Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - EV Charging Station Mapping

[Justin Tracey]

On 2023-05-02 10:14, Illia Marchenko wrote:



2 May 2023, 16:52 Marc_marc >:


Le 02.05.23 à 14:21, NKA mapper a écrit :
 > The EV Charging Station Mapping
 >
> 
proposal is now approved


I really wonder how we can approve a proposal that makes it impossible
to migrate from the old scheme to the new one when we see that even
those that allow it (power=sub_station) take over 10 years to migrate.
I wonder if a vote should not be planned in two stages:
- the idea: everyone was aware of the problem
- the implementation... that we should not vote as long as there is a
concrete problem (and here there were 2: redefinition of existing tag
and impossibility to select the objects of the old schema since the new
schema uses a tag identical to the previous one).

bad day...


What is the impossibility of migration? Just use man_made=charge_point 
instead of amenity=charging_station for charging points. If the charging 
point is already marked as amenity=charging_station, just change it to 
man_made=charge_point.

Regards,
Illia.



Their point is there's no way to tell when that's necessary without 
on-the-ground insight, and there is no way to tell when such insight is 
needed. Had the proposal broken it out into two new tags, there would be 
an indication of which objects need to be updated. With the approved 
tagging scheme, is this node tagged correctly, or has it just not been 
updated yet? There's no algorithmic way to tell, meaning it will be many 
years before everything that needs updating will get updated.


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

[Justin Tracey]

On 2020-10-24 9:32 a.m., Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Here is my proposal on the wiki:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Admission
> 
> In short, we don't have any way to connect places that need a ticket for
> entrance, with the place that sells those tickets. Usually those places
> are close together, but sometimes they are not.
> In those cases, it would be nice that a router could either show us this
> information, or route us to the ticket issuer first, and then to the
> original place we were going to.
> 
> The tags I proposed would be:
> access=admission for the place that needs a ticket
> admission=issue for the place that sells the ticket
> admission:to=* to tag both with the same name, so we can link them, or
> relation type=admission that connects the two places.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Janko
> 


Another thing worth addressing in the proposal is how this relates to
public transit systems. Things like a ferry that require a ticket for
entry might translate pretty directly, but what about bus or light rail
systems where you buy your ticket at a shop=ticket (or similar) to ride
anywhere on the system? Does this apply to those too? What about systems
where you can buy a ticket on a bus, but the ticket is also good for
transfers to the light rail or subway stations that require a ticket for
entry? The answer could be "no, don't use this for entire transit
systems", but either way, public transit is prominent enough in OSM that
I think it's worth explicitly addressing it in the proposal (and
discussing here, if need be).

 - Justin

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Justin Tracey]

On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:
>> It's the same reason we want
>> discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
>> be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
>> participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
>> joining in.
> 
> ...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
> polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
> encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
> being inimically opposed to "conservatives").
> 

I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
relevant to the discussion anyway.

>> If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
>> towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
>> English-speaking men)
> 
> So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
> wait, that would *still* be biased.

Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)

> 
> 
> The idea that you can make everyone happy is a delusion (source: John
> Lydgate (disputed)). All we're seeing right now is that the SJW crowd
> are making the most noise. The real issue is groups — *ANY* groups —
> trying to force their ideology down other's throats and decide what
> opinions are "allowed" and what aren't.
> 
> What needs to stop isn't "intolerance" (the SJW agenda isn't about
> eliminating intolerance — quite the opposite! — but about replacing one
> flavor with another), it's the inability to agree to disagree. Groups
> should feel welcoming even to people with different opinions, rather
> than vilifying anyone who disagrees with the group.
> 
> 

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
grind with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone. If you have some specific
criticism of how someone is conducting themself, sure, bring it up, but
dragging the tagging mailing list into something that has no obvious
connection to tagging seems counterproductive.

Thanks,
 - Justin

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Justin Tracey]

On 2020-10-19 4:13 a.m., Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 10/14/20 19:54, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm proposing that we change the man_made tag to human_made.
>>
>> I feel it is a discussion that we need to have as there seems to be
>> little discussion to date.
> [...]
> I will vote against this proposal and any like it, because it involves a
> lot of retagging work for zero actual benefit.
> 
> At least healthcare=*, and the temporary dual tagging required to
> transition to it, made some sense. This, to me, makes zero sense and
> smacks of change for the sake of change.
> 

I don't feel particularly strongly about this change either way, but to
say it has "zero actual benefit" seems like a pretty obvious exaggeration.

A lot of this thread has been on the ramifications on the database, on
data consumers, and on people being offended or misinformed, but these
seem to be missing the point changes like this are supposed to have. The
reason changes like this are useful is they serve as cultural markers
for community openness and understanding. It's the same reason we want
discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
joining in. If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
English-speaking men), even if those hints were just a result of change
in zeitgeist or popular language norms, then that has an impact on the
sort of people we attract as a community. (As an extreme example, it was
mentioned elsewhere that tags are nearly arbitrary identifiers, but if
all tags were randomly selected bits of profanity, I'm guessing everyone
here would agree, the community would be a lot smaller, and leave out a
lot of the more professional-oriented contributors.)

Now, whether the impact this specific tag has is of sufficient weight to
accept the costs others have mentioned (most notable IMHO being the
impact on current data consumers), well that's the discussion we should
be having. But hyperbole like "[this] makes zero sense and smacks of
change for the sake of change" is not a helpful part of that discussion.

Thanks,
 - Justin

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

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

[Justin Tracey]

On 2020-08-14 10:48 a.m., Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> 3) That, one day, routers might preferentially route along tree-lined
> roads
> rather than non-tree-lined roads, in the same way they preferentially
> route
> along lit roads.  Do any route along lit roads?  I can see that a
> router which
> offers walking routes might eventually prefer lit routes.
>
>
Not only are there routers that prefer lit routes, there are already
multiple routers that seek shade from things like trees (featured in the
last weeklyOSM):

http://k1z.blog.uni-heidelberg.de/2020/07/31/do-you-need-a-shady-route-because-it-is-too-hot-2/

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

Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

[Justin Tracey]

The problem with tagging it as an orchard isn't that it doesn't look
like an orchard in the British sense, it's that it intentionally does
not look like cultivated land at all. Banana and date plantations still
look very artificial, with very little ground cover or biodiversity,
while a typical forest garden will, without closer inspection, look
something akin to a nature reserve. If someone were walking around some
woods using the map, tried positioning themselves around it, and were
looking for an orchard or tree farm, that would be largely useless.

 - Justin

On 2020-07-30 10:38 a.m., Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> A landuse=orchard is any area of perennial shrubs and trees which is
> used to produce food. In the tropics this tag is used for bananas tea
> and coffee, and oil date palms, all of which are not exactly
> “orchards” in the British sense. This was proposed in the original vote.
>
> So if Wikipedia is correct that  “ The three main products from a
> forest garden are fruit, nuts and green leafy vegetables
> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_vegetable>.“ it is probably
> mainly landuse=orchard + landuse=farmland as a secondary use.
>
> I also see that these are called a “huerto familiar” in Mexico, which
> literally means “family orchard”.
>
> Perhaps landuse=orchard + orchard=forest_garden would work?
>
> Note that we previously discussed a similar issue with areas that are
> used as orchards + pasture in Spain, if I recall
>
> Since almost any 2 types of agricultural land can be combined, it
> might be better to think about a wholistic solution, since as a way to
> tag the secondary landuse or secondary vegetation of a certain area.
>
> - Joseph
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 7:22 AM Justin Tracey  <mailto:j3tra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 2020-07-30 7:40 a.m., Paul Allen wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe
>> mailto:joost.schou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me.
>>
>>
>> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as
>> part orchard,
>> was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate
>> tag I'll
>> change it.
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul
>
> Forest gardens are definitely not orchards. For one, they're
> designed to resemble (or be) natural ecologies as much as
> possible, and therefore look very different; and two, most of the
> food in them doesn't actually come from the trees (or rather,
> doesn't come directly from the trees -- again, the point is to be
> a healthy ecology), so they function and operate very differently.
>
>
>  - Justin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

[Justin Tracey]

On 2020-07-30 7:40 a.m., Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:34, joost schouppe  > wrote:
>
>
> Someone tried to map a "food forest" near me.
>
>
> The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part
> orchard,
> was landuse=orchard.  If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll
> change it.
>
> -- 
> Paul

Forest gardens are definitely not orchards. For one, they're designed to
resemble (or be) natural ecologies as much as possible, and therefore
look very different; and two, most of the food in them doesn't actually
come from the trees (or rather, doesn't come directly from the trees --
again, the point is to be a healthy ecology), so they function and
operate very differently.

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

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

[Justin Tracey]

If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening hours
syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions to the
"access" tags[1]. Though these tend to represent temporary
accessibility, not temporary existence the way "intermittent" or
"seasonal"[2] do. I'll also note that "seasonal" is already used for
non-waterway features, and depending on how much one wishes to stretch
the definition of "season" (which is already a pretty loose concept,
even on OSM), it could maybe be used here too?

 - Justin

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours

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

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal


On 2020-07-14 12:22 p.m., John Sturdy wrote:
> I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a
> festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there
> are paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not
> there when the festival is not happening, although increased wear on
> the ground around them is probably visible much of the time.
>
> Does it make sense to map such paths, perhaps borrowing the
> "intermittent" tag from waterway tagging?
>
> __John
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

[Justin Tracey]

Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME,
are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More
generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict (e.g.,
name), then it makes sense to keep them as separate features.

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