Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
> On 15. Aug 2020, at 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 15. Aug 2020, at 07:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > I do see these issues with adding sidewalks and cycle paths, where we have > > a similar choice between mapping as separate objects or as road property. > > it is often perceived as an either or choice, but there is no reason to not > do both. +1 for doing both. If the data is filtered, e.g. just road data extracted, data consumers will still get generic cycle track information which otherwise will be lost or demands for lots of data preprocessing, i.e. nearby-queries to supplement highway=* tags. (below info irrelevant to people in a hurry) Another benefit of this is that the partly redundant data can be used by validators to cross check either * "osm way has cycleway:left=track, but no geometry found nearby" or * "cycling track nearby highway with id #1234 found, but no cycleway:*=* tags present" A small downside is that people may argue that this violates "one feature, one osm element" principle, i.e. if the cycling infrastructure is perceived as an atomistic part of the highway as a whole. The variation count of different cycling structures (varying in track width, gap width to road, etc.) makes it hard to properly abstract these ground setups in a meaningful/just way. If we were to define that the separate geometry satisfies that "one osm element", then we should also define that the tags on the nearby highway, describing the same feature, are a) redundant, but encouraged and b) do not re-iterate _all_ tags of the feature, but merely a very basic extent. For example, we have smoothness=*, surface=*, traffic_sign=*, etc. If these were to be re-iterated all the time this can get quite messy considering cycleway:, cycleway:left, cycleway:right prefixes mentioned, yet potentially adding sidewalk: or footway: prefixes. IMHO, if a cycleway is mapped as a separate osm geometry, then there should be no more than the usual cycleway=, cycleway:left=, cycleway:right= tags on the highway=* nearby. I.e. surface tags and the like should not be re-iterated. There may be data-consumers dissatisfied with such recommendation, but a recommendation should seek to balance usability for data producers, consumers, re-searches and re-validators alike. The most vital feature in map rendering software may be coloring highway edges according to the presence of cycling infrastructure. For this use case it is totally sufficient to limit redundant info in the osm db to the three tags bespoken. More complex consumer use cases will need to preprocess/mine the separate osm geoms for cycleway tracks. Regards ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
Martin Koppenhoefer: > I think we can assume that a line of trees in the middle is sufficient to > make mappers use 2 highways instead of 1!? How can we distinguish between > the following sections > tree - road - tree - road - tree > and > tree - road - tree - tree - road - tree > and > tree - road - tree - significant “void“ space - tree - road - tree? > I would not make too much of it. The attribute gives the aspect of the road, not the actual feature with details. So, all cases: both roads look tree lined at both sides, so they get tree_lined=both. If the space is significant, better map it as a landuse feature. Sometimes a complete wildlife reserve can be found between road halves. Example: trees - road - trees - cycleway : the road gets tree_lined=both and the cycleway tree_lined=left (assuming forward direction of the way and righthand driving). ___ > 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] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:31, Peter Elderson wrote: > > a continuous line of evenly spaced trees at both sides, sometimes also in the > middle, sometimes double or triple rows at each side, often with a separately > lined cycleway and tree_lined ditches. thank you for bringing up middle rows, and double and triple rows. While these can be mapped as individual tree rows, it might also be interesting to have a scheme (similar to the lanes scheme) to add these layouts as an attribute. I think we can assume that a line of trees in the middle is sufficient to make mappers use 2 highways instead of 1!? How can we distinguish between the following sections tree - road - tree - road - tree and tree - road - tree - tree - road - tree and tree - road - tree - significant “void“ space - tree - road - tree? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
Nederland has an awful lot of ways, waterways, railways, rivers, parkings, churchyards, and other linear and area features which are lined with a row of trees. And if I say a row of trees, think of 10 Km almost straight with a continuous line of evenly spaced trees at both sides, sometimes also in the middle, sometimes double or triple rows at each side, often with a separately lined cycleway and tree_lined ditches. Even in the woods, roads often have a separate distinct tree lining, often between the road and the cycleways on both sides. As it is a distinctive and verifiable (by survey, by viewers and by satellite imagery) attribute of the road, it is worth mapping as secondary tag. The purpose varies and can be guessed but seldom verified, so best not try to define by purpose, just map what you see. Unlike cycleways and sidepaths along roads, no routing has to be done over a line of trees, but the attribute is nice to know for cyclists, hikers and motorists. One thing: we have tree rows in the middle of a road, not always combined with a side tree row. Maybe map that as a tree_row feature? About generic: I wouldn't call tree_lined a generic attribute. It specifically says the feature is lined by trees. Generic tagging IMO would be: lined=* where the value specifies which lining is used. If you want further specification of the tree_line details, I would suggest to use natural=tree_row and tag everything you wish to record about the trees. I don't really care if it's on a separate tree_line page. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 14 aug. 2020 om 01:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute > (used mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome > comments for it: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tree_lined > > > This used to be a redirect to natural=tree_row (which is a different tag, > as it is for a feature, not an attribute). > There are also already translations in > cs, de, es and uk (also redirects), which should be updated. > > Cheers Martin > > > sent from a phone > ___ > 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] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone >> On 15. Aug 2020, at 13:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: > I oppose such potential removal here is an example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways this is maybe not bad as a general overview, but then it duplicates significant part of the information from the individual pages, without being exhaustive though, hence contradicting sometimes the specific tag pages. In other words, people who want to inform themselves have to read more (because they will read the same thing multiple times) and will remain confused by the contradictions. The page is actually very poor, due to some severe errors, e.g. “ Motorways are sole roads that are tagged based on physical characteristics and tagged with highway=motorway and highway=motorway_link.” to me, this seems utterly nonsense, as motorways are legally defined (and also because there are other highway classes where the distinction is by physical characteristics, e.g. path vs. track). Also the following sentence hurts: “There is group of roads are tagged based on importance in road network” This is supposed to be the introduction to roads in OpenStreetMap, can there really be so many orthographic errors? What’s the image we are conveying, how much would you think you can rely on information that is presented with this level of care? Another example: “ highway=unclassified is a bit special here, given confusing name (it is not for roads that are not classified) and has no link variant” -> It does not say what unclassified is used for, only what it isn’t. Another example from the summary page: “ highway=path needs tags to designate what traffic is legally allowed or may be appropriate. Use access=*, bicycle=*, foot=* and other access tags.” This is actually wrong because path does not “need” other qualifying tags in general, and because the generic „access“ should not be added to a path typically. There is also no mention of „designated“ as value for bicycle or foot, so without reading the path page it is not helpful. Other problems are that it doesn’t make clear that the highway also represents sidewalks. For example the sentence “If only buses are allowed then access=no together with bus=yes would be appropriate.” is only true for a road or carriageway without sidewalks, because this will also prevent pedestrians from being routed over this way. I would prefer to give relevant information on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway which gives an overview as well, transfer otherwise missing stuff from the “Main Article” and delete these overviews, as apparently nobody is interested in keeping an eye on them against well meaning but ultimately defacing “improvements”. I could go on (or improve the page, which I have also just done, regarding bridges), but IMHO the problem is we have only limited capacities so we will have to concentrate our efforts. Having the information on less places is not bad, let’s start by removing these well meaning duplications ;-) Or make reviewed versions of these (thinking of them as introductions), and block them from general editing. Changes could still be applied, but would have to be discussed and approved before they went live (more a kind of git style), not for the wiki in general, but for these “Main articles” (and not instantly, but after we all have looked through the current state and removed at least the obvious errors ;-) ). Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 13:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I oppose such potential removal referring to which page? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
I oppose such potential removal 15 Aug 2020, 12:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Aug 2020, at 07:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> would suggest to create a single wiki page for tree-lined road mapping, so >> that we have one place where we describe the three different approaches for >> mapping them. >> > > > we have one place (the wiki) and the possible ways are linked between each > other. Setting up an additional page only creates more places to maintain and > which risk of getting out of sync. > I would rather propose the opposite, removing those generic pages for > features which aren’t feature definitions but collections of tags (e.g. > „speed limits“). > > > 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] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 07:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > would suggest to create a single wiki page for tree-lined road mapping, so > that we have one place where we describe the three different approaches for > mapping them. we have one place (the wiki) and the possible ways are linked between each other. Setting up an additional page only creates more places to maintain and which risk of getting out of sync. I would rather propose the opposite, removing those generic pages for features which aren’t feature definitions but collections of tags (e.g. „speed limits“). Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 07:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do see these issues with adding sidewalks and cycle paths, where we have a > similar choice between mapping as separate objects or as road property. it is often perceived as an either or choice, but there is no reason to not do both. Looking at the discussion here, I am thinking it might eventually be better to use a different tag for the property I have in mind, because “tree_lined” is very generic, while I am mostly after scenic, specifically planted trees, not incidentally occurring trees. Maybe a subtag tree_line=avenue would make sense? Osm history shows that every time where a generic word is used to tag a specific feature or property, the meaning of the tag becomes blurred after a while. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
I love tree-lined roads in the country side or in city settings. I would love a router that I could instruct to find them for me. For travelling by car and by bicycle. In past periods trees were part of the road. I like the idea of easily adding this feature to the map. But I also fear the maintenance requirements and hence quality issues this may generate. I do see these issues with adding sidewalks and cycle paths, where we have a similar choice between mapping as separate objects or as road property. Map maintenance is mostly limited by available manpower. A leisurely 30km bike ride with Mapillary images produces "data" for one week of JOSM sessions to convert the collected information in map data. Thanks for having read so far. I have no solution, but would suggest to create a single wiki page for tree-lined road mapping, so that we have one place where we describe the three different approaches for mapping them. And maybe we invent a work flow to extract those lovely tree-lined country roads from Mapillary's semantic AI efforts. When I was a boy I learned from my father, who loved travelling by car, that his secret was to follow those roads that had the green side bar on the Michelin 1:20 classic maps, which in my area often were roads built by Napoleon, and he always planted trees along the roads (not for cyclists, but for his troops). On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, 00:26 Christian Müller via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:33, Paul Allen via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org[mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org]> wrote: > > > Is there a serious need (other than, say, one person's dissertation) to > perform > > database queries to find objects that are tree-lined? I can see the > need to > > find the nearest car park with disabled spaces, or vehicle charging > points, but > > not for trees lining it. That's probably just me, but trees lining a > car park do > > not influence my choice of whether or not to use it. > > > It may be important to the crazy people that still use their bicycle > in an otherwise air-conditioned, motorized world. "Back in the days" > people with a less strange relation to mother nature knew that a tree > lined way has much more comfort cycling on if these trees spend shadow > on a sunny day. If you do long-distance cycling it may be of interest > to find a route not predominantly exposed to sheer sun. > > /rants on/ > Unfortunately, most people do not seem to care. Driving a car is > "god given" and if you say anything people go crazy. If you don't > own something that makes noise and pollutes the environment, di- > rectly by fumes or indirectly by production (the electro hype), > you're deemed impotent or low-performing. And anti-mobbing > courses are beyond the scope of OSM. :.p > /rants off/ > > > Greetings > > > ___ > 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] new page for tree_lined=*
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:33, Paul Allen via Tagging > mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org]> wrote: > Is there a serious need (other than, say, one person's dissertation) to > perform > database queries to find objects that are tree-lined? I can see the need to > find the nearest car park with disabled spaces, or vehicle charging points, > but > not for trees lining it. That's probably just me, but trees lining a car > park do > not influence my choice of whether or not to use it. It may be important to the crazy people that still use their bicycle in an otherwise air-conditioned, motorized world. "Back in the days" people with a less strange relation to mother nature knew that a tree lined way has much more comfort cycling on if these trees spend shadow on a sunny day. If you do long-distance cycling it may be of interest to find a route not predominantly exposed to sheer sun. /rants on/ Unfortunately, most people do not seem to care. Driving a car is "god given" and if you say anything people go crazy. If you don't own something that makes noise and pollutes the environment, di- rectly by fumes or indirectly by production (the electro hype), you're deemed impotent or low-performing. And anti-mobbing courses are beyond the scope of OSM. :.p /rants off/ Greetings ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 23:56, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'd almost think you were talking of the landscaping feature of private > gardens known as an avenue yes, think of these, but also on public roads (although they’re an ornamental feature and not just functional), basically these are landscape features, rhythm is important, it’s not just some trees scattered along a road > this is the case for most of the roads around here, but the trees are part > of the hedge. On private ground. You don't get to walk around the trunks > because of the hedge (or fence) between the trunks. See, for example, > https://goo.gl/maps/QKsezC9bqsea1twy9 and keep going in that direction. this is a hedge, or maybe natural=scrub, I would not use the tree_lined tag for these > They're not ornamental or even for shade, they're windbreaks yes, and to separate the street from the adjacent properties. Here are some images I had in mind: basically all of these: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=allee+toskana=images=images (note the German syntax ;-) ) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=allee+brandenburg=images=images=images I would have added more specific definitions like rhythm of trees, type of trees (usually the same or alternating), scenic intention, but as this is an existing tag it would have been useful to get feedback from those who have used the tag in the past, in order not to overload it with expectations which are not met by the actual usage. AFAIR, tree_lined was a compromise because allée is a French term and people couldn’t agree on the meaning of “avenue”. A part from real roads, these can also be found on private driveways, at least in Italy they are quite common in some regions. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 22:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > Trees at > the side of the road are an incidental. Fields at the side of the road > are an > incidental. Quaint houses at the side of the road are an incidental. > > > > no, the trees we are looking at are not incidental, they are part of the > road. They are a feature of the road, are on the land of the road. The > fields are beyond the road, they are on different grounds. > I start to suspect we're using different definitions of "road." Or different definitions of "tree-lined." Or different definitions of "tree." I'd almost think you were talking of the landscaping feature of private gardens known as an avenue (the word has been much debased in English, where it used to correspond to the French allée) but this discussion appears to have been about roads in general, not ornamental ways. > > They are so common as to be inescapable here. But not, I think of special > interest, perhaps because they are so common. Here it would be as silly > as insisting on tagging hedge-lined roads, because hedges are prettier than > fences. Maybe we should have fence-lined roads, too, because some fences > are pretty. > > > Fences and hedges also are on private ground (at least this is the typical > situation when the properties along the road have hedges or are fenced). > And this is the case for most of the roads around here, but the trees are part of the hedge. On private ground. You don't get to walk around the trunks because of the hedge (or fence) between the trunks. See, for example, https://goo.gl/maps/QKsezC9bqsea1twy9 and keep going in that direction. They're not ornamental or even for shade, they're windbreaks (or the farmers have been too lazy to trim their hedges for many decades). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > Trees at > the side of the road are an incidental. Fields at the side of the road are an > incidental. Quaint houses at the side of the road are an incidental. no, the trees we are looking at are not incidental, they are part of the road. They are a feature of the road, are on the land of the road. The fields are beyond the road, they are on different grounds. > >> There are even already specific maps that cater for them (I think I have >> seen one from the German automobile club ADAC), and here in Italy they are >> common. > > They are so common as to be inescapable here. But not, I think of special > interest, perhaps because they are so common. Here it would be as silly > as insisting on tagging hedge-lined roads, because hedges are prettier than > fences. Maybe we should have fence-lined roads, too, because some fences > are pretty. Fences and hedges also are on private ground (at least this is the typical situation when the properties along the road have hedges or are fenced). There are some notable exceptions, e.g. motorways and high speed train routes. In these cases there would indeed be room for a specific tag on the road or railway as well. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > I wouldn't use this attribute on anything around here. > > > that’s fine. Apparently this attribute wasn’t created for an area like > yours. Apparently not. Nobody said you should use it. There are other areas in the world where > these are common and seen as interesting features. Interesting, maybe. A property of the road? Not that I can see. Speed limit, number of lanes, surface and lighting are all properties of the road. Trees at the side of the road are an incidental. Fields at the side of the road are an incidental. Quaint houses at the side of the road are an incidental. > There are even already specific maps that cater for them (I think I have > seen one from the German automobile club ADAC), and here in Italy they are > common. They are so common as to be inescapable here. But not, I think of special interest, perhaps because they are so common. Here it would be as silly as insisting on tagging hedge-lined roads, because hedges are prettier than fences. Maybe we should have fence-lined roads, too, because some fences are pretty. > Many people love them because they provide shade and are perceived as > beautiful, but particularly in Germany they are also perceived as dangerous > sometimes, because young drunken drivers end their lifes on the tree trunks > saturday nights in the countryside. > Dangerous also, perhaps, because of leaves being shed in the autumn resulting in slippery road surfaces. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
Aug 14, 2020, 16:04 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even >> better? >> > > > vandalism > This is typically used for deliberately malicious actions. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On 2020-08-14 10:48 a.m., Paul Allen wrote: > > > 3) That, one day, routers might preferentially route along tree-lined > roads > rather than non-tree-lined roads, in the same way they preferentially > route > along lit roads. Do any route along lit roads? I can see that a > router which > offers walking routes might eventually prefer lit routes. > > Not only are there routers that prefer lit routes, there are already multiple routers that seek shade from things like trees (featured in the last weeklyOSM): http://k1z.blog.uni-heidelberg.de/2020/07/31/do-you-need-a-shady-route-because-it-is-too-hot-2/ - Justin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > I wouldn't use this attribute on anything around here. that’s fine. Apparently this attribute wasn’t created for an area like yours. Nobody said you should use it. There are other areas in the world where these are common and seen as interesting features. There are even already specific maps that cater for them (I think I have seen one from the German automobile club ADAC), and here in Italy they are common. Many people love them because they provide shade and are perceived as beautiful, but particularly in Germany they are also perceived as dangerous sometimes, because young drunken drivers end their lifes on the tree trunks saturday nights in the countryside. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? > > vandalism. It’s like suggesting removing the lit tag after street lamps > have been added. Or some landuse after buildings have been mapped. Or > removing the bridge attribute on roads after the bridge object has been > mapped as man_made=bridge. > You seem to be making a number of assumptions. 1) That "tree-lined" is a useful independent property of objects in the same way that "lit" is. I disagree. It is, at best, a trivial property. 2) That "tree-lined" (which requires a query tool to find) is more useful than a tree row for end users. I disagree. 3) That, one day, routers might preferentially route along tree-lined roads rather than non-tree-lined roads, in the same way they preferentially route along lit roads. Do any route along lit roads? I can see that a router which offers walking routes might eventually prefer lit routes. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > indeed I would not suggest to use this on polygons, rather for linear > features like roads and waterways. I’m specifically interested in roads > with associated, purposefully planted tree roads (shade, scenic effect). > Around here there are roads several miles long lined with trees. I've rarely mapped them unless there was a compelling reason, but adding this attribute to the road doesn't really help. There will be hundreds of metres that are tree-lined, then anywhere from 10 to hundreds of metres of ordinary hedge, then more trees. It can be trees on both sides, or one side, or alternating. I hope you get the idea. I don't think I've seen any stretch of road which is continuously lined with trees along its entire length. To use this attribute I'd have to put many splits in the way. I wouldn't use this attribute on anything around here. I wouldn't recommend that anybody else use it. In fact, I'd recommend they don't. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? vandalism. It’s like suggesting removing the lit tag after street lamps have been added. Or some landuse after buildings have been mapped. Or removing the bridge attribute on roads after the bridge object has been mapped as man_made=bridge. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > We are also mapping buildings and residential landuse and distinguishing > residential roads. or street lights and the lit property on roads. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:37, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Apart from that I would not advocate "overlapping" mapping with three > different schemes: individual trees a separate nodes, tree lines as separate > ways, and the new proposal. > On any given object there should never bee tree rows mapped in different ways. there isn’t overlap. It’s like mapping buildings and entrances. A tree row is a feature in its own right. The tree lined property is a road property. We are also mapping buildings and residential landuse and distinguishing residential roads. There is nothing special to this. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote: > > I still do not see a purpose for the attribute except as a convenient way > of avoiding mapping tree rows. routing. While it is not impossible to find tree lined roads by analyzing the context, it is an expensive calculation and will not typically be done by routing engines (also because they tend to discard things that aren’t POIs nor roads as one of the first steps). Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 13:13, Paul Allen wrote: > > What if the trees line only > three of four sides? Or there aresome sizable gaps for the entrances? indeed I would not suggest to use this on polygons, rather for linear features like roads and waterways. I’m specifically interested in roads with associated, purposefully planted tree roads (shade, scenic effect). If the trees get cut, and the mapping became inconsistent because of partial map maintenance, this could get detected automatically by QA tools (it isn’t something I would be specifically afraid of, errors can happen all the time, and when they are detected they will be fixed). Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? > Yes. But we all know that many people don't read the wiki, they just go by what the editor gives them. They see a tree row in aerial imagery, so they add it. They don't think to check all the nearby objects that might have been given a tree-lined attribute so they can remove it. So we can recommend removal of the attribute when actual tree rows are added but I wouldn't count on it happening. Better, I think, would be to recommend this attribute not be used. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
Aug 14, 2020, 14:35 by vosc...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 13:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped >> > > This would make it worse because you would have to add this to all objects > with tree lines already tagged with individual trees or tree lines. > Not adding that tag would be even better, my comment should not be considered as support for it. Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even better? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 08:34, Paul Allen wrote: > I still do not see a purpose for the attribute That's not what the discussion is about though. The attribute has already been used 1000 times so the wiki page is documenting the fact that others saw a purpose for it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 13:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately > mapped > This would make it worse because you would have to add this to all objects with tree lines already tagged with individual trees or tree lines. Apart from that I would not advocate "overlapping" mapping with three different schemes: individual trees a separate nodes, tree lines as separate ways, and the new proposal. On any given object there should never bee tree rows mapped in different ways. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately > mapped > What purpose does tree_lined=separate serve? Inspection of the map shows the object is tree-lined. I still do not see a purpose for the attribute except as a convenient way of avoiding mapping tree rows. But the tree rows themselves may not fully enclose the object whilst the tree_lined attribute implies they do. It is always better to map the tree rows, anyway. Is there a serious need (other than, say, one person's dissertation) to perform database queries to find objects that are tree-lined? I can see the need to find the nearest car park with disabled spaces, or vehicle charging points, but not for trees lining it. That's probably just me, but trees lining a car park do not influence my choice of whether or not to use it. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped Aug 14, 2020, 01:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute (used > mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome comments for > it: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tree_lined > > > This used to be a redirect to natural=tree_row (which is a different tag, as > it is for a feature, not an attribute). > There are also already translations in > cs, de, es and uk (also redirects), which should be updated. > > Cheers Martin > > > sent from a phone > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 11:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > as it is stated in the page, you should not do it. Having the individual > trees mapped does not change the property of the road as being tree lined. > Similarly, you can map individual trees within a tree row, but you do not > have to. > If that is the case, I don't see the purpose of this tag. If it's a case of one or the other then it serves a purpose: you can avoid tediously adding the tree rows and instead add the tree-lined property to save time. It seems pointless and redundant to permit both, and is likely to lead to data inconsistencies over time: trees get removed so the way tagged as a tree row is removed but the mapper doesn't notice the tree-lined property on the object. I'm also doubtful about the utility of the tag anyway. How close do the trees have to be for an object to be tree-lined? Exactly on the periphery/? Within a metre? Two metres? Ten metres? A kilometre? What if the trees line only three of four sides? Or there are sizable gaps for the entrances? -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 12:13, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Q: if I mark a road as tree_lined=both and later map all the individual > trees, do I remove the tree_lined=both tag as I now have finer detail? as it is stated in the page, you should not do it. Having the individual trees mapped does not change the property of the road as being tree lined. Similarly, you can map individual trees within a tree row, but you do not have to. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
Q: if I mark a road as tree_lined=both and later map all the individual trees, do I remove the tree_lined=both tag as I now have finer detail? On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:45 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 06:57, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area > can be tree lined. > > > I can also see this, but I’m not sure we should use this tag for it. > Placement on area (borders) will vary a lot, and it would make more sense > to require explicit trees compared to roads and waterways (IMHO) > > 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] new page for tree_lined=*
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 06:57, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area can > be tree lined. I can also see this, but I’m not sure we should use this tag for it. Placement on area (borders) will vary a lot, and it would make more sense to require explicit trees compared to roads and waterways (IMHO) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
On 8/13/20 23:55, Peter Elderson wrote: > I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area > can be tree lined. A node feature, not so much. For example, A parking area mapped as only a node for the center could still have this attribute. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*
I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area can be tree lined. A node feature, not so much. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 14 aug. 2020 om 01:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute > (used mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome > comments for it: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tree_lined > > > This used to be a redirect to natural=tree_row (which is a different tag, > as it is for a feature, not an attribute). > There are also already translations in > cs, de, es and uk (also redirects), which should be updated. > > Cheers Martin > > > sent from a phone > ___ > 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] new page for tree_lined=*
I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute (used mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome comments for it: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tree_lined This used to be a redirect to natural=tree_row (which is a different tag, as it is for a feature, not an attribute). There are also already translations in cs, de, es and uk (also redirects), which should be updated. Cheers Martin sent from a phone___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
