Re: [Tagging] Beaches
2010/4/12 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 12 April 2010 09:09, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Sand is not a necessary element of a beach in any case. In fact, the original meaning of 'beach' was: 'The loose water-worn pebbles of the sea-shore; shingle.' All this means is that sand is assumed, since natural=beach renders as a yellow colour. To be able to accurately tag beaches, natural=beach needs a sub-type to modify the default, surface=* might be a suitable option. +1 another one would be to generally introduce landcover and use this orthogonally to landuse. I personally think that surface could well be used for all kind of surfaces, be it roads, areas of all kind oder others. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 9:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see an overly compelling reason to change the existing tag, Me either. In my previous post I was actually trying to point out the problems with the landuse tag, rather than advocate it. I think natural=beach is fine to describe an area of sand that resembles a beach (regardless of whether humans have created it or use it), just as natural=water tends to be used to describe an area of water. however there are things like golf course bunkers that are sand but aren't a beach that probably shouldn't be tagged natural=beach like some people did in the past to make the bunkers render. Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is also sand in deserts, and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't part of a beach either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
2010/4/11 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. I was hoping for something a little more generic since you can also have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches, there is also sand in deserts, and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't part of a beach either. +1 even for jumping (sports) there are sand pitches, on playgrounds, ... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:18 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 April 2010 20:40, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Surely these should be tagged golf_course=bunker, or something. I was hoping for something a little more generic Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for roads/footpaths (although strangely it's also used for leisure=pitch's - seems the wiki needs updating). And landuse is perhaps problematic for the reasons I mentioned before (i.e. overlap with natural). Although, landuse=sand would be analogous to the current use of landuse=grass. you can also have beach volley ball areas that are no where near beaches leisure=pitch + sport=volleyball (or beach_volleyball, I would suggest) + surface=sand (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch) there is also sand in deserts, I'd suggest natural=desert (+ maybe surface=sand). Strangely abandoned old proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deserts and sand dunes that aren't desert but aren't part of a beach either. Surely natural=sand_dune ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 07:50, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for roads/footpaths (although strangely it's also used for Why does the surface tag have to be limited to roads/footpaths? leisure=pitch's - seems the wiki needs updating). And landuse is perhaps problematic for the reasons I mentioned before (i.e. overlap with natural). Although, landuse=sand would be analogous to the current use of landuse=grass. landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the ground eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil leisure=pitch + sport=volleyball (or beach_volleyball, I would suggest) + surface=sand (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch) You are contradicting what you said earlier about surface... I'd suggest natural=desert (+ maybe surface=sand). Strangely abandoned old proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deserts Seemed like a reasonable proposal, but I didn't check on usage. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 09:09, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Sand is not a necessary element of a beach in any case. In fact, the original meaning of 'beach' was: 'The loose water-worn pebbles of the sea-shore; shingle.' All this means is that sand is assumed, since natural=beach renders as a yellow colour. To be able to accurately tag beaches, natural=beach needs a sub-type to modify the default, surface=* might be a suitable option. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:04 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2010 07:50, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Suggestions? As is, you can't use surface because that's only for roads/footpaths (although strangely it's also used for Why does the surface tag have to be limited to roads/footpaths? It doesn't have to be in future. It's just what the wiki says at the moment. landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the ground eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) leisure=pitch + sport=volleyball (or beach_volleyball, I would suggest) + surface=sand (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch) You are contradicting what you said earlier about surface... Well, the wiki page for surface=* contradicts the wiki page for leisure=pitch. I think the latter is better. Anyway, the approach seems to be to 1) mark what the feature is, then 2) mark what the surface is, and if necessary 3) mark what the area is used for. So for the bunker, golf_course_obstacle=bunker (or whatever) + surface=sand sounds fine to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
It sounds to me like we're getting back to the old argument about the difference between land-use and land-cover. Unfortunately, tags for both have been lumped together into landuse=*, (as well as some natural, man-made etc) which is why the debate reoccurs so often. Sand is a cover, not a use. So are grass, rocks, pavement, trees, water, etc. It's common for a single landuse (eg a park) to have many different covers (eg some grass, some trees, a pond, a paved area, etc). It's also possible (though less common) for a single landcover area to have different uses - eg a single patch of grass near me is a park at one end and school grounds at the other, with no fence. We should be encouraging that any given area may have both a use type tag and a cover type tag. My personal opinion is that we should separate out the cover tags from landuse into some other tag (doesn't have to be landcover). Not because this is required, or it for easier searching, though they may be side benefits. Simply because having cover types in landuse confuses things. Stephen landuse=sand might be suitable for a sand mine, but the term landuse to me indicates what it's being used for, not what covers the ground eg landuse=residential etc has no relation to the top soil Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 14:20, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Good point. I assume you disagree with the use of landuse=grass, then? (which is listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse) It seems inconsistent with other landuses such as residential, industrial, commercial etc. Well, the wiki page for surface=* contradicts the wiki page for leisure=pitch. I think the latter is better. Someone updated the wiki on natural=beach in February to include a surface=* option. Anyway, the approach seems to be to 1) mark what the feature is, then 2) mark what the surface is, and if necessary 3) mark what the area is used for. So for the bunker, golf_course_obstacle=bunker (or whatever) + surface=sand sounds fine to me. I updated the ticket I submitted the other day for surface=sand to be rendered the same as natural=beach http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 12 April 2010 15:05, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: My personal opinion is that we should separate out the cover tags from landuse into some other tag (doesn't have to be landcover). Not because this is required, or it for easier searching, though they may be side benefits. Simply because having cover types in landuse confuses things. surface=* seems to be the logical tag to use for this, and is already widely used, and not just for highways/paths... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Friday 09 April 2010 09:03:03 John Smith wrote: Although that brings up another issue about how coastlines are legally defined as being at the mean low tide mark Actually this is completely irrelevant. In OSM the coastline is not defined that way. Please! There is no definition, if you want to define your beach/waterline as mapped in a specific tide then tag the waterline as such. I have a hard time believing that everyone that maps coastlines knows about this high/low tide definition. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
Cartinus wrote: On Thursday 08 April 2010 22:00:54 John Smith wrote: From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. This is not the case. Many lakes have beaches, either natural or even man made. Do not use this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note that the natural=coastline should ideally be positioned at the average high tide line, which may mean the beach is quite small or not mapped at all in fact. By this logic wouldn't the beach cover from the average high tide line to the average low tide line? No. The beach is above the high tide line. For everyone who has never seen the sea Commonly a sandy beach consists of a dry part with loose sand above the high tide line and a wet part with compact sand between the low and high tide lines. What the wiki is trying to say, is that you should map the dry part. You appear to have a limited view on what a beach is. On some (many?) high tide completely covers the sand/shingle etc yet is still considered a beach. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Saturday 10 April 2010 08:44:43 Erik Johansson wrote: On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: In OSM the coastline is not defined that way. Please! There is no definition, if you want to define your beach/waterline as mapped in a specific tide then tag the waterline as such. I have a hard time believing that everyone that maps coastlines knows about this high/low tide definition. Once upon a time there was a great push to complete the coastlines in OSM. A great many people put a lot of effort in it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#Tidal_position Ignorance is never an excuse. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
2010/4/9 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net: many towns in upstate NY have town beaches on local lakes. In Berlin we have beaches (Oststrand [1+2] ) at the river and even in the zoo ;-) [3] cheers, Martin btw.: what about tagging (and rendering) surface=sand ? IMHO the beaches-hack is not to be kept eternally... [1] http://www.strandbar-mitte.de/oststrand/bildergalerie.html [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.53425lon=13.38453zoom=17layers=B000FTF (that's not Oststrand but beach mitte) [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.50838lon=13.3392zoom=17layers=B000FTF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11 April 2010 00:18, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: btw.: what about tagging (and rendering) surface=sand ? IMHO the beaches-hack is not to be kept eternally... It doesn't look like anyone ever filed a bug about this, so I just added one: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer an John Details anzeigen 17:04 (Vor 0 Minuten) 2010/4/10 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: - Zitierten Text anzeigen - On 11 April 2010 00:18, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: btw.: what about tagging (and rendering) surface=sand ? IMHO the beaches-hack is not to be kept eternally... It doesn't look like anyone ever filed a bug about this, so I just added one: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 I see you filed this ticket for natural=sand. This doesn't literally apply to berlin beaches, as they are all man_made. That's why I suggested surface=sand (doesn't matter if it's natural or not). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11 April 2010 01:04, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I see you filed this ticket for natural=sand. This doesn't literally apply to berlin beaches, as they are all man_made. That's why I suggested surface=sand (doesn't matter if it's natural or not). I don't think it matters if it's a man made beach or not, natural=tree is used for planter boxes in the middle of the street, I'm pretty sure that isn't 100% natural :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:36 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it matters if it's a man made beach or not, natural=tree is used for planter boxes in the middle of the street, I'm pretty sure that isn't 100% natural :) Hmm. Yes, we also have natural=water whether it's natural or notBut this doesn't necessarily mean it's the best solution. surface=sand is also not the best solution, because surface=* is specifically for surface of roads/footpaths. The only alternative I see is landuse=beach, which I think would be ok, if there were a clear distinction between this and natural=beach. For a beach created by dumping a bunch of sand in the middle of a city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=beach. But in Australia sand, is frequently dumped on beaches bordering the sea, to top up the sand for the tourists. At what point would that change from natural=beach to landuse=beach? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11-4-2010 0:50, Roy Wallace wrote: city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=beach. But in Australia sand, is frequently dumped on beaches bordering the sea, to top up the sand for the tourists. At what point would that change from natural=beach to landuse=beach? Not just for tourists, but another major reason is for coastal protection. Really, we humans sculpt and mold large swaths of our environment. Why should the distinction between 'natural' and 'landuse' cause so much aggravation and discussion? Why are you even concerned that one area should be natural=beach because you think nobody ever touched it (tell that to the kid with a bucket and shovel), while another entirely similar looking area should be landuse=beach, just because it has been fortified and topped up? A beach is a beach is a beach. Agree on a tag and use it. Subtag away all you want, with surface, operator, note, what-have-you. -- Lennard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11 April 2010 08:50, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: The only alternative I see is landuse=beach, which I think would be ok, if there were a clear distinction between this and natural=beach. For a beach created by dumping a bunch of sand in the middle of a city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=beach. But in Australia sand, is frequently dumped on beaches bordering the sea, to top up the sand for the tourists. At what point would that change from natural=beach to landuse=beach? What about bunkers at golf courses? These aren't typically beaches... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010, Roy Wallace wrote: The only alternative I see is landuse=beach, which I think would be ok, if there were a clear distinction between this and natural=beach. For a beach created by dumping a bunch of sand in the middle of a city, to me, that's pretty clearly landuse=beach. Here is an exact example in Brisbane http://osm.org/go/ueD2RxDc1-- That one has been tagged natural=beach I guess we could dual tag some things until renderers were altered to cope. But in Australia sand, is frequently dumped on beaches bordering the sea, to top up the sand for the tourists. At what point would that change from natural=beach to landuse=beach? I wouldn't worry about that, the tourists don't. +1 for landuse=beach, providing that includes beach below high tide mark, and hoping that no person thinks that should be seause=beach ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11 April 2010 09:03, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: +1 for landuse=beach, providing that includes beach below high tide mark, and hoping that no person thinks that should be seause=beach I don't see an overly compelling reason to change the existing tag, however there are things like golf course bunkers that are sand but aren't a beach that probably shouldn't be tagged natural=beach like some people did in the past to make the bunkers render. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 11 April 2010 11:23, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Not wanting to hijack this thread onto another subject, but the general problem is using adjectives (natural) instead of nouns (landuse) for Most sand is the product of a natural process, rather than being created even if it's moved, just like all plants are natural in the sense that they weren't designed, even if they were placed where they grow now. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:03 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 April 2010 10:34, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: For everyone who has never seen the sea Seeing the sea isn't the problem, the sea is only a few blocks from here. Commonly a sandy beach consists of a dry part with loose sand above the high tide line and a wet part with compact sand between the low and high tide lines. What the wiki is trying to say, is that you should map the dry part. That isn't how I interpreted what the wiki says. Although that brings up another issue about how coastlines are legally defined as being at the mean low tide mark: This is for the determination of territorial waters and economic zones; on maps areas between low and high tide are usually not considered land, and as far as I know they are also counted as water area, not land area for determination of the area of countries and other entities. As an example, in the north of the Netherlands and the northeast of Germany there are some outlaying islands (the Wadden Islands), and the area between consists of flats of land falling dry at low tide with deeper 'flow lines' in between. On maps both of these are shown as sea. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Friday 09 April 2010 09:03:03 John Smith wrote: Although that brings up another issue about how coastlines are legally defined as being at the mean low tide mark Actually this is completely irrelevant. In OSM the coastline is not defined that way. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote in message news:201004090234.51222.carti...@xs4all.nl... For everyone who has never seen the sea Commonly a sandy beach consists of a dry part with loose sand above the high tide line and a wet part with compact sand between the low and high tide lines. What the wiki is trying to say, is that you should map the dry part. Which doesn't seem like a very good idea. Surely the whole beach should be mapped. -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, John Smith wrote: From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note that the natural=coastline should ideally be positioned at the average high tide line, which may mean the beach is quite small or not mapped at all in fact. By this logic wouldn't the beach cover from the average high tide line to the average low tide line? Which brings up the next issue, how to determine the average high and low tide lines from aerial imagery... Interesting that the wiki writer said that all beaches were on a coastline. Rivers here have beaches, and they have names like Town Beach (Tocumwal) Wagga Beach (Wagga Wagga). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
2010/4/8 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note that the natural=coastline should ideally be positioned at the average high tide line, which may mean the beach is quite small or not mapped at all in fact. By this logic wouldn't the beach cover from the average high tide line to the average low tide line? yes, but tides are IMHO off this logic. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Beaches
On 9 April 2010 08:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/4/8 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beach Beach areas should always meet with a natural=coastline way. Do not use this tag for patches of sand/gravel which are not by a coastline. Note that the natural=coastline should ideally be positioned at the average high tide line, which may mean the beach is quite small or not mapped at all in fact. By this logic wouldn't the beach cover from the average high tide line to the average low tide line? yes, but tides are IMHO off this logic. Where's the flaw specifically, since tides are specifically referenced in the wiki page. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
