or less the same
>> meaning but only loosely connected.
>>
>
> Trade in goods and services is international - most countries publish
> their classifications in their official language(s) and script. I looked
> looked at Mozambique at random, it's 520 pages of similar tables as the
> ISCO. The one that don't publish their own probably default to the ISOC
> standard, or like North Korea, don't play well with others.
>
> (Sample extract ... some of the fonts for the Asian languages didn't copy
> properly)
> Ireland - CSO Standard Employment Status Classification
> Israel - (SCO) די יחלשמ לש דיחאה גוויסה
> Italy -  Classificazione delle professioni (CP 2011)
> Jamaica - Jamaica Standard Occupational Classification (JSOC 1991)
> Japan - (JSOC)
> Korea, Republic of -
> Latvia - Profesiju klasifikators (PK)
> Lithuania -  Lietuvos profesijų klasifikatorius (LPK)
> Malaysia -  Malaysia Standard Classification of Occupations (MASCO 2008)
> Maldives - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
> Mauritius - National Standard Classification of Occupations (NASCO-08)
> Micronesia, Federated States of - International Standard Classification of
> Occupations (ISCO)
> Mozambique - Classificação das Profissões de Moçambique revisão 2 (CPM Rev2)
> Nauru - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
> Netherlands - Standaard Beroepenclassificatie 1992 (SBC 1992)
> New Zealand - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of
> Occupations (ANZSCO)
> Norway - Standard for yrkesklassifisering (STYRK-08)
> Palestine -  (PSCO) ل د ط ا ير ا ا ف
> Panama - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO 2010)
> Paraguay - Clasificación Paraguaya de Ocupaciones (CPO)
> Philippines - 2011 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC)
> Poland - Klasyfikacja zawodów i specjalności na potrzeby rynku pracy (KZiS)
> Portugal - Classificação Portuguesa das Profissões (CPP/2010)
> Qatar - Occupations
> Romania - Clasificarea Ocupatiilor din Romania (COR)
> Russian Federation - Общероссийский классификатор занятий (ОКЗ),
> Общероссийский классификатор профессий рабочих, должностей служащих и
> тарифных разрядов (ОКПДТР)
> Sao Tome and Principe - Classicação das Profissões (CNP)
> Serbia - Jedinstvena nomenklatura zanimanj / Klasifikacija zanimanja (JNZ
> / KZ)
> Singapore - Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC 2010)
> Slovakia -  Štatistická klasifikácia zamestnaní (ISCO-08)
> Spain - Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO-11)
> Suriname - International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08)
> Sweden - Standard för svensk yrkesklassificering (SSYK)
>
> Language is reflecting reality, and if the way construction work is
>> organized is different in different countries, also the terms describing
>> the workers will not be matchable.
>>
>
> Yes, there are similarities and differences. The Japanese top-level
> categories make a clear distinction between the wooden structure and other
> structures that I guessed at in my previous post. But it is visible there.
> The sub-items are what provide the ability to match. That is why there are
> 'crosswalks', a means like a document or table describing a mechanism or
> approach to translating, comparing or moving between standards, converting
> skills or content from one discipline to another. If you don't want to use
> the local one, there is an international one
> , and eventually
> someone can reconcile the local one.
>
> Additionally we are not going to add every single term that describes a
>> profession as a tag, because there are synonyms and overlap. We usually try
>> to create (not too) coarse classes/groups and use subtags to distinguish
>> minor differences.
>>
>
> Classification schemes are always a Goldilocks Problem
>  -  if it is too
> simple, it will grow awkwardly as it encounters edge cases and exceptions,
> it it is too complex, it will be ignored or even worse applied incorrectly.
> Usually you will see only three levels, and maybe a sparse fourth. The 'not
> too'