Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 17 July 2018 at 08:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I think the area cannot be used for logging.
>

 No, I agree that it can't be used for logging at the moment, & seeing that
the Club has been there for 40+ years, it is extremely unlikely to be
returned to a logging area in the future! :-) (Although there is nothing
stopping the Forestry Commission from cancelling their lease & replanting
the area :-()

There is a saw mill in the Tumut NSW Australia area (Batlow IIRC?) operated
> by the Forestry Commission, designated as a state forest .. yet it is
> correctly tagged as land use industrial in OSM. I would think the same
> applies to the golf course
>

Do you know if it's mapped as a multipolygon, as Paul suggested?


> it could be out of date, what ever the case what is on the ground should
> override any other source of information.
>

It could well be, however one of the notes for changes to the SF boundary
from earlier this year says "using Protected areas of Queensland -
boundaries - gazetted to 27 April 2018.", so it would appear that the
official boundary is still correct. Wouldn't that mean that if I just
changed the SF boundary now by pushing it back behind the Club, the next
time somebody does a Protected Areas of Qld update, it would move the
boundary back to the official line, returning this area to SF?

>
> Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped in
> OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use.
> We simply cannot map them.
>

Guess we better not go there!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17. Lipiec 2018 00:36 od graemefi...@gmail.com :


>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>>>
 < matkoni...@tutanota.com  > wrote:
 > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for 
 > logging-related purposes

>
> But doesn't the wiki say that landuse=forest is for managed forests, intended 
> for logging purposes (or similar wording - can't open it ATM for some 
> reason?), which this entire area is?




 See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest 
 for full detail.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17. Lipiec 2018 00:46 od 61sundow...@gmail.com :

> Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be
> mapped in OSM ..




[citatation neeeded]


 

>  there are no tags available for this land use. 
> We simply cannot map them. 
>

 

landuse=logging is used 48k times and so far I heard no complaints about it

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16. Lipiec 2018 22:00 od kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


>  There is no widely
> accepted tag for "land that is used for forestry."



landuse=logging? 45k+ uses
Or start using landuse=forestry
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 17:47 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped in
> OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use.
> We simply cannot map them.
>

Well, this complicates things for the US, most national forests are for
this purpose.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-07-17 0:37 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick :

> On 16 July 2018 at 08:56, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>> Use a multipolygon relation.
>>
>
> Thanks Paul, I'll give that a go when I get a chance.
>


the multipolygon relation is needed if you have to exclude something from
the inside of something else (or if you want to create (additional) polygon
objects from ways). If there is a nature reserve with a lake, you would not
want to exclude the lake, but if the reserve is a tree covered area, you
would want to exclude the lake. In other words: multipolygons should not be
used to fix rendering issues, they are for fixing data issues. In the case
of a "state forest", it is almost safe to assume that landuse=forest is not
the tag for all the areas (because those nature reserves tend to include
several landuses, there will not be trees everywhere in a state forest, I
guess).

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 17/07/18 08:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On 17 July 2018 at 06:31, Alan Grant > wrote:


But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for
golf courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover
that may exist between the fairways and greens?


No, I mentioned it because the golf course in question is "built" 
entirely inside the boundaries of an area designated as "State 
Forest", which is intended for logging purposes, so it renders on OSM 
as a light green patch entirely covered by trees. Don't know what will 
happen if I then map tree rows, bunkers, water hazards & so on - guess 
we'll have a small patch of blue with trees in it as well?


I think the area cannot be used for logging. There is a saw mill in the 
Tumut NSW Australia area (Batlow IIRC?) operated by the Forestry 
Commission, designated as a state forest .. yet it is correctly tagged 
as land use industrial in OSM. I would think the same applies to the 
golf course - map what is there, not necessarily the official 
designation ... it could be out of date, what ever the case what is on 
the ground should override any other source of information.



On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>
wrote:
> landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for
area used for logging-related purposes


But doesn't the wiki say that landuse=forest is for managed forests, 
intended for logging purposes (or similar wording - can't open it ATM 
for some reason?), which this entire area is?


Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped 
in OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use.

We simply cannot map them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 16 July 2018 at 08:56, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
>>
> Use a multipolygon relation.
>

Thanks Paul, I'll give that a go when I get a chance.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 17 July 2018 at 06:31, Alan Grant  wrote:

> But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for golf
> courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover that may exist
> between the fairways and greens?
>

No, I mentioned it because the golf course in question is "built" entirely
inside the boundaries of an area designated as "State Forest", which is
intended for logging purposes, so it renders on OSM as a light green patch
entirely covered by trees. Don't know what will happen if I then map tree
rows, bunkers, water hazards & so on - guess we'll have a small patch of
blue with trees in it as well?


>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>>>  wrote:
>>> > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for
>>> logging-related purposes
>>>
>>
But doesn't the wiki say that landuse=forest is for managed forests,
intended for logging purposes (or similar wording - can't open it ATM for
some reason?), which this entire area is?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 17/07/18 06:31, Alan Grant wrote:
But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for golf 
courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover that may 
exist between the fairways and greens?


And those areas can and should be tagged natural=wood -it renders, it 
does not imply a land use, and 'natural' is taken as both natural and 
unnatural.




On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 22:21, Paul Allen > wrote:


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kevin Kenny
mailto:kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
> landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area
used for logging-related purposes

And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the
former.


As I recall (recollection may be flawed) the last go-round, the
following seemed to be the case:

1) landuse=forest was intended for forestry, but the value
(forest) was badly chosen.  Growing trees to be logged
is a use of the land.

2) landcover=trees wasn't currently rendered (my recollection may
be particularly bad on that).

3) Because landuse=forest is badly named (should have been
forestry) and therefore misleading, and because
landcover=trees isn't rendered, landuse=forest was being used for
two things.

4) Usual arguments about what constitutes a forest versus a wood
and other noise as the whole thread
degenerated.

My take on it: tag trees for logging purposes as landuse=forestry
(note spelling) and trees not for logging
purposes as landcover=trees or natural=wood as preferred (we can
have that argument another time). Then
change the wiki to say that landuse=forest is deprecated because
it gets misunderstood and misused, and point
to the alternatives.  Introducing two new tags that supersede an
existing tag used ambiguously is the only hope of
making this sort of thing work.

Landuse=forestry is less likely to be misused because "forestry"
means logging and because we'd have
landcover=trees (which might even constitute something named "XYZ
Forest".

None of this stands a chance of happening unless OSM Carto agrees
to implement landuse=forestry and
landcover=trees.  People don't use tags that don't render.  Well,
for small, specialized things they do, but for big
areas of trees they won't.  OSM Carto often won't implement new
tags because they're not used much; people don't
use new tags that don't render.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  What a
shame we don't have a forum like a mailing list where
we could all agree on sensible things to do and then they happen.

-- 
Paul


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Alan Grant]

But why do these discussions/controversies/ambiguities matter for golf
courses? Are we talking about how to tag areas of tree cover that may exist
between the fairways and greens?

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 22:21, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>>  wrote:
>> > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for
>> logging-related purposes
>>
>> And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
>> that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the former.
>>
>
> As I recall (recollection may be flawed) the last go-round, the following
> seemed to be the case:
>
> 1) landuse=forest was intended for forestry, but the value (forest) was
> badly chosen.  Growing trees to be logged
> is a use of the land.
>
> 2) landcover=trees wasn't currently rendered (my recollection may be
> particularly bad on that).
>
> 3) Because landuse=forest is badly named (should have been forestry) and
> therefore misleading, and because
> landcover=trees isn't rendered, landuse=forest was being used for two
> things.
>
> 4) Usual arguments about what constitutes a forest versus a wood and other
> noise as the whole thread
> degenerated.
>
> My take on it: tag trees for logging purposes as landuse=forestry (note
> spelling) and trees not for logging
> purposes as landcover=trees or natural=wood as preferred (we can have that
> argument another time).  Then
> change the wiki to say that landuse=forest is deprecated because it gets
> misunderstood and misused, and point
> to the alternatives.  Introducing two new tags that supersede an existing
> tag used ambiguously is the only hope of
> making this sort of thing work.
>
> Landuse=forestry is less likely to be misused because "forestry" means
> logging and because we'd have
> landcover=trees (which might even constitute something named "XYZ Forest".
>
> None of this stands a chance of happening unless OSM Carto agrees to
> implement landuse=forestry and
> landcover=trees.  People don't use tags that don't render.  Well, for
> small, specialized things they do, but for big
> areas of trees they won't.  OSM Carto often won't implement new tags
> because they're not used much; people don't
> use new tags that don't render.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  What a shame we
> don't have a forum like a mailing list where
> we could all agree on sensible things to do and then they happen.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Golf wiki page

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
> > landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for
> logging-related purposes
>
> And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
> that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the former.
>

As I recall (recollection may be flawed) the last go-round, the following
seemed to be the case:

1) landuse=forest was intended for forestry, but the value (forest) was
badly chosen.  Growing trees to be logged
is a use of the land.

2) landcover=trees wasn't currently rendered (my recollection may be
particularly bad on that).

3) Because landuse=forest is badly named (should have been forestry) and
therefore misleading, and because
landcover=trees isn't rendered, landuse=forest was being used for two
things.

4) Usual arguments about what constitutes a forest versus a wood and other
noise as the whole thread
degenerated.

My take on it: tag trees for logging purposes as landuse=forestry (note
spelling) and trees not for logging
purposes as landcover=trees or natural=wood as preferred (we can have that
argument another time).  Then
change the wiki to say that landuse=forest is deprecated because it gets
misunderstood and misused, and point
to the alternatives.  Introducing two new tags that supersede an existing
tag used ambiguously is the only hope of
making this sort of thing work.

Landuse=forestry is less likely to be misused because "forestry" means
logging and because we'd have
landcover=trees (which might even constitute something named "XYZ Forest".

None of this stands a chance of happening unless OSM Carto agrees to
implement landuse=forestry and
landcover=trees.  People don't use tags that don't render.  Well, for
small, specialized things they do, but for big
areas of trees they won't.  OSM Carto often won't implement new tags
because they're not used much; people don't
use new tags that don't render.  Rinse, wash, repeat.  What a shame we
don't have a forum like a mailing list where
we could all agree on sensible things to do and then they happen.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for 
> logging-related purposes

And we will keep having this discussion as long as there is no tag
that denotes the latter that doesn't get repurposed for the former.
There are at least three ways to tag "this area is tree-covered:"
landuse=forest, natural=wood and landcover=trees. There is no widely
accepted tag for "land that is used for forestry." In the most recent
go-around, I even heard some users claiming that having such a tag is
undesirable, because ill-informed mappers will simply repurpose it
into a fourth tag meaning "land covered by trees." (That made my head
spin. I can't have a tag that means what I want to say because OTHERS
will misuse it?)

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16. Lipiec 2018 00:32 od graemefi...@gmail.com :


>  built within the boundaries of a designated State Forest, intended for 
> logging purposes, so it > is>  landuse=forest as far as OSM is concerned, but 
> it is also leisure=golf_course!




landuse=forest in OSM is for tree-covered area, not for area used for 
logging-related purposes

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 01:43:55PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I have just come across a new mapper trying to map a golf course.
> Fine, but they can do with some guidance.
> Looking around for such guidance I came across this wiki page,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_2013

And it contradicts Best mapping practices by encouraging name tag abuse.

I have seen some Golf courses and all of them have heavy name tag abuse
for descriptions. 

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 16/07/18 08:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Watching this with interest as, just the other day, while on holidays, 
I was looking at a golf club that is apparently built within the 
boundaries of a designated State Forest, intended for logging 
purposes, so it /is/ landuse=forest as far as OSM is concerned, but it 
is also leisure=golf_course!


Makes as interesting one, as in this case, mapping correctly shows the 
wrong rendered result, as it shows that this area is covered by trees, 
when it is in fact a golf club, with normal tees, fairways, greens etc.


I have no idea as to the legal ownership of the ground - it is quite 
possible that the ground is still Govt owned, designated as State 
Forest, but leased to the Golf Club on an on-going basis, but with the 
possibility that, one day, the Govt could take it back & plant pine 
trees across the area.(Which may sound far-fetched, but is perfectly 
possible, although unlikely)


Yes. there is a mountain bike club using forestry land that I came 
across too .. mumm .. I'd change the golf cub area to golf club as that 
is what is on the ground .. but add a tag ownership=forestry commission 
? I have left the MTB thing alone .. nothing very visible.


But, going back to golf courses, how do you number the fairways? "1" 
or "1st"?; & marked on the tee / fairway / green / all 3 / don't?


Looks to me like it is marked on the 'hole' .. 'golf=hole' is for the 
way between tee off to green pin ...
as suggested on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course .

That wiki page looks to have the best descriptions to me.


I think some tees and greens are used for multiple different holes so 
use the hole for the name etc is best in that situation.



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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:32 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Watching this with interest as, just the other day, while on holidays, I
> was looking at a golf club that is apparently built within the boundaries
> of a designated State Forest, intended for logging purposes, so it *is* 
> landuse=forest
> as far as OSM is concerned, but it is also leisure=golf_course!
>
> Makes as interesting one, as in this case, mapping correctly shows the
> wrong rendered result, as it shows that this area is covered by trees, when
> it is in fact a golf club, with normal tees, fairways, greens etc.
>

Use a multipolygon relation.

If you're using iD, select the forest, scroll the "edit feature" pane down
to all relations, click on the +, then click on new
relation.  Choose multipolygon.  It should let you set the role of the
forest to outer.  Note all the tags on the forest
(landuse=forest and whatever else) and add those tags to the multipolyon
then delete them from the forest itself (which is
now treated as a closed line, don't worry about that, it's all going to be
fine).  Now select the golf course, down to relations,
add it to whatever you called the forest multipolygon and set role to
inner.  That's all from memory as I was taking a break
from a complicated edit so can't run through all the steps to check.

You can't do it this way unless the golf course is inside the forest.  It
can have a partial common border but it must
be inside.  Two areas with a partial overlap won't work.

If you figure out how to do it from my incomplete explanation, you'll now
see the golf course rendered properly.  I know
this stuff does what you want because I've recently added lakes with
islands and forests with quarries and ponds.

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Watching this with interest as, just the other day, while on holidays, I
was looking at a golf club that is apparently built within the boundaries
of a designated State Forest, intended for logging purposes, so it
*is* landuse=forest
as far as OSM is concerned, but it is also leisure=golf_course!

Makes as interesting one, as in this case, mapping correctly shows the
wrong rendered result, as it shows that this area is covered by trees, when
it is in fact a golf club, with normal tees, fairways, greens etc.

I have no idea as to the legal ownership of the ground - it is quite
possible that the ground is still Govt owned, designated as State Forest,
but leased to the Golf Club on an on-going basis, but with the possibility
that, one day, the Govt could take it back & plant pine trees across the
area.(Which may sound far-fetched, but is perfectly possible, although
unlikely)

But, going back to golf courses, how do you number the fairways? "1" or
"1st"?; & marked on the tee / fairway / green / all 3 / don't?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 15/07/18 18:56, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018 18:41
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

Devils advocate hat firmly on.

But what is intended? Not the height of the grass .. but the
'smoothness and regularity' of the playing surface?

I use http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/ as an example again.
That golf course has no grown grass. They use sand and oil for the
greens. They use artificial grass on the tees.
The difference is the finish on the surfaces .. not the size of
gains of sand nor size of the rocks nor the height of the grass...

I have just finished tagging that golf course .. fairways have
surface=sand, colour=white; greens are surface=sand, colour=black.
Humm I don't remember what I have tagged tees as? Should be
colour=green, surface=artificial_grass and they should be square.
   .
I don't have the knowledge to tag the roughs, bunkers and some of
the tees there so it is just a rough start.

All of which is pretty much totally irrelevant.

What you need is
golf=green
golf=tee
golf=fairway
golf=bunker
golf=rough
...
for the appropriate areas.



I apologise for the simplification.

For the 'greens' I have closed ways with the tags

golf=green

colour=black

surface=sand

source=bing

for the fairways I have some simple closed ways and some multipolygon relations 
where there is an inner or are inners with the tags

golf=fairway

colour=white

surface=sand

source=bing

and so on.. The intention was to demonstrate that not all golf courses have 
grass, have 'greens' that have grass or are green in colour, etc.


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[osm.tagging]

> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 15 July 2018 18:41
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page
> 
> Devils advocate hat firmly on.
> 
> But what is intended? Not the height of the grass .. but the
> 'smoothness and regularity' of the playing surface?
> 
> I use http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/ as an example again.
> That golf course has no grown grass. They use sand and oil for the
> greens. They use artificial grass on the tees.
> The difference is the finish on the surfaces .. not the size of
> gains of sand nor size of the rocks nor the height of the grass...
> 
> I have just finished tagging that golf course .. fairways have
> surface=sand, colour=white; greens are surface=sand, colour=black.
> Humm I don't remember what I have tagged tees as? Should be
> colour=green, surface=artificial_grass and they should be square.
>   .
> I don't have the knowledge to tag the roughs, bunkers and some of
> the tees there so it is just a rough start.

All of which is pretty much totally irrelevant.

What you need is 
golf=green
golf=tee
golf=fairway
golf=bunker
golf=rough
...
for the appropriate areas.





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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 15/07/18 17:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 14. Jul 2018, at 09:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all.


because in golfing you don’t refer to grass by referring explicitly to 
different heights, you use specific types of vegetation and “treatment” and 
obstacles/features, like fairway, green, rough, bunker. It makes no sense (to 
me) to describe the features of a golf course in an abstract way if it is 
immediate and self explanatory to use duck tagging and precise terms. IMHO 
applying the terms of the domain you want to describe makes it both, easier for 
data consumers to understand what is intended, and for mappers to know which 
tags to apply (as long as the mappers are familiar with the domain).



Devils advocate hat firmly on.

But what is intended? Not the height of the grass .. but the 'smoothness and 
regularity' of the playing surface?

I use http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/ as an example again.
That golf course has no grown grass. They use sand and oil for the greens. They 
use artificial grass on the tees.
The difference is the finish on the surfaces .. not the size of gains of sand 
nor size of the rocks nor the height of the grass...

I have just finished tagging that golf course .. fairways have surface=sand, 
colour=white; greens are surface=sand, colour=black.
Humm I don't remember what I have tagged tees as? Should be colour=green, 
surface=artificial_grass and they should be square.
 .
I don't have the knowledge to tag the roughs, bunkers and some of the tees 
there so it is just a rough start.


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2018, at 09:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all.


because in golfing you don’t refer to grass by referring explicitly to 
different heights, you use specific types of vegetation and “treatment” and 
obstacles/features, like fairway, green, rough, bunker. It makes no sense (to 
me) to describe the features of a golf course in an abstract way if it is 
immediate and self explanatory to use duck tagging and precise terms. IMHO 
applying the terms of the domain you want to describe makes it both, easier for 
data consumers to understand what is intended, and for mappers to know which 
tags to apply (as long as the mappers are familiar with the domain).

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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Mateusz Konieczny]

14. Lipiec 2018 05:43 od 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> I think it can do with a major rewrite, or
> should I just make a new page ? HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_v2 ?? :)
> Once done and people make their comments/changes then the original page can 
> have a redirection to the newer page?
> I think a new page would probably be better as a fresh approach can be had.
>




O would move useful content to proper pages, 


delete duplicated content, delete useless or wrong parts.




In the end turn into a redirect to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course 


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[osm.tagging]

Looks fine to me: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tks7yumfju0wz6q/1531564818315.jpg?dl=0

From: Yves  
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018 20:15
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

You should pay attention to the message format, the last one is unreadable. 



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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Yves]

You should pay attention to the message format, the last one is unreadable. 

Le 14 juillet 2018 10:57:07 GMT+02:00, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au a 
écrit :
>From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
>Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018 17:07
>To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page
>
> 
>
>On 14/07/18 15:11, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au
><mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au>  wrote:
>
>While page is not the best... you seem to misunderstand part of it.
> 
>The "level" reference doesn't have anything to do the level tag. Or any
>tag at all. It's just saying there are 3 levels of detail at which a
>golf course can be mapped.
>
>In which case a different word can be used .. like 'order'. 
> 
>I didn’t write the page. I’m just saying you misinterpreted the use of
>the word “level”. The term “level of detail” is pretty common and means
>exactly what whoever authored that page is talking about.
>
> 
>As for the "How short is the grass" section, while maybe not expressed
>in the best way, that looks generally correct to me.
>
>Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all. 
>
> 
> 
>golf=green or golf=tee_area has the shortest grass
>nobody seems to map golf=fringe or golf=apron, so these should probably
>go
>golf=fairway is slightly longer than the green, but still well
>maintained
>golf=mown is hardly used, can probably go
>golf=rough is the longer grass outside the fairway, it generally is
>still mowed, but noticeable longer
>natural=scrub is for areas that are generally not longer mowed, so you
>get very long grass, some shrubs, ...
>natural=wood, well, there are trees here
>landuse=forest has no meaningful difference to natural=wood in this
>context and can go.
> 
>Generally speaking, you have areas for green, tee and fairway (green
>and tee are NOT inside the fairway), surrounded by rough, surrounded by
>scrub and/or wood.
> 
>
>Grooming is used for piste and may possibly be applied here.
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:piste:grooming
> 
>Comment: not all golf courses have grass...  
>http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/
>where "greens are black and the fairways are white"
>So height of the grass cannot be used everywhere. 
> 
>Again, it’s not really about the “height of the grass”. Nobody cares
>about recording the “height of grass”. 
> 
>You have different areas with different meanings. Green and tee area.
>Fairway. Rough. (And yes, others, like bunkers [usually sand], and
>[usually water] hazards.) It’s just that for the probably 99% of golf
>courses that use grass, there is a direct correlation between these
>areas and the length of the grass. 
> 
>So for non-golfers (which includes me) the description of “If it’s very
>short and well maintained, it’s going to be a green or tee. If It’s
>slightly longer but still clearly mowed and maintained often, it’s a
>fairway. If it’s growing even longer, but still maintained grass, it’s
>rough. (And everything else is likely out of bounds)” Is probably
>easiest to understand.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[osm.tagging]

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018 17:07
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

 

On 14/07/18 15:11, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
<mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au>  wrote:

While page is not the best... you seem to misunderstand part of it.
 
The "level" reference doesn't have anything to do the level tag. Or any tag at 
all. It's just saying there are 3 levels of detail at which a golf course can 
be mapped.

In which case a different word can be used .. like 'order'. 
 
I didn’t write the page. I’m just saying you misinterpreted the use of the word 
“level”. The term “level of detail” is pretty common and means exactly what 
whoever authored that page is talking about.

 
As for the "How short is the grass" section, while maybe not expressed in the 
best way, that looks generally correct to me.

Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all. 

 
 
golf=green or golf=tee_area has the shortest grass
nobody seems to map golf=fringe or golf=apron, so these should probably go
golf=fairway is slightly longer than the green, but still well maintained
golf=mown is hardly used, can probably go
golf=rough is the longer grass outside the fairway, it generally is still 
mowed, but noticeable longer
natural=scrub is for areas that are generally not longer mowed, so you get very 
long grass, some shrubs, ...
natural=wood, well, there are trees here
landuse=forest has no meaningful difference to natural=wood in this context and 
can go.
 
Generally speaking, you have areas for green, tee and fairway (green and tee 
are NOT inside the fairway), surrounded by rough, surrounded by scrub and/or 
wood.
 

Grooming is used for piste and may possibly be applied here.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:piste:grooming
 
Comment: not all golf courses have grass...  
http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/
where "greens are black and the fairways are white"
So height of the grass cannot be used everywhere. 
 
Again, it’s not really about the “height of the grass”. Nobody cares about 
recording the “height of grass”. 
 
You have different areas with different meanings. Green and tee area. Fairway. 
Rough. (And yes, others, like bunkers [usually sand], and [usually water] 
hazards.) It’s just that for the probably 99% of golf courses that use grass, 
there is a direct correlation between these areas and the length of the grass. 
 
So for non-golfers (which includes me) the description of “If it’s very short 
and well maintained, it’s going to be a green or tee. If It’s slightly longer 
but still clearly mowed and maintained often, it’s a fairway. If it’s growing 
even longer, but still maintained grass, it’s rough. (And everything else is 
likely out of bounds)” Is probably easiest to understand.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

On 14/07/18 15:11, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:


While page is not the best... you seem to misunderstand part of it.

The "level" reference doesn't have anything to do the level tag. Or any tag at 
all. It's just saying there are 3 levels of detail at which a golf course can be mapped.


In which case a different word can be used .. like 'order'.



As for the "How short is the grass" section, while maybe not expressed in the 
best way, that looks generally correct to me.


Why not use height? already exists and is understandable by all.



golf=green or golf=tee_area has the shortest grass
nobody seems to map golf=fringe or golf=apron, so these should probably go
golf=fairway is slightly longer than the green, but still well maintained
golf=mown is hardly used, can probably go
golf=rough is the longer grass outside the fairway, it generally is still 
mowed, but noticeable longer
natural=scrub is for areas that are generally not longer mowed, so you get very 
long grass, some shrubs, ...
natural=wood, well, there are trees here
landuse=forest has no meaningful difference to natural=wood in this context and 
can go.

Generally speaking, you have areas for green, tee and fairway (green and tee 
are NOT inside the fairway), surrounded by rough, surrounded by scrub and/or 
wood.


Grooming is used for piste and may possibly be applied here.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:piste:grooming

Comment: not all golf courses have grass...
http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/
where "/greens are black and the fairways are white" /So height of the grass 
cannot be used everywhere.//


-Original Message-
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018 13:44
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

Subject: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

Hi

I have just come across a new mapper trying to map a golf course.
Fine, but they can do with some guidance.
Looking around for such guidance I came across this wiki page,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_2013

Looks to me .. well not the best.
The idea that the level tag should be used in that way .. umm as a
how to ? Err I'd vote no.
Remember this is for new people too.

The idea that the height of the grass should be tagged in that way ??
Again .. no.

The page does not link to the golf wiki pages.

I think it can do with a major rewrite, or should I just make a new
page ? HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_v2 ?? :) Once done and people make
their comments/changes then the original page can have a redirection
to the newer page?
I think a new page would probably be better as a fresh approach can
be had.

Thoughts?


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2018, at 07:11,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Generally speaking, you have areas for green, tee and fairway (green and tee 
> are NOT inside the fairway), surrounded by rough, surrounded by scrub and/or 
> wood.


plus typically sand and water


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

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

[osm.tagging]

While page is not the best... you seem to misunderstand part of it.

The "level" reference doesn't have anything to do the level tag. Or any tag at 
all. It's just saying there are 3 levels of detail at which a golf course can 
be mapped.

As for the "How short is the grass" section, while maybe not expressed in the 
best way, that looks generally correct to me.

golf=green or golf=tee_area has the shortest grass
nobody seems to map golf=fringe or golf=apron, so these should probably go
golf=fairway is slightly longer than the green, but still well maintained
golf=mown is hardly used, can probably go
golf=rough is the longer grass outside the fairway, it generally is still 
mowed, but noticeable longer
natural=scrub is for areas that are generally not longer mowed, so you get very 
long grass, some shrubs, ...
natural=wood, well, there are trees here
landuse=forest has no meaningful difference to natural=wood in this context and 
can go.

Generally speaking, you have areas for green, tee and fairway (green and tee 
are NOT inside the fairway), surrounded by rough, surrounded by scrub and/or 
wood.

> -Original Message-
> From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2018 13:44
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> Subject: [Tagging] Golf wiki page
> 
> Hi
> 
> I have just come across a new mapper trying to map a golf course.
> Fine, but they can do with some guidance.
> Looking around for such guidance I came across this wiki page,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_2013
> 
> Looks to me .. well not the best.
> The idea that the level tag should be used in that way .. umm as a
> how to ? Err I'd vote no.
> Remember this is for new people too.
> 
> The idea that the height of the grass should be tagged in that way ??
> Again .. no.
> 
> The page does not link to the golf wiki pages.
> 
> I think it can do with a major rewrite, or should I just make a new
> page ? HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_v2 ?? :) Once done and people make
> their comments/changes then the original page can have a redirection
> to the newer page?
> I think a new page would probably be better as a fresh approach can
> be had.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Golf wiki page

[Warin]

Hi

I have just come across a new mapper trying to map a golf course.
Fine, but they can do with some guidance.
Looking around for such guidance I came across this wiki page,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_2013

Looks to me .. well not the best.
The idea that the level tag should be used in that way .. umm as a how to ? Err 
I'd vote no.
Remember this is for new people too.

The idea that the height of the grass should be tagged in that way ?? Again .. 
no.

The page does not link to the golf wiki pages.

I think it can do with a major rewrite, or
should I just make a new page ? HOWTO_map_a_golf_course_v2 ?? :)
Once done and people make their comments/changes then the original page can 
have a redirection to the newer page?
I think a new page would probably be better as a fresh approach can be had.

Thoughts?


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