Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
2015-03-12 7:54 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: reference to the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the tag. and if someone changes the Wikipedia page, the definition for our tag will change as well? How likely is that? Not that somebody edits the page but that the definition would change in a material way? I believe the definitions for our tags should be in our wiki, and not in external sources which have different scope and are continuously changed. This is also about focus, i.e. stating what are the key properties that must be met. Wikipedia articles tend to get longer by the time, and I don't want mappers to be required to read long articles to get to know the meaning of a tag, or to have continuous minor changes to the meaning of a tag which might sum up to more substantial changes by the time, without actual mappers making those changes. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
On 11 March 2015 at 23:52, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 11.03.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: reference to the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the tag. and if someone changes the Wikipedia page, the definition for our tag will change as well? How likely is that? Not that somebody edits the page but that the definition would change in a material way? For me a city block is a city block is a city block, but I'm probably biased because I live in a city where street signs have the name of the city block on them and some old city blocks even have Wikipedia pages. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
Am 11.03.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: I object to admin_level=10 since http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:admin_level%3D10#11_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries most often uses that for place=neighbourhood but apart from that it looks very similar to what we want to model. I would rather chose admin_level=11 which is not documented - though it has 4355 occurrences I'd only use admin_level if this is really an administrative entity. place and admin are orthogonal. Place=plot is fine if these are really one plot, otherwise I'd go for place=block or city_block (the latter will look a bit silly in villages and hamlets) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
On 11/03/2015 17:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 11.03.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: I'd only use admin_level if this is really an administrative entity. place and admin are orthogonal. Yes, thanks for reminding that - let's keep admin_level out of the way of this discussion. Place=plot is fine if these are really one plot, otherwise I'd go for place=block or city_block Sounds reasonnable to me: place=city_block and/or place=neighborhood (as I guess there may be cases where a city block is larger than a neighborhood - so let's not force an unnecessary hierarchy) and then at the lowest level the place=plot. To people from francophone West Africa who might read this thread, the French translation for 'lot' is 'parcelle' - which may or may not be superposed to its administrative cousin, the 'parcelle cadastrale' which is the basis for the calculation of municipal taxes. ([city_block] will look a bit silly in villages and hamlets) I thought about that - but then I found that while a block is a synonym for a city block, it is also an administrative division of some South Asian countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_%28district_subdivision%29 Wow - looks like we are going to settle the place=block vs. place=city_block discussion too... Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_block says the block is divided into lots and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_lot says that 'lot' and 'plot' are synonymous... So, well - it all seems to hold together nicely. Or maybe I have a bad case of confirmation bias... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
Hi Jean-Marc, Thank you for your detailed input and review on this idea. It indeed looks to fit well within the existing scheme as a more refined urban territorial subdivision. place = city/town suburb neighbourhood city_block/block / plot The trouble is there is no definition yet of city_block/block / plot, only the current usage. But current usage could be quickly overwhelmed if anything is agreed upon, documented and heavily used. For reference: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/107 was rejected for rendering at openstreetmap-carto but maybe the case can be re-opened later. If there is a need. To Séverin, For your particular case with your students and considering your time frame I would say: IMO it is taggable, no need to avoid in OSM. Go ahead. My preference is either place=block or place=plot. Pick as you wish and set the trend. The hard work is the mapping, tags can be modified if consensus and documentation actually appear. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
On 11/03/2015 18:04, althio wrote: To Séverin, For your particular case with your students and considering your time frame I would say: IMO it is taggable, no need to avoid in OSM. Go ahead. My preference is either place=block or place=plot. Pick as you wish and set the trend. Why not use both ? The two illustration below illustrate quite well how the city_block is divided into plots: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/City_block.PNG http://i.imgur.com/jbIe1vB.png And it will be a great pedagogical opportunity to explain that not every tag is rendered by the demo rendering openstreetmap.org but that it is nevertheless useful to use it because other renderers or users in general will be able to use it anyway. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
W dniu 11.03.2015 18:04, althio napisał(a): It indeed looks to fit well within the existing scheme as a more refined urban territorial subdivision. place = city/town suburb neighbourhood city_block/block / plot Yet another two, to be complete: ... borough suburb quarter neighbourhood ... [ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Populated_settlements.2C_urban ] They are less popular kind of places, but for example in Warsaw we have official quarters' name on every house number plate. -- Piaseczno Miasto Wąskotorowe ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
On 11 March 2015 at 18:14, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 11/03/2015 18:04, althio wrote: To Séverin, For your particular case with your students and considering your time frame I would say: IMO it is taggable, no need to avoid in OSM. Go ahead. My preference is either place=block or place=plot. Pick as you wish and set the trend. Why not use both ? The two illustration below illustrate quite well how the city_block is divided into plots: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/City_block.PNG http://i.imgur.com/jbIe1vB.png Indeed both can be used and they are quite clearly defined. It mainly depends on how much details Séverin and the students want to put in the mapping. I think blocks because they are easier to explain, recognise and map. If one wants to map plots/lots, fine! Of course you can also add buildings and walls/fences. And it will be a great pedagogical opportunity to explain that not every tag is rendered by the demo rendering openstreetmap.org but that it is nevertheless useful to use it because other renderers or users in general will be able to use it anyway. Agreed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
On 11 March 2015 at 18:04, althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: The trouble is there is no definition yet of city_block Not so. When I added it to osm wiki I also put there a reference to the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the tag. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
I do not have the answer but I wanted to look towards place=* tagged as area. A few possibilities may include: place=block [taginfo ~1 200 as area] [no wiki] place=city_block [taginfo ~900 as area] [wiki documentation, mostly in Stockholm, Sweden] place=plot [taginfo ~900 as area] [no wiki] place=neighbourhood [taginfo ~7 000 as area] [wiki, requires name according to documentation] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
Am 11.03.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: reference to the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the tag. and if someone changes the Wikipedia page, the definition for our tag will change as well? cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks
On 11/03/2015 13:25, althio wrote: I do not have the answer but I wanted to look towards place=* tagged as area. I like that approach - it will let us position this entity within the existing frame of concentric urban territorial subdivisions. place=block [taginfo ~1 200 as area] [no wiki] place=city_block [taginfo ~900 as area] [wiki documentation, mostly in Stockholm, Sweden] Too big: looking at http://i.imgur.com/jbIe1vB.png shows that the city block encompasses eight to ten of the entities we seek to tag - numbers may of course vary worldwide, but the hierarchy will be the same. place=neighbourhood [taginfo ~7 000 as area] [wiki, requires name according to documentation] Too big - even more than the block since is a neighborhood might encompass several blocks. place=plot [taginfo ~900 as area] [no wiki] I like that one a lot - looks very promising to me ! And look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287224897 - it looks like UNHCR in Jordan follows the same line of thinking: addr:postcode=JORZARV06B10P10 admin_level=10 bid=B10 blocdesc=Block 10 boundary =administrative gid=271 name=Plot 10 pid=P10 place=plot refugee=yes vid=V06 vildesc=Village 6 I object to admin_level=10 since http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:admin_level%3D10#11_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries most often uses that for place=neighbourhood but apart from that it looks very similar to what we want to model. I would rather chose admin_level=11 which is not documented - though it has 4355 occurrences (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=admin_level%3D11) In the same reasoning I mentioned for not considering place=block and place=city_block, it has blocdesc=Block 10 (which incidentally has a strong smell of UNHCR proprietary tagging - someone tell them that place=block and place=city_block exist ?) Let's look at how it looks like on the ground: http://i.imgur.com/Ai2KgcB.png - it is in a refugee camp, but I'm convinced it is the same concept (and the way the Syrian conflict is going, come back in five years and it will look exactly the same as the Senegal example). Or look at Mama Muga's Plot in Kibera : http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/612007108 - definitely the concept we have been discussing, mapped as place=plot As a bonus, it has some degree of kinship with the concept of 'cadastral plot' which is its more administrative cousin. Color me convinced - place=plot has my vote ! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
