date:20190202


On 03/02/19 13:13, marc marc wrote:

Le 02.02.19 à 18:09, Stefano Maffulli a écrit :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:soft_storey
Definition: a type of construction where any one floor is
significantly more flexible (less stiff) than those above and below it

if the goal is to define the seismic quality of a building, wouldn't it
be better to have a more meaningful tag that allows to have more than a
binary value?


Unfortunately the method used in binary. And probably subjective.

A full objective measurement would cost money and they simply don't want to do 
it.

Do you have a method that is in use that gives a more meaningfull value?


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

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations


On 03/02/19 13:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 12:07, marc marc > wrote:


I think it would be better to continue the current club=scout
system and add precision with
scouts=Scouts|Guiding|Patro|Chiro or any other tag to describe the
"upstream" organisation/variant.


That's a nice neat solution +1

-1
I think
club=youth
youth=scout/* is a better approach ...


Naturally though, not all that list of "youth organizations" would 
come under Scouts!


So put scouts under youth organisations .. logical.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 12:07, marc marc  wrote:

> I think it would be better to continue the current club=scout system and
> add precision with
> scouts=Scouts|Guiding|Patro|Chiro or any other tag to describe the
> "upstream" organisation/variant.
>

That's a nice neat solution +1

Naturally though, not all that list of "youth organizations" would come
under Scouts!

For those groups with identifiable Club rooms of some sort, I'd still
suggest club=youth + youth=

If they only use a building shared with multiple groups, then
amenity=community_centre would apply, but without any further tag to say
poker club, Yoga group, whichever church & so on.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:soft_storey

2019-02-02 Thread marc marc

Le 02.02.19 à 18:09, Stefano Maffulli a écrit :
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:soft_storey 
>> Definition: a type of construction where any one floor is 
>> significantly more flexible (less stiff) than those above and below it

if the goal is to define the seismic quality of a building, wouldn't it 
be better to have a more meaningful tag that allows to have more than a 
binary value?
maybe prexifed with seismic_quality in stead of building in order to be 
able to extend this in the future to bridges or other critical objects 
if some contributors see an interest in it.

existing objects from an old project a few years old can easily be 
converted if this is the only reason to keep the proposed tag
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread marc marc

Le 02.02.19 à 15:11, Paul Allen a écrit :
> unless somebody comes up with a valid objection, just go with club=chiro

I and my family members are or have been part of the "Scouts", Guides 
and Patro. There are subtle numbers between them but I don't think any 
of them would contradict me if I say that they are part of a whole.
the official term was "youth movement" [1] and the common term "scout"
because the method is very similar to what's called "scout method" [2].
Using a different value for each of these groups implies a more 
complicated use of the data. that is why I think it would be better to 
continue the current club=scout system and add precision with 
scouts=Scouts|Guiding|Patro|Chiro or any other tag to describe the 
"upstream" organisation/variant.
With more than 539 "scout-like" [3] organizations I think it's usefull.
In belgium alone, wikipedia lists 14 and some are missing
Should we ask each contributor to be an expert in the subtleties between 
those groups in order to be able to choose the value of the main tag? 
this seems unrealistic !
the other solution is club=scout-like-youth-organisation which seems
a little long :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youth_organizations
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_method
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread Michael Patrick

A survey of international and some national lexicons indicates that the two
terms 'ditch' and 'drain' are equivalent used in the context of liquids
from the smallest to largest scales.

The term 'drain' however seems mostly to apply at the interface where the
water transitions from the substrate ( soil ) to free running water, down
flow from that the water is 'channeled' through ditches, fluves, shutes,
spillways, canals, and a multitude of functional confinements. One of the
earliest ( 1920 ) legal references to British and American law notes this
equivalence, and the following an extract from a 2017 global standard
saying basically the same thing.

UNESCO-WMO International Glossary of Hydrology at
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf221862 -World Meteorological
Organization, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization:
"...will be useful to national hydrological services as well as educational
and research institutions throughout the world – especially for those who
require more than one language for understanding or communicating
information about the field of hydrology. In establishing recognized
international equivalents of hydrological terms, our goal is also to
minimise misinterpretations and consolidate the foundation for stronger
international cooperation."

407 ditch see also drain
Man-made small open channel constructed
through earth or rock for the purpose of lowering
and/or conveying water

415 drain see also ditch
Conduit or small open channel by which water is
removed from a soil or an aquifer, by gravity, in
order to control the water level or to remove
excess water.

Ditto with the USGS and the UK Ordnance Survey:

For example, OS MasterMap Topography Layer User guide - "Water - Water
features are defined as features that contain, delimit or relate to
real-world objects containing water. The physical water features shown in
OS MasterMap Topography Layer include: ...  drains and ditches; ... Dam,
ditch, dock, double, down,  drain  D, Double ditch or drain DD" ... a look
see at a lot of OS web map products show the same thing. In the case of the
UK, a vast amount of property lines are encoded as these ditches and
drains, so they formalized this equivalence to accommodate whatever the
locals called them.

There is no dependence on the size, width, depth, etc. A perhaps extreme
example ( due to heavily mechanized agriculture in the U.S. ), but still
illustrative is that the USDA construction guidelines make the following
distinctions:
Small ditches ( maximum top width 15 feet )
Medium-sized ditches ( top width 15 to 35 feet )
Large ditches ( more than 35 feet top width)
In SE Asian rice production, their largest ditches probably would be in the
'small' category compared to the U.S.I don't read Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, etc. but I'm sure they have a couple thousand years of established
vocabulary for their field water handing.

The modern agricultural water handling industry ( what you would get if you
asked somebody to install a 'ditch' or a 'drain' in a field makes a
distinction as follows ( echoing the 'interface' idea above ):

Ditch — A man-made, open drainage-way in or into which excess surface water
or groundwater drained from land, stormwater runoff, or floodwaters flow
either continuously or intermittently
Drain — A buried slotted or perforated pipe or other conduit (subsurface
drain) or a ditch (open drain) for carrying off surplus groundwater or
surface water.

Ditches aren't restricted to water use. Sometimes they are there because
the material was sued to form an embankment, or used for road surface (
'borrows' in the USA ), animal control barriers, access control, boundary
marking, spill prevention and control of loose soils and aggregate slides.
And in all the water literature, in the U.S, and U.K., they pretty much
also freely used 'drainage ditch', not just simply 'ditch.

Predominantly, if the cut is not further improved from the native material,
it seems to be called a ditch, if structure is added like concrete lining,
wooden bank sides, maybe it will get a more specific term. Economics
dictates that for the most part these enhancements only occur over limited
lengths for flow control, erosion, obstacles, evaporation, etc.

Drainage structure means a device composed of a virtually non-erodible
material such as concrete, steel, plastic or other such material that
conveys water from one place to another by intercepting the flow and
carrying it to a release point for water management, drainage control or
flood control purposes.

Looking at the aerial photography majority of 'drains' in the OS based web
maps, they are pretty much 'swales' (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swale_(landform) ), without the distinctive
edges of a 'ditch'.

In conclusion:

For legacy tagging, ditch/drain should be left alone because of equivalence.

For new tagging, ditch or drainage_ditch, ditch:drainage, or 'whatever'
scheme should indicate it is a ditch for

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations


On 02/02/19 19:21, s8evq wrote:



Could we agree that club=youth does have a meaningful usage, despite what the 
wiki currently states? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:club


+1 .. also the same comment on club=elderly.

These clubs can have a variety of 'interests' to suit there age group.

Trying to classify them into one interest is not possibly at least for some of 
these clubs, they classify themselves by there ages so should OSM.


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

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations


On 03/02/19 10:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 22:57, Tom Pfeifer > wrote:



A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical
entity.

Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home,
with
amenity=community_centre


Not disagreeing Tom, but at least in our area, community centres are 
(usually) owned & operated by the Council, & rented out to various 
groups who don't have their own premises eg yoga classes, weight-loss 
groups, religious groups, to hold meetings eg

http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/community/mermaid-beach-community-centre-3377.html


+1

Some clubs rent church and school spaces. And there may be more than one 
club in any one building, usually at separate times.




However, things like the Scout hall or AAFC hut (in the grounds of the 
High School) are theirs & theirs alone - nobody else has access to 
them, so I don't think they would really count as a community centre


Some clubs rent/provide their spaces out to other clubs too.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread marc marc

Le 02.02.19 à 13:56, Tom Pfeifer a écrit :
> On 02.02.2019 09:21, s8evq wrote:
>> Thank you for your input. I'm glad there are other examples of youth 
>> organisation that are clearly different from Scouts.
>>
>> Could we agree that club=youth does have a meaningful usage, despite 
>> what the wiki currently states? 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:club
> 
> A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity.

what's the exact meaning and the implication of this ?
yes a club of ppl playing poker is not a geographical entity,
it is possible for club members to come with their hands in their 
pockets with only a deck of cards as material.
it's more like the sport tag.
it's more like an agenda "here ppl 'play poker' at least sometime

But did you mean that club is a secondary tag that must be accompanied 
by a physical tag ?
I don't see why a building containing 2 clubs should have several 
physical tags on the 2 nodes nor what they could be.
how 'll you tag a sport club and a scout club inside a school ?

how is a company more a geographical entity ?
it is only a association between ppl (despite some company are 
one-only-ppl) gathering of employees in a physical area that can also be 
represented by another tag, no ?
I think clubs, ngos, office, and the majority of poi all have
the same characteristic (being the/one current use of this area)

> Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with
> amenity=community_centre
> community_centre=youth_centre

1) scouting is realy fair away of a community youth centre
a scout room in a school, in an annex of a church, in a communal park, 
this is really not what I would describe as a community centre

2) a community centre is also the current use of this area,
it's a king a "open club" where you can go if you match the criteria
it may be also imply funded by public funds
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 22:57, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

>
> A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity.
>
> Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with
> amenity=community_centre
>

Not disagreeing Tom, but at least in our area, community centres are
(usually) owned & operated by the Council, & rented out to various groups
who don't have their own premises eg yoga classes, weight-loss groups,
religious groups, to hold meetings eg
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/community/mermaid-beach-community-centre-3377.html

However, things like the Scout hall or AAFC hut (in the grounds of the High
School) are theirs & theirs alone - nobody else has access to them, so I
don't think they would really count as a community centre

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> We deal with indefinite objects more often than some people are
> comfortable with. (I've mentioned previously that my state has such
> things as county lines that are in part unsurveyed!)
>
> Rather than a new relation type, I think it would be simpler to tag
> the indefinite part of the boundary of whatever area feature with a
> key like "indefinite=yes". An indefinite boundary will normally have
> no reason to have tags of its own other than this one - because it
> would need to be a 'real' feature in order to have most of them be
> meaningful. It would ordinarily be there only to close a multipolygon
> topologically, and the tags of the multipolygon of which it's an inner
> or outer way would ordinarily be the only other information pertaining
> to it.
>
> If we try to fix "maximal" and "minimal" area, we'll simply run into
> more haggling- because the maximum and minimum do not have bright-line
> definitions, any more than the indefinite line does. We'll have
> interminable arguments over what land might and might not be
> considered part of a peninsula. I'd like to nip that in the bud by
> simply declaring that any choice is arbitrary, and that the drawing of
> an arbitrary boundary of an area feature should be informed in part by
> what the locals think. Is Wareham, Massachusetts on Cape Cod? I have
> no idea, but I bet that the locals have a rough consensus - and if
> they don't, that they'd at least be unsurprised if a mapper were to
> choose the Cape Cod Canal or the Plymouth County line as the cutoff
> with an 'indefinite' indication.
>
> Simply having the tagging allow for an 'indefinite line', I think,
> could be a near-universal solution to the fact that bays, peninsulas,
> channels, isthmuses, lakes with broad inlets/outlets, rivers with
> broad mouths, administrative regions with unsurveyed boundaries,
> mountain ranges,  etc. all are area features that have a distinct
> shape, except for the fact that part of their margin may be
> indefinite.
>
> Try as we might to make them go away, there are objects, observable
> and named in the real world, that are areas, part of whose boundaries
> are indefinite. Saying that such things can be only point features is
> shortsighted.

The only imperfection of indefinite=yes tagged only on the way that
connects the peninsula to the mainland is that this doesn't make it
explicit that part of the coastline – while not fuzzy by itself –
might or might not be part of the peninsula. (For example, part of the
coastline between – or even beyond – these two point [^1][^2] might or
might not belong the Presqu'île de Crozon [^3].)

Tagging the relation member roles for example outer:indefinite were
less imperfect, but still imperfect – like my previous idea with the
minimal and maximal area. Besides, it were incompatible with the
current type=multipolygon specification.

Another solution would be to admit that peninsulas – as well as bays,
channels etc. – inherently have fuzzy borders and that therefore
tagging the fuzzy borders differently is unnecessary.

[^1]: 
[^2]: 
[^3]: 

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 18:46, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> Leave the geometrical limit, that's up to you. However, I doubt anybody 
> deciding about whether to use this tag would bother doing the math necessary 
> to compute lengths using the 3/2 * sq rt of the area formula but, IMO, 
> anybody who would map the West Coast of the United States as a peninsula is 
> an outlier, and makes up only a tiny percentage of mappers. Anybody who's 
> read through your descriptive text should be able to come to the appropriate 
> conclusion.

I've removed the whole paragraph because i couldn't find any area at a
coast that could be mistagged as natural=peninsula. For the unlikely
case that someone uses natural=peninsula for coastal areas
nevertheless, i trust common sense that mappers will find a way to
solve this in discussions or retagging.

Regards

Markus

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

I'm resending/forwarding the following email to the tagging list,
because i forgot to reply to all.

-- Forwarded message -
From: Markus 
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 17:56
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula
(Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)
To: David Swarthout 

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> I really don't see the need to include this in your proposal. I can't imagine 
> anybody wanting to tag the French Riviera or the West Coast of the U.S. as a 
> peninsula. These places cannot possibly be identified as a peninsula using 
> the criteria you specified or using any criteria really. My advice is to 
> remove that entire sentence from the proposal. It will only confuse the issue.

You are right, my examples are bad and the geometrical limit (length
of the non-water part of the boundary ≤ 3/2 square root of its area)
is confusing. Nevertheless, i'm hesitant to remove the geometrical
limit as others have raised the concern that some people might tag any
area at a coast as peninsula (similar to the natural=bay examples).

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:49:54 +0100
From: Peter Elderson 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Who is to decide?

Mvg Peter Elderson

Op 2 feb. 2019 om 15:38 heeft EthnicFood IsGreat  
het volgende geschreven:

Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100
From: Hufkratzer 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
immense that it is worth the effort?

[...]

This goes to the very core of the tagging policy of OSM.  The current state of OSM tags 
is a screwed up mess.  Because we are "prohibited" from going back in time and 
correcting bad tagging decisions that were made in the past, we are stuck with trying to 
shoehorn new tag definitions into a chaotic, disorganized system. The way I see it, if we 
were allowed to conduct mass edits to revise poorly-planned tagging choices, we would 
save ourselves a lot of trouble in the long run.  It would be painful at first, adjusting 
to the changes, but I think it would be worth it.  Don't we all agree that if we were 
starting all over from scratch, we would give a lot more thought to tagging?

Mark

Ha ha, that would be the topic of a whole other discussion.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:23, Hufkratzer  wrote:
>
> If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
> waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
> not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
> requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
> presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
> using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
> immense that it is worth the effort?

It were more logical and would likely lead to less confusion and less
discussions. While i'm unsure that a mass edit is worth it, i see no
problem in introducing waterway=ditch + usage=drainage as an
alternative way to tag drainage ditches. (If it is successful,
waterway=drain would disappear gradually.) Note that
usage=irrigation;drainage seems to be required anyway for ditches that
are used for both irrigation and drainage.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:soft_storey

2019-02-02 Thread Stefano Maffulli


Hello folks,

discussion is tapering off on

The proposal page: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building:soft_storey


Definition: a type of construction where any one floor is 
significantly more flexible (less stiff) than those above and below it


If there are no more objections or comments, I'll prepare for voting 
some time next week. BTW, I'm at FOSDEM tomorrow afternoon in the geo 
devroom, in case you want to discuss in person, too.


Cheers,

stef


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread Eugene Podshivalov

Not all ditches can be called drains and not all drains can be called
ditches and there is some overlapping in their meanings which causes the
confusion.

I see three ways to go:
1. Define the basic meanings from dictionaries and let users decide on
which tag to use, similar to Peter Elderson's version from the preceding
post.
2. Allow some deviation from dictionary definitions to make a clear cut
between the two. This is similar to how "stream" is currently restricted to
the maning of "you can jump over it".
3. Introduce some abstract notions with clear definitions of each
sub-notion. Similar to highway=track + tracktype=grade1,grade2 etc. or
boundary=administrative + admin_level=2,3 etc.

Cheers,
Eugene

сб, 2 февр. 2019 г. в 18:48, Peter Elderson :

> If there is a drain worth mapping, I will map it as a drain.
>
> If the drain has the form of a ditch and I can see its only function is to
> be a drain, I will map a drain. Size and lining may be indicators, not
> definers.
>
> If a ditch has unclear function or multiple functions, I will map a ditch.
> If I think it’s worth mapping.
>
> I will not systematically retag drains to ditches unless the national
> community decides to do so. Automated edits: no way.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> > Op 2 feb. 2019 om 14:22 heeft Hufkratzer  het
> volgende geschreven:
> >
> > If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
> waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is not
> such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it requires a
> proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the presets, perhaps
> a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of using waterway=ditch
> + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so immense that it is worth the
> effort?
> >
> > Am 02.02.2019 13:58, schrieb nwastra:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> N
> >>
>  On 2 Feb 2019, at 10:39 pm, Markus  wrote:
> 
>  On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> 
>  Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.
> 
>  Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of
> overloading English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary
> (be it AmE, BrE, CaE, or whatever).
> 
>  Both the "ditch" and "drain" words can be used to describe certain
> features in English. The difference is essentially an etymological one,
> with one related to the process of excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other
> to the function of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).
> 
>  If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we
> should do it explicitly through a correct data model that takes into
> consideration the particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want
> to communicate the information that a (small) waterway is lined with
> concrete? Just say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or
> lining=*. We want to communicate the information that a (small) waterway is
> used to carry waste water away? Once again, let's say that with an
> appropriate tag, like e.g. usage=* (please ignore if the specific tags I
> put in the examples are not of your liking: not the point here, let's
> discuss that later...).
> 
>  Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the
> common language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in
> information.
> >>> + 1
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Tagging mailing list
> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Drain vs. ditch

2019-02-02 Thread Peter Elderson

Who is to decide?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 2 feb. 2019 om 15:38 heeft EthnicFood IsGreat 
>  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
>> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100
>> From: Hufkratzer 
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch
>> 
>> 
>> If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
>> waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
>> not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
>> requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
>> presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
>> using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
>> immense that it is worth the effort?
>> 
>> [...]
> 
> 
> This goes to the very core of the tagging policy of OSM.  The current state 
> of OSM tags is a screwed up mess.  Because we are "prohibited" from going 
> back in time and correcting bad tagging decisions that were made in the past, 
> we are stuck with trying to shoehorn new tag definitions into a chaotic, 
> disorganized system. The way I see it, if we were allowed to conduct mass 
> edits to revise poorly-planned tagging choices, we would save ourselves a lot 
> of trouble in the long run.  It would be painful at first, adjusting to the 
> changes, but I think it would be worth it.  Don't we all agree that if we 
> were starting all over from scratch, we would give a lot more thought to 
> tagging?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread Peter Elderson

If there is a drain worth mapping, I will map it as a drain. 

If the drain has the form of a ditch and I can see its only function is to be a 
drain, I will map a drain. Size and lining may be indicators, not definers.

If a ditch has unclear function or multiple functions, I will map a ditch. If I 
think it’s worth mapping.

I will not systematically retag drains to ditches unless the national community 
decides to do so. Automated edits: no way. 

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 2 feb. 2019 om 14:22 heeft Hufkratzer  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing waterway=drain 
> by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is not such an easy 
> task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it requires a proposal with 
> volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who 
> will do all this? Is the advantage of using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage 
> instead of waterway=drain so immense that it is worth the effort?
> 
> Am 02.02.2019 13:58, schrieb nwastra:
>> +1
>> 
>> N
>> 
 On 2 Feb 2019, at 10:39 pm, Markus  wrote:

 On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

 Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.

 Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading 
 English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary (be it AmE, 
 BrE, CaE, or whatever).

 Both the "ditch" and "drain" words can be used to describe certain 
 features in English. The difference is essentially an etymological one, 
 with one related to the process of excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other 
 to the function of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).

 If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we should 
 do it explicitly through a correct data model that takes into 
 consideration the particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want 
 to communicate the information that a (small) waterway is lined with 
 concrete? Just say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or 
 lining=*. We want to communicate the information that a (small) waterway 
 is used to carry waste water away? Once again, let's say that with an 
 appropriate tag, like e.g. usage=* (please ignore if the specific tags I 
 put in the examples are not of your liking: not the point here, let's 
 discuss that later...).

 Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the common 
 language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in 
 information.
>>> + 1
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread Andy Townsend


On 02/02/2019 14:11, Paul Allen wrote:


My guess is because OSM was started by somebody in the UK; OSM is 
(supposedly) based upon
British English usage; the UK has scouts but not Chiro or KSA.  OSM 
has scouts because back

in the early days we wanted to map scouts but had no need to map Chiro.

Even in the UK there are scouts and there are scouts - the nearest scout 
building to me used to be associated with 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-Powell_Scouts'_Association rather 
than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scout_Association . There are 
lots of other "scout-like organisations" such as 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodcraft_Folk .


There are no hard and fast values in OSM; just pick something 
appropriate to best fit in with existing OSM tags where possible and 
other local mappers.  It's possible to go back and change these if it 
appears that most people map them as something else (I can think of a 
few examples where I was mapping things as X but for whatever reason Y 
became more popular; it's easy to switch to Y).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100
From: Hufkratzer 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
immense that it is worth the effort?

[...]

This goes to the very core of the tagging policy of OSM.  The current 
state of OSM tags is a screwed up mess.  Because we are "prohibited" 
from going back in time and correcting bad tagging decisions that were 
made in the past, we are stuck with trying to shoehorn new tag 
definitions into a chaotic, disorganized system. The way I see it, if we 
were allowed to conduct mass edits to revise poorly-planned tagging 
choices, we would save ourselves a lot of trouble in the long run.  It 
would be painful at first, adjusting to the changes, but I think it 
would be worth it.  Don't we all agree that if we were starting all over 
from scratch, we would give a lot more thought to tagging?

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 11:20:01 +0100
From: Sergio Manzi 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.

Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading 
English words with meanings they do not have in *any *dictionary (be it AmE, 
BrE, CaE, or whatever).

Both the "ditch" and "drain" words *can *be used to describe certain features in 
English. The difference is essentially an etymological one, with one related to the *process *of 
excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other to the *function *of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).

If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we should do 
it explicitly through a *correct data model* that takes into consideration the 
particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want to communicate the 
information that a (small) waterway is lined with concrete? Just say that with 
an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or lining=*. We want to communicate the 
information that a (small) waterway is used to carry waste water away? Once 
again, let's say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. usage=* (/please 
ignore if the specific tags I put in the examples are not of your liking: not 
the point here, let's discuss that later.../).

Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the common 
language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in information.

Sergio

[...]

I tend to agree.  Sometimes I feel these endless debates on trying to decide 
the meaning of tags is like reinventing the wheel (reinventing the definition).

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread Eugene Podshivalov

I have no objection to remove the lined/unlined characteristic from the
definitions but am not sure about leaving just one tag for both "ditch" and
"drain" notions.
Here are some examples to consider.

1. Industrial drains are not always digged out. The channal in the ground
may get formed by the liquid itself discharged from a pipe or culvert.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/MFC9WA/the-industrial-wastewater-is-discharged-from-the-pipe-MFC9WA.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2TCd0OHetNo/WzYi3_5n1lI/EiE/5V05A6jLL9Q_BssVLQhX7csbReaqBbbTgCLcBGAs/s320/Liquid%2BWaste%2BManagement.jpg

2. Shallow lined storm channals along paths and road are normally called
"drains", not "ditches".
https://thesquirrelnutwork.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/img_1578_2.jpg
http://sussexcountyconcrete.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_0216-1080x810.jpg

3. Storm water culverts are also normally called "drains", not "ditches".
http://coastalgunite.com/wp-content/uploads/project-congressional-towers0.jpg
https://www.theurbanexplorer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bourne-valley-culvert-bournemouth-dorset-10_8465421336_o-1400x937.jpg

On the other hand, if industrial discharge is running along a digged out
channal (lined or unlined) then you can call it a "ditch".
If a storm channal (lined or unlined) is deep enough to step into it, you
can call it a ditch as well.

Cheers,
Eugene

сб, 2 февр. 2019 г. в 16:23, Hufkratzer :

> If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
> waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
> not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
> requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
> presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
> using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
> immense that it is worth the effort?
>
> Am 02.02.2019 13:58, schrieb nwastra:
> > +1
> >
> > N
> >
> >> On 2 Feb 2019, at 10:39 pm, Markus  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.
> >>>
> >>> Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of
> overloading English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary
> (be it AmE, BrE, CaE, or whatever).
> >>>
> >>> Both the "ditch" and "drain" words can be used to describe certain
> features in English. The difference is essentially an etymological one,
> with one related to the process of excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other
> to the function of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).
> >>>
> >>> If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we
> should do it explicitly through a correct data model that takes into
> consideration the particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want
> to communicate the information that a (small) waterway is lined with
> concrete? Just say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or
> lining=*. We want to communicate the information that a (small) waterway is
> used to carry waste water away? Once again, let's say that with an
> appropriate tag, like e.g. usage=* (please ignore if the specific tags I
> put in the examples are not of your liking: not the point here, let's
> discuss that later...).
> >>>
> >>> Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the
> common language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in
> information.
> >> + 1
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread Paul Allen

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:00, s8evq  wrote:

>
> How would you then tag the building and field where Chiro, KSA or
> Australian Air Force Cadets youth groups gather weekly. club=???
>
> In other words: why does the Scouts movement have it's own club=  value?
> While, in my opinion, scout is not a generic description that covers all.
>

My guess is because OSM was started by somebody in the UK; OSM is
(supposedly) based upon
British English usage; the UK has scouts but not Chiro or KSA.  OSM has
scouts because back
in the early days we wanted to map scouts but had no need to map Chiro.

I don't see why you can't use club=chiro (as long as it is actually a
club).  To map it as club=scout
would be misleading to foreign visitors who might enter it and wiggle their
woggle (or whatever
it is that scouts do).

To quote from the wiki page: "An example list of common kind of club bases:
[...]" so that list
is not exhaustive.  Also "If you find no suitable club=* tag add one or use
club=yes." so you
are explicitly permitted add other (sensible) values.

I'd say that unless somebody comes up with a valid objection, just go with
club=chiro.  And if
you do, you should probably add it to the wiki so somebody doesn't come
along in 3 months
and ask how to map Chiro or why club=chiro isn't in the wiki.

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 02:07:00 +0300
From: Eugene Podshivalov 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

The direct images got blocked. So here are the links.

Drainage ditches:
https://ak2.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/32964022/thumb/12.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Drainage_Ditch_at_New_Eskham_Farm_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1170959.jpg

Drains:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Lake_tahoe_storm_drain_el_dorado_beach_2.jpg
http://councillordiane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/stormdrain.jpg
http://mechanicsburgborough.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/STORMSEWER.jpg

[...]

I would not call picture #4 a drain.  Maybe in a very general sense.  
The part carrying the water is more specifically called a "gutter" (at 
least in the US), and the structure the water is draining into is called 
an "inlet."  And I would call picture #5 a "culvert."  There is already 
an established tag for that.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread s8evq

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 13:56:03 +0100, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity.

That's clear, I can agree with that.

> Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with
> amenity=community_centre
> where you can specify more closely what it is, e.g.
> community_centre=club_home or
> community_centre=youth_centre
> and specify the target group with
> community_centre:for=*
> 
> Adding club=* to describe the intentions of the club even further, the 
> special interest, is fine, 
> but I'd not use it alone. club=scout, from the original question, would be 
> such special interest.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

> Contrary, the age group (senior, youth) is not a special interest in that 
> sense, compared to the 
> long list of valid examples on the page.

How would you then tag the building and field where Chiro, KSA or Australian 
Air Force Cadets youth groups gather weekly. club=???  

In other words: why does the Scouts movement have it's own club=  value? While, 
in my opinion, scout is not a generic description that covers all.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
not such an easy task. We already have 800k drains. I assume it
requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
immense that it is worth the effort?

Am 02.02.2019 13:58, schrieb nwastra:

On 2 Feb 2019, at 10:39 pm, Markus wrote:

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi wrote:

Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.

Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading
English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary (be it AmE, BrE,
CaE, or whatever).

Both the "ditch" and "drain" words can be used to describe certain features in
English. The difference is essentially an etymological one, with one related to the process of excavation
(dig -> ditch) and the other to the function of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).

If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we should do
it explicitly through a correct data model that takes into consideration the
particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want to communicate the
information that a (small) waterway is lined with concrete? Just say that with
an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or lining=*. We want to communicate the
information that a (small) waterway is used to carry waste water away? Once
again, let's say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. usage=* (please ignore
if the specific tags I put in the examples are not of your liking: not the
point here, let's discuss that later...).

Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the common
language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in information.

+ 1

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

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread nwastra

+1

N

> On 2 Feb 2019, at 10:39 pm, Markus  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>> 
>> Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.
>> 
>> Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading 
>> English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary (be it AmE, 
>> BrE, CaE, or whatever).
>> 
>> Both the "ditch" and "drain" words can be used to describe certain features 
>> in English. The difference is essentially an etymological one, with one 
>> related to the process of excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other to the 
>> function of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).
>> 
>> If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we should 
>> do it explicitly through a correct data model that takes into consideration 
>> the particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want to communicate 
>> the information that a (small) waterway is lined with concrete? Just say 
>> that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or lining=*. We want to 
>> communicate the information that a (small) waterway is used to carry waste 
>> water away? Once again, let's say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. 
>> usage=* (please ignore if the specific tags I put in the examples are not of 
>> your liking: not the point here, let's discuss that later...).
>> 
>> Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the common 
>> language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in information.
> 
> + 1
> 
> ___
> 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] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread Tom Pfeifer


On 02.02.2019 09:21, s8evq wrote:

Thank you for your input. I'm glad there are other examples of youth 
organisation that are clearly different from Scouts.

Could we agree that club=youth does have a meaningful usage, despite what the 
wiki currently states? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:club


A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity.

Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with
amenity=community_centre
where you can specify more closely what it is, e.g.
community_centre=club_home or
community_centre=youth_centre
and specify the target group with
community_centre:for=*

Adding club=* to describe the intentions of the club even further, the special interest, is fine, 
but I'd not use it alone. club=scout, from the original question, would be such special interest.


Contrary, the age group (senior, youth) is not a special interest in that sense, compared to the 
long list of valid examples on the page.


tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
> Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.
>
> Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading 
> English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary (be it AmE, 
> BrE, CaE, or whatever).
>
> Both the "ditch" and "drain" words can be used to describe certain features 
> in English. The difference is essentially an etymological one, with one 
> related to the process of excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other to the 
> function of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).
>
> If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we should do 
> it explicitly through a correct data model that takes into consideration the 
> particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want to communicate the 
> information that a (small) waterway is lined with concrete? Just say that 
> with an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or lining=*. We want to 
> communicate the information that a (small) waterway is used to carry waste 
> water away? Once again, let's say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. 
> usage=* (please ignore if the specific tags I put in the examples are not of 
> your liking: not the point here, let's discuss that later...).
>
> Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the common 
> language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in information.

+ 1

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread ael via Tagging

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:22:30PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:09, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> 
> > If you think it is important to differentiate between lined vs. unlined
> > minor waterways (*and I'm not objecting to that*), I guess the best
> > option would be to use a specific tag (lined=* ?)
> >
> As I understand it, Ordnance Survey maps in the UK make a distinction
> between ditches
> and drains.  Of course, printed maps don't have the luxury of sub-tags, so
> we don't have
> to use ditch and drain just because OS does.  However, ditch and drain are
> already
> established.
 +1


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread ael via Tagging

On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 12:22:01AM -0800, Mark Wagner wrote:
> 
> My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary has about a page of
> definitions for "ditch" and "drain", and not a hint that either of them
> needs to be lined.
 +1


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

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

2019-02-02 Thread s8evq


On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 08:12:28 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 31/01/19 13:02, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> > club=youth
> > youth=*
> >
> 
> Slightly different, but also related ...
> 
> Both my sons went through the Australian Air Force Cadets
> http://www.aafc.org.au/
> 
> It was emphasised that "The Australian Air Force Cadets (AAFC) is a youth
> oriented organisation that is administered and actively supported by the
> Royal Australian Air Force.", but they are NOT military in any way, with
> the same applying to both Army & Navy Cadets.
> 
> Once upon a time, Cadets was a way of starting early training for those
> kids who were interested in a military career but that was stopped in the
> 1980s - 90s, as the Government of the day apparently didn't want to be seen
> to be turning children into war-mongers & trained killers!
> 
> I don't know, but would assume that the same thing would apply for similar
> groups in other countries?
> 
> So they would also come under the heading of
> club=youth
> youth=*
> 


Thank you for your input. I'm glad there are other examples of youth 
organisation that are clearly different from Scouts.

Could we agree that club=youth does have a meaningful usage, despite what the 
wiki currently states? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:club


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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread Sergio Manzi

Thank-you for confirming that, Mark.

Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading 
English words with meanings they do not have in *any *dictionary (be it AmE, 
BrE, CaE, or whatever).

Both the "ditch" and "drain" words *can *be used to describe certain features 
in English. The difference is essentially an etymological one, with one related 
to the *process *of excavation (dig -> ditch) and the other to the *function 
*of carrying liquids away (dry -> drain).

If we want to precisely map certain characteristics of a feature we should do 
it explicitly through a *correct data model* that takes into consideration the 
particular aspect we are trying to communicate. We want to communicate the 
information that a (small) waterway is lined with concrete? Just say that with 
an appropriate tag, like e.g. lined=*, or lining=*. We want to communicate the 
information that a (small) waterway is used to carry waste water away? Once 
again, let's say that with an appropriate tag, like e.g. usage=* (/please 
ignore if the specific tags I put in the examples are not of your liking: not 
the point here, let's discuss that later.../).

Arbitrarily overloading words with meanings they do not have in the common 
language is just a perfect way to Babel, that is a reduction in information.

Sergio

On 2019-02-02 09:22, Mark Wagner wrote:
> My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary has about a page of
> definitions for "ditch" and "drain", and not a hint that either of them
> needs to be lined.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-02-02 Thread Eugene Podshivalov

There are two cases when I'm in doubt when choosing between "drainage
ditch" and "drain".

1.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Lake_tahoe_storm_drain_el_dorado_beach_2.jpg
I would call the pipe a "drain", but is the channal in the ground carrying
industrial discharge after the pipe a ditch or a drain?

2. The storm water channals along roads and paths in pupulated places are
usually lined, which let's you easily call them "drains".
http://councillordiane.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/stormdrain.jpg
http://www.roadex.org/wp-content/uploads/elearning/drainage/4/431b.jpg
But the strom water channals along roads and paths in unpopulated places
are usually unlined. Whould you call them "ditches" or "drais"?
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/98-015f6.jpg
https://www.roadex.org/wp-content/uploads/elearning/drainage/4/411.jpg
http://alphasoil.com/v/alphasoil/content/e197/e662/englishKoffer-Zeichnungschotter-strasse-im-querschnittklein_RU.jpg

Cheers,
Eugene

сб, 2 февр. 2019 г. в 11:25, Mark Wagner :

>
> My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary has about a page of
> definitions for "ditch" and "drain", and not a hint that either of them
> needs to be lined.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 01:28:10 +0100
> Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
> > I know, that's why I asked for a good one...
> >
> > On 2019-02-02 01:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > > Dictionary.com usually provides definitions in American English, so
> > > it wouldn’t be a good source.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 8:35 AM Sergio Manzi  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Please point me to a dictionary defining "drain" as a "lined
> > > ditch" or in any way stating that a drain must be lined, because I
> > > tried and I failed.
> > >
> > > Best I found is in dictionary.com   that
> > > (/under /"/Physical Geography/") define it as
> > >
> > >  1. an artificial watercourse, as a ditch or trench.
> > >  2. a natural watercourse modified to increase its flow of
> > > water.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2019-02-01 23:46, Paul Allen wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:43, Sergio Manzi  > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So, how do you tag drains which are not lined?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Ditch.   Because, physically, that's what it is.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Tagging mailing list
> > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)