Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Tod Fitch]

> On Feb 6, 2020, at 10:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 7/2/20 3:47 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> > wrote:
>> Let say a hospital has collapsed.
>> 
>> The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag 
>> damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.
>> 
>> So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully functional 
>> hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from fully 
>> functional things.
>> 
>> 
>> How about rendering a nice, big red X overlaying the outline of the building 
>> when it's marked as disused! :-)
> 
> Not only buildings.. paths, roads, train stations/tracks shops,  etc. And not 
> only disused, abandoned, razed, etc...
> 
> Rendering is not easy.
> 

+1

Based on the little rendering that I’ve been doing, it seems to me that each 
and every feature may require different treatment when handling lifecycle 
tagging. I handle lifecycle tagging on buildings as there are a number of them 
along some of the trails I hike and they are distinct landmarks so I’d like 
them to be on my hiking focused maps. But my treatment of lifecycle tagging on 
buildings would not be suitable for rendering a ruined railway or highway 
bridge. I’ve yet to hike (and map) a trail that took me within sight of a 
ruined bridge so I haven’t thought about how it could be rendered in a manner 
appropriate to my general map style.

I think a strong argument can be made that the style used to generate the 
“standard” map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ should ignore ruins:* and, by 
extension, objects that also have “ruins=yes” tags. Though maybe it ought to 
treat disused:* and maybe abandoned:* as null prefixes (i.e. render the same as 
the equivalent *). But for maps where the state of a building or other feature 
is more important, like rendering for HOT, some effort should be made to 
support lifecycle prefixes on as many types of objects as possible.

Cheers,
Tod




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Warin]

On 7/2/20 3:47 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Let say a hospital has collapsed.

The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag
damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.

So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully
functional hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.


Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from
fully functional things.


How about rendering a nice, big red X overlaying the outline of the 
building when it's marked as disused! :-)



Not only buildings.. paths, roads, train stations/tracks shops, etc. And 
not only disused, abandoned, razed, etc...


Rendering is not easy.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let say a hospital has collapsed.
>
> The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag
> damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.
>
> So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully functional
> hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.
>
>
> Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from fully
> functional things.
>

How about rendering a nice, big red X overlaying the outline of the
building when it's marked as disused! :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Warin]

On 7/2/20 10:45 am, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey > wrote:



I disagree with the whole premise. To me both
building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes means exactly the
same thing and should be interpreted the same way.


But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a 
ruined

building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
assumption.

The choice of one tag over another above is base on one thing: does it 
render the way wanted.


Is the desired solution to have life cycle prefixes ignored by renders 
so a ruined thing is rendered the same as non ruined things?



Let say a hospital has collapsed.

The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag 
damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.


So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully functional 
hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.


You cannot now say that it should be tagged another way because it is a 
hospital, why would the rules change from one object to another?



Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from fully 
functional things.


Personally I don't mind that some things are not rendered by the 
standard map, there is a lot on it now. Keeping everyone happy is not 
possible.



And, by the way... I do know it does not render. And I don't care if it 
renders or not... I tag what I see as truth.




You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and
one to hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I
don't think has any place in OSM.


Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes + 
disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has 
additional
information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can 
and WILL

decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.



The tagging should not decide what is rendered. It is the render that 
decides what is rendered.



amenity=place_of_worship says there is an active place of worship here.

disused:amenity=place_of_worship says there is a non active place of 
worship here.


Where is the loss of information? None in the tagging. If you want the 
render to show a disused place of worship the same as an active place of 
worship then you could lie and usee the tag amenity=place_of_worship, 
thus sending anyone looking for an active place of worship to a disused 
place of worship.



As for using 2 features on the one OSM object, well to be pedantic then;

building=* should be on the building outline.

palces_of_worship should be on the area of the property if you have that 
information, otherwise on a node.






If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you
can't assume that will always be the case for all maps.


Some would regard it as a bug.  From comments made by the OSM standard
carto people here, I suspect they see it as a feature.



There are many thing not rendered by the OSM standard carto map. I still 
correctly tag them because it is what is there. Some people chose to tag 
their home as an embassy because they like the way it shows up on the 
map, it is called tagging for the render.


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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:28, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> General, all values of “building=“ have an intact roof.
>
> If the roof of a structure has collapsed, it would be misleading to use
> the key “building=“
>

Sorry, but a bit of an awkward definition, that one!

The entire roof has collapsed, 50%, the back corner still has a roof over
it?

Does a tarpaulin over the missing roof return it to being a building?

Is Notre Dame cathedral still a "building"?

& with regard to "ruins" - is there something visible on the ground? If
there is, even just a pile of rubble, it should be on the map, so that
someone walking past can look at the map & say "Aha, this pile of rubble
used to be Whatever".

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It is best to use ruins:building= because a ruin is not a building in the
usual sense or in how the tag “building” is used in Openstreetmap.

General, all values of “building=“ have an intact roof.

If the roof of a structure has collapsed, it would be misleading to use the
key “building=“

-Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:12 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:47, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
>>> ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
>>> the same way.
>>>
>>
>> But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a
>> ruined
>> building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
>> blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
>> assumption.
>>
>
> To be honest I don't really mind if it renders on the default renderer or
> not, I care what the data says. People can and do make their own maps, if I
> want a map to show ruined buildings to capture all the data at the moment
> you need to check for both those tags.
>
>
>>
>> You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and one to
>>> hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't think has
>>> any place in OSM.
>>>
>>
>> Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes +
>> disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
>> render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has
>> additional
>> information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can and
>> WILL
>> decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
>> presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
>> entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
>> tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.
>>
>
> Both mean there is an intact building there, in one case it's a place of
> worship that's closed down/not operating but still has some evidence on the
> ground that it's a place of worship. The other case, it says nothing about
> place_of_worship.
>
> Okay so I'll ask you a question then, on the ground what's the difference
> between building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes.
>
> In what on the ground situation would you have one render but the other
> one not render?
> ___
> 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] key damage and HOT

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 10:47, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
>> ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
>> the same way.
>>
>
> But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a ruined
> building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
> blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
> assumption.
>

To be honest I don't really mind if it renders on the default renderer or
not, I care what the data says. People can and do make their own maps, if I
want a map to show ruined buildings to capture all the data at the moment
you need to check for both those tags.


>
> You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and one to
>> hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't think has
>> any place in OSM.
>>
>
> Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes +
> disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
> render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has
> additional
> information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can and
> WILL
> decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
> presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
> entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
> tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.
>

Both mean there is an intact building there, in one case it's a place of
worship that's closed down/not operating but still has some evidence on the
ground that it's a place of worship. The other case, it says nothing about
place_of_worship.

Okay so I'll ask you a question then, on the ground what's the difference
between building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes.

In what on the ground situation would you have one render but the other one
not render?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>
> I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
> ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
> the same way.
>

But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a ruined
building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
assumption.

You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and one to
> hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't think has
> any place in OSM.
>

Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes +
disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has
additional
information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can and WILL
decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.

>
> If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you can't
> assume that will always be the case for all maps.
>

Some would regard it as a bug.  From comments made by the OSM standard
carto people here, I suspect they see it as a feature.

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 01:21, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 13:40, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> ruins:building=yes is not just tagging for other mappers, it's
>> accurately describing the feature on the ground, a ruined building. It's
>> not quite a building=yes, but not really nothing left on the ground, so
>> it's just part of the lifecycle.
>>
>
> Are you sure about that not being "just tagging for other mappers"?   Have
> you
> seen how ruins:building=yes renders?  Here's one I found using
> overpass-turbo:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701307813  Close the pane showing the
> tags and the nodes.  What happens to the building then?  It vanishes.
> Because
> ruins:building=yes DOES NOT RENDER.  So only mappers will ever know it's
> there.  Ordinary users, looking at the map, won't see it.  But the ruins
> are
> visible to anyone passing by.
>

> If you want a ruined building to render, because the ruins are a visible
> landmark,
> then you should use building=yes + ruins=yes.  Here's an abandoned church
>
that's in ruins: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/637904260
> The abandoned:amenity=place_of_worship prevents the religious icon
> from rendering; the ruins=yes do not prevent the building=yes from
> rendering.
> Is this sensible tagging?  See https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1923975
> and https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/CGN/Llechryd/HolyCross
>
> And that's why we need tags like ruins=yes as well as lifecycle prefixes.
> Because
> lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the tag they prefix, and that's
> sometimes
> exactly the right thing to do and sometimes exactly the wrong thing to do.
>

I disagree with the whole premise. To me both building=yes+ruins=yes and
ruins:building=yes means exactly the same thing and should be interpreted
the same way. You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map
and one to hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I don't
think has any place in OSM.

If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you can't
assume that will always be the case for all maps.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:12:17 +
Paul Allen  wrote:
 
> Lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the feature.  They are
> equivalent to deleting the feature tag and adding a note to the
> effect that the object is a disused .  Except that the word
> "disused" might not appear in the note and a synonym or
> circumlocution might be used instead.  Having
> disused:amenity=hospital allows database queries to pick out
> hospitals (used or disused), disused hospitals, or functioning
> hospitals.  Removing the amenity=hospital tag completely prevents the
> object appearing in queries for hospitals, or for disused hospitals.

Lifecycle prefixes don't prevent rendering, they prevent rendering *by
renderers that don't understand them*.  OsmAnd, for example,
understands the "abandoned:" prefix on roads just fine.  Knowing
that the trail fork you've come to is an abandoned logging road rather
than a hiking trail that hasn't yet had its spring cleaning is quite
useful.

(It might also understand "abandoned:" on other things, but I haven't
yet had a reason to use it.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 13:40, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> ruins:building=yes is not just tagging for other mappers, it's
> accurately describing the feature on the ground, a ruined building. It's
> not quite a building=yes, but not really nothing left on the ground, so
> it's just part of the lifecycle.
>

Are you sure about that not being "just tagging for other mappers"?   Have
you
seen how ruins:building=yes renders?  Here's one I found using
overpass-turbo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701307813  Close the pane showing the
tags and the nodes.  What happens to the building then?  It vanishes.
Because
ruins:building=yes DOES NOT RENDER.  So only mappers will ever know it's
there.  Ordinary users, looking at the map, won't see it.  But the ruins are
visible to anyone passing by.

If you want a ruined building to render, because the ruins are a visible
landmark,
then you should use building=yes + ruins=yes.  Here's an abandoned church
that's in ruins: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/637904260
The abandoned:amenity=place_of_worship prevents the religious icon
from rendering; the ruins=yes do not prevent the building=yes from
rendering.
Is this sensible tagging?  See https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1923975
and https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/CGN/Llechryd/HolyCross

And that's why we need tags like ruins=yes as well as lifecycle prefixes.
Because
lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the tag they prefix, and that's
sometimes
exactly the right thing to do and sometimes exactly the wrong thing to do.

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

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Andrew Harvey]

ruins:building=yes is not just tagging for other mappers, it's
accurately describing the feature on the ground, a ruined building. It's
not quite a building=yes, but not really nothing left on the ground, so
it's just part of the lifecycle.

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:23, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that the present use of the key damage=*, which has no
>> documentation, would better fit into the life cycle system.
>>
>
> If we need it to map damage all (I think we do) then we need both ways of
> doing
> it, for the same reasons discussed some weeks ago regarding disused=* and
> the disused: lifecycle.
>
> We need both because they have different effects.  They have different
> effects because we need those different effects.  I'll use "disused"
> rather than "damaged" below to make the point clearer.
>
> Lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the feature.  They are equivalent
> to
> deleting the feature tag and adding a note to the effect that the object is
> a disused .  Except that the word "disused" might not appear
> in the note and a synonym or circumlocution might be used instead.  Having
> disused:amenity=hospital allows database queries to pick out hospitals
> (used or disused), disused hospitals, or functioning hospitals.  Removing
> the amenity=hospital tag completely prevents the object appearing in
> queries for hospitals, or for disused hospitals.
>
> Having disused=* doesn't prevent rendering.  A disused water tower looks
> like a functional water tower and is (usually) a landmark used for
> navigation.  Again, database queries can pick out water towers, disused
> water towers and functioning water towers.
>
> Is having two ways of doing it tagging for the renderer?  No more than
> having
> amenity=hospital or removing amenity=hospital.  One renders the object
> as a hospital and the other does not: the mapper chooses based upon what
> the object is.  Objecting to a mapper being able to decide whether it
> is rendered as a hospital or not means objecting to being able to tag
> a POI in any meaningful way.
>
> Isn't it recording history and OSM doesn't do that?  It serves two
> purposes:
>
> 1) QA.  A formalized way of telling other mappers that no matter what the
> POI looks like in aerial imagery, street-level imagery or a drive-by, the
> object
> isn't what it appears to be.  A note could do that, but is opaque to
> database
> queries ("former hospital," "was a hospital," "no longer a hospital," etc.)
>
> 2) A formalized way of telling data consumers who query the POI that it
> isn't what it appears to be.  Don't hang around that church you spotted and
> wait for it to open up so you can have a look around, it's disused.
>
> Will all renderers honour those interpretations?  Probably most will.  It's
> easy to not render tags with lifecycle prefixes by simply ignoring them
> as being unknown.  It's easy to render tags with disused=* by ignoring
> "unknown" tags.  A renderer would need extra code and have to be
> somewhat perverse (IMO) to render tags with lifecycle prefixes or
> not render POIs with disused=*.  We can probably rely upon these
> behaviours for most renderers.
>
> There are two ways of doing it, and ithat's a good thing.
> --
> 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] key damage and HOT

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that the present use of the key damage=*, which has no
> documentation, would better fit into the life cycle system.
>

If we need it to map damage all (I think we do) then we need both ways of
doing
it, for the same reasons discussed some weeks ago regarding disused=* and
the disused: lifecycle.

We need both because they have different effects.  They have different
effects because we need those different effects.  I'll use "disused"
rather than "damaged" below to make the point clearer.

Lifecycle prefixes prevent rendering of the feature.  They are equivalent to
deleting the feature tag and adding a note to the effect that the object is
a disused .  Except that the word "disused" might not appear
in the note and a synonym or circumlocution might be used instead.  Having
disused:amenity=hospital allows database queries to pick out hospitals
(used or disused), disused hospitals, or functioning hospitals.  Removing
the amenity=hospital tag completely prevents the object appearing in
queries for hospitals, or for disused hospitals.

Having disused=* doesn't prevent rendering.  A disused water tower looks
like a functional water tower and is (usually) a landmark used for
navigation.  Again, database queries can pick out water towers, disused
water towers and functioning water towers.

Is having two ways of doing it tagging for the renderer?  No more than
having
amenity=hospital or removing amenity=hospital.  One renders the object
as a hospital and the other does not: the mapper chooses based upon what
the object is.  Objecting to a mapper being able to decide whether it
is rendered as a hospital or not means objecting to being able to tag
a POI in any meaningful way.

Isn't it recording history and OSM doesn't do that?  It serves two purposes:

1) QA.  A formalized way of telling other mappers that no matter what the
POI looks like in aerial imagery, street-level imagery or a drive-by, the
object
isn't what it appears to be.  A note could do that, but is opaque to
database
queries ("former hospital," "was a hospital," "no longer a hospital," etc.)

2) A formalized way of telling data consumers who query the POI that it
isn't what it appears to be.  Don't hang around that church you spotted and
wait for it to open up so you can have a look around, it's disused.

Will all renderers honour those interpretations?  Probably most will.  It's
easy to not render tags with lifecycle prefixes by simply ignoring them
as being unknown.  It's easy to render tags with disused=* by ignoring
"unknown" tags.  A renderer would need extra code and have to be
somewhat perverse (IMO) to render tags with lifecycle prefixes or
not render POIs with disused=*.  We can probably rely upon these
behaviours for most renderers.

There are two ways of doing it, and ithat's a good thing.
-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Warin]

Hi,

Some may remember I raised the issue of using damage:*=* as part of the 
life cycle tagging system.


I have been informed that HOT uses the key damage=* ... most of them on 
buildings.. and with values such as;


yes

no

minor

major

destroyed

complete

significant

minimal

..

It seems to me that the present use of the key damage=*, which has no 
documentation, would better fit into the life cycle system.

Further tag use can be found https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=damage

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