Re: [Tagging] Education reform - a minor change on my proposal

[Warin]

On 6/6/20 9:04 pm, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:

I have changed how buildings in the campus should be tagged.





Some suggestions?

Just use 'outer boundary' rather than try to cover all the different 
kinds of outer boundaries that may exist.


===How to tag individual schools in this scheme===

Outer boundary of a school is tagged accordingly with education tag.

Buildings should not have education key if that key is the same as the 
outer boundary.


Note that the outer boundary could be a relation.


Add radio to the teaching medium, in case these still exist in some part 
of the world. They used to exist in Australia but that has now 
transferred over to satellite internet - so 'online' may cover it.


| optional || {{Tag|medium}} || face-to-face/postal/online/radio || Is 
it a face-to-face school or a distance education institute?




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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 7/6/20 1:31 am, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 11:23, Andy Townsend  wrote:

On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote:
在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：

As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.

OSM is not *only* for general tourist.

I bet even a general tourist would be interested if they could be assured that 
a route was flat :)

And didn't have buildings or factories built on it ;)


Home owners would not be happy with tourists walking through lunch because OSM 
has a tourist/railline line through their house.

Factory OH&S people would be very upset with tourists walking through the 
factory because OSM has a tourist/railline line through the factory.
The tourists would not be impressed with the 'railway' either if there was 
nothing 'railway' to see, even if the route is flat.

A general tourist walking along a road that has no sign of a railway would not 
be impressed if it were shown as a railway on OSM.
Other road users would be perplexed if the road were shown as a railway...



If it's a recognized route that's signposted as something like
"Historical Railway Trail" then it can be a relation.


As a walking route, yes. It is no longer a railway, that is in the past.


  If it's not
signposted and there's no trace of it left on the ground, what exactly
is being mapped?


History?


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 7/6/20 1:52 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 6. Jun 2020, at 03:58, Jack Armstrong  wrote:


The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in 
the world today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades 
ago. If there is something that remains of a previous railroad, then 
it can be mapped in some way. If there is /*nothing* *remaining*/ of 
what used to be a railroad, it should be out-of-scope.




whether you find traces might depend how hard you look for them. In 
most cases there will be something left of a railroad, but you might 
not be able to recognize it or you will simply not see it because the 
traces are rare.



How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground 
penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist?



Where something has been demolished and replaced with something else, 
should the old thing remain in OSM?



And yes I am thinking of old railway routes that have gone and been 
replaced with roads/rail trails etc.



To me - the old thing is no longer there, the new thing has overlay-ed 
it and replaces it. If people want to map old things .. well their place 
should be in OHM not OSM.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

[Richard]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 09:20:43AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 01:18, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > On May 30, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200
> > >> From: Daniel Westergren 
> > >
> > >> *An additional issue:*
> > >> 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with
> > mtb:scale)
> > >> to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the
> > >> route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and there is not
> > enough
> > >> nuance in the lowest levels.
> > >
> > >  As a climber, I don't think we'd want to apply YDS to hiking trails.
> > > To me, YDS should only used for technical routes requiring equipment
> > > (usually).
> >
> > As a Sierra Club member in Southern California (where the YDS originated
> > long before my time), a hiker and a former climber I must mention that 1,
> > 2, 3, and 4 on the YDS are basically levels of difficulty in hiking.
> > Climbers really only work with 5 and its various subdivisions. Ruling out
> > the whole scale simply because one level of it is dedicated to climbing is
> > a bit much.
> >
> > OTOH, the Australians have a bush walking scale that does not, from what
> > I’ve seen, include levels for climbing so that might be choice that does
> > not automatically connote a different outdoor activity.
> >
> 
> So would we try & combine a walking scale & a climbing / alpine scale into
> one, or have two scales?
> 
> Two would probably make a lot more sense, with "Walking / Hiking" 1 - 5,
> then sac starting at about 4/5.

.. and don't forget via ferrata's have their own scale, athough they *should*
be using higway=via_ferrata - and climbing routes *should* be using 
route=climbing

> Something else that I've just thought about & not sure whether it would
> need to be mentioned - possibility of encountering dangerous wildlife?
> 
> Yes, there are 1000 things in the Australian bush that'll kill you :-), but
> none of them will actually eat you! (not even Drop Bears!
> https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/mammals/drop-bear/ :-)) Same
> applies to (virtually?) all of Western Europe, but how about North America,
> Africa, Asia & so on? Do we have / need a way of tagging that bears (or
> whatever) may be encountered while walking in this area?

as most of the bears here should have a GPS transmitter there should be
a live map displaying areas where they might be encountered (don't think anyone
will release their exact position as it might encourage idiots seeking
an adrenaline push or poachers).

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Richard]

On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:47:23AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 10:22, Lanxana .  wrote:
> 
> > Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
> > description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
> > beneath”, it isn’t the case…
> >
> But see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location which does not
> say "installed."  I suspect that "installed" was used in the page you found
> because it was written by somebody who does not have English as a first
> language or was written by somebody who was only thinking of man-made
> POIs.  Or maybe it was written by somebody who didn't like using the
> word "located" because it seemed a little repetitious so went with
> "installed."

the description in Key:location has been there since 2012 while the other page 
was created 2019.. changed location=underwater.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Jun 2020, at 03:58, Jack Armstrong  wrote:
> 
> 
> The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in the world 
> today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades ago. If there is 
> something that remains of a previous railroad, then it can be mapped in some 
> way. If there is nothing remaining of what used to be a railroad, it should 
> be out-of-scope.



whether you find traces might depend how hard you look for them. In most cases 
there will be something left of a railroad, but you might not be able to 
recognize it or you will simply not see it because the traces are rare.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 11:23, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote:
> 在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：
>>> As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
>>> railway route here nothing remains of the railway.
>>
>> OSM is not *only* for general tourist.
>
> I bet even a general tourist would be interested if they could be assured 
> that a route was flat :)

And didn't have buildings or factories built on it ;)

If it's a recognized route that's signposted as something like
"Historical Railway Trail" then it can be a relation. If it's not
signposted and there's no trace of it left on the ground, what exactly
is being mapped?

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote:



在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> 寫道：



As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.


OSM is not *only* for general tourist.

I bet even a general tourist would be interested if they could be 
assured that a route was flat :)


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：

> On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > I need to reopen this thread.
> >
> >  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
> > replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one
> > of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been
> > conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> > I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> > railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and
> > for that reason should be in OSM.
>
>
> As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
> railway route here nothing remains of the railway.
>

OSM is not *only* for general tourist.

> If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no longer
> exist.
>

As repeatedly covered in this thread with examples being cited, a
razed/dismantled railway could still leave indication for its railroad
alignment on the ground.

Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
> commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that should be
> in OSM yet people map it...
>

You can have rows of private houses and blocks of factories building over
former railway yet the railway remain can still be visible on the ground.

A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
> railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.
>

They're not historical, they're currently existing as remain, and is of
interest for anyone trying to understand or utilize such area.

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

[Tagging] Education reform - a minor change on my proposal

[Erkin Alp Güney]

I have changed how buildings in the campus should be tagged.



Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp


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

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 10:22, Lanxana .  wrote:

We have been looking for how to tag the ruins of constructions (buildings,
> bridges or roads) that are inside some reservoirs. Although they generally
> remain underwater, but in times of drought, when the reservoir level drops
> low enough, they can be visited on foot.  Like this [1]
>
> On first time, the combination historic=ruins + building=yes (or whatever
> corresponds) identifies that it’s a historical feature,
>
The wiki page on historic features says that historic=* is to identify
features
of historic interest.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic
The key historic=* is not a synonym for old=*.  Admittedly, the page also
says it is somewhat subjective as to what is of historic interest, but it
gives
several criteria which I do not think are satisfied here.

Nor is historic=ruins really appropriate.  Some of the buildings may be
intact.
And they're not really of historic interest.  The ruins of St Dogmaels Abbey
qualify as historic=ruins.  See
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Dogmaels_Abbey_-_geograph.org.uk_-_309701.jpg

A better way of handling non-historic ruins, is to use ruins=yes or
namespace the key, such as ruins:building=house.  There has been
much debate on this list as to which of those two is correct and if one is
preferred over the other in certain circumstances.  All I'll point out
is that with some renderers ruins:building=house does not render
but with ruins=yes it does.

If the building is not in ruins but has been abandoned (by virtue of being
underwater most of the time, then abandoned:building=house or
abandoned=yes.


> it’s in ruins and/or it isn’t habitable. But how to indicate that it’s
> underwater partially or totally and its access is occasionally possible,
> when the water drops?
>
location=underwater accounts for normal state.  You could possibly use a
conditional to indicate occasional visibility but it's probably not worth
it.  Especially
as most of the rare times it's uncovered it will only be partially
uncovered to a
greater or lesser extent.  A note or description on the body of water is
probably
the way to handle it: "During times of low water some buildings may be
visible."


> I find these tags, but none convinces me:
>
> Historic=wreck [2] -> only for nautical elements
>
Specifically for vessels.  "Wreck" as in "shipwreck."


> Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
> description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
> beneath”, it isn’t the case…
>
But see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location which does not
say "installed."  I suspect that "installed" was used in the page you found
because it was written by somebody who does not have English as a first
language or was written by somebody who was only thinking of man-made
POIs.  Or maybe it was written by somebody who didn't like using the
word "located" because it seemed a little repetitious so went with
"installed."

So building=whatever + ruins=yes + location=underwater or
ruins:building=whatever + location=underwater.

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

[Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

[Lanxana .]

Hi everyone!

We have been looking for how to tag the ruins of constructions (buildings,
bridges or roads) that are inside some reservoirs. Although they generally
remain underwater, but in times of drought, when the reservoir level drops
low enough, they can be visited on foot.  Like this [1]

On first time, the combination historic=ruins + building=yes (or whatever
corresponds) identifies that it’s a historical feature, it’s in ruins
and/or it isn’t habitable. But how to indicate that it’s underwater
partially or totally and its access is occasionally possible, when the
water drops?

I find these tags, but none convinces me:

Historic=wreck [2] -> only for nautical elements

Location=underwater [3] -> it seems that it’s appropriate but the
description tells “installed between a water surface and the floor
beneath”, it isn’t the case…

Flood_prone=yes [4] -> advices from a hazard, it isn’t the case…

Is there any more that I haven’t seen?

Thanks!

[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Church_of_Sant_Rom%C3%A0#/media/File:Esgl%C3%A9sia_de_Sant_Rom%C3%A0_de_Sau.jpg

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dwreck

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:location%3Dunderwater

[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_prone
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging