Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

[Marco Boeringa]

I am actually a bit surprised by this. It may be a research related 
term, but "hollow way" seems quite common in British English archaeology...


See these links:

- Historic England: 
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1016748
- Shorne Woods Arhaeology Group: 
http://shornewoodsarchaeology.co.uk/sites/hollow-way
- Dalton Woodland Burial Ground: Lime Kiln Plantation Archaeology: 
http://www.daltonwoodlandburial.co.uk/lime-kiln-plantation-archaeology/
- Google book reference: "The Archaeology of Medieval England and 
Wales": 
https://books.google.nl/books?id=sxshBQAAQBAJ=PA108=PA108=hollow+way+archaeology=bl=TREFZqmbG-=XufOw6xWGSBaQTGk9sF-7_YH0Aw=nl=X=0ahUKEwju38jR97PZAhXH1qQKHaz6DLYQ6AEIVzAF#v=onepage=hollow%20way%20archaeology=false
- Harvard University: "Hollow Ways: *Ancient Communication Networks in 
Northern Mesopotamia": 
*https://scholar.harvard.edu/jasonur/pages/hollow-ways-1


Marco

Op 19-2-2018 om 10:51 schreef Andy Townsend:

On 19/02/2018 09:00, Philip Barnes wrote:

Hi Joost
As a native English speaker I have never heard the term Hollow Way, 
however reading the description it seems that this proposal is 
describing what is called a Sunken Lane.


I would avoid cutting as that implies something that has been cut 
deliberately for the construction of a motorway, railway or canal etc.


The map https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=hollow_way#map 
suggests that it's been used in Germany by people who think it's an 
English term.


It's not really used at all in modern English - there are a few 
placenames called "Holloway" (the one in Derbyshire might be named 
after the top bit of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127047259 ) so 
it doesn't really make sense to "approve" it as a tag.  If people want 
to use it locally - fine - and if renderers locally want to use it 
also fine (under the "any tags you like" principle).


Best Regards,

Andy


___
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] "building=college" tag missing from building key page

[Marco Boeringa]

Colin and others,

I think we have drifted a bit off of the original topic, my "original 
enquiry" was the notion that the "building=college" tag, with 15k uses, 
was not included on the building key page, and if it would be a good 
idea to include it.


From there, there was discussion about landuse of schools, which IMO is 
already covered by "amenity=school/college/university", as the Wiki 
pages for these features have now for years stated that the entire 
(campus) grounds should be tagged amenity=x, while the actual buildings 
on there should use building=x (e.g. 
building=school/university/"college??" or more appropriate tag if e.g. a 
building=office)


And than we landed on the meaning of the vague term "college"...

I think, as the OP, I will personally leave it at this. With my first 
post, I just wanted to note the apparent disparity with the existing 
building=school/university. But it is not a big thing to me.


Marco


Op 8-12-2017 om 22:51 schreef Colin Smale:


This is why the ISCED codes exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Classification_of_Education#ISCED_2011_levels,_categories,_and_sub-categories

They are already used in OSM:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED

So the original enquiry can be addressed with building=school and 
isced:level=*



On 2017-12-08 22:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:




sent from a phone

On 7. Dec 2017, at 19:31, Marco Boeringa <ma...@boeringa.demon.nl 
<mailto:ma...@boeringa.demon.nl>> wrote:


Anyway, no tagging scheme for education will ever be perfect, the 
differences between individual countries and the usage of specific 
terminology is vast.



while this is true, choosing good names for the tags still helps in 
reducing misunderstandings. "college" for example is not a very clear 
term for use on global scale, because it can mean different things in 
different places / context. Something more abstract like 
secondary_school or different words like vocational school or 
professional school, which describe a concept, would IMHO be better 
than college.


cheers,
Martin
___
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] "building=college" tag missing from building key page

[Marco Boeringa]

Yes, I agree "school" is a pretty loose term used from anything ranging 
from kindergarten to primary to secondary school / high school / college.


However, "college" and "university" aren't. College, as Vao Matua also 
pointed out, usually refers to secondary school / high school age 
education, where the buildings do have additional (lab) facilities for 
science teaching, where a primary school usually wouldn't.


I am fully aware many secondary schools / high schools are currently 
simply tagged "building=school". Ideally though, if there is a proper 
reference to "building=college" as well, I think many of these may in 
the long run be retagged to this more appropriate tag, if it clearly 
explains referencing secondary / high school education.


An extra mildly complicating factor is the English education system 
"university college" term... I would classify the buildings belonging to 
those as "building=university", but I guess people from Britain wouldn't 
necessarily.


Anyway, no tagging scheme for education will ever be perfect, the 
differences between individual countries and the usage of specific 
terminology is vast.



Op 7-12-2017 om 17:05 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer:
2017-12-07 14:40 GMT+01:00 Marco Boeringa <ma...@boeringa.demon.nl 
<mailto:ma...@boeringa.demon.nl>>:


* school: tag mostly used for kindergarten or primary school:
generally only classrooms and no dedicated laboratory / science /
workshop rooms with electrity, water, gas and a range of technical
equipment



"school" is also used for some secondary schools, not just for primary 
schools. It isn't typically used AFAIK for kindergartens.


Cheers,
Martin


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


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

Re: [Tagging] "building=college" tag missing from building key page

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi Tom,

Good point you raise about the building topology, but I do think there 
are reasons to allow this:


- As to your point of building topology, as I mostly interpret this:

* school: tag mostly used for kindergarten or primary school: generally 
only classrooms and no dedicated laboratory / science / workshop rooms 
with electrity, water, gas and a range of technical equipment


* college: additional facilities like dedicated laboratory / science / 
workshop rooms with electrity, water, gas and a range of technical 
equipment including one or two fume hoods are usually standard


* university: full lab facilities including expensive equipment 
requiring skilled operators, fume hoods, off-limit lab rooms for 
specialized research etc.


Of course, this is just a rough classification. E.g. a high paid 
luxurious private school/college may have more facilities than some 
public school/college.


- An additional reason for allowing this type of tagging, is that you 
can symbolize the actual buildings involved in a distinct way / color in 
a style.


By the way, I agree not all buildings on an e.g. an amentiy=university 
campus should by default be tagged building=university if there is a 
more appropriate tag. E.g., if the building is a garage, office or 
hospital just being part of the amenity=university campus grounds, tag 
the relevant tag and not generic building=university.


Marco


Op 7-12-2017 om 13:53 schreef Tom Pfeifer:
The method just to copy the amenity value onto the building value 
dilutes the idea that the building tag should describe the building 
typology.


An educational campus often consists both of purpose-built buildings, 
e.g. with a large lecture hall, as well as re-dedicated buildings such 
as a villa now being used for researcher's offices or seminar rooms.


So what is the building type difference between building=school and 
building=college when it consists of seminar/class rooms?


Similarly there is little difference between a building with 
classrooms used for a primary school or a kindergarten.


Anyway, what is the architectural perspective?

tom

On 07.12.2017 13:13, Marco Boeringa wrote:

"building=college"

is missing from the main building key page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building).


This tag is the equivalent of building=school/university as the 
accompanying key for tagging the actual buildings of an 
"amenity=college". It seems logical to add this to the building key 
page for consistency with school/university amenities and buildings.


There is already an English Wiki page that can be linked from the 
building page if this tag is added to the Civic/Amenity section just 
like the school/university examples:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abuilding%3Dcollege

which also gives the TagInfo stat of almost 15.000 uses, so probably 
reason enough to add this to the main building key page as well.


___
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] "building=college" tag missing from building key page

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi,

I noticed the tag

"building=college"

is missing from the main building key page 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building).


This tag is the equivalent of building=school/university as the 
accompanying key for tagging the actual buildings of an 
"amenity=college". It seems logical to add this to the building key page 
for consistency with school/university amenities and buildings.


There is already an English Wiki page that can be linked from the 
building page if this tag is added to the Civic/Amenity section just 
like the school/university examples:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abuilding%3Dcollege

which also gives the TagInfo stat of almost 15.000 uses, so probably 
reason enough to add this to the main building key page as well.


Marco



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

Re: [Tagging] building=stands or building=grandstand?

[Marco Boeringa]

I don't think arguments as "is the more generic term" are all that 
convincing in the context of OSM. There are quite a number of cases in 
OSM where a well established tag with proper documentation may not 
always have the most "appropriate" name for its key or value. I think 
the current changes by Tom are OK, based on the general knowledge of 
seeing the type of structures edited with "building=grandstand", and 
based on the original new description of the "building=stands" tag, 
including stadium photo and referring to "big tribunes". So I don't 
think these features, if tagged with "building=stands", were supposed to 
signify something entirely different from the now documented 
"building=grandstand".


And although I referred to building=stadium and building=grandstand used 
somewhat interchangeably, building=stadium is generally more used for 
entire concentric or enclosed structures including all additional 
facilities of a true sports stadium, while the building=grandstand is 
more for individual and somewhat smaller grandstand structures not 
surrounding an entire playing field.


To be honest, I would leave it for now, I think they are distinct enough 
to maintain as separate tags. As stated above, I think the current edit 
is OK in the context of what I've seen.


Marco


Op 28-10-2017 om 09:57 schreef Volker Schmidt:

I fear we have been a bit too quick.
It looks as if stands and grandstand are different terms for seating 
around a sports pitch.
The Wikipedia page "Stadium" refers several times to "stands" when it 
talks about seating in a stadium. And the Wikpedia page "Bleacher" is 
about "bleachers or stands", stating that these are US-English terms 
for basic seating facilities around sports pitches

A "grandstand" is a grand stand according to Wikipedia.
Also an indication: a Google image search for "cricket, stands" shows 
a number photos that I would have tagged as grandstands in OSM.
In essence, it looks as if "stands" is the more generic term and hence 
should not be discouraged.







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




---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=stands or building=grandstand?

[Marco Boeringa]

Warin,

Tom did not totally remove the reference to "building=stands", it is 
listed as discouraged on the new "building=grandstand" Wiki page.


As to "building=grandstand", although undocumented, I have seen this 
used on exactly the type of structure Tom included. Of course, the 
difference as to what constitutes a full stadium and / or just a 
grandstand is a bit vague, and users to some extent use them 
interchangeably. But in general, I have seen two uses:


- Used on a single "building=grandstand" that was the only feature 
around a playing field


- Used on individual sections of a full concentric "building=stadium", 
or multiple disjunct "building=grandstand" features surrounding the 
playing field.


As I wrote in my first post, the tag itself is at least 4 years old, and 
maybe much longer. Just needed documentation, as Tom now did. Thanks Tom!


*** Tom, just one other remark:***

In the "Tagging mistakes" section, you referenced "building=stand", 
which also exists according to the TagInfo table next to it, but the 
original new tag I saw was "building=stands(!)" so plural 
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=building%3Dstands). I think 
you need to include this second discouraged tag as well... Currently, 
"building=stands" has even more uses (244) then "building=stand" (85)


Marco


Op 27-10-2017 om 23:53 schreef Warin:

On 28-Oct-17 08:18 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 27.10.2017 22:16, Warin wrote:
discouraging the new tag preferably, 

done

Object.
No contact with mappers using that value.


The usage was discouraged for this purpose, neither forbidden nor 
deprecated.

No tagging in the database was changed (by myself).


Yet the wiki reference was totally removed from the wiki.
I think leaving the mention of it on the wiki, but putting a line 
through it and placing comments on the wiki discussion page would be 
better way of discouragement. That is the way I have seen it done for 
discouragement in the past.

I think the removal may be provocation to an edit war?

Before the removal it said ...
"A big tribunes. " and showed the same photo as stadium.
So possibly 'stands' is 'stadium' rather than 'grandstand'.


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

[Tagging] building=stands or building=grandstand?

[Marco Boeringa]

Hi all,

I noticed on the building key Wiki page, that it seems there is a new 
entry for "building=stands" for the tribunes of a sports stadium. Now I 
can't recall having seen this tag before, but I do know that there is an 
old (minimum 4 years) and quite widely used similar tag 
"building=grandstand (almost 2400 uses).


"building=grandstand" is unfortunately undocumented, but so is 
"building=stands" except the new(?) inclusion on the building key page.


Since the new tag has only a tenth of the usage of the old tag, and the 
building=grandstand tag is likely quite a bit older, I would suggest to 
keep the old tag, and change the building key page accordingly, 
discouraging the new tag preferably, unless people want to retag >2k 
features...


What are opinions of others? I posted this on the discussion page of the 
Wiki key building, but so far no response there.


Marco


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Simplify building:part areas

[Marco Boeringa]

With building:part you are actually describing 3D volumes. These volumes 
don't necessarily start at ground level, but ideally should not 
intersect in 3D. As you can see in the Simple 3D building specification, 
you can set a "building:min_level" and "min_height" to "raise" a certain 
part from ground level to its appropriate starting height. So in your 
case of a large single story ground level part, and a smaller top 
section, you could set building:min_level and min_height tags on the 
part for the smaller section to raise it above the large section/part, 
which in that case should NOT  be a multipolygon.


Of course, like you suggested, there is the alternative solution of 
creating a multipolygon and setting the higher part to start at ground 
level as well by not specifying building:min_level and min_height, and 
that would be correct too in terms of non-intersecting 3D volumes, but 
the first solution without multipolygon seems more logical in this case 
(unless the higher part was in reality a true separate section starting 
at a ground level, e.g. office, within a larger structure, in which case 
it might make sense to use the MP option if you would like to tag 
function on the building:part as well).


Marco


Op 18-8-2017 om 10:36 schreef Javier Sánchez Portero:
Sorry, I should have taken time to give some examples. Please read 
below (I rev.


2017-08-18 1:30 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow >:




On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero
> wrote:


I am thinking in ways to reduce the complexity that introduces
the mapping of parts of buildings. For example:


I have reversed the order of the points

* In the wiki [1] says that the outline should be tagged with
building:levels and height, but this, if the parts cover the
whole outline, is a duplication since these tags will always
be in some of the parts. Could I delete the part(s) whose
labels match those of the outline?


If you use a multipolygon, then the multipolygon would contain the
levels and height.


I'm refering to 3D modeling of building height and levels, according 
to [1]. For example, this building [2] have two heights and should be 
drawn two parts inside the building footprint, one with 
(building:part=yes, building:levels=1, height=3) [3], and another one 
with (building:part=yes, building:levels=2, height=6). As the building 
footprint [2] could have the levels and height tags I put them in it 
avoiding to draw one part. I meant, the building area is not entirely 
covered by building:part areas. All the building in this village was 
drawn according to this.


I take the rule to put in the building:levels and height tags of the 
full building those of the level wich parts sum a greatest area 
instead of the maximum values. For a example see the adjacent building 
to the left [4]. It have (building:levels=1, height=3) instead of the 
maximum values (building:levels=2, height=6) of the building:part [5]. 
This way I avoid to draw two parts inside the building. I consider 
that the maximum building:levels and height could be calculated by a 
consumer from the building and its parts instead. I'm wrong with it? 
But it's against what says the wiki [6].


* If one part is inscribed within a larger one, can I use
simple ways overlapped and leave to the render decide how to
draw them or should I create a multipolygon for the larger
part with the smaller part with inner role? I'm prone to the
first.


An example would help. If the building has an inner court yard,
then a multipolygon would be appropriate, with the inner court
yard with an inner role.


I'm not referring to buildings with holes but to nested building:part 
areas. Consider this building [7] with a big one-story part and a 
smaller two-story part [8] within it. If I use the full detailled 
schema I will need a multipolygon relation for the one-story part, but 
I avoid this putting the tags in the footprint (violating the rule of 
maximum levels and height in it). I don't have real example at hand, 
but supposes another three-story part inscribed inside the two-story 
part [8]. should I use a multipolygon for the two-story part to fully 
separate it area from the three-story part area? Or could I just draw 
the inner three-story part, overlapping both areas?


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459549932
[3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459550128
[4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459549958
[5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459550129
[6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
[7] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215569626
[8] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459573978



___
Tagging mailing list