subject:"\[Tagging\] \[OSM\-talk\] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0"

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-09 Thread John Willis via Tagging

> On Feb 7, 2020, at 7:48 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> If area=yes is added to say a leisure area surrounded by a hedge, that is a 
> mapping mistake. If that results in the area displaying as a hedge area, the 
> mapper has to correct that, not the renderer.

exactly!

If I want a hedge around a tennis court, I draw a hedge around a tennis court. 

if a traffic island has a large triangle shaped hedge, then I draw a large 
triangle shaped hedge with area=yes. 

Mappers can’t mix area and way tags on the same object if they depend on 
area=yes to define what they are. 

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-09 Thread Jeroen Hoek

On 09-02-20 12:36, Peter Elderson wrote:
> For the record, I am not opposed to renderers, data users or toolmakers
> reporting a problem or an improvement request and asking the taggers
> list to come up with a solution everyone can live with. Information in
> the database should be renderable and usable, because that is the
> purpose of the whole thing. But please, in co-operation, and when a
> sudden change leads to problems, rethink it and take another path to get
> to a shared solution.

+1.

It would probably suffice to restore just the rendering for
`barrier=hedge` plus `area=yes` for now.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-09 Thread Peter Elderson

OSM Carto stopped rendering barrier=hedge, area=yes as a hedge barrier
area, without proper announcement. Immediately this was reported as a
problem, because it is established and documente tagging and many people
noticed the change.

The right way to handle this is to revert this particular change. Even if
the reason behind it is fundamentally right, it still causes a practical
problem on the map, which requires change management and co-operation. .
Instead, taggers are told they are wrong and the problem does not exist.
That does not help.

In fact, there was no mapping problem with the established and documented
tagging, until the rendering was radically changed. Before that, it
rendered just fine, and where the map did not reflect the actual situation,
there was a tagging error, so that should be corrected by changing the
tagging for that particular feature.

If there is a fundamental problem in the established tagging, then the
right way to handle that is to first explain and discuss that on the
tagging list (and mapper forums). That should provide a solution both
renderers and taggers can live with.

For the record, I am not opposed to renderers, data users or toolmakers
reporting a problem or an improvement request and asking the taggers list
to come up with a solution everyone can live with. Information in the
database should be renderable and usable, because that is the purpose of
the whole thing. But please, in co-operation, and when a sudden change
leads to problems, rethink it and take another path to get to a shared
solution.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op zo 9 feb. 2020 om 03:30 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> I don't understand why mappers in Zeeland are considered less reliable
> than those in South Holland? Isn't all of the Netherlands below sea
> level, consisting entirely of polders and dykes? ;-) (Just joking... I
> know there are hills some tens of meters above sea level...)
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QyU - hedge ways in South Holland (1011)
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QyT - hedge closed ways in South Holland
> (137) - <14% of ways
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QyS - hedge closed ways with area=yes in
> South Holland (91)
>
> So in this case there is a 2:1 ratio of those with area=yes vs
> without, unlike in Zeeland - but the total numbers for ways and closed
> ways are both slightly lower than those for Zeeland (where there are
> 1179 ways, 146 closed).
>
> I checked The Haag and Rotterdam, since it has been suggested that we
> should look at mapping in towns and cities.
>
> There are 3 places with area=yes hedges in Rotterdam. One is here,
> where several plantings of bushes(?) spell out "ROTTERDAM" next to a
> highway:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/325978680#map=19/51.91438/4.53259
> - note that the multipolygon hedges like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4550190 do not have area=yes. I
> think it is a stretch to use "barrier=hedge" for a purely ornamental,
> low-height planting like this.
>
> The other place with more than one hedge is in this cemetery.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/550331809#map=19/51.87471/4.50668
>
> In The Haag the main place was these hedge areas by the Vredespaleis
> ("Peace Palace"?): eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/665101476
>
> But they are tagged area=yes + barrier=hedge, even though they look like
> this:
>
>
> https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-beautiful-garden-of-the-peace-palace-or-vredespaleis-in-dutch-which-104165268.html
>
> Those are short linear hedges, about 1/2 meter wide, around a garden
> flower bed. It is not a solid area of hedge, so area=yes is
> misleading.
>
> There are also some thin, 1 to 2 meter wide linear hedges along some
> roads to the north of this palace, eg:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291963185
>
> The current rendering looks the same as before for these at z16 to
> z18, since they are too narrow to see any gap between the lines:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291963185#map=18/52.10004/4.29410.
>
> At z19 a small gap between the lines is just visible:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.10017/4.29383 - So there is
> little advantage from mapping this feature as an area for rendering
> maps at most zoom levels, though it might make a visible difference at
> z20 and higher. Using the `width=` tag would be a reasonable
> alternative.
>
> Overall, even in South Holland it is rare to map hedges as an area
> instead of as a linear feature, and there are a number of hedges
> mapped as areas which lack area=yes, and some hedges with `area=yes`
> that are not actually area features.
>
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-08 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

I don't understand why mappers in Zeeland are considered less reliable
than those in South Holland? Isn't all of the Netherlands below sea
level, consisting entirely of polders and dykes? ;-) (Just joking... I
know there are hills some tens of meters above sea level...)

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QyU - hedge ways in South Holland (1011)
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QyT - hedge closed ways in South Holland
(137) - <14% of ways
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QyS - hedge closed ways with area=yes in
South Holland (91)

So in this case there is a 2:1 ratio of those with area=yes vs
without, unlike in Zeeland - but the total numbers for ways and closed
ways are both slightly lower than those for Zeeland (where there are
1179 ways, 146 closed).

I checked The Haag and Rotterdam, since it has been suggested that we
should look at mapping in towns and cities.

There are 3 places with area=yes hedges in Rotterdam. One is here,
where several plantings of bushes(?) spell out "ROTTERDAM" next to a
highway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/325978680#map=19/51.91438/4.53259
- note that the multipolygon hedges like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4550190 do not have area=yes. I
think it is a stretch to use "barrier=hedge" for a purely ornamental,
low-height planting like this.

The other place with more than one hedge is in this cemetery.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/550331809#map=19/51.87471/4.50668

In The Haag the main place was these hedge areas by the Vredespaleis
("Peace Palace"?): eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/665101476

But they are tagged area=yes + barrier=hedge, even though they look like this:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-beautiful-garden-of-the-peace-palace-or-vredespaleis-in-dutch-which-104165268.html

Those are short linear hedges, about 1/2 meter wide, around a garden
flower bed. It is not a solid area of hedge, so area=yes is
misleading.

There are also some thin, 1 to 2 meter wide linear hedges along some
roads to the north of this palace, eg:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291963185

The current rendering looks the same as before for these at z16 to
z18, since they are too narrow to see any gap between the lines:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291963185#map=18/52.10004/4.29410.

At z19 a small gap between the lines is just visible:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.10017/4.29383 - So there is
little advantage from mapping this feature as an area for rendering
maps at most zoom levels, though it might make a visible difference at
z20 and higher. Using the `width=` tag would be a reasonable
alternative.

Overall, even in South Holland it is rare to map hedges as an area
instead of as a linear feature, and there are a number of hedges
mapped as areas which lack area=yes, and some hedges with `area=yes`
that are not actually area features.

67 matches

Mail list logo