Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:05 PM Evan Carroll  wrote:

>
> For all of these cases, when "Zone" isn't established by law I see no
> value. I think this would be a good place to start. But I'm also interested
> in knowing Lyft's motivations behinds these Zones and I assume they're on
> the list or someone can answer for it. If unnamed, this seems like a more
> error-prone way to do Spatial Clustering, and clustering is usually done
> for a reason, which I don't see in the wiki (unless I'm missing something).
>

Houston has hundreds of landuse polygons already.  According to the wiki
[1], landuse describes what area is being used for. It does not say
anywhere that we should map city zones. For example, landuse=farmland
describes an area used for farming where a county landuse zone might
include the buildings on the property, in OSM we usually don't.  Areas with
houses are tagged as landuse-residential. Houston has many of these areas.

[1]  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use

As Andy suggested, contact the mapper with your concerns. I've have had
good luck dealing with Lyft in the past and appreciate their edits in my
area.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

[Clifford Snow]

Tomas,
Please refrain from calling out others as outlined in the Etiquette
Guidelines [1]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette

Best,
Clifford

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 12:38 PM Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2020-12-20, sk, 17:59 Paul Allen rašė:
> > Too late, at least for iD.  Its authors have already decided to deprecate
> > landuse=reservoir.  All this proposal does is document the fact.
>
>   Strange sequence/logic tho:
>   1. iD brakes the rules, does something contrary to what
> OpenStreetMap/mappers do,
>   2. instead of fixing the offender - iD, Brian decides to bend the
> rules... ignoring the cartographic advantages of landuse=reservoir and
> impossibility to achieve "full rule of natural=water" in any near
> future as there are a lot of other tags to be massacred, not only
> landuse=reservoir. waterway=riverbank - 255K water=riverbank - 1K <-
> this even with iD once again lying about it being deprecated...
>
>   I hope this proposal will be ignored as the initial one ten years
> ago was. 20-30 people voting is nothing when we talk about tag with
> almost 400K and much longer usage.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority
> 
>
> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where
> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the
> moment they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because
> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the
> proposal for more details.
>

In a number of places that I've lived or visited, marked crossings (zebra
or others) indicate the pedestrian has the right-of-way.  For example,
where I live now, Washington State, it's the law that pedestrians have
righ-of-way in a marked crosswalk. In all those many places adding the tag
crossing=priority would be redundant. It would also effectively do away
with crossing=marked which has over 1M uses[1]. Many of us were very happy
when crossing=marked was added because zebra didn't exactly fit. What
crossing=marked does is give the ability to easily verify what's
literally on the ground, even visible from good aerial imagery.

If you believe that we need a priority tag, then I suggest creating one
that doesn't effectively depreciate crossing=marked. I'd also suggest
explaining how a mappers is expected to know if the pedestrian has
priority.

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing#values

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

[Clifford Snow]

Out of curiosity I decided to look at how USGS defines lakes and ponds
after noticing that their Feature Code is listed as lake/pond. Here is how
they define the two, as well as rivers and streams and mountains and hills.







*There are no official definitions for generic terms as applied to
geographic features. Any existing definitions derive from the needs and
applications of organizations using those geographic features. The
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database utilizes 63 broad
categories of feature types defined solely to facilitate retrieval of
entries with similar characteristics from the database.These categories
generally match dictionary definitions, but not always. The differences are
thematic and highly subjective. For example, a lake is classified in the
GNIS as a "natural body of inland water”, which is a feature description
that can also apply to a reservoir, a pond, or a pool. All "linear flowing
bodies of water" are classified as streams in the GNIS. At least 121 other
generic terms fit this broad category, including creeks and rivers. Some
might contend that a creek must flow into a river, but such hierarchies do
not exist in the nation's namescape. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names
once stated that the difference between a hill and a mountain was 1,000
feet of local relief, but this was abandoned in the early 1970s. Broad
agreement on such questions is essentially impossible, which is why there
are no official feature classification standards.*


I think they are smart to not try to classify lakes and ponds separately.
Back to the original discussion started by Joseph Eisenberg, I'd be in
favor of just using water=lake/pond or water=lake_pond.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Should the tag proposal process force voters to vote for an option?

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:20 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I wrote about changing from a for/against vote to a pick your preferred
> option at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/394419
>
> Interested to hear what others think about this.
>

Andrew,
This doesn't really answer your question but offers some nuance to
developing tags. Last year I participated in a group process that looked at
tagging features. In addition to tagging an object as Y, it also asks the
questions what attributes does Y have. We listed as many as we could think
of in a typical brainstorming session. Besides providing a list of
attributes, it also helps validate if tagging the object as Y is
appropriate.

I think the tagging proposal process could benefit if the community could
expand the proposed tag to what other attributes the feature has. I also
think it might help us produce more complete tags for features.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:31 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

>
>> I would say not, by my understanding of the term.  But I can't guarantee
> my understanding matches general UK usage.  However, if we count that
> as a farm shop then the term essentially becomes an alias of greengrocer.
> A greengrocer with a single supplier, but still a greengrocer.  An
> intermediary between the customer and the farmer.
>
> It's stretching things if the shop is attached to a private house and the
>>> produce is grown in the garden,
>>>
>>
>> So what do we call it if we have a bumper crop of mangoes & decide to put
>> a table out the front & sell them for $1 each?
>>
>
> Unless you do it regularly and people come to rely on you for their supply
> of mangoes, it's not worth mapping, is it?
>

Some of my neighbors sell extra eggs or small bunches of flowers. I don't
map those. To hit and miss.

I live in a farming area. Apparently the soil around here ranks with the
best. A number of the farmers have "farm stands" as they are called
locally. Usually it is a separate building with a lock box to accept cash
or checks. They have small signs along the road as well as a couple of
websites that list the farms and what you can get.  I've tagged a few as
shop=farm. OSM even has a nice icon for the business. These are different
from greengrocers. We have one greengrocer in the area, but I'm not sure if
it has ever been mapped.

>
>
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

[Clifford Snow]

I use the tag shop=farm. It's been around for a while.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dfarm


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 3:30 PM Yves  wrote:

>
>
> Le 27 septembre 2020 21:43:31 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson <
> pelder...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> >The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for
> >managed forests has too little practical support.
>
> Yet, this is one of the first thing I learn in my early days in OSM.
> Yves
>
> Same here.

I don't have a problem with landuse=forestry if that would satisfy the
concern that landuse=forest is too widely used. That still leaves the
problem of the following tags.
landuse=forest 4.7M uses according to taginfo
landuse=logging 58K
natural=wood 6.6M uses

Landuse=logging might be a better tag than landuse=forestry. It has had
a wiki [1] page since 2018.

I would recommend using landuse=logging since it is established and
depreciating landuse=forest. natural=wood should be used for wooded areas
with no commercial logging activity.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dlogging

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:24 AM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
>>
>
> I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation.
> I live in an area with significant logging. Typically I will see logging
> trucks bringing in just cut timber to be milled  when I'm out for just a
> short drive. Timber production is a big industry in Alaska, British
> Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.
>

I did a check of Washington and saw that there are a number of
landuse=forest that should be natural=trees. I suspect that it's also
happening elsewhere.

>
>> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data
>> consumers.
>>
>
> That may be for cartographic interpretation. But researchers may have a
> different opinion. A researcher just interested in potential wildfire areas
> may not be interested in the difference, but someone looking at how much
> land is being used for forestry products may have a different opinion. Or
> in mountainous states where clear cutting often causes landslides. I know
> our state studies where it's dangerous to clear cut because the area is so
> steep.
>
> The wiki on landuse=forest does need some help. We shouldn't be offering a
> tag with such unclear use cases as landuse=forest currently is written.
>

I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production.  Thoughts?

>
>
> --
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
>

I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation.
I live in an area with significant logging. Typically I will see logging
trucks bringing in just cut timber to be milled  when I'm out for just a
short drive. Timber production is a big industry in Alaska, British
Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.

>
> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data
> consumers.
>

That may be for cartographic interpretation. But researchers may have a
different opinion. A researcher just interested in potential wildfire areas
may not be interested in the difference, but someone looking at how much
land is being used for forestry products may have a different opinion. Or
in mountainous states where clear cutting often causes landslides. I know
our state studies where it's dangerous to clear cut because the area is so
steep.

The wiki on landuse=forest does need some help. We shouldn't be offering a
tag with such unclear use cases as landuse=forest currently is written.

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

[Clifford Snow]

Steve,
Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for.
landuse=forest is for areas that have harvestable wood products, ie trees.
Just because there was a fire doesn't mean the landuse changes. Landcover
is a better tag for burnt areas as well as areas just clearcut.



On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM stevea  wrote:

> I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising,
> especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more
> widespread all across the Western United States.
>
> I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not
> familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as
> "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as
> many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or
> substantially so).
>
> Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of
> (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial,
> industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some
> well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation.  My initial
> tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter"
> was coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo
> queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty.
>
> First, do others think it is important that we map these?  I say yes, as
> this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here,
> both present and future.  The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this
> fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the
> map (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged
> with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically
> misses something."  I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and
> aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself.  So,
> considering the thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes),
> tens of thousands of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different
> than their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is
> now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of
> fire=perimeter on a large polygon.
>
> Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they
> are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do
> that?  Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or
> natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred?  (I'm making that
> up, but it or something like it could work).  How and when might we replace
> these with something less severe?  On the other hand, if it isn't
> appropriate that we map any of this, please say so.
>
> Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have
> worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters,
>
> SteveA
> California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now
> that this fire is 100% contained)
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea  wrote:
> > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list"
> for me.
> >
> > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources,
> http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 .  This is a huge fire (sadly, there are
> larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the
> evacuation of every third person in my county (yes).  There are hundreds,
> perhaps thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have
> burned down and the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and
> the character of California's oldest state park (Big Basin).
> >
> > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human
> patterns of movement and activity in this part of the world for a
> significant time to come.  It is a "major disaster."  I'm curious how HOT
> teams might delineate such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire
> team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter dips and other human
> structures during a large fire near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged
> fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and a start_date.  I don't expect rendering,
> it's meant to be an "up to right about here" (inside the polygon is/was a
> burning fire, outside was no fire).  I wouldn't say it is more accurate
> than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an "across a wide street" distance to be
> "off" is OK with me, considering this fire's size, but if a slight skew
> jiggles the whole thing into place better, feel free to nudge.  It's the
> tagging I'm interested in getting right, and perhaps wondering if or even
> that people enter gigantic fires that will significantly change landscape
> for some time into OSM, as I have done.  This will affect my local mapping,
> as a great much has burned.  Even after starting almost two weeks ago, as
> of 20 minutes ago this fire is 33% contained, with good, steady progress.
> These men and women are heroes.
> >
> > 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:42 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> I am a native speaker but don't have any recent experience of attending
> a funeral.  However, the term currently preferred by funeral directors is
> "chapel of rest."  See
>
> https://www.funeralguide.co.uk/help-resources/arranging-a-funeral/what-is-a-chapel-of-rest
>
> That preference might change in the future, just as funeral directors is
> a modern term for what used to be known as undertakers, but that is a
> risk we have to live with.  It is currently a term or art and the way most
> funeral directors in the UK describe their "Have a look at the corpse"
> room.
> It is therefore the term most likely to be recognised by native speakers.
>

I just happened to be talking to a funeral owner yesterday. To be clear he
is located in the US. I asked him the question - what do they call
themselves. He said funeral home or some might use the term mortuary. He
felt that mortuary is a more dated home. He did not offer up "chapel of
rest."

"Chapel of Rest" sounds to me more like a marketing term not something we
should be using in OSM.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:03 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> Mapping of sidewalks/sidepaths as part of the main road has all kinds of
> problems, like width and surface tagging, the relative position of foot and
> cycle paths, not to talk about roads like this
> , where any
> system breaks down.
>
> It's the type of connection, going from sidewalk or dedicated bike path,
to road where I've felt we need a highway=footway_link/cyclway_link or
maybe footway_connector/cycleway_connector, to connect separated
sidewalks/cycleways to the street in instances exactly like this.
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:08 AM Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

>
> I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch,
> particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a
> sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a
> lot of previously tagged crossings. I think "island" is already covered
> by traffic_calming=island, no?
>

Where I lived in Seattle, we have these traffic calming islands. They are
basically just a physical small island in the center of an intersection
usually planted with small scrubs. From aerial imagery they might look like
a roundabout, but technically they are not. The purpose is to slow traffic.
Often there isn't even a place for a pedestrian. They play hell with trucks
trying to make deliveries.

I agree that JOSM's presets are insufficient. I've made my own for mapping
pedestrian crossings.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> I must admit that I only do crossings as =traffic_signals; =marked (by
> itself) for zebra crossings; & =unmarked where there is provision to cross
> the road but no signage or roadway markings on any sort.
>
>
> I do crossings as crossing=marked/unmarked. I believe software should be
able to identify if the crossing has a stop sign or traffic signal.
Pedestrian walk/don't walk are low on my radar right now.

I stopped using zebra since they seemed more appropriate for a crossing in
England than where I live in the US. Crossing=marked/unmarked the only
thing I see where I map them.

BTW - I believe in the US hitting a pedestrian in a marked crossing is
illegal most everywhere. In some cities, drivers seem to believe they have
the right of way over pedestrians, even if they are in a marked crossing.

In another country I've spent some time in, cars definitely have the right
of way over pedestrians.
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:40 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 15:27, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>> I watch flagged changesets in my state, all changesets in my county and
>> all changesets by people I've flagged to watch.  I review all edits of new
>> mappers to offer them tips if needed. For flagged changesets in the state
>> and all changesets in my county I review ones that seem interesting. If
>> they request a review I try to review them. So far no one on my watch list
>> has reappeared. Those are ones that vandalised OSM and were reported to DWG.
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:06 PM Jonathon Rossi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen
>>>> set a polygon area you're interested in monitoring
>>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I
>>> thought OSMCha only supports a bbox?
>>>
>>
>> You can specify a city, county, state or country as well as a bounding
>> box when creating a filter.
>>
>
> How were you able to view multiple filters at the same time (eg. watchlist
> of users anywhere + all changesets within bounds)? Or do you have to
> constantly need to switch filters? I can only handle one listing so
> anything I can't fit into one filter I miss even though I'd prefer to see
> it.
>

Harvey,
I have three different osmcha saved filters with rss feeds.


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Clifford Snow]

I watch flagged changesets in my state, all changesets in my county and all
changesets by people I've flagged to watch.  I review all edits of new
mappers to offer them tips if needed. For flagged changesets in the state
and all changesets in my county I review ones that seem interesting. If
they request a review I try to review them. So far no one on my watch list
has reappeared. Those are ones that vandalised OSM and were reported to DWG.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:06 PM Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set
>> a polygon area you're interested in monitoring
>>
>
> Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I
> thought OSMCha only supports a bbox?
>

You can specify a city, county, state or country as well as a bounding box
when creating a filter.

Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

[Clifford Snow]

osmcha.org picks up the review request. Their interface makes it easy to
view and post a comment back to the user.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 3:06 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:53, Cj Malone <
> me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 1 - It was introduced by a novice mapper, presumably as a typeo.
>>
>
> Not picking on Nathan, as we've all had the occasional ooops!
>
> Reading through it though, I noticed though that he used iD, & ticked the
> box "I would like someone to review my edits", which apparently didn't
> happen at the time?
>
> Question though - if an iD mapper asks for someone to review their edits,
> where does that appear?
>
> Does it just sit on the map like a Note or a Fix Me, or is there a report
> of some sort sitting somewhere to be processed?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 2:33 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Worth mentioning that the proposal intends to redefine the tag kerb=raised
> , true?
>

Martin - does that suggest that over 12,000 existing raised kerbs will need
to be resurveyed? I've done hundreds of raised curbs in my county. While
many would fit in the regular proposed definition, without visiting each
and every one I can't just blindly change them. This proposal doesn't even
address how to treat the existing raised kerbs.

Supaplex - I urge you to come up with a complete recommendation on how you
plan to deal with revising the definition of kerb=raised. Until then I will
vote a strong NO.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:09 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:29 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active
>>> on OSM contributing their cultural knowledge. What could we be doing
>>> different in the future to welcome and engage them in our community?
>>>
>>
>> Outreach to tribal GIS offices where they exist couldn't hurt.  The
>> standard map rendering native areas, particularly when most don't (or in
>> Oklahoma's case, most are *egregiously* incomplete, often only including
>> the Osage Nation) definitely is a nice start and I'm glad we're to that.
>> At least in the north american context, having a separate tag for
>> indigenous lands seems a little strange compared to filing it under the
>> administrative boundary, admin_level system, but I can live with it.
>>
>
> It depends on the jurisdiction.  The non-Federal Schaghticoke reservation
> in Connecticut is simply part of Kent Township; there's a tribal government
> of sorts but it's not recognized by the BIA, and so there isn't really an
> admin_level that would fit.
>
> On the other hand, all of the Indian Reservations in New York are not part
> of either Towns or Cities, and so would slot in nicely at admin_level=7.
> The sole inconsistency that designation would introduce is that the city of
> Salamanca is entirely within the Allegany reservation. (Salamanca, and
> several smaller communities, have significant non-Haudenosaunee populations
> and stand on reservation land that is leased from the Seneca Nation.)
>

The agreed upon tag for reservations is boundary=aboriginal_lands. It's
used extensively in the US, Including the Mohawk Nation and across the
Saint Lawrence River in Canada. We don't have consensus on how to tag off
reservation land trusts but that's another topic.

If you look at eastern Oklahoma, about 90%, Paul - correct me if I'm wrong,
is boundary=aboriginal_lands. Tulsa is pretty much completely inside of two
different reservations.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:28 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley  wrote:
>
>>
>> So I think the current tagging makes sense. Though I wonder if places
>> like these qualify as disputed territory. After all, the US and Canada have
>> a nation-to-nation relationship with each tribal government.
>>
>
> I don't believe that it counts as a disputed territory.  I also think
> taking the US and Canada's claim of the tribe having two distinct
> reservations with a shared boundary congruent with the US/Canada
> international boundary is not substantiated by the ground truth.  It's a
> single contiguous area, not two adjoining ones.  It happens to have the
> US/Canada boundary going through it, and AFAICT, nobody's disputing that.
> Just that this single contiguous tribal area happens to straddle that line.
>

Reading The Resolution [1] there does appear to be differences of opinion.
Disputed might seem a bit strong when considering some of the disputed
borders, ie. India and Pakistan, to describe the dispute between the tribe
and the county and state and possibly the federal government.

[1] https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary/?p=resolvetheboundary

For now I'm satisfied to wait until we have the Tribes GIS contact info.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:25 PM Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>> After some digging, it appears that Saint Regis Mohawk Indian Territory
>> is in OSM. Just across the border, on a Saint Lawrence River island, is the
>> Akwesasne 59 First Nations tribe is also in OSM. According to Wikipedia [1]
>> the Mohawk consider their territory to be a single nation, with no border
>> separating its parts.
>>
>> It seems to me that we should map the tribal areas as one. Possibly as a
>> super relation, though I'm not sure if super relations are used for
>> boundaries. What I find interesting is that the Canadian Border Crossing is
>> located on the North side of the Saint Lawrence River while the US crossing
>> station is located on the South side of the river. It seems to imply that
>> the Akwesasne Nation is not in either country.
>>
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Regis_Mohawk_Reservation
>>
>
> It's complicated. (When are sovereignty disputes _not_ complicated?)
>
> Both the US and Canada consider the river to be the US-Canada boundary,
> and that the reservations are their separate dependencies. The Canadians
> recognize the Six Nations as domestic dependent nations, and they enjoy
> limited sovereignty on their own lands. The US recognizes certain
> Haudenosaunee lands as dependent nations, but Akwesáhsne is not one of
> them, owing to the fact that they have not adopted a written constitution
> and a representative democracy. (In completely open elections, they
> consistently prefer their semi-hereditary chiefship, and elect the
> traditional chiefs to the political offices. In current practice, the
> traditional chiefs are disqualified from standing for election.)
>
> The Jay Treaty of 1795 recognizes that the Akwesáhsro:non have freedom to
> travel their land on both banks of the river.  The current rule is
> particularly burdensome: an Akwesáhsro:non wishing to return to Cornwall
> Island from Saint Regis must first cross a second bridge into Canada to
> clear customs and pay duty if necessary, and then return to Cornwall
> Island. There have been recurring discussions of placing the Canadian port
> of entry on the US side of the river to avoid this situation.
>
> There was an earlier query in the thread about government web sites: The
> respective tribal governments maintain Web presence at
> http://www.akwesasne.ca/
> and https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/
>
> I've refrained from trying to map the situation, not being qualified. (I'm
> an Old White Guy with a trace of Six Nations ancestry,)
>

I've sent an email to Franklin County GIS asking for current boundaries as
well as any contact he may have with the tribe. Like Paul said, it would be
best if we could get someone from the tribe involved. It will still be
messy but at least someone local is involved.

>From another old white guy - with no trace of any ancestry of any kind

Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

[Clifford Snow]

After some digging, it appears that Saint Regis Mohawk Indian Territory is
in OSM. Just across the border, on a Saint Lawrence River island, is the
Akwesasne 59 First Nations tribe is also in OSM. According to Wikipedia [1]
the Mohawk consider their territory to be a single nation, with no border
separating its parts.

It seems to me that we should map the tribal areas as one. Possibly as a
super relation, though I'm not sure if super relations are used for
boundaries. What I find interesting is that the Canadian Border Crossing is
located on the North side of the Saint Lawrence River while the US crossing
station is located on the South side of the river. It seems to imply that
the Akwesasne Nation is not in either country.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Regis_Mohawk_Reservation

Clifford

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:15 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I do not, which was a big problem with that.  I like mapping
> weird boundaries like that, so I tried to take it on, but it seems there's
> somewhat conflicting information between the tribe, US and Canada on this.
> I strongly suspect we're going to need to find an Ahkwesáhsnean that knows
> the boundaries well to get a solid cut on this and I'm not entirely sure
> how to reach out.
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:52 PM Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>> Do you have any website or contact info for the tribe? There are a number
>> of websites but not sure exactly which one. Although it be nice to get them
>> all added.
>>
>> Clifford
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The nearest problem case to me is Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of
>>>>> the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that straddles
>>>>> the US-Canadian border, and whose government is recognized by neither
>>>>> state. The political situation there has deteriorated into shootings as
>>>>> recently as 1990, and sabre-rattling among US, Canadian and Akwesáhsro:non
>>>>> persons as recently as 2009. The disputes usually stem from one or the
>>>>> other large nation deciding to deny the Kanien'kehá free pratique to 
>>>>> travel
>>>>> and trade within their own nation, requiring customs and imposts every 
>>>>> time
>>>>> the US-Canadian border is crossed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin,
>>>> Has this disputed territory been map in OSM? I went looking for it but
>>>> struck out. Just the name Ahkwesáhsne returned zero results.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I attempted to do so but was not able to proceed because of conflicting
>>> information relying on dubious sources.
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @osm_washington
>> www.snowandsnow.us
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

[Clifford Snow]

Paul,
Do you have any website or contact info for the tribe? There are a number
of websites but not sure exactly which one. Although it be nice to get them
all added.

Clifford

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The nearest problem case to me is Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of
>>> the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that straddles
>>> the US-Canadian border, and whose government is recognized by neither
>>> state. The political situation there has deteriorated into shootings as
>>> recently as 1990, and sabre-rattling among US, Canadian and Akwesáhsro:non
>>> persons as recently as 2009. The disputes usually stem from one or the
>>> other large nation deciding to deny the Kanien'kehá free pratique to travel
>>> and trade within their own nation, requiring customs and imposts every time
>>> the US-Canadian border is crossed.
>>>
>>> Kevin,
>> Has this disputed territory been map in OSM? I went looking for it but
>> struck out. Just the name Ahkwesáhsne returned zero results.
>>
>
> I attempted to do so but was not able to proceed because of conflicting
> information relying on dubious sources.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

>
>
> The nearest problem case to me is Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of
> the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that straddles
> the US-Canadian border, and whose government is recognized by neither
> state. The political situation there has deteriorated into shootings as
> recently as 1990, and sabre-rattling among US, Canadian and Akwesáhsro:non
> persons as recently as 2009. The disputes usually stem from one or the
> other large nation deciding to deny the Kanien'kehá free pratique to travel
> and trade within their own nation, requiring customs and imposts every time
> the US-Canadian border is crossed.
>
> Kevin,
Has this disputed territory been map in OSM? I went looking for it but
struck out. Just the name Ahkwesáhsne returned zero results.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:57 AM Supaplex  wrote:

> I started mapping detailed sidewalk information in my area, including
> crossing and kerb information. It seems that there is a lack of clarity in
> the differentiation between raised and regular ("normal", neither lowered
> nor raised) kerbs. "kerb=regular" is already in use but is undocumented and
> should be explicitly distinguished from "kerb=raised". There is a relevant
> difference not only for wheelchair users, but also for other mobility
> groups (cargo bikes, strollers, pedestrians with reduced mobility…).
>
The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your
definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm.  A
raised kerb is a barrier to wheelchair and others with mobility issues just
as one that is 10cm or higher. I'm not sure what is gained by adding
another classification since the ability to add kerb:height already exist.
I can see adding a comment to the wiki page stating that the typical height
of a raised kerb  is around 10cm - assuming there is some research stating
that.

> So I propose adding "kerb=regular" to the tagging list in the wiki as well
> as suitable descriptions for height, use… and an example image. I made a
> suggestion in the wiki (since there has been no reaction so far I post it
> here):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#kerb.3Dregular_vs._raised_--_add_.22regular.22_example
>
> Is there a reason not to add this? Otherwise I’ll do that.
>
>
> My recommendation would be not to add a new classification that will only
confuse mappers and data consumers.

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] TRAVEL_DIR (and other fields) in shapefile?

[Clifford Snow]

According to the metadata, Travel direction is a representation where
addresses increase. For intertate travel direction is a representation
where mile post markers increase.

https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/6339aa3ce01e4d249bd611917f86c0e7/info/metadata/metadata.xml?format=default=html

Best,
Clifford

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:21 AM Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> This might be somewhat OT, but it's OSM-related, so...
>
> I have a shapefile I obtained from a county's GIS¹. In addition to road
> names (sometimes) and speed limits (yay!), there is an attribute
> TRAVEL_DIR, which seems to have the possible values (at least) 1, 2 and
> 3. Does anyone know what this field means? (I was hoping there might be
> some indication what roads are one-way, but I have not been able to
> determine a definite relation.)
>
> For that matter, is there other useful information I might be able to
> extract? (For example, I wonder what TYPE_CODE means...)
>
> I'm sort-of hoping these might be using some US standard system and not
> something the county made up. There seem to be some indications of that
> from trying to search the internet for information, but I was unable to
> find any sort of legend.
>
> (¹ https://gisdata-pwcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/roads)
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

[Clifford Snow]

Matthew,
Interesting suggestion. The sumo github page doesn't appear to have any
open issues that involve OSM and intersections that I could find. (I only
looked at intersection issue titles) Has this been reported to the sumo
developers? Sumo documentation does suggest fixing OSM issues but other
than that it seems to indicate that OSM data is suitable for use with their
software.

You mention that the duplicate traffic signals are a problem but I don't
understand from your proposal how traffic signals should be tagged in your
proposal. Could you update your proposal to include how they are to be
tagged as part of the intersection.

Best,
Clifford


On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:15 AM Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> As some of you may recall, I'm working on a project to do traffic
> simulation with the help of OSM data and SUMO¹.
>
> One of the issues that SUMO has is that the typical method of modeling
> intersections (which I don't propose to change, mostly) results in SUMO
> thinking there are multiple intersections where there should only be
> one. For example, intersections of two dual carriageways produces four
> intersections and makes the turns much sharper than in reality.
>
> My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of thing;
> routers can "see" more traffic lights than actually exist and can (so I
> hear, anyway) give directions that are potentially confusing.
> Intersection modeling is a long-standing issue that has had multiple
> previous proposals.
>
> The major two prior proposals of which I'm aware are to map the
> 'footprint' of the intersection as an area, or to create relations to
> map the intersection. Both are difficult, both to model, and for tools
> to parse. The area proposal has potential rendering issues.
>
> I am proposing² a *much* simpler alternative, which is to simply tag the
> portions of a road that are "part of" an intersection (i.e. the 'm',
> 'n', 'p', 'q' segments of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Doublejunction.svg) with
> junction=intersection. This is straight-forward to model, and I believe
> solves most of the issues for a majority of affected intersections.
> (Exceptions likely exist, but 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good', and
> right now we're at 'bad'.)
>
> Comments would be appreciated!
>
> Also, should I start just doing this for the areas I'm trying to use for
> my project, or is it better to wait for some degree of consensus?
>
> (¹ https://www.eclipse.org/sumo/)
>
> (²
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/junction%3Dintersection
> )
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?

[Clifford Snow]

When I lived in a suburb of Minneapolis, we had this bridge that everyone
graffitied. Some of it was typical trash, but others were works of art,
including Prince on a motorcycle. About the same time out came Prince's
album, Graffiti Bridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti_Bridge_(album) The art stayed up
longer than normal but after a time it was graffitied over. Last time I was
in town, I drove past the bridge but it was long gone. Or because the area
changed so much I couldn't find it :)

I suspect that graffiti is too transitory to map. But if I had been
contributing to OSM I would have added it - and if Steve would have started
OSM before 1990.


On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 01:02, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> it’s a qualifier that is highly subjective as noted by Paul. The
>> criterion is *you*. If you believe it should be mapped, then do it.
>>
>> Add an image= tag if you like, and if you are going to add further detail
>>
>
> And it's also, like many other things, blurry.  Is this graffiti, or a
> mural,
> or a memorial? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53247629
> I'd say it's not a mural but is graffiti.  It's also a memorial.  Somebody,
> not me, mapped it as a monument although I don't think monument
> applies: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6211918213
>
> BTW, that looks like a milk churn stand to the right of the memorial.
> I should get around to asking if that needs a proposal or if there was
> insufficient objection to a value already in use (one time!) that it can
> just be documented without a formal vote.
>
> And then there's this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46634242
> Mural or graffiti?  Given the way it was painted, it could be classed as
> graffiti.  Very notable, even though unsigned.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Clifford Snow]

Jack - can you live with Martin's point?

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Jun 2020, at 23:28, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a
> couple of exceptions to the rule.
>
>
> the rule is mostly pointless, because it depends what you define as a
> feature. In the crossing example there is no infraction of the rule:
> there is one feature which is a pedestrian crossing (footway of type
> crossing) and there is a crossing node where a crossing footway crosses the
> highway way (different feature).
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:55 PM Jack Armstrong 
wrote:

>
> From: Clifford Snow
>
> If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the
> intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a
> level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element."
>
>
> Well, again, my personal preferences are not germane to this thread. I'm
> not shy about expressing my opinions, it's just I'm not trying to politic
> for a certain style of mapping in this case.
>
> In this matter, whichever method of mapping that is decided upon by the
> OSM community is fine with me. I'm simply concerned with the wiki page
> meshing with the approved sidewalk proposal. I'm not in favor of the
> approved proposal from 2011 nor am I against it. I'm simply keen to have
> the wiki and the proposal mesh correctly. My personal preferences are not
> relevant to a decision made back in 2011. I am not proposing any changes
> other than having the wiki and the 2011 proposal mesh accurately.
>
> Reading the wiki page on one feature per OSM element, it starts off with 
> *Ideally,
every OSM element or object should be tagged with only one main feature
tag, to represent a single on-the-ground feature.* I read this as there are
exceptions. Unfortunately when this was written, sidewalks as separate ways
weren't even thought of. However at the time of the writing of the wiki,
level_crossings were. Looking at the discussion history, this issue never
came up. Please note that I didn't go back to look at the mailing list
conversation. Clearly level crossings tag would appear to violate the
policy. I'm happy to read that ideally there should be one main feature tag
to describe a feature but there are exceptions. I would suggest that the
one feature per element page needs to include a couple of exceptions to the
rule.

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jack Armstrong 
wrote:

> From: Clifford Snow
> To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s)
> best describe your suggested way of mapping.
>
> 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway.
> https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
> 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of
> crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
> 3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing
> and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55
>
>
> Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference,
>
> #1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node
> for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature,
> one OSM element" rule.
> #2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I
> started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have
> the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon)
> #3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot?
> This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node.
>
> Sorry - I should have been clearer on #3. The red dot is a validation
warning that the two ways intersect, but it isn't marked as a crossing.

If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the
intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a
level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element."

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jack Armstrong 
wrote:

> > From: Clifford Snow
>
> > Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your
> proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell
> cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way
> tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.  With thousands
> of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers.
>
>
>
>
> Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be
> consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved
> "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to
> Map” section would have added clarity;
>
>
> To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal):
>
>
> When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting
> the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way
> should be tagged as follows:
>
> highway=footway
>
> footway=crossing
>
>
> To be deleted from the wiki:
>
>
> footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which
> lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this
> highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.
>
>
> On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way
> and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal
> contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node
> tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should
> be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community.
>
To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s)
best describe your suggested way of mapping.

1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway.
https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of
crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo
3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing
and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:44 AM Jack Armstrong 
wrote:

> Thank you, Andrew,
>
> According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved
> in 2011,
>
> When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting
> the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to
> override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should
> be tagged as follows:
> highway=footway
> footway=crossing
>
> However, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this;
>
> To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the
> road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node…
> footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which
> lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this
> highway=crossing tag). *This is not the preferred way of tagging.*
>
> Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the
> approved proposal to the wiki?
>
> I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen
> for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the
> approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection
> to the wiki being changed to reflect this?
>

Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed
change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that
some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the
pedestrian that there is some type of crossing.  With thousands of
crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

[Clifford Snow]

Don't we already have https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Photo_linking which
is how to add photos for objects?

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:50 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> I don't map special-purpose administrative districts, of which New
> York has a whole menagerie. I don't object if others do, but don't try
> to fit them into the boundary=administrative hierarchy.  They don't
> go. In New York, the admin_levels are as tabulated on the Wiki: 2=US
> 4=NY 5=New York City (don't ask!) 6=county
> *7=city, town, Indian Reservation* 8=village, hamlet (outside cities),
> ward, district,
> precinct, community board (in cities). There are only a few ways in
> which this scheme breaks hierarchy (New York City, one other city that
> has annexed across a county line, a chartered city that has in
> practice reverted to being a village, and about 15% of villages are in
> two or more towns.). If things like school, library, police, fire,
> water, sewer, or sanitation districts were to be included, the
> hierarchy would be broken all over the place. And that only scratches
> the surface of special-purpose administrative districts. As I said, go
> ahead and map them, but don't try to make admin_level fit.
>
>
This is a little off topic for the discussion on administrative boundaries
but...
Indian reservations boundaries should be mapped as
boundary=aboriginal_lands instead of an admin level. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands

I've added a number of reservations, mostly in my state of Washington. I
suspect there are a good number of unmapped reservations in the US.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

[Clifford Snow]

The user, chachafish, with more edits than anyone else I've seen, 162,466,
is still adding features. chachafish has a history of commenting on
changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply.

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:11 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and
> more cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to
> "highway=track".  For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the
> area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been
> changed to "highway=track", when at least most of them should be
> "highway=residential."  What can be done to better communicate that OSM has
> a functional highway classification system (I did leave a change set
> comment, but I doubt it will do any good)?
>
> Mike
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that
>> both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is
>> recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?
>>
>
> I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a
> former railway
> because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part
> of the world.
> Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a
> footpath, but
> there is no highway along this route.  It is an otherwise inexplicable
> pair of tree-lined
> hedges, or gaps in woodland.  With the occasional bridge, embankment and
> cutting.
>
> Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but
> you
> can identify it from aerial imagery.  See if you can figure out which bit
> on the
> map it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166
>
> Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify
> mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers
> from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist?  Is it
> sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is
> less obvious along much of the route?
>
> I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it.
> Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and
> embankments
> along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.
>

I concur with Paul. I've helped do some preliminary work for a new bike
route. The preliminary plan was to use the road for the bike route. When
looking at OSM, next to the road was an abandoned railway. The tracks
appear to be gone, but the raised bed is visible. Without the existence of
the abandoned railway it most likely would have been missed. If this bike
route ever comes into existence, the planners can now consider using the
old railway. They may not due to cost, but at least they have the option.
And they wouldn't have found the old railway from Google or local
county/city drawings, just OSM.

With no artifacts left, I agree it can and should be removed. But I'm
really cautious with railway lines because they can be repurposed easily.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Clifford Snow]

Rob,
First welcome to OSM.

When adding businesses, I use the convention that if the building holds
multiple businesses, then each business is a separate node. If the building
only holds on business, then I typically add the business information to
the building polygon. Like a McDonalds fast food restaurant. However, there
is nothing wrong with using nodes even though it's the only business.

For those buildings that hold a number of businesses, adding addr:unit is
very helpful.

If you need more information let me know.

Best,
Clifford

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 8:52 AM Robert Castle  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm new to OSM and have been I've been making some edits on Main Street
> of my hometown. All the buildings seem to have been mapped, but many of the
> businesses are not mapped or have incomplete information, so I've been
> adding in the business names that aren't there and editing the ones that
> have incomplete info. I noticed that some businesses are polygons whereas
> others are points within a polygon. I was wondering which way is correct.
>
> Best,
> Rob
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

[Clifford Snow]

Richard - and anyone else who can help.

Can someone help with an overpass query to find problem route relations?
I'm happy to help fix, but my overpass skills are, well to put it bluntly,
not worth shit:-)

Thanks,
Clifford

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:18 AM Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> Route relation names aren’t in a great state, are they?
>
> Let’s say that I want to render cycle route names on a map (because, well,
> I do). I zoom in on a way along the East Coast of Britain and I find it’s a
> member of this route:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9579
> name=NCN National Route 1
>
> Hm, ok. That’s not the name of the route, it’s a duplication of the ref
> (and network) - something we’ve known not to do with the name/ref tags for
> roads since time immemorial. No matter, there are other relations for the
> way, so let’s see if they’re any better:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476069
> name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom 5
>
> That’s _definitely_ not the name of a route. “part United Kingdom 5” is
> some OSM mapper’s shorthand. If I were to tell someone that I’m having a
> holiday on “part United Kingdom 5”, even someone who works for the route
> authorities at Sustrans or the European Cycling Federation, they’d look at
> me blankly. Anyway, this has a parent relation:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9476239
> name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route - part United Kingdom
>
> Nope, that’s not great either. It in turn has a parent relation:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1207220
> name=EuroVelo 12 - North Sea Cycle Route
>
> That’s not good. It duplicates the ref and the network; it enforces
> arbitrary punctuation upon the data consumer. It is, I guess, the least
> wrong of any of these names. But that’s not saying much.
>
> This isn't just a British thing, or an NCN thing, or a EuroVelo thing.
> Refs in names are depressingly ubiquitous. Better still: there are hundreds
> of routes with something like ref=12-83, name=(12) - (83) - with the
> added brackets meaning you can’t even filter them out based on a simple
> match. Then there are routes called "Aare-Route (Etappe 3)” and 
> "Alpenpanorama-Route-
> Etappe 6 (Thun-Fribourg)” and "[D10] Elberadweg [Abschnitt K]
> Dessau-Roßlau - Elster [linkselbisch]”. I wish I were making this up.
>
> The upshot: bad luck if you want to render the actual names of routes on a
> map. You can’t.
>
> A modest proposal: let’s use the name= tag in route relations for route
> names. Let’s use the ref= tag for route numbers. If it doesn’t have a name,
> it shouldn’t have a name= tag. Same as we do everywhere else.
>
> If you need somewhere for a mapper-facing route description (and I can see
> that you need that for “part United Kingdom 5”), then I guess the obvious
> place to put that is the note= tag. But let’s keep it out of the name tag;
> and let’s have a concerted effort to remove them from existing name tags.
>
> Richard
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:23 PM Paul Allen  wrote:


> I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name
> (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known.  If you
> can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st.
>
> The University of Washington has "Red Square" tagged as a place=square
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/47.65612/-122.30974
Madison, WI has a square tagged as a park.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415148381
Atenas, CR has a square, as many Costa Rica cities, also tagged as a park.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/9.97911/-84.37985


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

Andy,

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 3:36 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:

>
> I suspect that trying to rely on wikidata/wikipedia for this link will
> fail for a different reason though - the things that we tag in OSM won't
> necessarily map 1 to 1 onto wikipedia pages. Sometimes an OSMer will
> want to indicate that a wider area than is indicated in
> GVP/wikipedia/wikidata, but much more often an OSMer will be tagging an
> individual volcano that might not match where a historical eruption took
> place (think Thera / Santorini, where a famous eruption left a big hole,
> now surrounded by numerous modern features).
>

Santorini is listed in GVP's database. See
http://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=212040. There was an eruption in 1950.
Though this isn't the same as to what you were referring to.

>
> It does make sense to use (and document) GVP's "active" definition in
> OSM, but there will be places in OSM where it's not a good fit, because
> what was there that erupted earlier in the last few thousand years isn't
> there now.
>

GVP also has a Pleistocene Volcano List for volcanoes that erupted during
the Pleistocene period. They consider this database preliminary.

>

>
> --
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:48 PM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> Wikidata already has the GVP property:
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1886
>
> So it's just a matter of ensuring that all volcanoes tracked by the GVP is
> present in Wikidata and has the correct P1886 value.
>

Can you explain how that would work? Take the example of Mount Baker. It
has a wikidata Q code of  Q594387. GVP has a volcano number of 321010. What
would a tag look like? Please excuse my ignorance of Wikipedia. I can read
articles and maybe understand some, but how Wikidata works is beyond my
comprehension :)


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

Sent from my Android phone.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:14 PM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

> Work with Wikidata to link the GVP article to their record on the volcano,
> and only have the Wikidata link in OSM.
>

Any Wikipedians on here want to take this suggestion on?

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

Through a friend at the University of Washington I received the following
reply:

The Global Volcanism Program (GVP) that Steve pointed to you has the most
consistently applied standard for classifying volcanoes around the globe.
In that context, any volcano that has erupted in the Holocene [1] would be
considered "active" -- which I know is confusing since no Cascade volcanoes
are currently erupting or experiencing significant unrest.  "Active" more
speaks to whether the volcano could erupt again (and hence is still alive,
or "active"), which is judged by whether it has erupted in the Holocene as
well as whether there are signs of life (earthquakes under the volcano,
degassing, deformation, etc.).

The GVP also has a series of tags for things like primary volcano type,
last known eruption, activity evidence, dominant rock type, etc. Having the
GVP hyperlink volcano number would also allow users to see more detail
about each volcano.


I like the suggestion of having a link to GVP article. It's worth noting
that we can not use the information contained in GVP articles because of
licensing incompatibilities. GVP restricts use to non-commercial use and
requires attribution. I have reached out to GVP to discuss linking to their
database.

My recommendation would be to not to expand volcano:status=active to as it
is today. If we can link to the GVP database it would allow data consumers
the ability to quickly gather the most recent information, much like the
wikipedia/wikidata tags do today.

[1] Holocene definition, for us non geologist, according to Wikipedia "The
Holocene is the current geological epoch. It began approximately 11,650 cal
years before present, after the last glacial period, which concluded with
the Holocene glacial retreat."

Best,
Clifford

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:05 AM Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:47:39 +1100
> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27/1/20 6:24 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote:
> > > I agree with you that this is the scale that volcanologists use,
> > > but people want to draw a distinction between something that
> > > erupted recently compared sometime in the last 200 years
> > >
> > > Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and “Frequently
> > > active” tags via this third-party data source,
> >
> > "frequently active " means what?
> >
> > If it erupted last year .. but not for 200 years before that I'd not
> > call it 'frequent'.
> >
> >
> > > but it would completely remove mapper’s ability to add a mountain
> > > to this list via tagging.
> >
> >
> > Possibly "last_eruption=" if that is what you want???
> >
>
> "last_eruption" isn't that useful for determining activity: the
> majority of the world's volcanoes are cinder cones, which almost never
> erupt twice or more.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 12:42 PM John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> I think there is a way to make a very simple subtag, such as
>
> Volcano:active=
> No= Considered dead / collapsed
> Dormant = 500+ years since last eruption
> Quiet = 100
> Recent = 20
> Current = smokes, ash burps, eruptions, or other visible Signs of activity
> In the last 20 years.
>

Volcano sites near me regularly let off steam which is hard to
differentiate from smoke. Would you consider steam under the current?

Mount St. Helens last erupted in May of 1980, it is coming up on 40 years
since the last eruption. However, it continues to build a new dome which I
would classify as current under your suggestion.

I'm going to reach out to a UW reacher to see if he can provide us with
terms that would be acceptable to scientists as well as OSM.

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

[Clifford Snow]

As a person living 50km from an "active"  but dormant volcano, Mount Baker
[1], I definitely know its status. What I'm not sure of is the OP
definition of active. Mount Baker is an active but dormant volcano that
only puts out a bit of steam. For a while, in my life time, Arenal in Costa
Rica was regularly putting out lava, but has gone dormant, since my first
visited. If the OP is talking about active in the sense that it's not
dormant then I don't believe it should be tagged as active. Most volcanoes
don't erupt for long periods.

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a tag to indicate the status as active in
the sense it may erupt at anytime (in geological time frames sense)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Baker
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenal_Volcano

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:16 AM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> Jan 24, 2020, 15:34 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:
> > That's often entirely verifiable by the existence of human artefacts
> > damaged by a previous eruption.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:23 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
> > But it is not verifiable in practice by amateur surveyors.
> >
> > Similarly frequency of a road in cars/hour is not a practically
> verifiable quantity,
> > since determining it would require long-term observations
> > which are not realistic for mappers to do.
>
> I think if we go very far down that road, we need explicitly to codify
> what we expect the capabilities and limitations of amateur surveyors
> to be.
>
> I can't quite bring myself to accept the argument that correct
> information, independently verifiable by some means (even if
> specialized), and known to a mapper, cannot be mapped because some
> other mapper is less capable. I could live with it if we were to
> fomalize what we expect a mapper's limitations to be - but I see very
> little hope of achieving consensus on that, and very little reason to
> try.
>
> I feel strongly that tagging should respect both capabilities and
> limitations. I shouldn't have to do research to sketch out the basics
> of what I can see with my own eyes in the field, but similarly, I
> shouldn't have to keep my local knowledge to myself. For example, I
> don't think I could reliably tell an estravelle from a ponor, but that
> doesn't keep me from mapping 'natural=sinkhole'. I have no objection
> to someone with the necessary knowledge adding 'sinkhole=*' to the
> tagging.  I would object to a tagging scheme that would require me to
> discriminate the two, but that's not what we're talking about with
> tagging that a volcano is active. A mapper who doesn't have the
> information, or cannot provide a means to verify it, need not tag it.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] eelgrass

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Do you have an example of a location which you wish to tag?
>

Here is what the researchers have documented
http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://services.arcgis.com/6lCKYNJLvwTXqrmp/ArcGIS/rest/services/PBNERR_2004HabitatMap_for_Publishing/FeatureServer=sd

What is in OSM is https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/48.5094/-122.4945

>
> It looks like eelgrass usually grows below the low tide line, unlike a
> salt marsh, and the grasses do not usually reach up above the water.
> So natural=wetland might not be appropriate for these seagrass
> meadows.
>
> Perhaps natural=seagrass would work?
>
> https://iucnrle.org/blog/seagrass-meadows-the-marine-powerhouses/
>
> https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/728140/view/cape-eelgrass-zostera-capensis-
> https://newenglandboating.com/bay-scallops-and-eelgrass/
>
>
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] eelgrass

[Clifford Snow]

How should eelgrass[1] be tagged? I see that wetland=reedbed [2]  has been
used in tidal areas mainly in Europe but also in the US but they are two
different plants.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zostera
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_bed
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Business names in capital letters

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:20 AM Markus  wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 01:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
> >
> > When that is how the business name is shown, what is our policy for it?
>
> I thought we had a policy for it, but i can't fine one. It's probably
> rather an observation that names in all caps are mapped in title case
> except for acronyms. I think this makes sense because it doesn't give
> these names more importance than other names in title case. By the
> way, newspapers do the same.
>
did come to mind.


I would favor adding the name exactly as it appears in a sign, even
including punctuation marks if it's in their sign. For example AT AT
at one time was an abbreviation for American Telephone & Telegraph but they
dropped the full name for AT sometime back. It technically isn't an
acronym anymore.  TCBY (The Countries Best Yogurt) is a yogurt shop that is
widely recognized in the US. If you wrote Tcyb, I doubt most people would
even recognize it. If written out, The Countries Best Yogurt, people
probably would recognize it either. See
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2304474733 for an example.

Newspapers have a different reason for changing case and even dropping
punctuation marks, readability. OSM is interested in capturing ground
truth.

The iD editor has a great feature that corrects the name to the official
name along with wikidata tags. The name just needs to be in their database.
It would be nice if JOSM had a similar feature.

Best,
Clifford



-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Access Aisle Proposal

[Clifford Snow]

I have closed the voting for the Access Aisle Proposal. [1]

Final results of the voting are: It was *approved* with 14 votes for, 2
votes against and 1 abstention with an 82% approval.

I will start integrating the proposal into the wiki as documented in
Proposal Process.[2] The iD developers have already implemented the new tag
but I'm not sure when it will show up in iD.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_aisle
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

Thanks to all that participated.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

[Clifford Snow]

First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly.
However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a
footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link.
A footway=link is more of an attempt to bridge vector representation of a
footway and how it connects to a vector representation of a road. In
reality, they are adjacent features. If highways=* were drawn as areas, we
wouldn't need a footway link but still need a motorway=link. Then there is
the question of how footway=link should be rendered. I would be happy with
a dashed gray line to indicate that it's just a connection for a router.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Open Voting on Access Aisle

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 9:38 AM Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I've tried to use your tagging system in an area close where I live. You
> can find here the way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746061718) and
> here a picture from Google Streetview (
> https://www.google.it/maps/@45.428055,11.791072,3a,25.2y,347.58h,76.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc04-aTnZlGZiu4i3Pm0Czw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
> Is this what you're proposing?
>

Yes - that is exactly what I'm proposing - you tagged it exactly as I would
have.

> I think a few mapping examples could help in better understanding the
> proposal.
>
I will go out over the next week to grab more pictures to use. The best
imagery in my area isn't sufficiently hi-res to grab screenshots and I'm
reluctant to use imagery source that we don't have permission to us. I will
grab a camera and phone to take some pictures. (I'm on the NW coast of the
US. It rains all day long this time of year so I need a day that I won't
damage my camera.)

Best,
Clifford



-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Open Voting on Access Aisle

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:22 PM Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There are a couple of things that are not totally clear to me:
>
>- in general, might these tags apply also to areas, rather than only
>ways?
>
> We already have highway=pedestrian. Are you suggesting that we also have
highway=pedestrian + pedestrian=access_aisle? I probably wouldn't map an
access aisle as an area but I'd be interested in hearing more.

>
>- I am a bit confused by *accessible_van*. Does it refer to vans
>instead of cars? In this case I think it is not an information related to
>the aisle, but to the parking_space. If it is still for disabled persons,
>shouldn't it be access_aisle=disabled anyway?
>
> Vans can be equipped with either ramps or lifts to load and unload
wheelchairs.  The ramps and lifts require an extra wide space, in the US,
it's 8 feet, about 2.4 meters. These vans are quite common in the US. I
haven't seen any cars similarly equipped.

Best,
Clifford




-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Footway Link (was Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane)

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 2:24 AM Markus  wrote:

> I use highway=footway + footway=link connect steps and sidewalks to a
> road, in order to retain the real length and geometry of the steps or
> sidewalks and to indicate that these aren't steps or a sidewalk
> anymore, but part of the carriageway of the road. Other mappers seem
> to use this scheme too (already 743 uses and only every 7th is from
> me).
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:footway%3Dlink
>
> Markus,
I like this proposal. I've seen numerous instances where a footway=link
makes sense.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Open Voting on Access Aisle

[Clifford Snow]

Since there has been no new discussion and I've modified the proposal to
accommodate concerns on the original Draft, I'm opening the proposal up for
voting. Please go to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_aisle to vote
on the proposal.

Thanks in advance,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On the subject of mapping driveways - do people only map up to the front
> fence (especially in suburban areas), or all the way to the garage / house
> ie everything visible on aerial imagery?
>
> I map to the garage to or in the case of a farmyard, to the general
parking area since it's hard to tell which structure might the garage. I
also don't map too many driveways, only when I feel like getting to the
house a user might not know which service road to take.

Where I've lived there are not that many fenced yards. But if I discovered
a fence with a gate, I would most likely add the gate and extend the
driveway to the garage.

In both cases I'm thinking about emergency services like fire and
ambulances. I'm happy that amazon is adding so many. Maybe one day our
emergency services will consider using OSM.

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

[Clifford Snow]

Every time I've contacted one of the Amazon's team, they have responded and
taken responsibility to update their edits. We should first try to contact
them before going through DWG.

This thread shows the number of opinions on how to map service roads. BTW
my driveway is a shared driveway. I've mapped it as a driveway.

Best,
Clifford

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:17 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 03:21, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>> I am not aware of them publishing their guidelines; perhaps someone in
>> Amazon management will
>> speak up in this thread and point to where that is published.
>>
>
> Or possibly someone from the DWG (?) could contact them?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

[Clifford Snow]

Markus,
I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a
pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow
pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no sidewalk/footway, with the
exception of motorways. How would a mapper know if this is a shoulder or a
pedestrian lane?

Tomorrow I'm attending a conference on pedestrian mapping and hope to get
the opportunity to discuss pedestrian lanes with our department of
transportation officials.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder

Best,
Clifford

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:12 PM Markus  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Following the recent discussion about pedestrian lanes (marked lanes
> on a roadway, designated for pedestrians), i've now written a proposal
> page for a new key pedestrian_lane=*:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pedestrian_lane
>
> Best regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

[Clifford Snow]

A friend, who works in this area of research, pointed me to an easy to read
article [1] on estuaries. According to the article there are five types of
estuaries based on their geology, coastal plain, bar-built, deltas,
tectonic and fjords. (Note I'm skipping the classification based on water
circulation as I'm not sure it's appropriate for OSM.)

If we are going to tag estuaries then it makes sense to add in the geology
classification system.

Based on how NOAA classifies estuaries We should add to waterway=riverbank
+ riverbank=estuary + estuary=costal_plain|bar-built|delta|tectonic|fjord.
The alternative would be to use waterway=estuary +
estuary_geology=costal_plain|bar-built|delta|tectonic|fjord.

This would conflict with the wiki article on tide channels [2]. From my
reading of the definition of an estuary, it seems that the tide channel is
actually part of the estuary.

[1]
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries01_whatis.html
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dtidal_channel

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Clifford Snow]

Thanks for all the comments.

SomeoneElse wrote on the proposal talk page: The page currently uses both
"handicap" and "disabled"; I'd suggest using "disabled" throughout (see
e.g. https://www.gov.uk/apply-blue-badge ) as that's the terminology used
in UK versions of English. I'm not exactly sure what a "handicap_van" is,
but I'm guessing that the nearest UK English term might be "wheelchair
accessible vehicle". SomeoneElse
 (talk
) 00:30, 25
October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I should have used disabled. I'll revise the proposal to
substitute disabled for handicap. Wheelchair_accessible_vehicle is somewhat
long, I'd like to propose substituting accessIble_van instead.


Warin and Sebastian - Yes adding width is helpful, but providing data
consumers with specific places for parking, which already exist along with
pedestrian routing, especially for those with limited mobility is
strengthened by having dedicated tags for footways designed especially for
wheelchair users to access cars and vans.

marc wrote -
in the propal section, you said "access_aisle=handicap"
but them "add access_aisle=handicap_van"
handicap_van is not an handicap. it's the véhicule the user leave/reach.
I see two types of access_aisles, the first is an area next to a handicap
parking space. It's wide enough for a person with limited mobility to get
into an out of their vehicle. The other is specifically designed for van
equipped with a ramp for wheelchairs. A van with a ramp is limited to just
spaces specifically designed for vans while the regular handicap parking
can use either.
in the tagging section, you said
"footway=disabled_access_aisle" : what's the added value to glue and
duplicate wheelchair into another key=value ? wheelchair=yes already
exist to describe that this way is usable for a wheelchair user.
you also said  "If the disabled parking space is for vans add
disabled_access_aisle=van"
to witch object ? to the amenity=parking_space i hope.
if so, I'm the current pratice seems better wheelchair=yes
=designated

My wording was confusing - I tried to clean it up to not only reflect the
change from handicap to disabled but to make sure all segments use the same
format.

Check out the updated version of the proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_aisle

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

[Clifford Snow]

I haven't tagged any estuaries simple because I'm not sure exactly where
they start and end. If I follow USGS, then the entire Puget Sound is an
estuary. Certainly part of the Skagit delta area is a traditional estuary
but exploring it is difficult. The soggy ground doesn't make hiking much
fun. :-)



On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:01 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Hi Clifford,
>
> Can you help me find something in the Skagit Delta that is tagged with the
> estuary tag? When I read your post, I immediately tried to check it out
> because I'm trying to understand how that tag is being used currently. But
> I wasn't able to find anything.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 9:29 AM Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the US NHD estuary is broadly defined. For example, The Skagit
>> River flows through my county into the Puget Sound in Washington State. I
>> would expect the delta area, where it empties into the sound to be defined
>> as an estuary. And it is. But  apparently so is the whole of Puget Sound.
>> The trouble I see if 1) if we define an estuary different than scientific
>> model or 2) use the science definition of an estuary. If we differ from the
>> science definition, we'll constantly battle users of what is included in
>> our model and what isn't. If we go with the scientific definition then
>> we'll get questions on why we picked that model when it sometimes doesn't
>> make sense.
>>
>> I'd really like to hear from someone that can explain exactly what an
>> estuary encompases and what makes sense to map.
>>
>> Best,
>> Clifford
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 5:26 PM Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Then there is the additional problem that the terminal end of the way
>>> used to indicate the waterway=river connects with the "coastline" which is
>>> where the estuary portion of the river ends. I'm not clear about which
>>> object you propose adding the estuary=yes tag to? Let me put it another
>>> way. If the particular river is mapped using a way that terminates on the
>>> coastline, where does the estuary tag get placed? I realize that some
>>> rivers are mapped using just a riverbank area, i.e, there is no way to
>>> terminate, but that still leaves my question unanswered.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 7:13 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <
>>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> & we get back to the same problem previously discussed with river > sea
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> At what point does a river become an estuary & where does that then
>>>> become the sea?
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, I quite like river=estuary :-), but I think we'll
>>>> have problems defining it?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Graeme
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 09:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 00:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> estuary = tidal mount of a large river? As defined by the Oxford
>>>>>> Dictionary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Estuaries are complicated.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Swarthout
>>> Homer, Alaska
>>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @osm_washington
>> www.snowandsnow.us
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

[Clifford Snow]

Looking at the US NHD estuary is broadly defined. For example, The Skagit
River flows through my county into the Puget Sound in Washington State. I
would expect the delta area, where it empties into the sound to be defined
as an estuary. And it is. But  apparently so is the whole of Puget Sound.
The trouble I see if 1) if we define an estuary different than scientific
model or 2) use the science definition of an estuary. If we differ from the
science definition, we'll constantly battle users of what is included in
our model and what isn't. If we go with the scientific definition then
we'll get questions on why we picked that model when it sometimes doesn't
make sense.

I'd really like to hear from someone that can explain exactly what an
estuary encompases and what makes sense to map.

Best,
Clifford

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 5:26 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Then there is the additional problem that the terminal end of the way used
> to indicate the waterway=river connects with the "coastline" which is where
> the estuary portion of the river ends. I'm not clear about which object you
> propose adding the estuary=yes tag to? Let me put it another way. If the
> particular river is mapped using a way that terminates on the coastline,
> where does the estuary tag get placed? I realize that some rivers are
> mapped using just a riverbank area, i.e, there is no way to terminate, but
> that still leaves my question unanswered.
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 7:13 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> & we get back to the same problem previously discussed with river > sea
>> ...
>>
>> At what point does a river become an estuary & where does that then
>> become the sea?
>>
>> Having said that, I quite like river=estuary :-), but I think we'll have
>> problems defining it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 09:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 00:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

 estuary = tidal mount of a large river? As defined by the Oxford
 Dictionary.

>>>
>>> Estuaries are complicated.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Clifford Snow]

I'd like to propose a tagging scheme to tag parking lot access aisle.
Access aisles are marked areas often used between handicap parking spaces
but also used to indicate pedestrian access between parking spaces.

The proposal can be found on the wiki [1]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_aisle

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

[Clifford Snow]

I'm not familiar with the laws of the country the picture [1] listed in the
first post on this thread, but the diagonal yellow lines look to me like a
don't park here rather than a sidewalk. Even the one pedestrian in the
picture isn't walking the diagonal yellow lines. Can someone confirm that
those yellow lines indicate a pedestrian way?

The second concern I'd like to raise is the two not exactly compatible
methods we have for mapping sidewalks. In the original method, sidewalks
were mapped as attributes of streets. If the goal is to map sidewalks as an
attribute of streets, then yes mapping them as a Marcus proposes,
pedestrian_lane=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pedestrian_lane.jpg

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 11:52 AM Markus  wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel  wrote:
> >
> > I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a
> > fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just
> > like a sidewalk. [...]
>
> I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Switzerland vehicles are
> allowed to drive on the pedestrian lane as long as pedestrians aren't
> impeded. However, they aren't allowed to drive on sidewalks. (Aside
> from the fact that it's not really possible.) Therefore, "an area
> meant just for pedestrians just like a sidewalk" isn't true here.
>
> > For me, a kerb is not a necessary feature of a sidewalk, e.g. here
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Hx17IpF-pZWl6AakpYUc2g
> > There is no kerb or other barrier at all, but still it's obviously a
> > sidewalk.
>
> I wouldn't call that a sidewalk and thus wouldn't tag it sidewalk=*.
>
> > I don't see how a 2-3 cm high kerb provides any kind of safety for a
> > pedestrian.
>
> Not much, but luckily most kerbs (at least those i came across) are
> much higher (usually 10 cm and more). They are only lowered at
> pedestrian crossings or at driveways. Cars and buses sometimes
> accidentally touch kerbs while driving (on narrow roads) and then get
> thrown in the other direction. So i'd say that they definitely provide
> some safety to pedestrians.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] craft=sculpter <> craft=sculptor

[Clifford Snow]

It looks like just a misspelling of sculptor. OR and ER are commonly used
to describe a person or thing doing something.

As far I can see, British English would spell it as sculptor.

Best,
Clifford

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:17 AM marc marc  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> does both have the same meaning ?
> I thought that sculter was a typo in french (the word is "sculteur"
> in french) but usage in french-speaking countries is very low,
> so that's not the explanation.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Artists studios, WAS Re: Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Clifford Snow]

The difference between a production studio that copies old masters and
artists is that one is creating art, the other is just a copy.

An artist is different than a crafts person. Yes artists are skilled in
their craft, but what they produce is different. By OSM tagging them
appropriately will help consumers. If I'm looking for a stone carver for a
headstone, I most likely will want a craft=* If I want a stone sculpture,
I'll look for an artist.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:15 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/08/19 12:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> What is the objective difference between the workshop of a sculptor who
> makes many copies of ancient or tradition sculptures out of stone by hand,
> versus the workshop of a “fine art” sculpture who sells expensive
> “original”’works?
>
>
> None.
>
>
> There are many traditional sculptors in Indonesia who make stone Buddha
> statues (similar to those at Borobudur temple), or statues of Garuda carved
> intricately from wood or stone. Are they artists or not? They are certainly
> “sculptors”, no?
>
> Similarly, the art studio of a potter who makes expensive “fine art”
> pottery pieces will look similar to the studio of a craftsman who produces
> decorative ceramics by hand.
>
> I believe using a different key for “fine art painters” versus “craft and
> decorative painters” would be like using a different tag for regular
> restaurants and “fine cuisine” restaurants.
>
> The craft key is already being used for artistic sculptors, potters, glass
> makers, photographers and so on. It seems the most appropriate of the
> existing keys, and it would be inappropriately to try to divide “craft
> artists” and “fine artists” into different values, let alone different keys.
>
>
> Some artists can copy, some cannot copy. It is a skill. Many who copy can
> also originate.
>
>
> -Joseph
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:37 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 16. Aug 2019, at 02:27, Clifford Snow 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I would suggest we move artist from the craft discussion on to its own
>> thread.
>>
>>
>> agreed. Artists merit their own key, putting them under craft doesn’t
>> seem like a good choice.
>
>
> Artist do not merit their own key.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:07 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 15/08/2019 14:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > How about "craft=artist" then? The tag "craft=atelier" was described
> > as for any type of artist: "workshop of a ...professional artist in
> > the fine or decorative arts"
>
> "craft=artist" is much better in my view - people are far more likely to
> know what it means.
>
> (whether this should be somehow be embedded in the map features page is
> an entirely different question though).
>
>
I'm struggling understanding the craft=artist (and especially
craft=atelier) from the perspective of an artist.

Artists (at least the ones I know) usually have a craft speciality, like
painting, wood, medal, glass, fabric, etc. But their studios are very
different than the typical craft person that works with the same material.
Just tagging craft=artist or craft=artist_studio doesn't convey much
information. I'm not even sure that artist belongs in the craft namespace.
For example, craft=welder would be expected to be proficient in their craft
while an artist may need to take short cuts when creating an art object. It
would be sufficiently safe for display, but possibly not structurally
sound.

I would suggest we move artist from the craft discussion on to its own
thread.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

[Clifford Snow]

I've been following this thread but haven't chimed in yet. I wanted to talk
to someone that works in State Parks. I contact Neil Lasley with Washington
State Parks and asked him his impression of the discussion and how the
state view parks.

Here is what he had to say.

Good to hear from you! I can provide you with an explanation and some
reference literature that points to WACs and RCWs to shed some more light
on this. (RCW are state laws and WACs are administrative codes)



In a nutshell though--tagging them as *protected areas* sounds like a good
idea to me---I support it. I read Kevin Kenny’s reasoning behind wanting to
do that, and like he said—while state parks may not be nature-protected
areas across the board (some of them are highly developed and definitely
aimed more towards public recreation opportunities, and some of them are
protected for cultural/historic significance), they are all, in a sense,
community-protected areas.



The state’s definition of a state park is…

*State Park: *Land generally greater than 10 acres in size, managed to
protect and conserve significant scenic, natural and cultural features and
to provide public access, facilities, or programs that through
recreational, educational, and interpretive experiences connect visitors
with those features.

I’m probably getting out into the weeds here, but I think it’s worth
mentioning that there are also *state park properties*…

*State Park Properties:* Lands owned by the agency that are being held for
future development (and lack any real infrastructure).

A lot of mapping platforms (Google Maps) incorrectly label *State Park
Properties* as full-blown *State Parks,* which confuses the public and is
something we hear about often. (We’ve worked with Google several times to
correct this, but they’re very slow to act). Regardless of how State Park
Properties are labeled, I think tagging them as protected areas also makes
sense.

A couple of things jumped out at me. First that parks can have a number of
uses from recreation to cultural giving possible different classifications
to the park. Second, I am aware of the park holdings but had never added
them to OSM. But that might be another classification.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:27 PM Nick Bolten  wrote:

> Well, now I'm having trouble finding any real regulations saying so, so
> take that with a grain of salt. I think someone from Austin, TX told me
> that once...
>
> I believe the primary stated purpose of bars on a crosswalk is increased
> visibility to cars.
>
> That's what I've read [1] although the markings tend to make pedestrians
less observant. Also note that their should also be a stop behind line, as
someone in Santa Clara has been adding. The crosswalk should be after the
stop behind line.

Another good source, for the US at least, is the Manual on Traffic Control
Devices [2]. Crosswalks start around pg 385.


[1]
http://highstreethill.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DPW-Crosswalk-Policy.pdf
[2]  https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Have you tried running to the teacher?  That's a third option you could
> try.  Tell the teacher that
> poopy-head Paul called you a poopy-head and calling people a poopy-head is
> bad and that's
> why Paul is a poopy-head.
>
> Now you can call me condescending.  Again.  As long as you don't mention
> me by name.
>
>
Can we please get back to adult conversation. I would suggest restarting
the discussion in a new thread with a commitment from participants to
civilized constructive comments and proposals.

Thanks,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

[Clifford Snow]

I the US we call them manufactured homes. They are trucked to the site,
often split lengthwise into two pieces. Once on site, they place them on a
foundation then remove the wheels from underneath. Most are relatively
inexpensive to purchase. The real money make is the owner of the land that
rents out the tiny lot.

These communities can be a mix of mobile home, aka caravans, and
manufactured homes. From aerial imagery the individual units the only real
difference is usually the roof. Manufactured home may have a peaked roof
where the mobile homes are usually flat.

I've tagged both a building=static_caravan

Best,
Clifford

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 2:56 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 06:41, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> While they might be called „house“, why not „building=lodge“? The fact
>> they are poorly insulated, prefabricated wooden single floor structures is
>> better reflected by that word.
>>
>
> building=luxury_shanty
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag sidewalk slides

[Clifford Snow]

I've run into a bunch of similar issues, where they just use asphalt to
make an incline to the street level. I've been tagging them as
kerb=lowered. It probably isn't exactly correct, but it does tell a
wheelchair users that they can reach the street level. (Assuming the
incline isn't too steep of course.)

>From the image I couldn't tell what the inclined leads to. Is it just a
wide shoulder or to another sidewalk? That may make a difference in how I'd
map it.

Best,
Clifford

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm mapping various sidewalks and I'd like to tag the portion of the
> sidewalk that slides down from a higher level to the ground, and then maybe
> goes up again. This happens usually in correspondance with driveway
> entrances (how do you tag them?). You can see an example here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/b/b9/Sidewalk_and_zebra-crossing.jpg/240px-Sidewalk_and_zebra-crossing.jpg
>
> For wheelchair accessibility it would be important to characterize it with
> an incline tag: when the incline value its e.g. >5% the accessibility can
> be considered limited, and so on.
>
> One of course could split the sidewalk for a 1 m section and assing a
> specific incline value to it; this might lead to a very fragmented way and
> sometimes it would be easier to simply add a node and assign an incline
> value to it. Even the simple information that there's a portion of the
> sidewalk not horizontal (without a specific value) can be useful.
>
> I've thought about using a node on a footway=sidewalk with
> *sidewalk=slide* + *incline= *or something similar.
>
> I thought also about using the tag kerb, but in this case it isn't a real
> intersection with the road, so it doesn't seem to be appropriate to me.
>
> Do you have any experience on that or suggestions?
>
> Thank you in advance,
>
> Ale
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:48 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Now we may (yet again!) be getting caught up in the
> one-word-different-meanings-worldwide saga, but, in Australia at least,
> "zebra" crossings (parallel alternating black & white stripes crossing the
> road) are controlled - they signify a pedestrian crossing & drivers must
> stop & give way to any pedestrians on or approaching the crossing.
>
> So are there different rules elsewhere, so that you can say "zebra is
> marked but uncontrolled"?
>

Where I live in the US, Washington State, a pedestrian has the right of way
at any intersection unless otherwise indicated. Other places the pedestrian
only has the right of way in marked crossings.  But a marked crossing
doesn't necessarily mean controlled. To me that means some sort of signal.
Similar to the way we tag supervised crossings  highway=crossing +
crossing=* as appropriate + supervised=yes

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Handicap Parking Access Aisles

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:54 AM Tony Shield  wrote:

> Hi
>
> It does appear that 'access aisle' is US and from watching the video and
> your picture it is an integral part of a parking_bay or parking_lane for
> disabled access. It follows that a parking bay or parking lane tagged for
> disabled then it must follow the regulations of that country. For very
> detailed mapping of such a bay or lane then making it clear that the
> hatched area is for disabled users as part of the adjoining parking bay is
> good, but please do not use words with a very wide meaning, please find a
> way of limiting the meaning to disabled people - disabled_access_area is
> good for me.
>
Tony you seem to have summarized what I've read in other posts, that
access_aisle is too generic which would lead to people adding it to
features that have nothing to do with wheelchair access. Once that happens,
the tag will have lost its meaning.

Since the area is intended for wheelchair access to vehicles, does
highway=footway + footway=wheelchair_loading_aisle work better? It does
away with needing to add a third tag, wheelchair=designated, and would work
even if someone added wheelchair=designated.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Handicap Parking Access Aisles

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:47 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
> 1 May 2019, 20:11 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:13 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> highway=footway wheelchair=yes ... would be in keeping with present
> tagging of wheelchairs in OSM. ???
>
>
> wheelchair=yes doesn't capture the specific nature of the access_aisle.
> Most any footway could be wheelchair=yes, only only areas designed for
> unloading vans in a handicap parking space would have the tag
> highway=footway+footway=access_aisle.
>
> This would allow van navigation right to a parking lot with an access
> aisle.
>
> highway=footway wheelchair=designated may be worth considering
>
> Note that footway=access_aisle is not making clear that it is for
> wheelchairs -
> there are access aisles footway used for say unloading deliveries
>

Since the off loading area is called an access aisle, both in the US and UK
[2], it seem to me that it would be an appropriate term to use.  Would
using highway=footway + footway=access_aisle +  wheelchair=yes be a more
acceptable tagging scheme? My concern is that just adding wheelchair=yes to
a footway doesn't get at the requirement for the width of the access_aisle.


[1]
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-ada-standards/chapter-5-parking
[2]
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01360/SN01360.pdf

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Handicap Parking Access Aisles

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:13 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> highway=footway wheelchair=yes ... would be in keeping with present
> tagging of wheelchairs in OSM. ???
>

wheelchair=yes doesn't capture the specific nature of the access_aisle.
Most any footway could be wheelchair=yes, only only areas designed for
unloading vans in a handicap parking space would have the tag
highway=footway+footway=access_aisle.

This would allow van navigation right to a parking lot with an access
aisle.

I admit I was kind of lazy when I sent this email. Sending a complete
proposal would have been better, and I'm willing to create one, but this
seemed like a no-brainer to me.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Handicap Parking Access Aisles

[Clifford Snow]

I'd like to add a new tag to highway=footway, footway=access_aisle. An
access aisle [1] is the space allowed in parking lots for vans. (Vans that
are equipped with a wheelchair ramp.)

According to Wikipedia [2] and the Americans with Disabilities Act
Handbook, access aisles "shall be part of an accessible route to the
building for facility entrance." I've seen these in other countries as well
as the US.

Thoughts?


[1] https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/F2mAATCQ54SzfcT
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disabled_parking_permit
-- 
@osm_washington
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 2:29 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> There has been a recent discussion on the Australia list regarding mapping
> of sites that may be considered sacred by the indigenous peoples of that
> area
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-April/012538.html ,
> & the question has been asked as to how it's done (or not!) in other parts
> of the World?
>
> Is there an OSM policy on mapping sacred / ceremonial sites?
>
> Are there any other places where the local original inhabitants may not
> want their sites mapped, & how did you work it out?
>
>

Great question. We have a number of tribal lands in Washington State in the
US. I'd really like to see the areas mapped better but I'm reluctant for
the very reason you are asking. I know a number of their GIS staff and have
asked for help getting in touch with someone in the tribe that may be
interested in mapping their community. So far I haven't gotten anywhere. My
goal in asking for a contact is to introduce OSM to them and let the tribe
decide what to map and what not to. Paul Norman and I have discussed
proposing that they use their native language on features to help preserve
their culture.

So my answer is, introduce OSM to the local indigenous peoples in your
area. Explain the benefits of mapping and offer to help setup training
sessions. But other than mapping roads, forests, water and other obvious
features, I'd let the locals map their own community. I think once we get
them involved we will see more interest in other tribes.

Best,
Clifford

>
>
-- 
@osm_washington
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Clifford Snow]

an any alternatives. But it was never voted
>> on as a proposal.
>> >>
>> >> In the intervening years, tagging native reservations with
>> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24 has also gained popularity. This
>> tag combination seems to be popular in South America, Australia, and also
>> in parts of the United States. I can't find any evidence for why people
>> chose this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears
>> that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in
>> Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing
>> leisure=nature_reserve with protect_class=24, so that the areas show up on
>> the default renderer with the nature reserve green style.
>> >>
>> >> Here's the overpass query for protect_class=24:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DV5
>> >>
>> >> Wiki page for boundary=protected_area:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
>> >>
>> >> In 2014, there were three messages on the tagging mailing list, from
>> Paul Johnson and Clifford Snow.
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-November/020160.html
>> But at that time, we didn't come any answers.
>> >>
>> >> There seems to be no argument about whether or not aboriginal areas
>> are important features that should be mapped. The only question is how to
>> tag them.
>> >>
>> >> So the question is:
>> >>
>> >> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these
>> areas? Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the
>> proposal) and instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to officially open the voting period now, so we can once and
>> for all come to a conclusion on this 10-year-long discussion. Please review
>> the discussion on the wiki page and cast your vote at the bottom:
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Alan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping curb (kerb) lines as the home of curb, parking, etc information

[Clifford Snow]

For anyone interested in listening to Lou Huang's talk, I found it on
Youtube. It starts at about 42:00 and ends at 48:00

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOGsy9BFJ5Y

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 4:02 PM Nick Bolten  wrote:

> > Can we please first define a solution (e.g. a relation) for connecting
> such separately mapped components of a road to the highway?
>
> I agree, this is a very important issue and it happens for a lot of
> different situations - a lot of different features that can and are mapped
> separately would benefit from a street <-> separate feature mapping. This
> is the incentive behind mapping streets, auto lanes, bus lanes, bicycle
> lanes, sidewalks, verges, etc. on the street: the relationship query is
> unnecessary, the information is shared in the way.
>
> Stable IDs would help with this problem, but I haven't seen much traction
> behind adding core features to data types. What would you think of a new
> 'associatedStreet'-style relation that would organize the various features
> that should be associated between streets and the surrounding environment?
> Example members (with no particular naming/role conventions in mind):
>
> - The street way(s).
> - Any separate bicycle way(s).
> - Left sidewalk way(s)
> - Right sidewalk way(s)
> - Left curb(s)
> - Right curb(s)
>
> Other info that *might* benefit from either this or a similar relation:
> - Building(s) / addresses (as France does)
> - Greenways (trees / tree lines / verges)
> - Traffic islands (a common use case for barrier=kerb ways
> - Some street signs (some should probably be in a different relation
> involving more than one way)
>
> This is certainly a lot of members, and not all are necessary, but I think
> there's value in traversing between these data in, as you mention, a
> machine-readable way.
>
> > This fundamental limitation really needs to be addressed before we
> consider splitting roads into even more parallel ways.
>
> Just to clarify, the road can keep all of its same data as is currently
> mapped. This would be an additional piece of information that tends to go
> unmapped.
>
> Best,
>
> Nick
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:05 PM Tobias Knerr  wrote:
>
>> On 03.03.19 20:12, Nick Bolten wrote:
>> > I wanted to get a discussion started to see what people think of
>> > mapping curbs as ways.
>>
>> Can we please first define a solution (e.g. a relation) for connecting
>> such separately mapped components of a road to the highway?
>>
>> Painting lines next to each other fails to express the important
>> information that this kerb/sidewalk/cycleway is part of that highway
>> over there. Such missing information may be easily guessed by a human
>> viewer, but it's currently not available in a machine-readable form.
>>
>> This fundamental limitation really needs to be addressed before we
>> consider splitting roads into even more parallel ways.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping curb (kerb) lines as the home of curb, parking, etc information

[Clifford Snow]

I recall seeing a lightning talk at the 2016 State of the Map US in Seattle
about mapping curb lines. Lou Huang gave a talk "Representing streets in
OSM with Curblines" [1] which proposed mapping streets from curb to curb as
polygons if I recall correctly. (Unfortunately I couldn't find a video of
his talk.)  His proposal overcomes some of the problems of mapping curb
lines as a separate way. But the level of detail required to map as a
polygon seems to be a real barrier to acceptance.

When I originally mapped sidewalks and footways in my small town, I added
the sidewalk=left/right/both/no tag to the street. Having just gone back to
actually map each sidewalk, having the information was helpful. But keeping
two sets of basically identical sets of information doesn't make sense. If
we add in a third linestring for the curb line, do we end up with three
sets of similar info?

Adding curb info to streets to me doesn't make much sense because streets
are longer than the curb. Adding curb info to sidewalks won't help vehicle
traffic  where it's nice to know if there is a curb.

The only logical option is to map curbs as independent ways even if it
means we might have three sets of similar information. To develop a
proposal on how to map sidewalks, curbs, and streets should be done before
we jump in to import the data. Much like Nick and UW did with the proposal
to map sidewalks as independent ways.

I know cities collect curb information. Even my small town does. The data
is there and if it's properly licensed, it could be useful in OSM.

[1] https://2016.stateofthemap.us/project-lead/

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 2:37 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here waste boxes for syringes tend to be lables 'sharps' .. I think that
> is an Americanizm. Any UK experience?
>
> I like how this has expanded to include disposal of syringes.

The original post was about disposing of unneeded meds. Throwing meds in
the toilet isn't recommended since it gets into streams and ultimately into
the ocean. And yes I live very close to the ocean.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:59 AM Markus  wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 01:50 Clifford Snow 
>>
>> I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine
>>
>
> According to our wiki it's waste=drugs (only 21 uses, but still more than
> any waste=medic*).
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste
>
> Depending on the size i'd either use  amenity=waste_basket or
> amenity=waste_disposal.
>
> I missed the key:waste page. Thanks. amenity=waste_basket + waste=drugs it
is. Now I just need to help a grad student learn to edit in OSM.

Thanks all,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Clifford Snow]

Yes, a typo on my part.

Sent from my Android phone.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 5:23 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
> > On 15. Feb 2019, at 01:49, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine
> >
> > Any better suggestions?
>
>
> did you maybe mean to write amenity=“waste_disposal”? Waste is usually not
> seen as an amenity ;-)
>
> 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

[Tagging] Medicine Disposal

[Clifford Snow]

How should sites that offer drop box disposal for unneeded medicine be
tagged? Typical locations would include pharmacys, clinics, hospitals, and
law enforcement buildings.

I've thought about using the tag amenity=waste + waste=medicine

Any better suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

[Clifford Snow]

I did create new thread about including other features in wastewater
treatment facilities. Unfortunately I have been side track on other issues,
not necessarily OSM issue, but life in general.

I do plan to continue exploring how to tag the various features in
wastewater treatment facilities in the near future.

To the question of "Are storage tanks covered" It might depend on what they
are used for. I assumed most were covered.

My post was on Wastewater Plants looking to add two features, Clarifiers
and Digesters. Clarifiers look like a storage tank but may not be covered.
See https://www.dropbox.com/s/k87y9sf144xxylv/clarifier.png?dl=0. I believe
clarification can also be done in basins.

Digesters on the other hand appear to be covered.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q8jxmgvs8heb314/digester.png?dl=0

For wastewater plants, I'd like to explore how to best tag these features.
Is it man_made=storage_tank+storage_tank=digester? At this point, I'm not
sure, first I don't know if it's British English, and second, I don't know
it digester is a universal term or if there is a better one.

Clarifiers because they can either be in a tank or a basin, how should they
be tagged? man_made=storage_tank+storage_tank=clarifier or basin=clarifier.

The OP asked about slurry storage. I believe they belong in the
storage_tank category. Which would imply that storage tanks don't need to
be covered. (But if they aren't, I bet it stinks)

Best,
Clifford



On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:33 PM Andrew Davidson  wrote:

> On 9/2/19 6:05 am, Markus wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:19, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> >
> > However, the question has remained unanswered.
> >
> >>   [Talk-de] Klärbecken... (in German :-(  )
> >
> > Sorry, but i'm unable to find that thread. Strangely enough, Google
> > doesn't seem to index everything on lists.openstreetmap.org ...
>
>
> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de=EN=https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-de@openstreetmap.org/msg94716.html
>
> I find that the search on The Mail Archive works better than Google.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Ditches are also used to drain excess water.
>
> In the USA we have irrigation ditches in dry areas and drainage ditches in
> wet areas.
>
> Joseph - I live in rainy western Washington. We have drainage ditches that
are used for both. Drain the excess water off in the winter time and used
for irrigation in the dry season.  Just to confuse the issue a little more.
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie 
> wrote:
>
>> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas?
>> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and
>> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
>> 
>
>
> I really don't like overloading 'protected area' for what, in my region,
> is a unit of government.
>
> The First Nations' lands near me are, for the most part, recognized as
> 'domestic dependent nations' and, if we wanted to be formally correct,
> would most likely come in at admin_level=3. (admin_level is rather a mess
> in the US, because we have things that aren't strictly hierarchical at all
> levels - we have a First Nations treaty land (established by the Jay Treaty
> of 1794) that crosses an international border, and others that span state
> lines, just as we have cities across county lines, villages across township
> lines and so on.
>
> I can't speak for other countries so I'll limit my comments to the US. As
Kevin Kenny commented, tribes in the US are recognized as domestic
dependent nations.  But from there it gets messy. They can set their own
sales tax separate from the state and have their own courts. Yet in North
Dakota, the state determines voting requirements. For this reason I don't
think admin_level works very well.

As Alan stated in the original post, settling on a tag would be nice. It
might even be what's necessary to get the tribes to show interest in OSM.
(Of course that will result in more border disputes :-)

Clifford

Clifford.
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:46 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Would you also change the main  man_made=wastewater_plant listing?
>
> Maybe wastewater=plant / facility?
>
> If we man_made=wastewater_plant didn't exist, then I would propose a new
key of wastewater=* similar to the power=*. At this point, I'm reluctant to
suggest wasterwater as a new high level key. I'd be interested to hear
others opinion on wastewater=*

Clifford
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:05 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> It has the disadvantage that it doesn't make sense.  At least not to me,
> as a native speaker of
> British English (which is the normal language for defining OSM tags) and
> as somebody who
> doesn't work in sanitation.  Maybe a British sanitation engineer would use
> basin or a non-British
> speaker would use basin but I most definitely would not.
>
> Firstly, I don't think of a settling tank or clarifier as a basin.  A
> porcelain object for washing hands
> in a bathroom is a basin and a geological depression in which water
> collects is a basin, and a
> man-made depression for holding water might be a basin but a clarifier
> isn't.  I can see the
> commonalities in all of those but a clarifier just isn't a basin.  Other
> than bathroom porcelain,
> a basin requires a depression in the ground.
>

There are some wastewater treatment facilities that use settling basins.
The ones I've mapped all use more advanced technology. Where I have heard
of settling basins is those used by large farm operations. The one that
comes to mind is during the flooding in the US Southeast where pig farmers
settling basins were covered by flood waters which resulted in tons of
waste flowing into the area.

If the wastewater plant used settling basins then they should be mapped as
such. But as I said, all of the plants I've seen use clarifiers and
digesters.

>
>
> --
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM François Lacombe 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> That's a good idea, other components of wastewater treatement plants
> should be mapped the same way
> Nevertheless, man_made isn't appropriate for that.
>
> wastewater=* or at least water=* should be used for such values, shouldn't
> you?
>
> wastewater as a key is used 100 times according to  taginfo. I like your
suggestion of using wastewater or even wastewater_plant as a key with the
various components as values of that key. That works better than having the
values as part of the man_made key. With 50K man_made=wastewater_plant
there are a number that could be improved in OSM if we had better tagging.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Wastewater Plants

[Clifford Snow]

I'd like to expand tagging of wastewater treatment plants by adding in
clarifiers and digesters to the man_made=wastewater_plant wiki page.

This came about as I was editing an area with a wastewater treatment
facility. I didn't know what the various parts of the facility were
called.  A friend who works in GIS for the counties wastewater division
helped me with the terminology for these objects.

The two objects are
1. Clarifiers https://www.dropbox.com/s/k87y9sf144xxylv/clarifier.png?dl=0
2. Digesters https://www.dropbox.com/s/q8jxmgvs8heb314/digester.png?dl=0

According to Wikipedia, clarifiers are settlement tanks that continuously
remove sediment from the wastewater. [1]

Digesters use a process called anaerobic digestion is used to breakdown
sewage sludge. [2] since anaerobic digester is used in other processes, I'd
like to keep it simple and just call them digesters.

For tagging, I'd to suggest the two tags.
man_made=clarifier (used 28 times)
man_made=digester (anaerobic used 3 times, including one misspelling)


I'm not sure if clarifier and digester are what the British call them, if
someone knows, please let me know.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarifier
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] amenity=clinic or healthcare=clinic

[Clifford Snow]

When reviewing a new users first edits, I noticed they use bot
amenity=clinic and healthcare=clinic. I was surprised to see both are
document on the wiki - amenity=clinic [1] and healthcare=clinic [2]

They seem redundant. Should both exist or should amenity=clinic be
deprecated? (I like the healthcare=clinic better mainly because amenity is
so overused.)

The edits were done with iD which would indicate they have both tags.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dclinic
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

[Clifford Snow]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:39 AM Colin Smale  wrote:

> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for
> government functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often
> indistinguishable from commercial properties - what is different is that
> the occupier is some statutory organisation. We don't tag landuse=charity,
> or landuse=private, or landuse=education, so why landuse=civic_admin? If
> you want to know who the tenant of a certain building is, let's have
> tenant=City of Blah and allow this for any building (or campus). Same
> arguments against landuse=religious. Why should farm be tagged as
> landuse=religious instead of landuse=farmland just because it is run by
> monks? Land use is the use a piece of land is put to, and not WHO is doing
> the using or WHY they are doing it. If we want to record those other
> dimensions, use different tags instead of further complicating the landuse
> mess.
>
Governments use a lot of land for administrative and civic reasons.
(Whether they own the land isn't relevant.) We tag industrial, commercial,
landfill, military, schools, religious, etc. Looking at military and
religious. Both can and do have many different type of activity. They have
office space that would otherwise be tagged commercial I suppose. Military
bases have restaurants and stores. But their overriding use is religious
and military.

Someone else commented that their are small government offices in retail
areas. If the bulk of the use is retail, it should be tagged retail.

As far as farmland run my monks - that could be a good argument to tag the
farmland as farmland and their common areas as religious.

Take a typical court house, besides court rooms, it has office space, maybe
a coffee shop, maybe a jail, police, service counters for the public
wishing to transact business. These can be multiple buildings with
overlapping functions.

Landuse=civic_admin better captures most of the public facilities landuse
better can any other alternative.

Clifford
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

[Clifford Snow]

I would accept civic_admin as well.

Markus - do you want to revive the proposal? I'd like to see this become a
approved tag.


On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:15 PM OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> I'll go for civic_admin. Sounds specific enough. Thx.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:34 AM OSMDoudou <
19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The "landuse=commercial" page [1] says "area may consists of offices,
> administration", whereas the "landuse" page [2] says "Government services
> and businesses should not use this tag".
>
> How to tag a piece of land where governmental several office buildings are
> situated ?
>
> My choice is landuse=public or landuse=government. Neither are listed on
the wiki page {1]. landuse=public has been used 300 times and with other
extensions to public like public_administration it has over 400 uses.
landuse=government and other extensions have been used 177 times.
Government facilities, at least in the US, comprise a significant amount of
real estate. They should be separated as such.

A tagging scheme could include landuse=public + public=admin_level_2 -
admin_level_10 (to normalize terms between countries)

Either fit in with other landuse times, like religious, military, school,
etc. (It doesn't fit with landuse=grass - but lets stay off that mess)

They may not render, but that just a rendering decision.

Best,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:50 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> Wasn't there just a longish discussion about this, and that its origin
> goes back to marketing language used by Bell?-


 As a former Bell System employee I can tell you we used the term central
office to describe buildings that contained a main frame (MDF), a cable
(local loop) entrance, a telephone switch and usually some sort of
emergency power. It wasn't so much as a marketing term but an engineering
term to describe the buildings function. For example other buildings might
be a repeater station or main station. Early telephone central office did
have windows. Sometime during the 60s and 70s buildings were built without
windows, and some even bricked over, especially on the ground level. I left
just as the VOIP was being introduced so I'm not sure how many switches
still exist. But my sense is there are still many in operation. With the
smaller size of equipment, the telephone exchange may still exist, but they
now rent out space.

There are enough central offices left that I would keep the tag until the
buildings are repurposed. I know of one in Seattle that is now an apartment
building on the upper floors and a glass blowing studio on the ground level
floor.

Not sure what the British English equivalent would be to central office.


@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 9:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> If it's necessary, I'm willing to make a proposal to change aboriginal /
> native lands to an administrative boundary, without an admin_level
> Would that solve the problem?
>
>
Please don't suggest changing aboriginal lands tag. I'm very familiar with
the US and to a smaller degree Canada. Admin_level doesn't work well for
aboriginal lands. In the US's case, aboriginal lands are considered
domestic dependant nations. While many are completely within a state, they
are not under the states control in that they are free to govern
themselves.

Using boundary=aboriginal_lands is an established practice that works.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:51 PM Jmapb  wrote:

>
> I know that in the USA, it's very common to see detached houses tagged
> as building=house, and there have been lots of mappers and imports of
> house footprints using this tag. Possibly related to the fact that the
> term "detached" is not used very much in the USA, so building=house is a
> much more natural tag to most Americans' ears.
>

In the US detached may also be inferred as an accessory dwelling unit, such
as what is often called a "Mother-in-law" unit.  Around me they are legally
called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) [1].  I typically have been tagging
single family houses as building=house. I realize it that they should be
building=detached, but so many residential homes in the US are tagged as
building=house.

[1]
https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/permits/commonprojects/motherinlawunits/default.htm

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging