Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways
I see changeset source tags as the source(s) used for the work, not necessarily the source of every change in the changeset. Most of the source tags I see state the original source of the object, not the latest source. The original source does not change when a tag or the geometry is altered. The history of objects tells me who has touched it, what has changed, but not why and what the source was, and the associated changeset tags usually only tell me why the object was affected, but nothing specific for the object (unless the object happens to be the only thing changed in the changeset). I would rate this information: sometimes useful but not very reliable. Technical improvements will not fix this. What the mappers put there could do with improvement. The challenge is how to get the mappers to do it. Peter Elderson Op wo 18 nov. 2020 om 19:09 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > Am Mi., 18. Nov. 2020 um 13:19 Uhr schrieb ael via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:09:40AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> We have tags like source:name and source:outline for more specific >> tagging. >> > > > yes, every tag could get a source tag. It would mean a lot of additional > work for mappers, and the benefit would probably be very small. Usually > when you check an object for its correspondence with reality, you either > find the tags accurate or wrong, for various reasons they could be wrong, > most likely is a change of the thing in the real world. A source tag will > not help you with this. To me, the most interesting information when > looking at an edit is whether the person has been on the ground or not. > source=Bing does not really tell you this, because many people use it when > they are adding information and Bing is visible in the background, but it > does not mean that every piece of information that they add actually comes > from Bing. > > > > > >> >> > From a practical point of view, I am mostly ignoring source tags, >> because >> > they are almost never accurate. Typically someone has added them some >> > versions ago and nobody in between has bothered to remove or update the >> > tag. To know this, you will have to dive into the object history anyway. >> >> Then you are part of the problem :-) It is very annoying when the >> source tag is accurate until someone, nearly always an armchair mapper, >> who comes along and changes things without updating the source tag. >> > > > Most source tags I see are source=Bing and when I add information from a > survey, I either do not change it, or sometimes I remove it because it is > not valid any more at this point. > > >> >> Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause >> further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely >> not a changeset comment. > > > > the changeset "comments" are actually structured tags, and from past > discussions it is the preferred way over source tags on individual items. > Source tags on items are the older method, they have already proven to fail > in real world conditions in OSM ;-) > > Cheers > Martin > ___ > 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] coastline v. water
This was fascinating reading. I do agree that we ought to have a definition for what gets tagged natural=coastline, and I think it's fine if that definition has some subjectivity. I would offer something as simple as: "The coastline should follow the mean high tide line. In some cases this rule would result in the coastline extending an unreasonable distance along the banks of tidal rivers. In those cases, mappers should identify a reasonable choke point at which to terminate the inland extent of coastline tagging." This would clearly include bays and coves on the marine side of the coast. For rivers, local mappers could decide on where the coastline stops by consensus, and the decision space is limited to a discrete set of chokepoints in the river geography (or when the river stops being tidal if the tidal portion is reasonably short). An objective definition that we can all live with is probably not achievable, but a partially-subjective one would at least minimize the arbitrary decision-making while still allowing flexibility for edge cases. On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 5:07 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Eric H. Christensen via Tagging hat am > 18.11.2020 21:19 geschrieben: > > > > [...] > > First: the matter has been discussed at length previously so i would > advise anyone who wants to form an opinion on the matter to read up on past > discussion where essentially everything relevant has been said already. > Most relevant links: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/054405.html > and resulting discussion: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-August/thread.html#54434 > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement > > Second: > > > > > Now, some of the feedback that has been presented[2] is that because it > is tidal it is part of the sea. [...] > > As you can read in the proposal linked above the range of tidal influence > forms the upper limit of the range practical coastline mapping in areas > with significant tidal range but as it is in practical mapping not the > universally used limit. > > Third: > > While this is ultimately not relevant because the delineation of tags in > OSM should be based on verifiable criteria obviously i have never seen any > map that displays ocean water and inland waterbodies in differentiated form > that shows the Chesapeake Bay as inland water. > > Classical examples with differentiated rendering are TPC/ONC (caution: > links go to large images): > > http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/americas-pacific-index.html > http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/onc/txu-pclmaps-oclc-8322829_g_21.jpg > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > 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] COVID-19 vaccination centres
> The wiki mentions healthcare:speciality=vaccination > although it is not used/ Well it's used 34x already: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/healthcare%3Aspeciality=vaccination While it was not in the original healthcare proposal it has been added on 6feb2017 and appears in translations of the page. I'd support it. healthcare:speciality=vaccination vaccination:covid19=yes A "vaccination" subkey makes sense to me; remains the old discussion of "=yes" lists, or semicolon separated values, i.e. vaccination:covid19=yes vaccination:influenza=yes vaccination:measles=yes vs. vaccination=covid19;influenza;measles As the healthcare:speciality key favours CSV, I'd recommend that for the subkey as well. wiki: "If a medical practitioner or a medical facility covers several specializations, they could be separated by a semicolon", which was indeed part of the original proposal. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres
På Wed, 18 Nov 2020 22:14:35 +0100 Francesco Ansanelli skrev: >Hello, >Covid19 have been used as suffix, so how about: > >healthcare:speciality=vaccination >vaccination:covid19=yes You are right. That is better. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water
> Eric H. Christensen via Tagging hat am 18.11.2020 > 21:19 geschrieben: > > [...] First: the matter has been discussed at length previously so i would advise anyone who wants to form an opinion on the matter to read up on past discussion where essentially everything relevant has been said already. Most relevant links: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/054405.html and resulting discussion: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-August/thread.html#54434 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement Second: > > Now, some of the feedback that has been presented[2] is that because it is > tidal it is part of the sea. [...] As you can read in the proposal linked above the range of tidal influence forms the upper limit of the range practical coastline mapping in areas with significant tidal range but as it is in practical mapping not the universally used limit. Third: While this is ultimately not relevant because the delineation of tags in OSM should be based on verifiable criteria obviously i have never seen any map that displays ocean water and inland waterbodies in differentiated form that shows the Chesapeake Bay as inland water. Classical examples with differentiated rendering are TPC/ONC (caution: links go to large images): http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/americas-pacific-index.html http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/onc/txu-pclmaps-oclc-8322829_g_21.jpg -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water
On 2020-11-18 21:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high > water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. Sorry to pick nits, but tides can be higher than MHWS; the "mean" implies a long-term average, which will often be exceeded.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 3:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high > water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. If the line on an > open ocean beach is at the high tide line, it makes sense that all tidal bays > and estuaries should also be included in the area outside of the coastline. Then why the ability to mark natural=water as tidal and as salt? Clearly the ability to use those attributes leads me to believe that just being tidal does not make it be coastline. --Eric ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres
Hello, Il mer 18 nov 2020, 22:11 Niels Elgaard Larsen ha scritto: > Tom Pfeifer: > > > Related tags & pages: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/COVID-19_-_How_to_Map > >related to the "staying open" mapping effort > > > > health_service:prevention:vaccination=yes|no (455x, 80% no, no Wiki page) > > which I see unsuitable as it does not use the healthcare key > > The wiki mentions healthcare:speciality=vaccination > although it is not used/ > > Then we could have healthcare:speciality:vaccination=covid19;covid21 > Covid19 have been used as suffix, so how about: healthcare:speciality=vaccination vaccination:covid19=yes ? Cheers Francesco > > > > healthcare:covid19, 7x (covid_test, hospital, 1 user, no wiki) > > > > tom > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > -- > Niels Elgaard Larsen > > ___ > 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] COVID-19 vaccination centres
Tom Pfeifer: Related tags & pages: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/COVID-19_-_How_to_Map related to the "staying open" mapping effort health_service:prevention:vaccination=yes|no (455x, 80% no, no Wiki page) which I see unsuitable as it does not use the healthcare key The wiki mentions healthcare:speciality=vaccination although it is not used/ Then we could have healthcare:speciality:vaccination=covid19;covid21 healthcare:covid19, 7x (covid_test, hospital, 1 user, no wiki) tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Niels Elgaard Larsen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water
Chesapeake Bay, as the name “Bay” suggests, is a bay at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. It is a shallow estuary, similar to many othe partially enclosed margins seas, e.g. the Salish Sea (including Puget Sound) in Washington/British Columbia, San Francisco Bay in California, the Tampa Bay in Florida, etc. It has always been the standard to map these bays as part of the marine environment by using the natural=coastline to include them as part of the marginal sea. Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. If the line on an open ocean beach is at the high tide line, it makes sense that all tidal bays and estuaries should also be included in the area outside of the coastline. While there is some debate about where on the Potomac River we should put the line (I would suggest around DC, where the river widens out), there is no doubt that Chesapeake Bay is part of the marine environment. — Joseph Eisenberg On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:24 PM Eric H. Christensen via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > After a few days of much work, a recent collaborative project to turn the > Chesapeake Bay from a nothing space outlined by natural=coastline to what > we considered to be a more accurate relation of natural=water, we've > received some negative feedback. > > The difference of opinion seems to lie in the definition of what we're > mapping. The use of coastline is for "seas"[0] while the use of water is > for "inland areas of water"[1]. Even though the Chesapeake Bay is tidal, > there is no question that it is an inland waterway (it is completely > surrounded by land except for the mouth at its southeast side). The idea > of using coastlines for basically creating an edge between the land and the > nothingness of the ocean makes sense when, as far as the eye can see it's > only water. > > Now, some of the feedback that has been presented[2] is that because it is > tidal it is part of the sea. I have pointed out that many rivers and > streams (and ditches!) are tidal; does that make them part of the sea? I > would not think so. In fact, there are named seas on this planet that are > not even connected to other water formations (the tiniest, according to the > National Geographic, is the Sea of Marmara which has an area just less than > 12,950 sq km, larger than the Chesapeake Bay). > > But, tagging the Chesapeake Bay, and its tributaries, as "water" brings > several benefits to the map and the users. First, it helps identify the > sections of water that exist in these areas (this can't really be done with > node points as there is no way to define start and end points of an area). > There are many defined bays, rivers, and streams that make up the greater > Chesapeake Bay area. What one may see as one large mass of water is > actually many smaller defined segments each with their own history. > Second, we can speed up any updates (fixes) to outlines of the polygons > that happen in these water areas without having to wait for the entire > Earth's coastlines to be re-rendered. I suspect having less coastline to > render would also speed up the rendering of coastlines as well? > > I would like for the tagging community to clarify the different between > "water" and "coastline" and when to use each. The definition on water > seems to say to use it on inland water but there seems to be, at least, and > open interpretation of the word "sea" for coastline that is dragging many > inland waters into that category. > > Thanks, > Eric "Sparks" Christensen > > [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater > [2] > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94093155#map=10/37.1620/-76.1581 > > ___ > 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] coastline v. water
After a few days of much work, a recent collaborative project to turn the Chesapeake Bay from a nothing space outlined by natural=coastline to what we considered to be a more accurate relation of natural=water, we've received some negative feedback. The difference of opinion seems to lie in the definition of what we're mapping. The use of coastline is for "seas"[0] while the use of water is for "inland areas of water"[1]. Even though the Chesapeake Bay is tidal, there is no question that it is an inland waterway (it is completely surrounded by land except for the mouth at its southeast side). The idea of using coastlines for basically creating an edge between the land and the nothingness of the ocean makes sense when, as far as the eye can see it's only water. Now, some of the feedback that has been presented[2] is that because it is tidal it is part of the sea. I have pointed out that many rivers and streams (and ditches!) are tidal; does that make them part of the sea? I would not think so. In fact, there are named seas on this planet that are not even connected to other water formations (the tiniest, according to the National Geographic, is the Sea of Marmara which has an area just less than 12,950 sq km, larger than the Chesapeake Bay). But, tagging the Chesapeake Bay, and its tributaries, as "water" brings several benefits to the map and the users. First, it helps identify the sections of water that exist in these areas (this can't really be done with node points as there is no way to define start and end points of an area). There are many defined bays, rivers, and streams that make up the greater Chesapeake Bay area. What one may see as one large mass of water is actually many smaller defined segments each with their own history. Second, we can speed up any updates (fixes) to outlines of the polygons that happen in these water areas without having to wait for the entire Earth's coastlines to be re-rendered. I suspect having less coastline to render would also speed up the rendering of coastlines as well? I would like for the tagging community to clarify the different between "water" and "coastline" and when to use each. The definition on water seems to say to use it on inland water but there seems to be, at least, and open interpretation of the word "sea" for coastline that is dragging many inland waters into that category. Thanks, Eric "Sparks" Christensen [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwater [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94093155#map=10/37.1620/-76.1581 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres
With the first Covid-19 vaccines getting approved, many municipalities are planning facilities for administering mass vaccination. In Berlin, the two former airports Tegel and Tempelhof are planned, along with some sports facilities. This raises the question for appropriate tagging. The healthcare key seems suitable, it typically describes the activity in the value. The compact form 'covid19' is already used in various tags. Thus, what about either - healthcare = covid19_vaccination - healthcare:covid19 = vaccination Related tags & pages: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/COVID-19_-_How_to_Map related to the "staying open" mapping effort health_service:prevention:vaccination=yes|no (455x, 80% no, no Wiki page) which I see unsuitable as it does not use the healthcare key healthcare:covid19, 7x (covid_test, hospital, 1 user, no wiki) tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways
Am Mi., 18. Nov. 2020 um 13:19 Uhr schrieb ael via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:09:40AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > We have tags like source:name and source:outline for more specific > tagging. > yes, every tag could get a source tag. It would mean a lot of additional work for mappers, and the benefit would probably be very small. Usually when you check an object for its correspondence with reality, you either find the tags accurate or wrong, for various reasons they could be wrong, most likely is a change of the thing in the real world. A source tag will not help you with this. To me, the most interesting information when looking at an edit is whether the person has been on the ground or not. source=Bing does not really tell you this, because many people use it when they are adding information and Bing is visible in the background, but it does not mean that every piece of information that they add actually comes from Bing. > > > From a practical point of view, I am mostly ignoring source tags, because > > they are almost never accurate. Typically someone has added them some > > versions ago and nobody in between has bothered to remove or update the > > tag. To know this, you will have to dive into the object history anyway. > > Then you are part of the problem :-) It is very annoying when the > source tag is accurate until someone, nearly always an armchair mapper, > who comes along and changes things without updating the source tag. > Most source tags I see are source=Bing and when I add information from a survey, I either do not change it, or sometimes I remove it because it is not valid any more at this point. > > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. the changeset "comments" are actually structured tags, and from past discussions it is the preferred way over source tags on individual items. Source tags on items are the older method, they have already proven to fail in real world conditions in OSM ;-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways
Nov 18, 2020, 13:02 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. > Source tag on the changeset. Supported by all serious editors, if https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7755 will be implemented it will be also encouraged by all serious editors. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM ael via Tagging wrote: > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. > source=* by itself on a way, relation or node is not useful. source:keyname=* can help give hint on where something came from, but ultimately, source=* works best as a changeset tag. Every major editor supports and encourages this. The history browser in JOSM and osmcha.org work well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:09:40AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Di., 17. Nov. 2020 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb stevea >: > > > I never said to NOT use source=* tags, they are correctly used on an > > individual datum if / as it might diverge from a greater set of data that > > otherwise has another source. In short, if ALL of the data are from a > > single source, use a changeset comment to note this. If not, source=* tags > > are appropriate. > > > > > I find the source tags in general problematic, most of all those "source"=* > tags which do not relate to a specific tag. It may make sense for the > creator of the object to add it, but what if someone changes something. > E.g. you add a tag, or remove a tag, or change a value. What would you do > with an existing source tag? Easy if you base your edit on the same source, > otherwise, would you have to remove it? How much do you have to change in > order to remove it? Or should you always be adding more values to the > existing source string without ever removing anything, until you reach 255 > characters and then continue in a source2-tag? We have tags like source:name and source:outline for more specific tagging. And I have yet to see a source=one;two;three... which is very long. > From a practical point of view, I am mostly ignoring source tags, because > they are almost never accurate. Typically someone has added them some > versions ago and nobody in between has bothered to remove or update the > tag. To know this, you will have to dive into the object history anyway. Then you are part of the problem :-) It is very annoying when the source tag is accurate until someone, nearly always an armchair mapper, who comes along and changes things without updating the source tag. Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely not a changeset comment. ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
