Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-08 11:44 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss : > We could use a single polygon per terminal tagged as in the proposal >> (similar to other landuse types) if we need to go in detail. If needed >> using also multiple values (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon) >> > > If you read the page you will see that it pretty much says: DON'T USE > SEMI-COLONS UNLESS THERE IS NOT OTHER OPTION. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon#Better_alternatives > Would for example work here. > Hi Andreas, thanks, I added a notice under Tagging section ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dport#Multiple_values_handling ) As general reminder, there's a week left to vote the proposals https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dport https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intermodal_Terminal Regards, Stefano > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
We could use a single polygon per terminal tagged as in the proposal (similar to other landuse types) if we need to go in detail. If needed using also multiple values (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon) If you read the page you will see that it pretty much says: DON'T USE SEMI-COLONS UNLESS THERE IS NOT OTHER OPTION. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon#Better_alternatives Would for example work here. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-08 9:37 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > Most ports handle many different types of cargoes, so a single value is > insufficient. It would be better to tag the individual terminal objects > within a port with a type rather than assign a type to the port object. > > > We could use a single polygon per terminal tagged as in the proposal (similar to other landuse types) if we need to go in detail. If needed using also multiple values (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon) > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
Most ports handle many different types of cargoes, so a single value is insufficient. It would be better to tag the individual terminal objects within a port with a type rather than assign a type to the port object. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
Dear all, I edited the two proposals as required. Regarding the intermodal_terminal, I added a definition and some pictures. Considering the port proposal, I made more extensive changes to make it more similar to other tags, as suggested by Martin. Mainly the idea is to have categories in the port key (with a bonus port=cargo and removing the -unuseful?- values and the one already defined), then specifying in case of port=cargo the cargo handled (container terminals become landuse=port, port=cargo, cargo=container). Issues pending to be discussed: - Martin suggested to use man_made instead of landuse; - port:type is working as it is? (here I added that the value seaport is implicit, but the other are needed when necessary) - clarify the distinction in the difference with harbour. Let me know! Best regards, Stefano ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-07 17:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2014-07-07 17:21 GMT+02:00 sabas88 : > > As I explained in the talk page previously, I would like to stay with roro >> as a value, because it's more common in the usage. > > > > I still believe you should expand this. It might be more common for > specialists to use the abbreviation, but in OSM most mappers won't be naval > specialists and will have no clue what "roro" is about. It is a common > requirement for osm tags to be explicit and to avoid abbreviations. > > A little survey with other mappers came up with alternatives to your proposal: - roll_on-roll_off - ROFTL Less characters like underscores and hyphens please (see sub(.*)station proposal).. :-) Also, for a non-"naval specialist" I believe that ferry and roro it's interchangeable.. 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-07 17:21 GMT+02:00 sabas88 : > As I explained in the talk page previously, I would like to stay with roro > as a value, because it's more common in the usage. I still believe you should expand this. It might be more common for specialists to use the abbreviation, but in OSM most mappers won't be naval specialists and will have no clue what "roro" is about. It is a common requirement for osm tags to be explicit and to avoid abbreviations. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-07 17:09 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2014-07-05 14:02 GMT+02:00 sabas88 : > > >> For port proposal and voting page see >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dport >> >> > > In this case there is hardly a definition, it is "hidden" under a > "differences between harbour and port" but there is no clear definition and > description how to structure such a facility in OSM. Please also consider > extending the abbreviations like "roro" (roll-on_roll-off), "bulk" > (bulk_terminal), etc. > As I explained in the talk page previously, I would like to stay with roro as a value, because it's more common in the usage. Adding _terminal on some terms seem legit (container and bulk), but what about restricting the proposal to the values truly related to terminals instead of copying the IHO definition? (so we remove straddle_carrier and such) > > I am not sure that "port" is nice as landuse value (it is quite specific, > even more when adding the subtag "port:category"), I would rather see these > as man_made values. > > Usage of two classification systems (port:type and port:category), both > with generic names, might also lead to confusion. I'd try to be more > specific with the tag-denominators, e.g. the "port:category" (if I got it > right you are proposing to split the port into several smaller areas, each > with the tags landuse=port and port:category=* ?) could become distinct > man_made (or amenity) tags like man_made=quarantine_station rather than > landuse=port and port:category=quarantine. > > > >> For intermodal terminal proposal and voting page see >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intermodal_Terminal >> > > > > There is not definition whatsoever on this page, only a "rationale" and > two links to external sites ( > >- http://www.intermodal-terminals.eu/content/e15/index_eng.html >- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport > > ) > > Links to external sites are bad as reference, because they might not be > stable/permanent, i.e. they might change, get restructured, split, etc. > Please copy the essence / relevant parts to your proposal so we have a > definition in our wiki what this is about. > Good point. > Please add a definition what this tag should be used for, and what are the > criteria for a intermodal terminal to be a such. > > > Same thing as before, I should add a description from those links. > cheers, > > Martin > > Thanks, Stefano > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-07 16:50 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss : > This proposal needs EXAMPLES, EXAMPLES and more EXAMPLES!!! > Hi Andreas, thanks for the email.. I will try to follow your suggestion :-) > > I would like to see some examples that show everything in one picture: > habour, ports, port authority boundary +names etc. Should also be of one > which highlighs the differences (so not one with just 1 port and where > port=habour) I'm happy if this is just a screenshot with some MS Paint > (such a image will be needed for the Wiki Page later anyway) > Okay, seems legit. >From previous email I am wondering if my way is correct (I am using landuse=port to identify single "terminals", and distinguish them with category). > > That table needs clean up. At lof of things make no sense as port > (Syncrolift) others bascially mean the same (Ferry/Passenger). > It is also missing things: http://goo.gl/pw5K0P, http://goo.gl/Xj7DIt I basically followed the category from IHO to stay if possible coherent with OpenSeaMap. Could you link where you've taken these lists? These features seem partially already defined in OSM (marina, dock) > > > You also have to decide if you want main and sub categories. Like traiding > or cargo port and container or bulk. Then you might want to use > cargo:containers=yes instead of port:category=containers. Or you may want > to put some of that information into the harbour or terminals. > Uhm, could you please clarify this point? Thanks, Stefano > __ > openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 > wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 > > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-05 14:02 GMT+02:00 sabas88 : > > For port proposal and voting page see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dport > > In this case there is hardly a definition, it is "hidden" under a "differences between harbour and port" but there is no clear definition and description how to structure such a facility in OSM. Please also consider extending the abbreviations like "roro" (roll-on_roll-off), "bulk" (bulk_terminal), etc. I am not sure that "port" is nice as landuse value (it is quite specific, even more when adding the subtag "port:category"), I would rather see these as man_made values. Usage of two classification systems (port:type and port:category), both with generic names, might also lead to confusion. I'd try to be more specific with the tag-denominators, e.g. the "port:category" (if I got it right you are proposing to split the port into several smaller areas, each with the tags landuse=port and port:category=* ?) could become distinct man_made (or amenity) tags like man_made=quarantine_station rather than landuse=port and port:category=quarantine. > For intermodal terminal proposal and voting page see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intermodal_Terminal > There is not definition whatsoever on this page, only a "rationale" and two links to external sites ( - http://www.intermodal-terminals.eu/content/e15/index_eng.html - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport ) Links to external sites are bad as reference, because they might not be stable/permanent, i.e. they might change, get restructured, split, etc. Please copy the essence / relevant parts to your proposal so we have a definition in our wiki what this is about. Please add a definition what this tag should be used for, and what are the criteria for a intermodal terminal to be a such. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
This proposal needs EXAMPLES, EXAMPLES and more EXAMPLES!!! I would like to see some examples that show everything in one picture: habour, ports, port authority boundary +names etc. Should also be of one which highlighs the differences (so not one with just 1 port and where port=habour) I'm happy if this is just a screenshot with some MS Paint (such a image will be needed for the Wiki Page later anyway) That table needs clean up. At lof of things make no sense as port (Syncrolift) others bascially mean the same (Ferry/Passenger). It is also missing things: http://goo.gl/pw5K0P, http://goo.gl/Xj7DIt You also have to decide if you want main and sub categories. Like traiding or cargo port and container or bulk. Then you might want to use cargo:containers=yes instead of port:category=containers. Or you may want to put some of that information into the harbour or terminals. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
To be consistent with the IHO definitions, any use of the word "harbour" should be used for the area of sheltered water and not any land areas. Those land areas adjacent to the harbour water should be classified according to their function (terminal, wharf, etc.) Therefore the tag "landuse=harbour" on areas that do not include the water does not make sense. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-06 12:48 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > On 06/07/2014 10:45, sabas88 wrote: > >> Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate. >> >> The important distinction is that a port is an administrative boundary > (which may have several disjunct areas) whereas harbours, terminals, docks, > wharves, basins, quays, etc. are physical features. Since those latter > features will be administered by the port authority, they should all be > within the port boundary(s). > > Take this example, it identifies a container terminal http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2952205#map=17/44.10635/9.85686 In this case the harbour tag should enclose La Spezia harbour. In Genoa, landuse=harbour has been placed to represent a division used by port authority (Sampierdarena West / East) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148700342 For area administered by the authority (so all the harbours / ports), I used a proper boundary from the official data http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2631548 It's correct my representation? Cheers, Stefano > > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
On 06/07/2014 10:45, sabas88 wrote: Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate. The important distinction is that a port is an administrative boundary (which may have several disjunct areas) whereas harbours, terminals, docks, wharves, basins, quays, etc. are physical features. Since those latter features will be administered by the port authority, they should all be within the port boundary(s). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > On 06/07/2014 08:24, nounours77 wrote: > >> => So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a >> "harbour". >> > In fact it is the other way round. A port my contain one or more harbours. > (In turn, a harbour may contain zero or more docks and a dock may contain > zero or more basins.) A port may also contain one or more terminals. In > smaller ports, the port and harbour may be co-incident, hence the ambiguity > between these terms. > > Thank you both for the comments. I based my proposal on IHO dictionary ( http://www.iho.int/iho_pubs/standard/S-32/S-32-eng.pdf ), seemed a bit strange to me also, but as I interpreted definition 3950 and 2184, harbour is meant as a geographical feature, whereas port is related to infrastructure, and per 3950 port is located in an harbour (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor ) Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate. > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
On 06/07/2014 08:24, nounours77 wrote: => So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a "harbour". In fact it is the other way round. A port my contain one or more harbours. (In turn, a harbour may contain zero or more docks and a dock may contain zero or more basins.) A port may also contain one or more terminals. In smaller ports, the port and harbour may be co-incident, hence the ambiguity between these terms. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
Dear Stefano, > Accepting the tag landuse=port would improve the detailed tagging of port > areas, for example to tell apart container terminals (easily > distinguishable from satellite imagery) from passenger terminals and so on. Thank you very much for your good strucutured and very detailed proposal. I think it's a good idea to clearly map the port infrastructures, and also to harmonize between OpenStreetmap and OpenSeaMap. What I just do not understand is the basic relation between "harbour" and "port". According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dharbour Port: An administrative area that encloses a harbour area, including the seaward approaches and all land facilities within its jurisdiction. Harbour: The sheltered waters within a port area. They are usually enclosed by moles, breakwaters, quays or natural land features. => So I would expect being "port" a big area around a smaller area which is "harbour". In your Proposal, you write: Harbour: A natural or artificially improved body of water providing protection for vessels, and generally anchorage and docking facilities. Port: A place provided with terminal and transfer facilities for loading and discharging cargo or passengers, usually located in a harbour. => So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a "harbour". I'm not sure yet which of the two makes more sense, is better to describe a harbour, or is closer to the general meaning of the terms. But I really would think it a pity to introduce such a fundamental contradiction in a new proposal. Any Suggestions??? Nounours77___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
Dear all, after almost six months from the original proposal, now I would like to ask you to vote these two new tags. Accepting the tag landuse=port would improve the detailed tagging of port areas, for example to tell apart container terminals (easily distinguishable from satellite imagery) from passenger terminals and so on. Alongside I ask you to vote the tag man_made=intermodal_terminal (areas where freight traffic is moved between different transport modes, for example from rail to trucks). For port proposal and voting page see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dport For intermodal terminal proposal and voting page see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intermodal_Terminal Voting is starting today, and it will end Saturday 19 July at 12pm GMT. Thanks and best regards, Stefano ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
