Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Marc Gemis]

And where do you put the name of the forest/wood ? On the MP or on the
outer way ?
 I would think on the outer way, as the scrub is part of the named
area. But then I have an outer way with only a name tag. Is that
correct ?

m.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 23/01/19 18:25, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be
> > based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern.
> >
> > I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area
> > landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest.
> >
> > Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of the
> > landcover key for the three main values: trees, grass and scrub. Then,
> > bump the issues with the main renderers and editors. How to do that is
> > not for this list, you are absolutely right about that.
> >
> > Only after that step, rediscuss the landuse key.
>
> This developed from a simple question of how to map a tree area that has
> holes in it of scrub etc.
> A fairly simply question?
>
> The simple answer is to map the tree area as a relation with;
> natural=wood (even if not 'natural' as OSM acepts that the key 'natural'
> encompass things that many regard as not 'natural'), type multipolygon,
> The surrounding closed way with the role outer.
> Then place simple closed way/s for the hole/s tagged natural=scrub as
> appropriate .. and then place them in the relation with the role 'inner'.
>
> 
> The problem came the simple use of the word forest!
>
> There is no need to wait for other steps to use the tag
> landuse=forestry, it does not conflict with 'landcover' or 'natural'
> tagging.
> Many keys and values are developed in parallel.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Warin]

On 23/01/19 18:25, Peter Elderson wrote:
The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be 
based on consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern.


I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area 
landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest.


Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of the 
landcover key for the three main values: trees, grass and scrub. Then, 
bump the issues with the main renderers and editors. How to do that is 
not for this list, you are absolutely right about that.


Only after that step, rediscuss the landuse key.


This developed from a simple question of how to map a tree area that has 
holes in it of scrub etc.

A fairly simply question?

The simple answer is to map the tree area as a relation with;
natural=wood (even if not 'natural' as OSM acepts that the key 'natural' 
encompass things that many regard as not 'natural'), type multipolygon,

The surrounding closed way with the role outer.
Then place simple closed way/s for the hole/s tagged natural=scrub as 
appropriate .. and then place them in the relation with the role 'inner'.



The problem came the simple use of the word forest!

There is no need to wait for other steps to use the tag 
landuse=forestry, it does not conflict with 'landcover' or 'natural' 
tagging.

Many keys and values are developed in parallel.


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

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Warin]

On 23/01/19 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




Date: Jan 23, 2019, 8:31 AM
From: 61sundow...@gmail.com
To: matkoni...@tutanota.com
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, 
scree…): how to map?


On 23/01/19 17:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




Jan 23, 2019, 4:49 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com
:

On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com
:

The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that
the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from
natural=wood.
The essential difference between the two is that landuse
must have some human benefit, a produce, and a clear way
of doing that is to add the rendering of a axe to the tree.


(1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely
unimportant
or at least not worth different rendering

(2) other people have different mismatching ideas what is the
"real" difference between natural=wood and landuse=forest

(3) there is no consistent difference in how natural=wood
and landuse=forest are used
by mappers


If the is no difference between the two then there will be no
problem depreciating landuse=forest.


First of all: "there many, many opinions how natural=wood and
landuse=forest differ and
some people think that his makes distinction between this tags
useless" is not the same as
"there is no difference".

And landuse=forest is used more than three million times
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest

If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry.

Note that many are not using "forestry" to mean "using  forest  to
produce wood".


People within OSM are using landuse=forestry to mean that it
provides some produce for human benefit.

The key 'landuse' is about the human use of that land.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse
"used to describe the primary use of land by humans. "

It is not what is there .. but what the use is by humans.
If there is concrete there, or a swamp .. that does not determine
what the use is.
The concrete could for a roadway, or a sports court.
The swamp could be a native reserve, or a waste water filtration
system.

It is not changing that attempting to use landuse=forestry for "forest 
and associated area

that is used to produce wood" mismatches with meaning of word forestry.


What definition of the word 'forestry' are you referring?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Fwd: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Date: Jan 23, 2019, 8:31 AM
From: 61sundow...@gmail.com
To: matkoni...@tutanota.com
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how 
to map?


> On 23/01/19 17:52, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan 23, 2019, 4:49 AM by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>> On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>>
 Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by  61sundow...@gmail.com 
  :

> The end to this madness is for renders to  recognise that the 
> landuse=forest needs to be rendered  differently from 
> natural=wood.
> The essential difference between the two  is that landuse 
> must have some human benefit, a produce,  and a clear way of 
> doing that is to add the rendering of a  axe to the tree.
>

 (1) in a typical  rendering this distinction is completely 
 unimportant
 or at least not worth different rendering

 (2) other people have different mismatchingideas what is the
 "real" difference between natural=wood andlanduse=forest

 (3) there is no consistent difference in hownatural=wood and 
 landuse=forest are used
 by mappers

>>>
>>> If the is no difference  between the two then there will be no 
>>> problem depreciating  landuse=forest.
>>>
>>
>> First of all: "there many,many opinions how natural=wood and 
>> landuse=forest differ and
>> some people think that hismakes distinction between this tags 
>> useless" is not the sameas
>> "there is no difference".
>>
>> And landuse=forest is used  more than three million times
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest 
>> 
>>
>>
>>> If there is no produce than  it is not landuse=forestry. 
>>>
>>>
>> Note that many are notusing "forestry" to mean "using  forest    
>>  to
>> produce wood".
>>
>
> People within OSM are using landuse=forestry to mean that itprovides some 
> produce for human benefit.
>  
>  The key 'landuse' is about the human use of that land.
>  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse 
> 
>  "used to describe the primary use of land by humans."
>  
>  It is not what is there .. but what the use is by humans. 
>  If there is concrete there, or a swamp .. that does not determinewhat 
> the use is. 
>  The concrete could for a roadway, or a sports court. 
>  The swamp could be a native reserve, or a waste water filtrationsystem.  
>
It is not changing that attempting to use landuse=forestry for "forest and 
associated area 
that is used to produce wood" mismatches with meaning of word forestry.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Peter Elderson]

The rendering itself is a github issue of course, but it shoud be based on
consistent tagging, which is a tagging list concern.

I slipped up in the contradicting paragraphs... I meant, an area
landCOVER=grass within a landUSE=forest.

Main point is, let's recognise / support the growing use of the landcover
key for the three main values: trees, grass and scrub. Then, bump the
issues with the main renderers and editors. How to do that is not for this
list, you are absolutely right about that.

Only after that step, rediscuss the landuse key.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 23 jan. 2019 om 08:11 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

>
>
>
> Jan 23, 2019, 1:00 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
> Landcover tag now approaches 100 000 occurrences. Still growing despite
> not being rendered.  I would think rendering the top three landcover values
> is not out of place. The github issues are still there. Initially:
>
> And please use that GitHub issues for discussing this. Github issues of
> (even important) projects
> are not acceptable place to discuss tagging, discussing how specific
> projects should render
> things is utterly offtopic here.
>
> And I admit that continued "landcover must be rendered in this one
> specific project that
> I will not mention by name making my complaint not only offtopic but also
> utterly useless"
> mails on TAGGING mailing list make me think badly about this tagging
> concept.
>
> Hopefully we have not reached stage that I am falling for false flag.
>
> After that, further steps could be discussed. Until this is done, in my
> opinion every discussion about the usage of landuse tags is doomed to fail.
> There simply is no way forward if there is no rendering alternative.
>
> Anyone may make their own rendering. And if you are stuck then you can
> reach out to people
> who may help.
>
>
> If landcover=grass is rendered, a clearing in a landuse=forest could
> simply be tagged as a polygon with landuse=grass, without cutting up the
> forest.
>
> The main objection would be: existing base. But the landcover rendering
> does not harm the existing base; it's fully backwards compatible.
>
> This two paragraphs contradict each other.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 23, 2019, 1:00 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:

>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
> Landcover tag now approaches 100 000 occurrences. Still growing despite not 
> being rendered.  I would think rendering the top three landcover values is 
> not out of place. The github issues are still there. Initially:
>
And please use that GitHub issues for discussing this. Github issues of (even 
important) projects
are not acceptable place to discuss tagging, discussing how specific projects 
should render
things is utterly offtopic here.

And I admit that continued "landcover must be rendered in this one specific 
project that
I will not mention by name making my complaint not only offtopic but also 
utterly useless"
mails on TAGGING mailing list make me think badly about this tagging concept.

Hopefully we have not reached stage that I am falling for false flag.


> After that, further steps could be discussed. Until this is done, in my 
> opinion every discussion about the usage of landuse tags is doomed to fail. 
> There simply is no way forward if there is no rendering alternative. 
>
Anyone may make their own rendering. And if you are stuck then you can reach 
out to people
who may help.



> If landcover=grass is rendered, a clearing in a landuse=forest could simply 
> be tagged as a polygon with landuse=grass, without cutting up the forest.
>
> The main objection would be: existing base. But the landcover rendering does 
> not harm the existing base; it's fully backwards compatible.
>
This two paragraphs contradict each other. 



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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Peter Elderson]

I think there can be no outcome of any discussion about landuse unless the
landcover is separated from the landuse first.

I think the only way forward is to actually do that first. The growth of
the landcover key shows that many mappers think that it's a good idea to
map landcover separately.

I would gladly see the landcover key recognised and rendered for the three
main values.
Only then, discuss the main landuse key values and modifyers again.

Else, we're just repeating the same discussion over and over.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 23 jan. 2019 om 04:50 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
> landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
> The essential difference between the two is that landuse must have some
> human benefit, a produce, and a clear way of doing that is to add the
> rendering of a axe to the tree.
>
>
> (1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely unimportant
> or at least not worth different rendering
>
> (2) other people have different mismatching ideas what is the
> "real" difference between natural=wood and landuse=forest
>
> (3) there is no consistent difference in how natural=wood and
> landuse=forest are used
> by mappers
>
>
> If the is no difference between the two then there will be no problem
> depreciating landuse=forest.
>
> There are some who do see a distinction of land use, and want to use that
> distinction.
> If some landuse=forest were to be re tagged landuse=forestry as it matches
> a definition of 'landuse' will those using landuse=forest be happy with
> that?
>
> Will they then be happy that landuse=forest becomes depreciated as it is
> seen as the same as natural=wood?
>
> --
> A 'managed' tree area does not necessarily match the land use definition.
> What is the purpose of this land management? Is there a produce that is
> derived from the trees?
> If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry.
>
> A national park is 'managed' .. In Australia no produce comes out of it.
>
> ___
> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 23, 2019, 4:49 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>> The end to this madness is  for renders to recognise that the 
>>> landuse=forest needs to be  rendered differently from natural=wood.
>>> The essential difference  between the two is that landuse must have 
>>> some human benefit,  a produce, and a clear way of doing that is to 
>>> add the  rendering of a axe to the tree.
>>>
>>
>> (1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely unimportant
>> or at least not worth different rendering
>>
>> (2) other people have different mismatchingideas what is the
>> "real" difference between natural=wood andlanduse=forest
>>
>> (3) there is no consistent difference in hownatural=wood and 
>> landuse=forest are used
>> by mappers
>>
>
> If the is no difference between the two then there will be noproblem 
> depreciating landuse=forest.
>

First of all: "there many, many opinions how natural=wood and landuse=forest 
differ and
some people think that his makes distinction between this tags useless" is not 
the same as
"there is no difference".

And landuse=forest is used more than three million times
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest 



> If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry. 
>  
>
Note that many are not using "forestry" to mean "using  forest  toproduce wood".
See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry 
 for an example.



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

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

[Phake Nick]

>
> One reason that's of particular interest to me is that SIT is intended
> to be compatible with 3D rendering, allowing for the creation of 3D
> models that represent both the inside and outside of buildings at the
> same time.
>
> At the moment, Simple 3D Buildings has no support for "half" levels, so
> if we want to preserve that feature of SIT, we would need to update both
> tagging standards at the same time.
>

For indoor tags to be compatible with 3D rendering, there should be a way
to indicate 3D position of bridge/tunnel/stair/any other structures that
connect multiple structures together. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think
there's currently a universally accepted way in indoor tagging and 3d
tagging to tag a bridge between level 3 of a building and level 6 of
another nearby building, which is a rather common scenario for building
cluster built on a mountain or slope and thus each individual building have
different ground levels.

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

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:11 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> [...] addr tags are for postal addresses I don't think using them as a
> level name/ref makes very much sense outside of that very narrow
> application.
>

I rechecked the two main OSM Wiki pages[1][2] on addr:*=* tags and
addresses in general and there is no indication there that such tags are
only intended to encode postal addresses (aside from the specific
addr:postcode=* tag). Personally, I use addr:*=* tags in any scenario where
addresses can be used, such as in contact/location addresses which is used
when the general public (and not just the postman/mailman) wants to go to
an office, shop, or an establishment. For example, the Consulate-General of
Japan in Hong Kong lists their location where they can be reached[3] as
"46-47/F, One Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong". I
could then encode this as:

addr:floor=46-47/F
addr:housename=One Exchange Square
addr:housenumber=8
addr:street=Connaught Place
addr:place=Central (tag probably unnecessary if Central is already a
boundary)
addr:city=Hong Kong (probably unnecessary since HK already has a boundary)

As for level=*, I don't know whether this building skips any floor numbers
(4th? 14th? 24th? etc.) so I would hold off on tagging level=* until I get
to see their elevator buttons.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses
[3] https://www.hk.emb-japan.go.jp/itpr_en/opentime.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-01-23 04:14, Warin wrote:

> Temperate and Tropical moist/dry are climates... if those are to be mapped 
> them go right ahead .. but they are not confined to forests, so should be 
> mapped separately.

Those are simply the names biologists give to that forest types.  E.g. 
"Tropical moist" is a very specific type of forest. No mapping of the climate 
is implied (/but yes, //climate have influence on the forests of a particulare 
region, of course/).

And I missed the fact that we are (/or planning to/) map climates in OSM. Are 
we?  :-/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Warin]

On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the
landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
The essential difference between the two is that landuse must have
some human benefit, a produce, and a clear way of doing that is to
add the rendering of a axe to the tree.


(1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely unimportant
or at least not worth different rendering

(2) other people have different mismatching ideas what is the
"real" difference between natural=wood and landuse=forest

(3) there is no consistent difference in how natural=wood and 
landuse=forest are used

by mappers


If the is no difference between the two then there will be no problem 
depreciating landuse=forest.


There are some who do see a distinction of land use, and want to use 
that distinction.
If some landuse=forest were to be re tagged landuse=forestry as it 
matches a definition of 'landuse' will those using landuse=forest be 
happy with that?


Will they then be happy that landuse=forest becomes depreciated as it is 
seen as the same as natural=wood?


--
A 'managed' tree area does not necessarily match the land use definition.
What is the purpose of this land management? Is there a produce that is 
derived from the trees?

If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry.

A national park is 'managed' .. In Australia no produce comes out of it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Warin]

On 23/01/19 07:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




Jan 21, 2019, 9:44 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:


My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood...

what happens to the remaining landuse=forest?
Will that finally be recognised as the same as natural=wood
and be migrated to natural=wood???


Ideally, if we get landuse=forestry and it eventually renders

Note that it is not obvious to me that a typical map would want to 
display landuse=forestry.




In Australia forestry areas are rendered differently. They are seen as a 
land use that is worth showing, like residential areas are worth showing.


The UK Landranger 1:50,000 show forestry commission land ...

I think you'll find a great many maps identify forestry.

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Warin]

On 23/01/19 11:52, Sergio Manzi wrote:


Only about the cited point (/tagging natural forests as 
natural=wood/), I think a natural forest should be tagged as 
natural=forest (/quite logically, I would say.../), while natural=wood 
should be reserved for "small forests" (/which is one of the possible 
meaning of "wood" in English, if I'm not mistaken/).




The area (size) is given by the area of the closed way. No need to 
differentiate between 'small', 'medium' or 'large' (and each of them 
would have to be defined). Avoid this!
OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by 
using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags.
I am firmly against having tags that distinguish between features based 
on their size.


 Also please consider that "forest" is very generic, and we could be 
willing to more exactly define which kind of forest we are tagging 
(/and eventually have it rendered accordingly/).



Trees and building are also 'generic' ...


To this extent the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the 
leaf_type=* tag (/and only"broadleaved", "needleleaved" and "mixed" 
are defined as possible values/).Wikipedia defines 6 types of forest:


But to me a forest is not just "a lot of trees", but an entire 
ecosystem dominated by trees. And those ecosystems can be very 
different between different continents and latitudes.


  * Temperate needleleaf
  * Temperate broadleaf and mixed
  * Tropical moist
  * Tropical dry
  * Sparse trees and parkland
  * Forest plantations



Temperate and Tropical moist/dry are climates... if those are to be 
mapped them go right ahead .. but they are not confined to forests, so 
should be mapped separately.



Whether something is 'natural' or not is up to your definition and 
knowledge. For most mappers they simply see trees/plants.

If you that 'natural' is something that is verifiable then tell us how.
How do you tell if a tree has been planted by humans and one that is 
self seeded? I cannot see a difference at all.


The density of plants (trees, shrubs, heath) is something to consider .. 
but it needs to be a separate thing and be able to be used with various 
vegetation types. I believe it has been raised before.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I would be very happy if more mappers start tagging leaf_type and
leaf_cycle. Certainly it is possible to add further detail. In temperate
regions one could tag the dominant species of tree in woodlands where the
majority of trees are one species, eg Ponderosa Pine or Douglas Fir in the
western USA.

For more complex forests, a new key might be needed, but it could be
difficult for mappers to recognize some of the finer distinctions. I grew
up in the Klamath National Forest, and I have some interest in Botany, but
I’m not sure I would know where to draw the line between different types of
woodland in my home area, beyond simple things like leaf_type, leaf_cycle,
and dominant species, and maybe tree or shrub density.

Maybe year-round rain vs wet season / dry season?

Here in my adopted homeland of Indonesia, it’s all just “hutan” (forest /
woodland of any type)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:24 AM Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> Hi!
> On 2019-01-23 02:10, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> The one thing that’s missing is a tag for the density of the main
> vegetation type; is it a dense canopy of trees, or dense scrubland, verses
> more widely spaced.
>
> Not only that (and the "leaf cycle" thing): again, a forest is not a bunch
> of trees (*maybe all of the same kind*), and there are very good
> definitions for every kind of forest.
>
> How would you tag a South Indian "Shola" or eastern Guadeloupe's tropical
> forest?
>
> We are not interested in this kind of detail when it comes to nature?
>
>
> ___
> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Sergio Manzi]

Hi!

On 2019-01-23 02:10, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The one thing that’s missing is a tag for the density of the main vegetation 
> type; is it a dense canopy of trees, or dense scrubland, verses more widely 
> spaced.

Not only that (and the "leaf cycle" thing): again, a forest is not a bunch of 
trees (/maybe all of the same kind/), and there are very good definitions for 
every kind of forest.

How would you tag a South Indian "Shola" or eastern Guadeloupe's tropical 
forest?

We are not interested in this kind of detail when it comes to nature?




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Oh, and we shouldn’t forget leaf_type=leafless


This is used for cactus and other succulents, and it’s currently rendered
by the Openstreetmap-Carto style, for wood and forest.

Leaf_cycle is rendered by the Alternative-Colors style made by Christoph,
if you want to see an example of how this can look:

http://blog.imagico.de/differentiated-rendering-of-woodland-in-maps/

And

http://blog.imagico.de/more-on-vegetation-rendering-in-openstreetmap-maps/


On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the leaf_type=* tag
>
> You can also use leaf_cycle= to tag deciduous vs evergreen, and also
> semi-deciduous, semi-evergreen and mixed:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_cycle
>
> This accounts for most types of woodland, along with leaf type. The rest
> can be inferred from latitude (eg forest/wood in the tropics is clearly
> tropical) and elevation (montane vs lowland rainforest) which is readily
> available information.
>
> Probably there is no need for mappers to tag elevation and
> latitude-related distinctions.
>
> The one thing that’s missing is a tag for the density of the main
> vegetation type; is it a dense canopy of trees, or dense scrubland, verses
> more widely spaced.
>
> And there isn’t a way to tag a grassland with scattered shrubs or trees,
> probably because this is not common in Northern Europe.
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:58 AM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
>> Well, sorry, obviously I did an editing mistake and the "*Wikipedia
>> defines 6 types of forest*" phrase jumped up in the wrong place: it
>> should be just above the dotted list of forest types...
>>
>> Sorry about the confusion...
>>
>> Sergio
>>
>>
>> On 2019-01-23 01:52, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>>
>> Only about the cited point (*tagging natural forests as natural=wood*),
>> I think a natural forest should be tagged as natural=forest (*quite
>> logically, I would say...*), while natural=wood should be reserved for
>> "small forests" (*which is one of the possible meaning of "wood" in
>> English, if I'm not mistaken*).
>>
>> Also please consider that "forest" is very generic, and we could be
>> willing to more exactly define which kind of forest we are tagging (*and
>> eventually have it rendered accordingly*).
>>
>> To this extent the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the leaf_type=*
>> tag (*and only"broadleaved", "needleleaved" and "mixed" are defined as
>> possible values*).Wikipedia defines 6 types of forest:
>>
>> But to me a forest is not just "a lot of trees", but an entire ecosystem
>> dominated by trees. And those ecosystems can be very different between
>> different continents and latitudes.
>>
>>- Temperate needleleaf
>>- Temperate broadleaf and mixed
>>- Tropical moist
>>- Tropical dry
>>- Sparse trees and parkland
>>- Forest plantations
>>
>> I think we should be (somehow) able to tag those types.
>>
>> Please also check the sixth forest type described in Wikipedia (*Forest
>> plantations*): I think it coincide with the "forestry" concept we are
>> talking about in the thread (*landuse=forestry, or whatever...*).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Sergio
>>
>>
>> On 2019-01-23 01:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>
>> Natural forests could be preferably tagged as natural=wood ...
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the leaf_type=* tag

You can also use leaf_cycle= to tag deciduous vs evergreen, and also
semi-deciduous, semi-evergreen and mixed:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_cycle

This accounts for most types of woodland, along with leaf type. The rest
can be inferred from latitude (eg forest/wood in the tropics is clearly
tropical) and elevation (montane vs lowland rainforest) which is readily
available information.

Probably there is no need for mappers to tag elevation and latitude-related
distinctions.

The one thing that’s missing is a tag for the density of the main
vegetation type; is it a dense canopy of trees, or dense scrubland, verses
more widely spaced.

And there isn’t a way to tag a grassland with scattered shrubs or trees,
probably because this is not common in Northern Europe.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:58 AM Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> Well, sorry, obviously I did an editing mistake and the "*Wikipedia
> defines 6 types of forest*" phrase jumped up in the wrong place: it
> should be just above the dotted list of forest types...
>
> Sorry about the confusion...
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-01-23 01:52, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Only about the cited point (*tagging natural forests as natural=wood*), I
> think a natural forest should be tagged as natural=forest (*quite
> logically, I would say...*), while natural=wood should be reserved for
> "small forests" (*which is one of the possible meaning of "wood" in
> English, if I'm not mistaken*).
>
> Also please consider that "forest" is very generic, and we could be
> willing to more exactly define which kind of forest we are tagging (*and
> eventually have it rendered accordingly*).
>
> To this extent the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the leaf_type=*
> tag (*and only"broadleaved", "needleleaved" and "mixed" are defined as
> possible values*).Wikipedia defines 6 types of forest:
>
> But to me a forest is not just "a lot of trees", but an entire ecosystem
> dominated by trees. And those ecosystems can be very different between
> different continents and latitudes.
>
>- Temperate needleleaf
>- Temperate broadleaf and mixed
>- Tropical moist
>- Tropical dry
>- Sparse trees and parkland
>- Forest plantations
>
> I think we should be (somehow) able to tag those types.
>
> Please also check the sixth forest type described in Wikipedia (*Forest
> plantations*): I think it coincide with the "forestry" concept we are
> talking about in the thread (*landuse=forestry, or whatever...*).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-01-23 01:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Natural forests could be preferably tagged as natural=wood ...
>
> ___
> 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] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Sergio Manzi]

Well, sorry, obviously I did an editing mistake and the "/Wikipedia defines 6 
types of forest/" phrase jumped up in the wrong place: it should be just above 
the dotted list of forest types...

Sorry about the confusion...

Sergio


On 2019-01-23 01:52, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Only about the cited point (/tagging natural forests as natural=wood/), I 
> think a natural forest should be tagged as natural=forest (/quite logically, 
> I would say.../), while natural=wood should be reserved for "small forests" 
> (/which is one of the possible meaning of "wood" in English, if I'm not 
> mistaken/).
>
> Also please consider that "forest" is very generic, and we could be willing 
> to more exactly define which kind of forest we are tagging (/and eventually 
> have it rendered accordingly/).
>
> To this extent the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the leaf_type=* tag 
> (/and only"broadleaved", "needleleaved" and "mixed" are defined as possible 
> values/).Wikipedia defines 6 types of forest:
>
> But to me a forest is not just "a lot of trees", but an entire ecosystem 
> dominated by trees. And those ecosystems can be very different between 
> different continents and latitudes.
>
>   * Temperate needleleaf
>   * Temperate broadleaf and mixed
>   * Tropical moist
>   * Tropical dry
>   * Sparse trees and parkland
>   * Forest plantations
>
> I think we should be (somehow) able to tag those types.
>
> Please also check the sixth forest type described in Wikipedia (/Forest 
> plantations/): I think it coincide with the "forestry" concept we are talking 
> about in the thread (/landuse=forestry, or whatever.../).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-01-23 01:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Natural forests could be preferably tagged as natural=wood ...


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Sergio Manzi]

Only about the cited point (/tagging natural forests as natural=wood/), I think 
a natural forest should be tagged as natural=forest (/quite logically, I would 
say.../), while natural=wood should be reserved for "small forests" (/which is 
one of the possible meaning of "wood" in English, if I'm not mistaken/).

Also please consider that "forest" is very generic, and we could be willing to 
more exactly define which kind of forest we are tagging (/and eventually have 
it rendered accordingly/).

To this extent the only way I see in the Wiki is to use the leaf_type=* tag 
(/and only"broadleaved", "needleleaved" and "mixed" are defined as possible 
values/).Wikipedia defines 6 types of forest:

But to me a forest is not just "a lot of trees", but an entire ecosystem 
dominated by trees. And those ecosystems can be very different between 
different continents and latitudes.

  * Temperate needleleaf
  * Temperate broadleaf and mixed
  * Tropical moist
  * Tropical dry
  * Sparse trees and parkland
  * Forest plantations

I think we should be (somehow) able to tag those types.

Please also check the sixth forest type described in Wikipedia (/Forest 
plantations/): I think it coincide with the "forestry" concept we are talking 
about in the thread (/landuse=forestry, or whatever.../).

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2019-01-23 01:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Natural forests could be preferably tagged as natural=wood ...


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Peter Elderson]

Vr gr Peter Elderson

Landcover tag now approaches 100 000 occurrences. Still growing despite not
being rendered.  I would think rendering the top three landcover values is
not out of place. The github issues are still there. Initially:
landcover=trees same rendering as natural=wood and landuse=forest
landcover=grass same rendering as landuse=grass
landcover=scrub same rendering as natural=scrub

After that, further steps could be discussed. Until this is done, in my
opinion every discussion about the usage of landuse tags is doomed to fail.
There simply is no way forward if there is no rendering alternative.

E.g. If landcover=trees is rendered, it is safe to restrict landuse=forest
to mean cultivated / exploited forest, used for a. forestry, b.
purposefully maintained forest for multipurpose usage such as all the
forests in the Netherlands.
Natural forests could be preferably tagged as natural=wood, and areas of
trees within a landuse such as a residential area could be tagged with
landcover=trees without cutting up the landuse.

landuse=forest would have a default landcover of trees.
landuse=forestry not. But, by using the landcover tags, you could still use
landcover=forestry is that is really what the use of the land is, and cover
it nicely with the appropriate landcovers.

If landcover=grass is rendered, a clearing in a landuse=forest could simply
be tagged as a polygon with landuse=grass, without cutting up the forest.

The main objection would be: existing base. But the landcover rendering
does not harm the existing base; it's fully backwards compatible. It will
not solve the completely mixed-up use of landuse=forest and natural=wood in
one blow, but it can provide more logical en clearer distinction (and
presets).
Over time, micromappers will simplify their own area (all those cut-up
residentials) just because they can and it's simpler and more logical. The
big forest area's often have dedicated mappers who will seize the
opportunity. New mappers will pick it up naturrally without even knowing it
was controversial.

I have spoken. Ugh.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 07:10, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> Perhaps the way forward would be to change the wiki to indicate that
> landuse=forest is deprecated due to its confused usage. Add some text to
> the page directing mappers to either landcover=trees if they are simply
> mapping the presence of trees or landuse=forestry if they are mapping an
> area used for the production of wood products (lumber, paper, etc.) that
> may or may not have trees on it a the moment.
>

That may be the bet way to go, as landcover=trees can cover anything from 3
trees in the middle of a roundabout, to a jungle covering 1000's of sq km,
& also natural forests as well as plantations, orchards, managed forests
etc.


>
> Not rendering landuse=forestry on the default OSM map to reduce “tagging
> for the renderer” is an interesting idea. I’ll have to think about that but
> it does have some appeal.
>

No, I think that =forestry should still be rendered, possibly by Warin's
idea of an axe in a tree trunk, to show that there are, or could be, trees
in that area. If it wasn't rendered, you'd finish up with some very
extensive areas of  blank map, frequently surrounded by trees

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 21:10, Tod Fitch  wrote:

Not rendering landuse=forestry on the default OSM map to reduce “tagging
> for the renderer” is an interesting idea. I’ll have to think about that but
> it does have some appeal.
>

It doesn't appeal to me.  I'd prefer it to render but in a way that differs
from landcover=trees or
natural=wood (or whatever).

1) It's time-consuming and tedious to map large areas of land used for
forestry.  Many people
won't bother if it doesn't render and either use natural=wood for the
entire extent or use only
natural=wood where there are currently trees and ignore the areas of stumps
or saplings.

2) Somebody may be happy to put the effort into outlining the area used for
forestry but may
not want to put in the additional effort to use landcover=trees (or
whatever) to show where the
trees are today (actually, where they were when the aerial imagery was
generated) because it's
changeable.  So to permit minimal mapping we need forestry to show up.

3) Terry Pratchett's *Hogfather* points out that only drawings by children
leave a white gap between
the ground and the sky.  In an ideal world (where we had finally mapped
everything) there would
be no white areas of the map.  Not rendering land used for forestry would
prevent us ever
reaching that goal.  OK, that one's a bit of a stretch. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

[Tobias Zwick]

On 22/01/2019 10:47, Lionel Giard wrote:
> So, i'm really in favor of the level=* for a "data user friendly" tag
> (that could correspond to local numbering, but not always) and a special
> tag for the local levels. At this moment i would see a *local level tag
> *like "level:ref=*" or "loc_level=*" (like we have for name and loc_name
> ?) but _*on each object*_, as it would not be realistic to use an
> outline in the cases i present). 
> 
> PS: i hope my example is not too confusing, or badly explained. :-)

I understand it. (To recap - ) you are giving a real-life example of
what Roland described: Using the level tag outside of (a single)
building but in a wider scope.
To be able to show on indoor maps what is really on the same level on a
scope that exceeds single buildings, you need to use the level-tag also
in a scope that exceeds single buildings, making it important that the
level indices of (neighbouring) buildings match.

So, basically, your example is like a situation where two malls are
connected by a footbridge, but one mall labels its level there as "UG"
and the other as "M".[1]
If the level tag was allowed to be non-numerical and required to always
follow the building operator's denomination even if they are letters and
not numbers, the information on what buildings (and non-buildings like
footbridges, train stops, tunnels etc.) connect to each other is lost.

This is an interesting point. I agree, this is important information for
an indoor-map.
And from this standpoint, your suggestion to allow "level:ref" on single
shops within one building as a replacement for "level" sounds like a
good solution to accommodate for the points I made.

---

So, though, this means that (already now), the level tag enjoys somewhat
of a dual-usage:
- On the one hand, it should follow the building operator's denomination
  as long as it is numeric, thus, is or comes close to how the level is
  really named "on the ground"
- On the other hand, in a wider context, it is used similarly to the
  layer tag: An arbitrary ("programmer's") value to arrange a Z-order.

I think this dual usage may come back to bite us.

First, I am still in the dark a bit how this affects SIT with S3DB
compatibility, perhaps Tordanik can explain. After all, a clearly
defined global Z-Order of things would be in the best interest of
3d-rendering, but he mentioned that this is not how the level tag was
intended (for SIT).

Second, why can not the layer tag be used to arrange the global z-order
of things?

Regards
Tobias


[1] By the way: The most complex example of such a situation I know is
Pathum Wan (ปทุมวัน) junction in central Bangkok, a multi-level skytrain
station, five different malls and a culture centre connect with each
other with various footbridges. Photos:
http://www.komchadluek.net/photo-gallery/512

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 11, 2019, 8:43 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:

> Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia 
> reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept 
> described on the wikipedia page. 
> Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g. brand:wikipedia 
> or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and it's not an 
> operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12 operators in 
> the end).
> So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads using 
> the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same information, on 
> exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the existing referencing 
> mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are useful if multiple 
> wikipedia references are applicable (according to the mapper). 
>
It is useful as it avoids incorrect wikipedia tags that are supposed to link 
article specifically
about a given feature.

There are some uses of that - for example Nominatim using it as importance hint,
I have a tool detecting tourism attractions, and there are probablt many more 
uses that  
I am unaware of.

I you consider adding this link as valuable please use a proper tag (AKA not 
wikipedia) - otherwise
someone sooner or later will remove such incorrect uses (and it is not certain 
that she/he will
bother with inventing new key).

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 11, 2019, 4:29 AM by jo...@mac.com:

> I was on the OSM-carto gorup and was **specifically** told to go to the 
> mailing lists to discuss the creating and modification of tags, as the gitub 
> discussions were how to implement and render already established tagging 
> schema. 
>
It was probably me.

>
> If you feel that all the “real” discussion happens over on github, because 
> all the noisy rabble has been sent over here to play in the kids area, 
> leaving your chat “free” of novice mappers ignorant of coding - wow. 
>

I just want to state that I do not share opinion that Github issues are a good 
place to discuss tagging.
And I would not treat seriously tagging discussion that are taking place there.


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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Adam Franco  wrote:
> 
> As someone who has mapped a lot of landcover & landuse 
>  in my local area, I 
> welcome sorting out the confusion that is the current state of 
> natural=wood/landuse=forest. Many parcels around me are managed for forestry 
> purposes but don't have trees currently while others had been cleared at one 
> point, but have returned to forest due to neglect and are not managed for 
> timber production.  My current practice is to map areas covered in trees as 
> landcover=trees + natural=wood, but I'd love to drop the natural=wood if 
> landcover=trees was rendered. Generally, I don't imagine that I'd map much 
> landuse=forestry, which is probably a good thing as I don't often know which 
> land is managed for productive forestry and which is more negligent forest 
> succession. In cases where the management is known and is important to be 
> known, then landuse=forestry becomes a useful tag as it is unambiguous as to 
> what it means.
> 
> I hope that a shift toward landuse=forestry would also include a shift toward 
> landcover=*, in particular landcover=trees as the rightful clear designation 
> that "there are trees here". Here is an old landcover=* proposal 
>  that might 
> be resurrected and updated.
> 
> I'm not sure if I would want landuse=forestry to be rendered by default or if 
> so, how I would like it to be styled. Generally in my region, areas managed 
> for forestry are more parcel boundaries than anything equating the land-cover 
> on the ground, so renderings that include iconography like trees are 
> problematic if those icons overlap and conflict with other land covers. I see 
> landuse=forestry as something more useful for custom maps or maybe something 
> that would be rendered as a subtle modifier to more-visible land-cover 
> renderings which are more directly visible and impactful when traversing the 
> landscape.
> 
> Best,
> Adam

+10 for this!

I also dual tag areas with trees as natural=wood and landcover=trees with the 
hope being that landcover=trees becomes the norm.

Perhaps the way forward would be to change the wiki to indicate that 
landuse=forest is deprecated due to its confused usage. Add some text to the 
page directing mappers to either landcover=trees if they are simply mapping the 
presence of trees or landuse=forestry if they are mapping an area used for the 
production of wood products (lumber, paper, etc.) that may or may not have 
trees on it a the moment.

Not rendering landuse=forestry on the default OSM map to reduce “tagging for 
the renderer” is an interesting idea. I’ll have to think about that but it does 
have some appeal.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RfC - tagging whatever power line is isolated as attribute

[François Lacombe]

Hi,

Le mar. 22 janv. 2019 à 21:44, Mateusz Konieczny 
a écrit :

> (1) insulated suspension is certainly not visible on aerial images
>

According to definitions below, even it's not seen from aerial imagery,
insulators can be seen from the ground
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Electricity_pylon_DSCI0402.jpg

(2) I have no idea what "insulated suspension" is,
> googling (using both DuckDuckGo and Google) shows me mostly some bicycle
> element
>

According to IEC 466-11-09, a suspension clamp is a kind of conductor
attachment to a support, usually a tower
http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform=466-11-09

Those suspension are insulated with bare wires as to prevent the power line
to be in touch with the ground through the tower.


Regarding the vote, I proposed a tiny arrangement : rename insulated=yes/no
to insulation=yes/no/whatever to be able to use it more often
How about this ?

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

Re: [Tagging] RfC - tagging whatever power line is isolated as attribute

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 20:44, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> (1) insulated suspension is certainly not visible on aerial images
>

True.

(2) I have no idea what "insulated suspension" is,
> googling (using both DuckDuckGo and Google) shows me mostly some bicycle
> element
>

Although I've not encountered that term (and suspect it was intended as a
description
rather than a technical term) in context it could only have meant that an
insulated
cable does not need to be suspended by insulators whereas an uninsulated
wire
(other than an earth wire) MUST be suspended by insulators.

Which is true.  Parts of my town use overhead cables/wires for domestic
distribution.  Just
around the corner from me is a place where a five uninsulated wires (which
are suspended
on insulators) transitions to an insulated cable (not suspended on
insulators).

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Adam Franco]

As someone who has mapped a lot of landcover & landuse
 in my local area,
I welcome sorting out the confusion that is the current state of
natural=wood/landuse=forest. Many parcels around me are managed for
forestry purposes but don't have trees currently while others had been
cleared at one point, but have returned to forest due to neglect and are
not managed for timber production.  My current practice is to map areas
covered in trees as landcover=trees + natural=wood, but I'd love to drop
the natural=wood if landcover=trees was rendered. Generally, I don't
imagine that I'd map much landuse=forestry, which is probably a good thing
as I don't often know which land is managed for productive forestry and
which is more negligent forest succession. In cases where the management is
known and is important to be known, then landuse=forestry becomes a useful
tag as it is unambiguous as to what it means.

I hope that a shift toward landuse=forestry would also include a shift
toward landcover=*, in particular landcover=trees as the rightful clear
designation that "there are trees here". Here is an old landcover=* proposal
 that
might be resurrected and updated.

I'm not sure if I would want landuse=forestry to be rendered by default or
if so, how I would like it to be styled. Generally in my region, areas
managed for forestry are more parcel boundaries than anything equating the
land-cover on the ground, so renderings that include iconography like trees
are problematic if those icons overlap and conflict with other land covers.
I see landuse=forestry as something more useful for custom maps or maybe
something that would be rendered as a subtle modifier to more-visible
land-cover renderings which are more directly visible and impactful when
traversing the landscape.

Best,
Adam

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:39 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:14, David Marchal  wrote:
>
> Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and
>> the transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know
>> about such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the
>> main problem for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard style to
>> not discourage its use,
>
>
> Yup.  If it rendered, people who read this list would use it.  If enough
> people used it, editors
> would offer it as a preset (for iD somebody would have to raise the issue
> on github since
> Bryan Housel recently announced he was no longer following this list).  A
> couple of vicious
> circles there.
>
> but style devs rejected adding its rendering before its use spread a bit.
>
>
> I don't know if they have rejected this specific idea, or even if they
> were asked.  It's just
> that they often require that a tag has been used sufficiently in the wild
> before they consider
> adding it.
>
> Some sort of vicious circle, in fact?
>>
>
> As I said, two of them.  It won't be widely used until editors offer it as
> a preset and it
> renders.  So we're at an impasse.  A proposal to introduce it that
> suggests dual-tagging
> until it takes off enough for editors and carto to support it seems the
> only way forward -
> not guaranteed to succeed but it might.
>
> I might even write the proposal myself.  But only after I get a feel for
> the mood here.  So
> far nobody has heaped scorn on the idea, which is a good sign, but I'd
> like to see a little
> more support first because if people here don't see it as sensible then
> neither will
> most ordinary mappers.
>
> --
> 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] defining service on railway=tram

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 19, 2019, 9:48 PM by ja...@piorkowski.ca:

> Hello,
>
> First time posting here, forgive if I've missed some rules.
>
Evertthing
is right and welcome!

>
> Summary: I wanted to refine tagging of some tram/streetcar tracks to
> show what they're used for, and found this isn't standardized and
> isn't documented.
>
> I would like to suggest updating wiki for Key:service to specify
> recommendations for railway=tram:
>
> 1. no service tag recommended for tracks that are regularly used in
> scheduled service, including loops and tail tracks
>
Also part of loops that are never used to carry passengers, right?

> 2. service=yard for tracks within and leading to tram storage and work
> areas ("yards", "garages", "depots" - where trams are parked
> overnight, maintained, light repairs)
>
Looks correct to me.

> 3. service=siding for tracks not used for normally scheduled passenger
> service (including diversion-only, emergency, non-revenue trackage, as
> well as turn tracks not used in scheduled service)
>
What about tracks regularly used for irregular service?
In my city it would be 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.04996=19.94753#map=18/50.04996/19.94753=N
 


> 4. service=crossover for crossover tracks (where dual-ended trams
> change direction - only use between two main tracks with no service
> tag - otherwise use service tag of the tracks that are connected)
>
I see no problem here.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RfC - tagging whatever power line is isolated as attribute

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 21, 2019, 9:22 AM by vosc...@gmail.com:

> In the proposal there is a statement:
> "it is impossible to check whatever power line is insulated during survey 
> without closely approaching power line"
> I thought, that the distinction is very easy; insulated cables don't need 
> insulated suspension. Insulated suspension is very easy to see. Or am I 
> wrong? 
>
>


(1) insulated suspension is certainly not visible on aerial images
(2) I have no idea what "insulated suspension" is,
googling (using both DuckDuckGo and Google) shows me mostly some bicycle element
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest 
> needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood.
> The essential difference between the two is that landuse must have some human 
> benefit, a produce, and a clear way of doing that is to add the rendering of 
> a axe to the tree.
>

(1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely unimportant
or at least not worth different rendering

(2) other people have different mismatching ideas what is the
"real" difference between natural=wood and landuse=forest

(3) there is no consistent difference in how natural=wood and landuse=forest 
are used
by mappers


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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:39 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
> I don't know if they have rejected this specific idea, or even if they were 
> asked.  It's just
> that they often require that a tag has been used sufficiently in the wild 
> before they consider
> adding it.


A commoner objection is that it's redundant with landuse=forest. That
would even be true if anyone tagged landuse=forest to mean what it
says on the box.

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 21, 2019, 9:44 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 20:21, Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> My problem with going to landuse=forestry with natural=wood...
>>  
>>  what happens to the remaining landuse=forest?
>>  Will that finally be recognised as the same as natural=wood and be migrated 
>> to natural=wood???
>>
>
> Ideally, if we get landuse=forestry and it eventually renders
>
Note that it is not obvious to me that a typical map would want to display 
landuse=forestry.

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 22, 2019, 8:38 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:14, David Marchal <> pene...@live.fr 
> > > wrote:
>
>
>> Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and the 
>> transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know about 
>> such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the main 
>> problem for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard style to not 
>> discourage its use,
>>
>
> Yup.  If it rendered, people who read this list would use it
>

It is completely normal for tags to not be rendered at beginning, before 
getting popular.

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:14, David Marchal  wrote:

Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and
> the transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know
> about such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the
> main problem for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard style to
> not discourage its use,


Yup.  If it rendered, people who read this list would use it.  If enough
people used it, editors
would offer it as a preset (for iD somebody would have to raise the issue
on github since
Bryan Housel recently announced he was no longer following this list).  A
couple of vicious
circles there.

but style devs rejected adding its rendering before its use spread a bit.


I don't know if they have rejected this specific idea, or even if they were
asked.  It's just
that they often require that a tag has been used sufficiently in the wild
before they consider
adding it.

Some sort of vicious circle, in fact?
>

As I said, two of them.  It won't be widely used until editors offer it as
a preset and it
renders.  So we're at an impasse.  A proposal to introduce it that suggests
dual-tagging
until it takes off enough for editors and carto to support it seems the
only way forward -
not guaranteed to succeed but it might.

I might even write the proposal myself.  But only after I get a feel for
the mood here.  So
far nobody has heaped scorn on the idea, which is a good sign, but I'd like
to see a little
more support first because if people here don't see it as sensible then
neither will
most ordinary mappers.

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

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

[David Marchal]

Paul,

Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and the 
transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know about 
such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the main problem 
for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard style to not discourage 
its use, but style devs rejected adding its rendering before its use spread a 
bit. Some sort of vicious circle, in fact?

Awaiting your answer,

Regards.

> Le 21 janv. 2019 à 21:44, Paul Allen  a écrit :
> 
> Ideally, if we get landuse=forestry and it eventually renders, landuse=forest 
> would be
> deprecated and slowly replaced when a mapper encounters it.  It's a 
> misbegotten tag
> that has been used inconsistently.  It was intended to mean what the suggested
> landuse=forestry means, but has largely been used to mean what natural=wood 
> means.
> 
> landuse=forest is wrong two ways.  A forest is not landuse.  You might be 
> able to justify
> landcover=forest but that's already dealt with by landcover=trees.  You might 
> be able to
> make an argument for natural=forest (a big wood) in the same way we draw a 
> distinction between rivers and streams.  The only way it can be considered 
> landuse is
> if the land is used for forestry, but then we have the mismatch with natural 
> English which
> is part of the reason it was misused and part of the reason people keep 
> proposing
> landuse=forestry.
> 
> Any migration would have to be on a case-by-case basis.  If land used for 
> forestry is
> tagged as landuse=forest it should (eventually) be migrated to 
> landuse=forestry.
> If not used for forestry then landcover=trees or natural=wood.
> 
> But all that requires that this list and the carto people manage to get all 
> our shit in the
> same sock.
> 
> Maybe it's worth a formal proposal for landuse=forestry suggesting 
> dual-tagging as
> an interim workaround for it not being rendered, with a later clean-up.  
> Because we're
> going to keep coming back to this one until we finally do something about it.
> 
> -- 
> 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] The actual use of the level tag

[Lionel Giard]

As pointed out for underground station, the building outline doesn't always
cover the underground levels (i.e. the underground levels can extend far
beyond the building limit (and potentially under other buildings/roads...).
We find this problem for metro station, train station or other buildings
like mall.

One example is the mall "L'Esplanade" (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) that you
can see indoor mapped (except parking levels) here
https://openlevelup.net/?l=1#18/50.67045/4.61647 .
It is on a concrete slab (only pedestrian traffic) that cover all the city
center and is more or less 2 levels above the streets where car drive (the
streets are in a "tunnel" when going under the city center. Most of the
time these 2 levels can be described like "street level / ground level" and
the "first level" is for parking, and the "second level" is at the surface
with the pedestrian area) and you have building going up to 6-7 floors
above that. But for the mall, you have a different leveling : the street
level is still the parking entrance, but the two levels above with shops,
so that means that the "first level" of shops is below the surface, and
indeed it is extended below two plazas and another building. To avoid the
mess that could occur with the levels tags, we choose to set an arbitrary
level tagging for the whole city center that's on the concrete slab (it can
be seen as a large building, and it is not too far from reality).

In this case, the level tag need to be synced with all the neighboring
building that are built on the same structure (the "concrete slab"),
otherwise you would have multiple objects at the same position when
rendered on a map. Ex : The mall is officially labelled as "-1" for the
parking entrance, "0" and "1" for the shops levels (the level 1 is on the
surface), while the building that's on top of some part of the mall have
level starting at "0" (the surface level with entrances from the concrete
slab) and going up to level 6 above that. If we use these local numbers for
the level tag, any tools would render the building surface level at the
same position than the shops level that's underneath it !!! For POI it
would be like "is it at level 0 in the mall or at level 0 in the building
?", thus an arbitrary level for all these buildings is really needed to
avoid such problems.

So, i'm really in favor of the level=* for a "data user friendly" tag (that
could correspond to local numbering, but not always) and a special tag for
the local levels. At this moment i would see a *local level tag *like
"level:ref=*" or "loc_level=*" (like we have for name and loc_name ?) but *on
each object*, as it would not be realistic to use an outline in the cases i
present).

PS: i hope my example is not too confusing, or badly explained. :-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging