Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am So., 11. Nov. 2018 um 22:54 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> I have to say I far prefer the editors in things like WordPress and
> Drupal.  View source means HTML
> source and the visual editors seem (to me) better designed.
>



I agree that in an attempt to simplify html editing by introducing a markup
language, it became more complicated, not less, at least if you are
familiar with html, because it means you have to learn another syntax (wiki
markup), and yet another one (markdown), and yet another one, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

11. Nov 2018 02:40 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :


> I've been a programmer in my earlier life so I'm not a newbie when it comes 
> to looking at and interpreting code but the markup language for the Wiki is, 
> IMHO, simply horrible. 




Yes, it can rival and win with assembler code in unreadableness. Especially on 
template-infested pages.


 

>  Someone once suggested I write up a Proposal for a tag I was thinking about. 
> No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than to try to learn how 
> that infernal formatting works.




For proposal it should be OK to write it in text  only form and start RfC with 
note




that you were unable to figure out wikisyntax.




I will not promise that but I am nearly certain that someone will fix the page 
at that point.




You may also use method of copy-pasting existing proposal and changing stuff 
element by element




(I am using this method).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 22:16, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> It's vile.  There are cheat sheets, but it's still vile.  However, there's
> also a visual editor.  Which
> isn't vile, but is somewhat sub-optimal (I usually end up editing the
> source despite it being vile).
>

Got a link to them, Paul?


>  I'm expressing how it seems to me (and at least one other person).
>

2 :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Richard]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 08:40:44AM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:

> Yes, the Wiki is far from perfect. That's a big reason we have these
> endless debates. But how should we go about fixing it? An additional issue
> for me is the difficulty of adding information to the Wiki. I've been a
> programmer in my earlier life so I'm not a newbie when it comes to looking
> at and interpreting code but the markup language for the Wiki is, IMHO,
> simply horrible.  Someone once suggested I write up a Proposal for a tag I
> was thinking about. No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than
> to try to learn how that infernal formatting works.

for entirely new stuff, you can write in any markup language that you know or 
libreoffice (ODT) and use pandoc (https://pandoc.org/) to convert to mediawiki.

You won't get the OSM specific templates but that is a smaller problem.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[marc marc]

Le 11. 11. 18 à 13:15, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:42 AM Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> I've been a programmer in my earlier life so I'm not a newbie when
>> it comes to looking at and interpreting code but the markup language
>> for the Wiki is, IMHO, simply horrible.
> 
> It's vile.  There are cheat sheets, but it's still vile.  However, 
> there's also a visual editor.


and also it is not mandatory to use markup to write a proposal.
it will be a bit surprising for a programmer not to succeed,
but a 100% text solution proposal is much better
than a 100% markup problem.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:42 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Mateusz,
>


> I've been a programmer in my earlier life so I'm not a newbie when it
> comes to looking at and interpreting code but the markup language for the
> Wiki is, IMHO, simply horrible.
>

It's vile.  There are cheat sheets, but it's still vile.  However, there's
also a visual editor.  Which
isn't vile, but is somewhat sub-optimal (I usually end up editing the
source despite it being vile).

However, if you can find a page (or pages) that are similar to what you
want to achieve, cutting
and pasting source can get you a lot of the way, with the cheat sheets for
the final tweaks.  Do
enough of it and you learn how to do the common stuff.

The mark-up language is unlikely to change.  Too much legacy stuff.  There
may be additions
in the form of kluges on top of kluges, but backwards-compatibility means
it will remain vile.

I expect a lot of responses from people telling me how wonderful the
mark-up language and
visual editor are.  But these things are somewhat subjective, so bear in
mind I'm expressing how
it seems to me (and at least one other person).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Mateusz,

The problem is how to get enough agreement and understanding to correct the
Wiki. You can see how difficult that would be when even the regular
contributors to the tagging list can't agree on what's correct. Imagine how
overwhelmed new mappers must feel when they work on their first relations.
Hell, until a few weeks ago, I tried never to get involved with any but the
simplest ones. I have created many riverbank multipolygons and grouped a
few geographic features, like the Groble ponds that began this thread, but
even those uses involved lots of back and forth among us.

Yes, the Wiki is far from perfect. That's a big reason we have these
endless debates. But how should we go about fixing it? An additional issue
for me is the difficulty of adding information to the Wiki. I've been a
programmer in my earlier life so I'm not a newbie when it comes to looking
at and interpreting code but the markup language for the Wiki is, IMHO,
simply horrible.  Someone once suggested I write up a Proposal for a tag I
was thinking about. No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than
to try to learn how that infernal formatting works.

Best,
Dave

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 3:21 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 8. Nov 2018 02:59 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
>
> Another part of the problem is the Wiki that we treat as our bible.
>
>
> I  am not sure whatever anyone present on this mailing list is doing this.
> In case that someone is doing it: remember that WIki is missing plenty of
> documentation
> and many parts are outdated or represent rather who was last editor rather
> than reality.
>
> Anyway, I encourage everybody to improve problematic pages.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8. Nov 2018 02:59 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :


> Another part of the problem is the Wiki that we treat as our bible. 

I  am not sure whatever anyone present on this mailing list is doing this.In 
case that someone is doing it: remember that WIki is missing plenty of 
documentationand many parts are outdated or represent rather who was last 
editor rather than reality.
Anyway, I encourage everybody to improve problematic pages.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Gerd Petermann]

I think it gets easier when you think of a relation as a data structure that
allows to combine links to other objects with tags. That's what it is,
nothing more. Only the tags give a hint about the meaning of this
combination, and one always has to bear in mind that different mappers might
see different meanings, not talking about simple errors.

This is also the explanation for the problems reg. the consumers and
editors. Without a general rule each type of relation needs a lot of code to
allow rendering and proper editing support. A relation type that is not
often used or that is used with unclear meaning is not likely to find a
supporting programmers.



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Martin said:
" tags on the way apply to the way, those on the relation to tag relation
as a whole. There is no general inheritance from the relation to its
members."

When I made my statement about inheritance I tried to choose my words
carefully. I said that those tags only _implicitly_ apply to all the ways
in the relation because it's certainly not obvious that they do, or might.
If a Wikidata tag appearing in the relation doesn't apply to every way,
that means it would have to appear on each and every way, which would be,
in my opinion, both illogical and needlessly redundant. However, if it does
apply, then what are we to make of Martin's claim that there is no general
inheritance? It makes no sense, from a software designer's perspective, to
create a data structure that behaves one way for certain objects and
differently for others and then not specify that behavior in some way for
all to see.

Kevin said:
" So -- a physical attribute (highway=*, surface=*, building=*, bridge=*,
whatever...) always goes on a physical object (a node, way, or
multipolygon). Relations other than multipolygons are not physical objects,
but conceptual groupings. They get the attributes that belong to the
groupings - name, operator, contact information, network, reference,
Wikipedia, website,  They do not get attributes of the physical objects
that compose them - those attributes belong to the objects and are not
generally understood to be inherited from the relation."

Sidestepping any talk about multipolygons for now, my contention that
rendering issues have influenced OSM mappers to apply tags to every way has
been supported many times in this long thread. In Kevin's most recent post,
he says, "Also, because of various issues with data modeling, 'ref=*' sort
of has to be there [on the ways], but that's a whole other discussion".
Indeed it is, but nevertheless, it's often problems with rendering that
motivate people to place tags on ways that rightfully belong only on the
relation.
Kevin goes on to say, Relations ... are not physical objects but conceptual
groupings. They get the attributes that belong to the grouings- name,
operator, Wikipedia, etc. They do not get the attributes of the physical
objects that compose them - those attributes belong to the objects and are
not generally understood to be inherited from the relation."

One of the things I'm trying to learn here is just how those rules and that
understanding came about.

Gerd wrote earlier in this thread about my (admitted) desire to use
relations to reduce data redundancy. He said: "The idea is not new and I
think there similar discussions before. I think one of the arguments
against it was that many editors are not able to handle relations good
enough, I fear this is still true. I think the same problem is on the
consumer side." I understand, but should those sorts of conseiderations
really influence how we use relations? If so, it's like the cart driving
the horse, so to speak. It's not a perfect world and my somewhat idealistic
approach to this whole problem may indeed be foolish but I still feel that
we mappers should be the driving force behind how we map things, not data
consumers or writers of editors.

IMO, part of the problem here, as I've said several times already, is the
poorly written Wiki that leaves us in a quandary when trying to reason out
the proper usage of relations. I'll bet nobody on this list can show me a
place in the Wiki where it says that relations can contain no tags that
refer to physical properties of objects. In fact, there's no explanation of
the data structure at all. (Or maybe there is and I just haven't found it
yet.) If someone can provide some evidence other than someone's opinion
that a relation should not contain any tags that are concerned with
physical characteristics of its member ways, I'll think to myself, that's
really short-sighted, but if it's the law, I'll accept it and move on.

Either way, I've learned a lot and will benefit from this discussion going
forward.

Dave



On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 5:39 AM Richard  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:26:49PM -0600, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > after reading the last comments in this thread I tried again to convince
> > Dave that the rather special rules for multipolygon relations cannot be
> used
> > for all types of relations, esp. not those with route=pipeline and that
> he
> > should not remove tags like man_made=pipeline from ways of such a
> relation,
> > see this long discussion:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64027881
> >
> > I give up now because for me a type=multipolygon relation is something
> > completely different and Dave insists that it is are not. Seems we are
> both
> > frustated now :-(
>
> my experience with waterways tells me that "essential tags" (like
> natural=water)
> allways belong to the members and not any encompassing relation such as
> relation:waterway.
> man_made=pipeline looks like on of those tags I 

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Richard]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 11:26:49PM -0600, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> after reading the last comments in this thread I tried again to convince
> Dave that the rather special rules for multipolygon relations cannot be used
> for all types of relations, esp. not those with route=pipeline and that he
> should not remove tags like man_made=pipeline from ways of such a relation,
> see this long discussion:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64027881
> 
> I give up now because for me a type=multipolygon relation is something
> completely different and Dave insists that it is are not. Seems we are both
> frustated now :-(

my experience with waterways tells me that "essential tags" (like natural=water)
allways belong to the members and not any encompassing relation such as 
relation:waterway.
man_made=pipeline looks like on of those tags I would always put on the members,
not the relation.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Also agreed.
> I'm not saying anything about the route tag. We're talking about tags
> other than route or type, which actually set up the relation. The
> additional tags that describe the route or multipolygon either go on the
> relation or the ways depending on their scope, but not both.
>

Rather than 'depending on their scope', depending on the object to which
they belong.

Your choice of 'operator' as an example is a good one.  Here's one where,
if I had chosen to tag operators, I'd have three different operators, one
for an underlying way and one for each of two relations.

First, there's the way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20165067 .
That's where 'highway=secondary surface=asphalt etc.' goes: on the physical
way. The routers and renderers depend on this. Also, because of various
issues with data modeling, 'ref=*' sort of has to be there, but that's a
whole other discussion.  If I were to put an operator=* on the way, I'd put
Schoharie County Highway Department. That's who plows the snow, paints the
lines and fixes the potholes.

Next, there's the road route relation:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/411906 . That's a road route.  It
gets "network", "ref", "symbol" and there's a Wikipedia entry for it.  If I
were to put an operator on it (I haven't) it would be "New York State
Department of Transportation." That's who established that numbered route,
and that's who allocates money for the county to maintain it, and that's
who establishes the standards for a third-class state reference route.

Finally, there's a piece of trail there.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6198493 (I know for certain that
it's mismapped, the on-road section is shorter than what's on the map, but
I haven't been able to make time to get up there and fix it, and that's not
the point! By the way, the guidebook is also wrong.) The trail is simply on
the paved shoulder of the road at that point. If I'd tagged the operator of
that route, it would be the New York/New Jersey Trail Conference. That's
whom to get in touch with if there's a problem with visibility of waymarks,
or a higher-level problem with the routing. (Which there definitely is,
that's a dangerous place to have the trail, and the operator is trying to
fix it, but negotiations with the landowners proceed at a snail's pace.)

For convenience, that relation is in turn part of a larger route relation
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 - this may be a mild abuse,
having a route as a member of a route, but the renderers such as Waymarked
Trails consume it happily.  This breakdown is done because the route is
highly fragmented, and having hundreds or thousands of ways in a single
route relation is pretty unmanageable. All of the member relations
duplicate the full tagging of the parent, so that if a data consumer cannot
handle hierarchical nesting of routes, everything will still work, and the
route will simply be 'Long Path (Schoharie County)' instead of 'Long Path'.

So -- a physical attribute (highway=*, surface=*, building=*, bridge=*,
whatever...) always goes on a physical object (a node, way, or
multipolygon). Relations other than multipolygons are not physical objects,
but conceptual groupings. They get the attributes that belong to the
groupings - name, operator, contact information, network, reference,
Wikipedia, website,  They do not get attributes of the physical objects
that compose them - those attributes belong to the objects and are not
generally understood to be inherited from the relation.

I think you you may have been confused because multipolygons are such a
powerful concept once you 'get it' - and physical tags on multipolygons are
Just Fine since multipolygons are physical objects. But multipolygons are a
special case among relations.  (The older scheme for tagging riverbanks is
another special case, but I consider it to be a legacy, and do not use it
for new mapping work.)

Specific types of relations may have further constraints. I can't speak to
public transport ones (since I don't map them). The only relations I use
are multipolygon, route (road, walking, hiking, horse, bicycle, ski,
snowmobile), boundary, and very occasionally a group (which I realize has
no recognized rendering but I don't know how else to tag the things). I do
waterways as multipolygons (one of several recognized ways to do them). I
don't do the networks for rail, power, or pipeline infrastructure - I map
the physical objects when I come across them in the field and consider them
significant landmarks, but don't try hard to tie them into the networks -
I'll leave that for someone else. I don't map complex traffic regulations
at all. For this reason, I can't speak to the specialized relations that
are used in these things, but I strongly suspect that they follow similar
rules of 'physical tags only on the physical objects and relations tagged
with only those attributes that conceptually 

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Nov 2018, at 02:59, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to every 
> member of the relation. It's not "visible" to us mappers but it's there 
> nonetheless


tags on the way apply to the way, those on the relation to tag relation as a 
whole. There is no general inheritance from the relation to its members.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Also agreed.
I'm not saying anything about the route tag. We're talking about tags other
than route or type, which actually set up the relation. The additional tags
that describe the route or multipolygon either go on the relation or the
ways depending on their scope, but not both.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:31 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> And route=foot does not mean al the components are footpaths.
>
> Op do 8 nov. 2018 om 11:05 schreef Andy Townsend :
>
>> On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> > To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to
>> > every member of the relation.
>>
>> No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or
>> it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may
>> also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the
>> footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

I totally agree, Andy. So yes, if someone has tagged the relation with an
operator and in reality, there are different operators (or none) for some
parts of the route, those parts should have tags to indicate the change.

My illustrative case involves a pipeline that (AFAIK) has only one operator
(oops, owner) so it's not the same situaiton. But don't hold me to
specifics. I'm trying to illustrate a point and my choice of tag and value
to do it may have been wrong. I just checked Wikipedia and the pipeline is
owned by the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company so please substitute owner
for operator just for the purposes of the illustration.

At any rate, using my reasoning, if an operator or owner tag doesn't apply
to the route as a whole, it should appear on the individual ways and not in
the relation. However, for the TAPS, such items as owner apply to the
entire route, just as do Wikidata and Wikipedia tags, substance, etc. IMO,
those tags belong on the relation and are not necessary on the individual
ways.

Best,
Dave




On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to
> > every member of the relation.
>
> No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or
> it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may
> also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the
> footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Peter Elderson]

And route=foot does not mean al the components are footpaths.

Op do 8 nov. 2018 om 11:05 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to
> > every member of the relation.
>
> No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or
> it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may
> also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the
> footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote:
To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to 
every member of the relation.


No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or 
it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may 
also run along a road for a short distance - it doesn't mean that the 
footpath "operator" is the "operator" of the road.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Yves,
" mapping a way is simpler than a relation for most."
I totally understand that. In fact, in the first of those references, the
opening statement is " Usually the pipeline is mapped just with simple
ways".I think that's a valid approach for short pipelines but this thing is
huge. Whoever created it used a relation for whatever reason and I think it
was a good decision. Now, however, we're faced with mapping and
understanding it. The Wiki hasn't been much help and, obviously, there is
disagreement among member of this group as to what is right and proper.

Trying to understand exactly what a relation is and how it relates to its
constituent parts was, and is, the reason for my comments to this thread.
It's been a very valuable thread for me because through it, I've learned a
lot. The video put together by Adam Franco has completely revolutionized my
mapping of complex boundaries and water bodies. this short tutorial.
 Thanks again, Adam

Cheers,
Dave

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:21 PM Yves  wrote:

> Dave,
> Not that what you say doesn't make sense, cause it does.
> However I just think that the wiki is not the bible (it's a wiki),
> secondly OSM is not that square as it is made to be edited by hand.
> Keep it simple here just means that mapping a way is simpler than a
> relation for most.
> Yves



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Yves]

Dave,
Not that what you say doesn't make sense, cause it does.
However I just think that the wiki is not the bible (it's a wiki), secondly OSM 
is not that square as it is made to be edited by hand. 
Keep it simple here just means that mapping a way is simpler than a relation 
for most.
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to every
member of the relation. It's not "visible" to us mappers but it's there
nonetheless. It's my belief that tagging every way with the identical tags
present on the relation is to ensure that the object will render. If our
software isn't clever enough to understand that each way in a pipeline
route relation should actually be treated (rendered) as though it had the
tag man_made=pipeline, that's a limitation of the software doing the
interpretation. IMO, due to those limitations, people chose an easy
workaround. They applied tags they consider important to each member way.
That practice has become the de facto standard. I've done it myself.
Yesterday Gerd showed me that even mkgmap can be persuaded to render a
pipeline as such even if the ways are untagged (the original cause for this
discussion) but it involves a trick. A directive in the style sheet sets
the man_made=pipeline tag on every way in order to force it to render.
Thus, the software uses the same approach as most OSM mappers have used
over the years.

Yves advises me to keep it simple. That is exactly what I'm trying to do.
Having 280 ways all with the same tags as the top level relation of which
they are members is complicated and totally unnecessary. Keeping the tags
that apply to the entire route, be it a pipeline or a bicycle route, on the
relation and not on every way, is simple and more efficient. Database
developers avoid the sort of data replication we see on the TAPS (and many
other relations) like poison. That's because keeping all those tags
synchronized is arduous and error-prone. Those developers devised schemes
to store data in such a way that no data is duplicated.

If you can bear with me, let's take as an example a database containing a
table of names and addresses. Now we want to include their children in the
database. So we add a table containing a list of those persons' children.
That table must somehow be able to show which child has which parent. The
deceptively simple approach would be to include the parent's name with each
of the children's records. And that approach does work, for a while. But
then a parent remarries and acquires a different surname. The database
maintainer must now find each child record that contains the outdated last
name and edit it. Instead, every database uses a special field called an
index, a number, that gets assigned to each parent. Every child in the
database is linked to her parents via this ID, which never changes. Now,
when a parent's surname changes the maintainer only need to change it in
her record. Her children are still connected to her through her ID.  This
is the reasoning behind the "relational database" of which there are
countless examples. OSM "relations" (do any of you think the name
"relation" for this data structure was an accident?) are almost exactly the
same sort of thing and, I believe, serve the same purpose. The relation is
the master of all, the top level data structure for a pipeline or railroad,
what have you. It tells us that all of its members are related in some way,
sort of like the ID in the top-level table, and it also offers an elegant
way maintain the relationship between itself and its members. Adding tags
to every way is exactly the same as adding the parent's name to each
child's record. It's messy, error-prone, and unnecessary.

Another part of the problem is the Wiki that we treat as our bible.
Unfortunately, it doesn't offer us much guidance on topics like this.
Fragments about relations and multipolygons are scattered here and there,
some written fairly well, others not. OSMers aren't technical writers, and
there is no overriding authority to make sure things are written clearly
and concisely. It's written in English, which is a problem for those who
aren't native English speakers. Gerd started a second thread about pipeline
routes yesterday and provided two references to check. Reading through them
leaves me wondering just what was meant.

(1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dpipeline
(2) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route

Neither of those references is very specific or very clearly written. Under
the heading How to Map in reference [1] is the following:

Create a relation of the type route and add the tag route=pipeline.
You can add additional tags which are used together with man_made=pipeline.

It says "you can add additional tags which are used together with
man_made=pipeline".
Additional tags can be added where? The writer doesn't say. And the tag
man_made=pipeline. Where does that go?
I reckon it's up to you. The writer doesn't say.

Reference [2] is also, not very clearly written and certainly not
definitive in any way. In the section under Route Types the writer gives in
the Comment column as examples for route=pipeline these three:
pipelines, pipeline markers, and pipeline stations. The first one is
obvious but the second and third? What 

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 2:07 PM Yves  wrote:

> Agreed with Martin here, I would be amazed that the name of a pipeline
> would contradict the name of one of its section being something else than a
> pipeline.
>
>>
 I'm not super familiar with them compared to railroads, but similar naming
conventions exist.  Branches and trunks often have differing names while
being part of the same overall pipeline.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Yves]

Agreed with Martin here, I would be amazed that the name of a pipeline would 
contradict the name of one of its section being something else than a pipeline.
Dave, you missed a very important rule: Keep it simple.
On roads (routes for cars), a pretty common thing) ref=xxx can be found on ways 
in simple cases. 
Yves 

Le 7 novembre 2018 17:08:50 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>Am Mi., 7. Nov. 2018 um 16:40 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
>matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>
>> 7. Nov 2018 08:27 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
>> In the case of the pipeline, tags like man_made=pipeline,
>substance=oil,
>> operator, Wikipedia and Wikidata tags, belong in the relation.
>>
>>
>> For the record: I strongly disagree with that invention.
>>
>
>
>I also believe with the current state of things, most tags for the
>pipeline
>should remain on the ways. I would agree for the wikipedia and wikidata
>tags to be sufficient on the relation (or relations for specific parts
>of
>it), which refer to the pipeline as a whole.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 7. Nov. 2018 um 16:40 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> 7. Nov 2018 08:27 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
> In the case of the pipeline, tags like man_made=pipeline, substance=oil,
> operator, Wikipedia and Wikidata tags, belong in the relation.
>
>
> For the record: I strongly disagree with that invention.
>


I also believe with the current state of things, most tags for the pipeline
should remain on the ways. I would agree for the wikipedia and wikidata
tags to be sufficient on the relation (or relations for specific parts of
it), which refer to the pipeline as a whole.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 7. Nov. 2018 um 14:58 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <
kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>:

> A multipolygon is nothing more
> nor less than an area feature with any topology more complex than a
> simple closed way.




+1,
plus in some cases even a simple closed way as only member of a
multipolygon relation makes sense: it avoids having to redraw an
overlapping same way, e.g. when you want to distinguish what is inside a
building from the building, or the area from the fence, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

7. Nov 2018 08:27 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :
> I provided two examples from the Wiki and a part of a response earlier in 
> this thread from Kevin Kenny to support my argument that state that 
> individual ways in a multipolygon 




I have no idea why advice from multipolygon (that describes single area) can be 
assumed to

apply to pipeline route relation (that groups multiple ways with different 
characteristics and

some that are shared).


 

> In the case of the pipeline, tags like man_made=pipeline, substance=oil, 
> operator, Wikipedia and Wikidata tags, belong in the relation.




For the record: I strongly disagree with that invention.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Kevin Kenny]

On 11/7/18 2:27 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
I provided two examples from the Wiki and a part of a response earlier 
in this thread from Kevin Kenny to support my argument that state that 
individual ways in a multipolygon or relation should not be tagged 
unless their characteristics require it.  If you're working with a 
route=road and the surface changes, you split the way and mark it so. 
Same with maxspeed or number of lanes. The characteristics are those 
of the way, not the entire route, and rightly belong only on the way.  
In the case of the pipeline, tags like man_made=pipeline, 
substance=oil, operator, Wikipedia and Wikidata tags, belong in the 
relation. The people who first added the pipeline to OSM did it both 
ways, probably to guarantee that it would be visible to OSM or other 
data consumers, but I don't know.



That isn''t quite what I said.

What I said is that attributes that conceptually *might* be different on 
separate ways of a relation belong on the ways. What goes on the 
relation are the things that define it as a relation.


For a multipolygon, that's everything. A multipolygon is nothing more 
nor less than an area feature with any topology more complex than a 
simple closed way. The way gets tagging only if there's stuff that 
really belongs to it; an example would be an administrative region that 
ends at the coastline.


For a route, what goes on the relation is specifically the name of the 
route (if it has one that might be separate from the names of the 
constituent ways - for example, the Erie Canalway briefly follows State 
Street), the network, the reference number, and any descriptive 
information such as operator, website, length, hours, ... The physical 
attributes (highway=*, surface=*, etc.) go on the component ways.


For a group, it's even less. The Great Lakes relation has pretty much 
just a name and the component relations for the individual lakes.


Sorry if my earlier explanation was confusing.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Thanks,
I added it to my styles and promise to try it soon.

Dave

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:12 PM Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dave,
> reg. a rule for mkgmap: A simple approach would be to add a rule in the
> relation style so that the tag man_made=pipeline is added to all way
> members
> of the relation which don't already have a man_made tag:
> #pipelines
> type=route & route=pipeline
> {
> apply way {
> add man_made=pipeline;
> }
> }
> Maybe use set instead of add to catch cases like relation 3220256 where
> some
> long ways are tagged as man_made=cutline
> I leave it to you to find out how you can transfer the other tags like the
> name of the route relation. The default style contains samples for that.
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Gerd Petermann]

Dave,
reg. a rule for mkgmap: A simple approach would be to add a rule in the
relation style so that the tag man_made=pipeline is added to all way members
of the relation which don't already have a man_made tag:
#pipelines
type=route & route=pipeline 
{
apply way {
add man_made=pipeline; 
}
}
Maybe use set instead of add to catch cases like relation 3220256 where some
long ways are tagged as man_made=cutline 
I leave it to you to find out how you can transfer the other tags like the
name of the route relation. The default style contains samples for that.

Gerd



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

PS:

Gerd and I are not at war here. We just don't agree on the correct way to
proceed. In fact, I have had lots of help from him when developing maps for
my Garmin and will need his help in the future, no doubt. Maybe to convince
him to write the code in mkgmap to better "see inside" relations to dig out
the details. I know for a fact that without a man_made=pipeline tag on
those ways, my current style sheet won't find them and will be unable to
render them. Unless I get help from Gerd. LOL

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 2:27 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> It's true. Gerd and I have gone round and .around on this topic. Gerd has
> tried to convince me that I should not remove any tags of the ways
> contained in the existing Alaska pipeline relation and I'm convinced that
> the only tags that belong on those ways are the ones that make that
> particular way different from any other ways. Hence, tags like location,
> and bridge, properly belong on the ways. Obviously, you can't include
> bridge=yes and layer=1 in any top level relation. Those sorts of attributes
> belong on the way and only on the way. I have tried to convince him that
> any attribute or characteristic that applies to the pipeline in its
> entirety, belongs on the relation and not on the pipeline way itself. It
> doesn't hurt to have them there but it's unnecessary and I also argue,
> having those duplicated tags makes maintaining the relation rather messy.
>
> I provided two examples from the Wiki and a part of a response earlier in
> this thread from Kevin Kenny to support my argument that state that
> individual ways in a multipolygon or relation should not be tagged unless
> their characteristics require it.  If you're working with a route=road and
> the surface changes, you split the way and mark it so. Same with maxspeed
> or number of lanes. The characteristics are those of the way, not the
> entire route, and rightly belong only on the way.  In the case of the
> pipeline, tags like man_made=pipeline, substance=oil, operator, Wikipedia
> and Wikidata tags, belong in the relation. The people who first added the
> pipeline to OSM did it both ways, probably to guarantee that it would be
> visible to OSM or other data consumers, but I don't know.
>
> I believe the people that cautioned us in the Wiki, people that I assume
> know more about it than either Gerd or me, to add tags to a way contained
> in a relation only when its characteristics or attributes are different
> from the overall route characteristics. I take their meaning literally.
> Gerd disagrees but gives no proof for his assertion.
>
> So there you have it. We're stuck.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:27 PM Gerd Petermann <
> gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> after reading the last comments in this thread I tried again to convince
>> Dave that the rather special rules for multipolygon relations cannot be
>> used
>> for all types of relations, esp. not those with route=pipeline and that he
>> should not remove tags like man_made=pipeline from ways of such a
>> relation,
>> see this long discussion:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64027881
>>
>> I give up now because for me a type=multipolygon relation is something
>> completely different and Dave insists that it is are not. Seems we are
>> both
>> frustated now :-(
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

It's true. Gerd and I have gone round and .around on this topic. Gerd has
tried to convince me that I should not remove any tags of the ways
contained in the existing Alaska pipeline relation and I'm convinced that
the only tags that belong on those ways are the ones that make that
particular way different from any other ways. Hence, tags like location,
and bridge, properly belong on the ways. Obviously, you can't include
bridge=yes and layer=1 in any top level relation. Those sorts of attributes
belong on the way and only on the way. I have tried to convince him that
any attribute or characteristic that applies to the pipeline in its
entirety, belongs on the relation and not on the pipeline way itself. It
doesn't hurt to have them there but it's unnecessary and I also argue,
having those duplicated tags makes maintaining the relation rather messy.

I provided two examples from the Wiki and a part of a response earlier in
this thread from Kevin Kenny to support my argument that state that
individual ways in a multipolygon or relation should not be tagged unless
their characteristics require it.  If you're working with a route=road and
the surface changes, you split the way and mark it so. Same with maxspeed
or number of lanes. The characteristics are those of the way, not the
entire route, and rightly belong only on the way.  In the case of the
pipeline, tags like man_made=pipeline, substance=oil, operator, Wikipedia
and Wikidata tags, belong in the relation. The people who first added the
pipeline to OSM did it both ways, probably to guarantee that it would be
visible to OSM or other data consumers, but I don't know.

I believe the people that cautioned us in the Wiki, people that I assume
know more about it than either Gerd or me, to add tags to a way contained
in a relation only when its characteristics or attributes are different
from the overall route characteristics. I take their meaning literally.
Gerd disagrees but gives no proof for his assertion.

So there you have it. We're stuck.

Dave



On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:27 PM Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> after reading the last comments in this thread I tried again to convince
> Dave that the rather special rules for multipolygon relations cannot be
> used
> for all types of relations, esp. not those with route=pipeline and that he
> should not remove tags like man_made=pipeline from ways of such a relation,
> see this long discussion:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64027881
>
> I give up now because for me a type=multipolygon relation is something
> completely different and Dave insists that it is are not. Seems we are both
> frustated now :-(
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi all,

after reading the last comments in this thread I tried again to convince
Dave that the rather special rules for multipolygon relations cannot be used
for all types of relations, esp. not those with route=pipeline and that he
should not remove tags like man_made=pipeline from ways of such a relation,
see this long discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64027881

I give up now because for me a type=multipolygon relation is something
completely different and Dave insists that it is are not. Seems we are both
frustated now :-(

Gerd







--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 11:35, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> 4. Nov 2018 06:36 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
> I realize it can be done this way but it's a ton of work (quote: not very 
> easy) compared to making one simple edit to tag the entire collection of ways.
> 
> 
> I would not call clicking three or four times "ton of work". 
> 


actually, once there is a relation with all the elements you want to edit, it 
doesn’t make much of a difference for editing the tags of all: with the 
relation you can select them all with one click.

Cheers, Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Let me try to clarify what I'm saying again. Gerd writes:

If we follow Daves idea one might create a relation combining a few things
that have the same tag, e.g. all building=residential in a town, name it
something like "residential buildings" and finally remove the tags from
those buildings. I hope nobody thinks this would be a good idea.

I m would never do anything like that. If you can follow my reasoning,
you'll see that for the example you're using my argument would say that
those ways that comprise the buildings would stay on those ways and not on
the relation. That's' because the object "building" requires a way that is
tagged specifically as a building and as such, according to my reasoning,
properly belongs on the way and only on the way. If the buildings are part
of a group that is an entity, like a university for example, then create a
relation and place its name there along with whatever other tags apply to
the university as a whole; owner, website, etc., and then add the building
ways to it. The tags for the buildings, each with the tags that apply to
it, be it office, dormitory, whatever, are placed on the way only and the
buildings render as they do if even if they were not part of a relation.
One must look a little closer to determine that they're part of something
larger.

Gerd also said:

"I think Dave wants to use relations as a general method to remove
redundancy. The idea is not new and I think there similar discussions
before. I think one of the arguments against it was that many editors are
not able to handle relations good enough, I fear this is still true. I think
the same problem is on the consumer side'

Not at all. Using relations properly could indeed reduce redundancy, and
that was the goal of my editing of the Alaska pipeline, but my aim for
starting this thread was to discuss relations and learn to use them better.

Also, Gert mentioned rendering. Let me repeat what I said earlier in this
thread about rendering. Rendering, while it's an important concern for all
of us, really shouldn't be a part of this discussion. We're trying to learn
how to best use a very powerful method of mapping a complex world. Whether
or not something shows up on the map (is rendered) is not what I'm talking
about here.



On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If we follow Daves idea one might create a relation combining a few things
> that have the same tag, e.g. all building=residential in a town, name it
> something like "residential buildings" and finally remove the tags from
> those buildings. I hope nobody thinks this would be a good idea.
>
> Reg. the TAP pipeline (I was the complaining user that Dave mentioned): I
> did not even know that something like a route=pipeline exists before I saw
> that Dave removed the tags from the member way. The same seems to be true
> for JOSM developers because the way is no longer rendered as a pipeline in
> JOSM.
> Well, that might be something that should be fixed in JOSM.
>
> I think Dave wants to use relations as a general method to remove
> redundancy. The idea is not new and I think there similar discussions
> before. I think one of the arguments against it was that many editors are
> not able to handle relations good enough, I fear this is still true. I
> think
> the same problem is on the consumer side:
> A renderer or routing app has to know which types of relations might
> contain
> information that has to be transferred to the members, it cannot do that
> with a simple rule like "if a way is the member of a relation, copy all
> attributes of the relation to the way". Just think about cases where a
> highway is member of several route relations.
> So, if one starts to remove tags from members because the relation repeats
> the tag he has to make sure that this is a well established method. Not
> sure
> if this is the case for pipelines?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4. Nov 2018 06:36 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :
> I realize it can be done this way but it's a ton of work (quote: not very 
> easy) compared to making one simple edit to tag the entire collection of 
> ways. 




I would not call clicking three or four times "ton of work". 


 

> I simply cannot understand why anyone would prefer this method over the much 
> easier one of merely adding or editing a tag in the relation. 




It may be slightly more easier to mass edit tags, but it is very rare operation.




It is more typical to check meaning of existing object (the most common for 
most of mappers)


or to edit parts of the entire object.




Splitting tagging into relation and individual ways is making it much harder.


 

> As for your comment:  "half of tags > is>  here, half in this > relation> "; 
> frankly that problem wouldn't exist if people were tagging relations properly 
> in the first place.
>

I referred to idea of removing tags from individual ways (like 
man_made=pipeline) andkeeping them only in relation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4. Nov 2018 10:14 by gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com 
:


> So, if one starts to remove tags from members because the relation repeats
> the tag he has to make sure that this is a well established method. Not sure
> if this is the case for pipelines?
>




It is not a well established method for pipelines. 

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Gerd Petermann]

If we follow Daves idea one might create a relation combining a few things
that have the same tag, e.g. all building=residential in a town, name it
something like "residential buildings" and finally remove the tags from
those buildings. I hope nobody thinks this would be a good idea.

Reg. the TAP pipeline (I was the complaining user that Dave mentioned): I
did not even know that something like a route=pipeline exists before I saw
that Dave removed the tags from the member way. The same seems to be true
for JOSM developers because the way is no longer rendered as a pipeline in
JOSM.
Well, that might be something that should be fixed in JOSM.

I think Dave wants to use relations as a general method to remove
redundancy. The idea is not new and I think there similar discussions
before. I think one of the arguments against it was that many editors are
not able to handle relations good enough, I fear this is still true. I think
the same problem is on the consumer side:
A renderer or routing app has to know which types of relations might contain
information that has to be transferred to the members, it cannot do that
with a simple rule like "if a way is the member of a relation, copy all
attributes of the relation to the way". Just think about cases where a
highway is member of several route relations.
So, if one starts to remove tags from members because the relation repeats
the tag he has to make sure that this is a well established method. Not sure
if this is the case for pipelines?




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Mateusz wrote:

"Both methods are not very easy but are necessary very rarely and it allows
to avoid
problematic "half of tags is here, half in this relation" that is highly
problematic for mappers"

I realize it can be done this way but it's a ton of work (quote: not very
easy) compared to making one simple edit to tag the entire collection of
ways. I simply cannot understand why anyone would prefer this method over
the much easier one of merely adding or editing a tag in the relation. As
for your comment:  "half of tags is here, half in this relation"; frankly
that problem wouldn't exist if people were tagging relations properly in
the first place.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:30 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 3. Nov 2018 00:00 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
>
> To make matters worse, let's just say you misspelled the Wikipedia tag
> value. You meant to write "wikipedia=en:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" but
> forgot to include the "en:" prefix. Back you go to your editor, editing all
> 280 pieces again. That's why I say tagging it this way is a maintenance
> nightmare.
>
>
> (1) First method: download area with relation in JOSM, download all
> relations members,
>
> use "select members" in relation listing menu.
>
>
> --
>
>
> (2) It can be also relatively easily done with help of overpass turbo.
>
>
> Search with overpass turbo wizard
>
> wikipedia="en:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" global
>
>
> results are in https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DkY
> One may use "Export" button to send this data to your editor.
>
> Both methods are not very easy but are necessary very rarely and it allows
> to avoid
> problematic "half of tags is here, half in this relation" that is highly
> problematic for mappers.
>
>

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

3. Nov 2018 14:43 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :


> (> BOLD TEXT>  is my addition) This is exactly what I've been saying> . 
> Member ways should be untagged unless they have a separate meaning on their 
> own. 
>
> There you have it. It's a logical system of tagging and makes perfect sense 
> both from an initial standpoint and for ease of maintenance later on.
>




That is because multipolygon is a single area, with one set of tags. What you 
are doing is

different, more complex (inheritance of tags) and AFAIK something new.


 

> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:34 PM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>>   >> 3. Nov 2018 11:30 by >> davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>
>>> Duplication of data leads to confusion, wasted time & errors.
>>> Please refrain from mapping in this way.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please refrain from demanding that other stop mapping in way that is 
>> commonly accepted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Suggesting, promoting and explaining alternatives is fine, but claiming that 
>> one way is sole
>>
>> acceptable while it is untrue is irritating.
>>
>>   >> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>> 
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at > http://dswarthout.blogspot.com 
> ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Kevin Kenny]

I probably should make a clarification about what I mean about "logically
belonging" to the relation.

On a road route, it wouldn't make sense to put 'lanes=2' or
'surface=concrete' on a road route, even if all the component ways happen
to have that characteristic. There's nothing to keep the highway department
from repaving one component way as 'surface=asphalt' or widening to
'lanes=4', and a mapper is likely to miss the fact that the relation is
claiming an attribute that properly belongs to the way.

On the other hand, network=*, ref=* operator=*, symbol=*, name=* and
similar attributes logically belong to the route itself, and won't change
as part of maintenance of the way. They go on the relation. For routes
(including route=pipeline, which is what we have here),
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route tries to tabulate the
suggested keys that belong to the route itself.

On a multipolygon, as I observed before, every attribute belongs to the
multipolygon unless the way has some existence apart from its role in
defining the multipolygon boundary.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 9:45 AM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> (*BOLD TEXT* is my addition) This is exactly what I've been saying*.
> Member ways should be untagged unless they have a separate meaning on their
> own. *
>
> There you have it. It's a logical system of tagging and makes perfect
> sense both from an initial standpoint and for ease of maintenance later on.
>

That's surely true of multipolygons.

At this point, except for the margins of [multi]polygons, the data model
doesn't really contemplate ways that need to be broken up because of size,
so to some extent you're breaking new ground here. In the road network,
what everyone does is just to split the way and repeat the tagging. Then,
anything like marked routes gets added atop the split ways, with only the
tags that pertain to the route.  Those tags don't get repeated on the way.
(An exception is ref=*, which doesn't work correctly in many renderers if
it is not on the way.) A better description might be that 'if a tag
conceptually would have an independent meaning on the member ways, it goes
on the member; if it logically pertains only to the collection, it goes on
the relation." For multipolygons, this is obvious - everything belongs on
the relation unless the way is being used independently, for instance, if
two administrative regions are divided by a road or stream.

This does add complexity if you're trying to analyze a long chain of ways
that shares a common characteristic.  It's a little tricky to follow
'Broadway' from the Battery in New York City to Sleepy Hollow in the Hudson
Valley, because everything changes about the ways (Even the name is not
100% consistent; there are variants like 'Old Broadway', 'New Broadway',
'South Broadway', and so on.)

Even the 'tag the collection attributes only on the relation' rule has a
couple of exceptions, but they're rare. They relate to the fact that
support for site and group relations, and routes-inside-routes ranges from
uncommon to nonexistent. Long and complex routes with many hundreds of
constituent ways are typically broken up into routes-inside-routes, so that
there are no more than a few dozen to a few hundred ways in each piece.
Examples include the New York Long Path
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/919642 and the Appalachian Trail
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/156553 (which seems to have picked
up a few problems; the top-level relation isn't supposed to have any ways,
only the subrelations). Because of the difficulties with
route-inside-route, group and site, it's easiest on these beasts to repeat
the tagging that appears on the top relation on each of the member
relations as well.  Waymarked Trails understands this sort of structure,
and can do both rendering and elevation profiling if the structure is done
right (For instance, the 'forward' direction in each of the subrelations
must match, and the subrelations must also run 'end to end': on both the
trails I list as examples, they run south to north).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

I've been saying that I believe tagging that applies to an entire relation
should be placed ONLY on the relation and NOT on the individual ways,
UNLESS, there is some characteristic of the way that requires different
tagging. I gave examples using the Trans Alaska Pipeline but this reasoning
extends to other cases. Just now, I came across this statement in the Wiki
concerning islands in a river system:

"To map islands in a river you can use a multipolygon
 relation and
the island and the main river bank should be included in the relation. The
main riverbank way (way 1 in image above) will have the role 'outer' and
the way for the island (way 2 in image above) will have the role 'inner'. *When
mapping with multipolygon relations do not tag the member ways with
waterway=riverbank as well - this is wrong. Member ways should be untagged
unless they have a separate meaning on their own (like barrier
=retaining_wall
)"*

(*BOLD TEXT* is my addition) This is exactly what I've been saying
*. Member ways should be untagged unless they have a separate meaning on
their own. *

There you have it. It's a logical system of tagging and makes perfect sense
both from an initial standpoint and for ease of maintenance later on.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:34 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 3. Nov 2018 11:30 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com:
>
> Duplication of data leads to confusion, wasted time & errors.
> Please refrain from mapping in this way.
>
>
> Please refrain from demanding that other stop mapping in way that is
> commonly accepted.
>
>
> Suggesting, promoting and explaining alternatives is fine, but claiming
> that one way is sole
>
> acceptable while it is untrue is irritating.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

3. Nov 2018 11:30 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
:


> Duplication of data leads to confusion, wasted time & errors.
> Please refrain from mapping in this way.




Please refrain from demanding that other stop mapping in way that is commonly 
accepted.




Suggesting, promoting and explaining alternatives is fine, but claiming that 
one way is sole

acceptable while it is untrue is irritating.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

3. Nov 2018 00:00 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :


> To make matters worse, let's just say you misspelled the Wikipedia tag value. 
> You meant to write "wikipedia=en:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" but forgot to 
> include the "en:" prefix. Back you go to your editor, editing all 280 pieces 
> again. That's why I say tagging it this way is a maintenance nightmare.
>




(1) First method: download area with relation in JOSM, download all relations 
members,

use "select members" in relation listing menu.





--




(2) It can be also relatively easily done with help of overpass turbo. 





Search with overpass turbo wizard

wikipedia="en:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" global



results are in https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DkY 
One may use "Export" button to send this data 
to your editor.
 Both methods are not very easy but are necessary very rarely and it allows to 
avoid 
problematic "half of tags is here, half in this relation" that is highly 
problematic for mappers.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave F]

Hi

On 02/11/2018 01:43, Allan Mustard wrote:


I don't see a problem with duplicating a tag in both the relation and 
sections of the object.  In my case I have been mapping the national 
highway network of Turkmenistan the last few months.  I have created 
relations so that all segments belong to one or more highways (P-1 
from Ashgabat to Koneurgench, for example). However, most map 
renderers will not indicate that




Yours is a common & increasing misunderstanding of relations. There's a 
belief that:


a) Everything has to be linked together.
&
b) Relations are the only way to link them.

You're also misunderstanding the purpose of the route relation which is 
to indicate a regular, often used path taken by travellers which cross 
*different* roads, paths, rivers etc.


Duplication of data leads to confusion, wasted time & errors.
Please refrain from mapping in this way.

, plus the road is known to locals in most areas by that name, so I 
have also added it to the name=* and ref=* tags.




The way it's known is by it's reference number. It does not have a name. 
This is just more unnecessary duplication.


DaveF

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Tod Fitch]

I prefer to have common tags on the relation. That said, in JOSM you can select 
the relation members and then easily add, update or delete a tag from all 
members of the relation.

Cheers!

> On Nov 2, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> Of course. The Trans Alaska Pipeline is as good an example as any. It is a 
> man_made oil pipeline that stretches 1300 km across the entire state of 
> Alaska. The relation contains 280 members. The reason there are so many 
> members is because the pipeline way has been split into many individual 
> pieces, separate ways, that have certain differing characteristics, e.g. 
> where it runs underground or crosses a river on a bridge. The tagging for any 
> specific way deals with those differing characteristics. A section might run 
> for several miles underground and then emerge. At that point the pipeline way 
> must be split into a section with location=underground and the emergent 
> section with location=overground. Now it comes to a river that it crosses on 
> a bridge. The pipeline way is split again into a section that has the tags 
> bridge=yes and layer=1. You do the same thing to a highway where the number 
> of lanes changes, or maxspeed. Each change requires you to split the way.
> 
> Now say you've been tagging each piece with all the tags required rather than 
> the relation. You decide to add a Wikipedia tag to the pipeline. Using your 
> method, you must edit every piece of the pipeline, all 280 sections of it, 
> and add the Wikipedia tag. Tagging the relation with the Wikipedia entry, 
> however, requires only one edit. To make matters worse, let's just say you 
> misspelled the Wikipedia tag value. You meant to write 
> "wikipedia=en:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" but forgot to include the "en:" 
> prefix. Back you go to your editor, editing all 280 pieces again. That's why 
> I say tagging it this way is a maintenance nightmare.
> 
> I would only use tags on a particular way when its characteristics demand it. 
> Tags that apply to the entire pipeline belong in the relation. Tags like the 
> Wikipedia tag, substance=oil, man_made=pipeline, operator, alt_name, etc., 
> belong on the relation. However, tags like bridge and location, tags that 
> apply to individual sections or ways, get applied to the ways and not the 
> relation because they don't apply to the entire pipeline.
> 
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:25 AM Mateusz Konieczny  > wrote:
> 2. Nov 2018 01:04 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :
> 
>  The only tags that should appear on the ways themselves are attributes of 
> those ways, for example, location=overground or location=underground, and 
> tags for bridge and layer. Everything else, Wikidata, substance=oil, 
> man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the relation.
> 
> 
> I am not convinced that it is a good idea.
> 
> 
> If those tags appear on each way in addition to the relation, maintaining any 
> consistency in the tagging on this beast would be almost impossible.
> 
> 
> Can you give examples of task that you claim to be almost impossible?
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Of course. The Trans Alaska Pipeline is as good an example as any. It is a
man_made oil pipeline that stretches 1300 km across the entire state of
Alaska. The relation contains 280 members. The reason there are so many
members is because the pipeline way has been split into many individual
pieces, separate ways, that have certain differing characteristics, e.g.
where it runs underground or crosses a river on a bridge. The tagging for
any specific way deals with those differing characteristics. A section
might run for several miles underground and then emerge. At that point the
pipeline way must be split into a section with location=underground and the
emergent section with location=overground. Now it comes to a river that it
crosses on a bridge. The pipeline way is split again into a section that
has the tags bridge=yes and layer=1. You do the same thing to a highway
where the number of lanes changes, or maxspeed. Each change requires you to
split the way.

Now say you've been tagging each piece with all the tags required rather
than the relation. You decide to add a Wikipedia tag to the pipeline. Using
your method, you must edit every piece of the pipeline, all 280 sections of
it, and add the Wikipedia tag. Tagging the relation with the Wikipedia
entry, however, requires only one edit. To make matters worse, let's just
say you misspelled the Wikipedia tag value. You meant to write
"wikipedia=en:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System" but forgot to include the "en:"
prefix. Back you go to your editor, editing all 280 pieces again. That's
why I say tagging it this way is a maintenance nightmare.

I would only use tags on a particular way when its characteristics demand
it. Tags that apply to the entire pipeline belong in the relation. Tags
like the Wikipedia tag, substance=oil, man_made=pipeline, operator,
alt_name, etc., belong on the relation. However, tags like bridge and
location, tags that apply to individual sections or ways, get applied to
the ways and not the relation because they don't apply to the entire
pipeline.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:25 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 2. Nov 2018 01:04 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
>
>  The only tags that should appear on the ways themselves are attributes of
> those ways, for example, location=overground or location=underground, and
> tags for bridge and layer. Everything else, Wikidata, substance=oil,
> man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the relation.
>
>
> I am not convinced that it is a good idea.
>
>
>
> If those tags appear on each way in addition to the relation, maintaining
> any consistency in the tagging on this beast would be almost impossible.
>
>
> Can you give examples of task that you claim to be almost impossible?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2. Nov 2018 01:04 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :


>  The only tags that should appear on the ways themselves are attributes of 
> those ways, for example, location=overground or location=underground, and 
> tags for bridge and layer. Everything else, Wikidata, substance=oil, 
> man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the relation.




I am not convinced that it is a good idea.


 

> If those tags appear on each way in addition to the relation, maintaining any 
> consistency in the tagging on this beast would be almost impossible.




Can you give examples of task that you claim to be almost impossible?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Allan, I'm not about to remove any tags from the highways in Turkmenistan.
This isn't about an edit war. It's about trying to do things in the most
efficient way possible. Using your highway as an example, let's say it has
dozens of segments, each tagged with ref and other items as you indicated.
Now let's say the ref changes. Someone must go in and retag every piece of
your highway system; every bridge, every tunnel and every section that has
a different number of lanes, a different maxspeed, or a different "local"
name. It's a tricky operation at best and easily avoided. Because if that
ref tag appears only in the relation, changing it involves only one edit,
that of the ref tag inside the relation. The tags you're using on
individual pieces of the highway are fine. I'm not saying you shouldn't
continue to do what you have been doing. I'm only asking what is the
correct way.

Also, whether the relation renders the way one desires or not shouldn't be
part of this discussion. We all want the stuff we map to be visible on the
map products we use. But if certain relations aren't showing up on maps
it's the map products that need to be fixed rather than our tagging
methodology.

Respectfully,
Dave

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:44 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:

> I don't see a problem with duplicating a tag in both the relation and
> sections of the object.  In my case I have been mapping the national
> highway network of Turkmenistan the last few months.  I have created
> relations so that all segments belong to one or more highways (P-1 from
> Ashgabat to Koneurgench, for example).  However, most map renderers will
> not indicate that, plus the road is known to locals in most areas by that
> name, so I have also added it to the name=* and ref=* tags.  Too much
> data?  I don't think so.  Each tag serves a slightly different purpose, and
> the relation serves a wholly different purpose and is not visible in most
> map products.
>
> Please don't go to the Turkmenistan map and delete all my hand-entered
> tags on the highways!
>
> Allan Mustard
>
> On 11/2/2018 5:04 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> Putting aside the discussion about type for a moment, this topic relates
> to a discussion I'm having with a user about tags and multipolygons,
> specifically where the tags go, so I believe it fits into this discussion.
> I removed the tags from the ways for a section of the Trans Alaska Pipeline
> (TAP) because those same tags were on the relation itself. The user asked
> in a changeset comment why I had done that. I replied that IMO, any tags
> that applied to the pipeline as a whole belong on the relation and need
> not, indeed should not, be repeated on each way. The TAP is 1300 km long,
> has countless bridges and sections where it is underground and then
> overground. The only tags that should appear on the ways themselves are
> attributes of those ways, for example, location=overground or
> location=underground, and tags for bridge and layer. Everything else,
> Wikidata, substance=oil, man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the
> relation. The folks who added the pipeline mostly via Tiger imports many
> years ago tagged both. When I would occasionally add or replace a section,
> I was always careful to copy all the tags from a neighboring section to the
> new section. Now, I think that is incorrect.
>
> If those tags appear on each way in addition to the relation, maintaining
> any consistency in the tagging on this beast would be almost impossible. I
> have done quite a bit of re-aligning of the TAP over the years as our
> available imagery improves but have always been tentative about removing
> those redundant tags thinking I would get around to it someday. In fact, it
> seems apparent that this is one major reason relations were invented,
> especially for objects like routes — to ensure tagging consistency and
> connectedness between the many individual member ways that comprise the
> whole.
>
> So, what is the correct and accepted way to tag something like the TAP?
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 7:17 AM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional tags for a
>>> group relation, just type=group, a name and the members, but for a site you
>>> would need something that describes the site, a tag for a group of water
>>> areas, so as long as all the members are areas (or parts), a multipolygon
>>> would be better.
>>>
>>
>> When the lakes themselves are complex multipolygons with many islands,
>> repeating that data for the group is likely to be a maintenance nightmare.
>> (I know this from curating boundary=protected_area relations that include
>> partial shorelines on such lakes. It's especially fun when the boundary
>> splits islands.)
>>
>>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Allan Mustard]

I don't see a problem with duplicating a tag in both the relation and
sections of the object.  In my case I have been mapping the national
highway network of Turkmenistan the last few months.  I have created
relations so that all segments belong to one or more highways (P-1 from
Ashgabat to Koneurgench, for example).  However, most map renderers will
not indicate that, plus the road is known to locals in most areas by
that name, so I have also added it to the name=* and ref=* tags.  Too
much data?  I don't think so.  Each tag serves a slightly different
purpose, and the relation serves a wholly different purpose and is not
visible in most map products.

Please don't go to the Turkmenistan map and delete all my hand-entered
tags on the highways!

Allan Mustard


On 11/2/2018 5:04 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Putting aside the discussion about type for a moment, this topic
> relates to a discussion I'm having with a user about tags and
> multipolygons, specifically where the tags go, so I believe it fits
> into this discussion. I removed the tags from the ways for a section
> of the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAP) because those same tags were on the
> relation itself. The user asked in a changeset comment why I had done
> that. I replied that IMO, any tags that applied to the pipeline as a
> whole belong on the relation and need not, indeed should not, be
> repeated on each way. The TAP is 1300 km long, has countless bridges
> and sections where it is underground and then overground. The only
> tags that should appear on the ways themselves are attributes of those
> ways, for example, location=overground or location=underground, and
> tags for bridge and layer. Everything else, Wikidata, substance=oil,
> man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the relation. The folks
> who added the pipeline mostly via Tiger imports many years ago tagged
> both. When I would occasionally add or replace a section, I was always
> careful to copy all the tags from a neighboring section to the new
> section. Now, I think that is incorrect.
>
> If those tags appear on each way in addition to the relation,
> maintaining any consistency in the tagging on this beast would be
> almost impossible. I have done quite a bit of re-aligning of the TAP
> over the years as our available imagery improves but have always been
> tentative about removing those redundant tags thinking I would get
> around to it someday. In fact, it seems apparent that this is one
> major reason relations were invented, especially for objects like
> routes — to ensure tagging consistency and connectedness between the
> many individual member ways that comprise the whole.
>
> So, what is the correct and accepted way to tag something like the TAP?
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 7:17 AM Kevin Kenny  > wrote:
>
> why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional
> tags for a group relation, just type=group, a name and the
> members, but for a site you would need something that
> describes the site, a tag for a group of water areas, so as
> long as all the members are areas (or parts), a multipolygon
> would be better.
>
>
> When the lakes themselves are complex multipolygons with many
> islands, repeating that data for the group is likely to be a
> maintenance nightmare. (I know this from curating
> boundary=protected_area relations that include partial shorelines
> on such lakes. It's especially fun when the boundary splits islands.)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Putting aside the discussion about type for a moment, this topic relates to
a discussion I'm having with a user about tags and multipolygons,
specifically where the tags go, so I believe it fits into this discussion.
I removed the tags from the ways for a section of the Trans Alaska Pipeline
(TAP) because those same tags were on the relation itself. The user asked
in a changeset comment why I had done that. I replied that IMO, any tags
that applied to the pipeline as a whole belong on the relation and need
not, indeed should not, be repeated on each way. The TAP is 1300 km long,
has countless bridges and sections where it is underground and then
overground. The only tags that should appear on the ways themselves are
attributes of those ways, for example, location=overground or
location=underground, and tags for bridge and layer. Everything else,
Wikidata, substance=oil, man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the
relation. The folks who added the pipeline mostly via Tiger imports many
years ago tagged both. When I would occasionally add or replace a section,
I was always careful to copy all the tags from a neighboring section to the
new section. Now, I think that is incorrect.

If those tags appear on each way in addition to the relation, maintaining
any consistency in the tagging on this beast would be almost impossible. I
have done quite a bit of re-aligning of the TAP over the years as our
available imagery improves but have always been tentative about removing
those redundant tags thinking I would get around to it someday. In fact, it
seems apparent that this is one major reason relations were invented,
especially for objects like routes — to ensure tagging consistency and
connectedness between the many individual member ways that comprise the
whole.

So, what is the correct and accepted way to tag something like the TAP?

Dave

On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 7:17 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional tags for a
>> group relation, just type=group, a name and the members, but for a site you
>> would need something that describes the site, a tag for a group of water
>> areas, so as long as all the members are areas (or parts), a multipolygon
>> would be better.
>>
>
> When the lakes themselves are complex multipolygons with many islands,
> repeating that data for the group is likely to be a maintenance nightmare.
> (I know this from curating boundary=protected_area relations that include
> partial shorelines on such lakes. It's especially fun when the boundary
> splits islands.)
>
>> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Kevin Kenny]

>
> why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional tags for a
> group relation, just type=group, a name and the members, but for a site you
> would need something that describes the site, a tag for a group of water
> areas, so as long as all the members are areas (or parts), a multipolygon
> would be better.
>

When the lakes themselves are complex multipolygons with many islands,
repeating that data for the group is likely to be a maintenance nightmare.
(I know this from curating boundary=protected_area relations that include
partial shorelines on such lakes. It's especially fun when the boundary
splits islands.)

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Oct 2018, at 09:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why not bet both ways? 
> Make both a site and a group relation. 


why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional tags for a group 
relation, just type=group, a name and the members, but for a site you would 
need something that describes the site, a tag for a group of water areas, so as 
long as all the members are areas (or parts), a multipolygon would be better.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Warin]

On 12/10/18 12:57, Dave Swarthout wrote:
What I'm learning by reading this thread over again is that there is a 
lot of confusion about relations in the context I'm interested in. 
Group or site, whether one or the other will render or, more 
importantly for me at least, is whether the object will be findable in 
a Nominatim search.

Why not bet both ways?
Make both a site and a group relation.

I would hate like hell to have tagged such an object and then not be 
able to locate it. I don't care which method gets the nod on this list 
but in the end I want those features to be findable.


Dave

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:40 AM SelfishSeahorse 
mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Tod Fitch mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com>> wrote:
>
> I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before.
Seems to me that it and the controversial site relation have some
overlap. For the examples I can think of where I think the site
relation works it seems like the group relation would also work.
So, at present and lacking counter-examples, it seems to me that
one of these two relations should go away.

There is quite some difference between the suggested group relation
and a site relation:

A site relation is an own feature that consists of several other
features. (For example, a wind farm cannot be mapped as a power plant
area, but it can be mapped as a power plant site relation with
multiple wind turbines as members.[1])

[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3792332

In contrast, a group relation isn't a separate feature, but just a
name; the feature is already defined for its members. (Like in our
example the two ponds 'Small Pond' and 'Big Pond' that together are
called 'Groble'.)

This is also why a site (or multipolygon) relation wouldn't work
in our example.

Regards
Markus

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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com


___
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] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

What I'm learning by reading this thread over again is that there is a lot
of confusion about relations in the context I'm interested in. Group or
site, whether one or the other will render or, more importantly for me at
least, is whether the object will be findable in a Nominatim search. I
would hate like hell to have tagged such an object and then not be able to
locate it. I don't care which method gets the nod on this list but in the
end I want those features to be findable.

Dave

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:40 AM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> >
> > I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before. Seems to
> me that it and the controversial site relation have some overlap. For the
> examples I can think of where I think the site relation works it seems like
> the group relation would also work. So, at present and lacking
> counter-examples, it seems to me that one of these two relations should go
> away.
>
> There is quite some difference between the suggested group relation
> and a site relation:
>
> A site relation is an own feature that consists of several other
> features. (For example, a wind farm cannot be mapped as a power plant
> area, but it can be mapped as a power plant site relation with
> multiple wind turbines as members.[1])
>
> [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3792332
>
> In contrast, a group relation isn't a separate feature, but just a
> name; the feature is already defined for its members. (Like in our
> example the two ponds 'Small Pond' and 'Big Pond' that together are
> called 'Groble'.)
>
> This is also why a site (or multipolygon) relation wouldn't work in our
> example.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
> I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before. Seems to me 
> that it and the controversial site relation have some overlap. For the 
> examples I can think of where I think the site relation works it seems like 
> the group relation would also work. So, at present and lacking 
> counter-examples, it seems to me that one of these two relations should go 
> away.

There is quite some difference between the suggested group relation
and a site relation:

A site relation is an own feature that consists of several other
features. (For example, a wind farm cannot be mapped as a power plant
area, but it can be mapped as a power plant site relation with
multiple wind turbines as members.[1])

[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3792332

In contrast, a group relation isn't a separate feature, but just a
name; the feature is already defined for its members. (Like in our
example the two ponds 'Small Pond' and 'Big Pond' that together are
called 'Groble'.)

This is also why a site (or multipolygon) relation wouldn't work in our example.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Oct 8, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Group relations have been proposed 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation 
> ) in 
> the past. One has been used to group the Great Lakes: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1124369 
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to use type=group relations to group the Bisby Lakes, 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198380582 
> , the Cedar Lakes (First, 
> Second, Third and Fourth are all conflated in OSM) 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3586769 
> , the Essex Chain of Lakes 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3696734 
> , the Fulton Chain of Lakes: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/195478 
> , and similar groupings, 
> because the unimaginative names of the individual lakes are, to say the 
> least, uninformative. If enough people use type=group, the renderers, 
> Nominatim, and other data consumers will eventually catch up, I suppose.
> 
> Note that US Geologic Survey topo maps have historically indicated the chain 
> names as well as the lake names, so the USGS cartographers have considered 
> both names to be significant: 
> https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.87654,-74.23618=14=t=r=0.25 
>  
> shows the Essex Chain and 
> https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.7229,-74.90313=14=t=r=0.25 
>  shows 
> the foot of the Fulton Chain, for instance.
> 
> I haven't tried to push this issue, because the rendering world is truly not 
> ready for it.  One of these years I'm going to want to try my hand at 
> implementing a renderer that incorporates some of the ideas of 
> https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/88830694/labellingFramework.pdf 
>  and 
> http://geoinformatics.ntua.gr/courses/admcarto/lecture_notes/name_placement/bibliography/barrault_2001.pdf
>  
> 
>   for labeling elongated areas and groups (such as archipelagoes, mountain 
> ranges, broad rivers, and chains of lakes). Don't expect it any time soon. So 
> many projects, so little time...
> 

I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before. Seems to me that 
it and the controversial site relation have some overlap. For the examples I 
can think of where I think the site relation works it seems like the group 
relation would also work. So, at present and lacking counter-examples, it seems 
to me that one of these two relations should go away. I do not have a strong 
opinion on which but note that to me “site” implies a relatively small area 
whilst “group” does not.

Cheers!





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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Kevin Kenny]

Group relations have been proposed (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation) in
the past. One has been used to group the Great Lakes:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1124369

I'm tempted to use type=group relations to group the Bisby Lakes,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198380582, the Cedar Lakes (First,
Second, Third and Fourth are all conflated in OSM)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3586769, the Essex Chain of Lakes
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3696734, the Fulton Chain of Lakes:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/195478, and similar groupings,
because the unimaginative names of the individual lakes are, to say the
least, uninformative. If enough people use type=group, the renderers,
Nominatim, and other data consumers will eventually catch up, I suppose.

Note that US Geologic Survey topo maps have historically indicated the
chain names as well as the lake names, so the USGS cartographers have
considered both names to be significant:
https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.87654,-74.23618=14=t=r=0.25
shows the Essex Chain and
https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.7229,-74.90313=14=t=r=0.25 shows
the foot of the Fulton Chain, for instance.

I haven't tried to push this issue, because the rendering world is truly
not ready for it.  One of these years I'm going to want to try my hand at
implementing a renderer that incorporates some of the ideas of
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/88830694/labellingFramework.pdf and
http://geoinformatics.ntua.gr/courses/admcarto/lecture_notes/name_placement/bibliography/barrault_2001.pdf
for labeling elongated areas and groups (such as archipelagoes, mountain
ranges, broad rivers, and chains of lakes). Don't expect it any time soon.
So many projects, so little time...




On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:55, SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at
> this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> > > (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).
> >
> > This problem could be solved with *:part=* areas (in this example
> > natural:part=lake), analogous to building:part=*.
>
> PS: Sorry, i meant natural:part=water (+ water=lake).
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:55, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> >
> > A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map 
> > of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: 
> > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> > (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).
>
> This problem could be solved with *:part=* areas (in this example
> natural:part=lake), analogous to building:part=*.

PS: Sorry, i meant natural:part=water (+ water=lake).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

I'm not arguing about any particular tagging, but I would like to point the
fact that the map you send uses different colours for Three Lakes and for
the named lakes (Chloya and Twin Islands lakes). The lakes have blue labels
denoting that the name is for a water body while the group of lakes is in
black typography. I think it means that the name of the group denotes the
diffuse region where the lakes are placed.

Cheers, Javier

El lun., 8 oct. 2018 a las 12:29, Dave Swarthout ()
escribió:

> Regarding the validity of the name Three Lakes, I think it's very clearly
> correct and as such, suitable for inclusion in OSM. There is a screenshot
> in my Dropbox and also this citation from the Dictionary of Alaska Place
> Names, Orth (1963):
>
> Three Lakes: lakes, 4 mi. SW of Birch Creek
> (locality), 30 mi. SW of Fort Yukon, Yukon
> Flats; 66"13' N, 145"50f W; (map 119).
> Local name obtained in 1956 by USGS.
>
> Screenshot here:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/idrxsi7m1p2nvze/Three%20Lakes%20Topo.JPG?dl=0
> from USGS Topo overlay
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:17 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:12 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
>> dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this
>>> map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake:
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
>>> (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).
>>>
>>
>>
>> The current solution in this case seems to use "natual=bay" tags: e.g.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/74974
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> 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] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb SelfishSeahorse <
selfishseaho...@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> >
> > A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this
> map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> > (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).
>
> This problem could be solved with *:part=* areas (in this example
> natural:part=lake), analogous to building:part=*.



I would prefer natural=lake:part

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map 
> of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).

This problem could be solved with *:part=* areas (in this example
natural:part=lake), analogous to building:part=*.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 18:08, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
>
> But how relation should be tagged?
>
> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be 
> tagged twice.
>
> But maybe it would be OK?
>
> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.

What about a new type=group relation that would inherit the properties
of its members (as opposed to a type=multipolygon relation)?

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Regarding the validity of the name Three Lakes, I think it's very clearly
correct and as such, suitable for inclusion in OSM. There is a screenshot
in my Dropbox and also this citation from the Dictionary of Alaska Place
Names, Orth (1963):

Three Lakes: lakes, 4 mi. SW of Birch Creek
(locality), 30 mi. SW of Fort Yukon, Yukon
Flats; 66"13' N, 145"50f W; (map 119).
Local name obtained in 1956 by USGS.

Screenshot here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/idrxsi7m1p2nvze/Three%20Lakes%20Topo.JPG?dl=0
from USGS Topo overlay

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:17 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:12 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
>> A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this
>> map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake:
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
>> (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).
>>
>
>
> The current solution in this case seems to use "natual=bay" tags: e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/74974
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 13:12 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this
> map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well).
>


The current solution in this case seems to use "natual=bay" tags: e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/74974

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :

>
> It is a good idea to keep in mind that we have a well established
> tagging scheme for something quite similar, that is place=archipelago
> and place=island.



+1, hence the proposal of a proper tag for a group of lakes.




> Also keep in mind however that if you want to tag a name for a group of
> lakes that needs to be verifiable - no matter what tagging you use.
> Most names for larger groups of lakes refer to a non-verifiable
> geometry in the sense that is is not verifiable which lakes belong to
> the group.  Examples:
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecklenburgische_Seenplatte
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausitzer_Seenland



these are not actually groups of lakes, they are names for geographic
regions that also refer to lakes in their names (but cover more than just
the water areas). They are like the black forest, which is not a forest, it
is a geographic area where a lot of terrain is covered by forests and where
the name refers to trees, but which also comprises other kinds of landuses
and landcover.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Christoph Hormann]

It is a good idea to keep in mind that we have a well established 
tagging scheme for something quite similar, that is place=archipelago 
and place=island.  This could serve you as a blueprint to select a 
suitable tagging in your case.

Also keep in mind however that if you want to tag a name for a group of 
lakes that needs to be verifiable - no matter what tagging you use.  
Most names for larger groups of lakes refer to a non-verifiable 
geometry in the sense that is is not verifiable which lakes belong to 
the group.  Examples:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecklenburgische_Seenplatte
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausitzer_Seenland

Such features do not belong in OpenStreetMap.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 8. Okt. 2018 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Dave Swarthout <
daveswarth...@gmail.com>:

> So I retagged them this time assigning the name "Three Lakes" to the
> relation containing the lakes and removing it from the individual lakes. I
> checked back again today, after a few days had elapsed, and was able to
> seach for and find Three Lakes. But also today, when I was checking the
> area in order to use it as an example for my reponse to this thread, I
> noticed that two of those lakes have individual names. I added the names
> but JOSM complained. Of course, it wanted something more than just a name.
> I added water=natural to each of those two lakes and was able to upload
> them successfully. So now my lakes are tagged with natural=water twice,
> once on each of their outer ways and once in the relation. If the
> natural=water tag is removed from the relation, the simple lake doesn't
> render as water. Where is the proper place for the natural=water tag?
>


IMHO the natural=water should at the very minimum go on the individual ways
representing the single lakes (or relations if the lakes are mapped as
multipolygons).
For the group of lakes mapped as multipolygons, it seems natural that they
do not inherit any water-properties any more, so if the name is referring
to a group of lakes, this should be expressed explicitly, NOT by having
simply lakes in a relation with type=multipolygon and name=* as the only
tags (this would mean you don't know what this represents). An idea could
be "natural=group_of_lakes" or "waterbodies", or "series_of_waterbodies",
etc. Or you could add natural=water another time (it is not impossible to
evaluate, but it is not what people expect to find I guess).


The fact that natural=water does not render on a way if the way is part of
a multipolygon relation  (if I understand you correctly here: "If the
natural=water tag is removed from the relation, the simple lake doesn't
render as water.") seems to be an error (in osm2pgsql or the rendering
style). but I  did not observe this so far. Also, if JOSM complains about a
mapping style you consider valid, you should raise an issue (it is not
completely rare, the Josm validator is sometimes a bit overeager and has a
tendency to nanny its users).


>
> I fool around with the tagging every time I create one of these monsters.
> Just last week I created another multipolygon relation to hold a pair of
> calderas named "Twin Calderas", one of which contains a lake. I searched
> for it today and found it but another mapper had edited it in order to "fix
> old style multipolygon". I asked him in a changeset comment what exactly he
> had done to fix it and he replied, "The old-style multipolygon (with only
> type=multipolygon tag) with the two members on the left (one outer and one
> inner) was removed, the correctly tagged multipolygon was updated to also
> include the inner from the other multipolygon, because it also includes its
> outer." I'm reluctant to ask him to explain further because I'm clearly
> confused by his answer and indeed, by the entire concept.
>


basically, the old style MPs had a magic way of interpreting both, the tags
on the ways and on the relations, in a combined fashion. The new style MPs
go for a cleaner and more transparent approach: tags apply to the objects
to which they are attached. A tag on an outer way is for this way, a tag on
a relation is for the relation (e.g. the area(s) with maybe holes, that a
multipoligon relation represents).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

The multiple water body situation arises frequently in my Alaska mapping. I
have struggled over the years to tag them in such a manner that the names
will render but without resorting to trickery to make that happen. A couple
of years ago I happened on a group of three lakes, two of which contained
islands and were already multipolygons created during an old import. The
other was merely a small lake. The USGS Topo maps I use as my guide for
naming things in these remote regions gave the name Three Lakes to the
group. I created a multipolygon relation tagged with natural=water to
contain them but for reasons I do not recall now, put the name Three Lakes
on each of them. Perhaps I was struggling to get those names to display
inside JOSM, or maybe it was just because I had so little experience with
multipolygons of this type. Whatever. I made a note to myself to check
after a time to see if Three Lakes was findable via a Nominatum search. I
did that last week and found that they were not.

So I retagged them this time assigning the name "Three Lakes" to the
relation containing the lakes and removing it from the individual lakes. I
checked back again today, after a few days had elapsed, and was able to
seach for and find Three Lakes. But also today, when I was checking the
area in order to use it as an example for my reponse to this thread, I
noticed that two of those lakes have individual names. I added the names
but JOSM complained. Of course, it wanted something more than just a name.
I added water=natural to each of those two lakes and was able to upload
them successfully. So now my lakes are tagged with natural=water twice,
once on each of their outer ways and once in the relation. If the
natural=water tag is removed from the relation, the simple lake doesn't
render as water. Where is the proper place for the natural=water tag?

I fool around with the tagging every time I create one of these monsters.
Just last week I created another multipolygon relation to hold a pair of
calderas named "Twin Calderas", one of which contains a lake. I searched
for it today and found it but another mapper had edited it in order to "fix
old style multipolygon". I asked him in a changeset comment what exactly he
had done to fix it and he replied, "The old-style multipolygon (with only
type=multipolygon tag) with the two members on the left (one outer and one
inner) was removed, the correctly tagged multipolygon was updated to also
include the inner from the other multipolygon, because it also includes its
outer." I'm reluctant to ask him to explain further because I'm clearly
confused by his answer and indeed, by the entire concept.

I'll be following this thread closely to see if I can learn anything from
it.

Dave

The Three Lakes relation is id:6,714,525
Twin Calderas relation is id:8,771,446

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:08 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. Oct 2018, at 21:46, marc marc  wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of
> > object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for
> > each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination
> > between theose types.
>
>
> what is “necessary” has to do with the use case someone has in mind, if
> you want to unambiguously map that there is a group of lakes with a common
> name for the group, it is indeed necessary to describe the thing with more
> tags than just a name.
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 21:46, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of 
> object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for 
> each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination 
> between theose types.


what is “necessary” has to do with the use case someone has in mind, if you 
want to unambiguously map that there is a group of lakes with a common name for 
the group, it is indeed necessary to describe the thing with more tags than 
just a name.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2018, at 19:28, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I hoped to avoid that sidetrack.
> 
> Question is the same, no matter whatever "and proper type" means
> type=site or type=multipolygon.


yes, we do not have a generic way of approaching this problem (and given how we 
do it elsewhere, maybe we should not have at all). Nested name hierarchies are 
quite common in the real world, e.g. for geographic regions, and while we have 
solved some special cases like settlements and their parts, we did not so far 
develop a solution for the generic case.

Locality might fit, but isn’t specific to a group of water bodies, so the 
solution consistent with the rest of the tagging system would likely be to use 
something like natural=* and name, where * is a name for this kind of feature, 
e.g. “waterbodies”.

On a sidenote, I would not see a case for a site relation if you map the ponds 
as areas.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Is this name “Groble” the name of the land that surrounds the ponds, or is
it the name of the water features only?

I wouldn’t use locality for water areas.

Multipolygon would not be ideal, because that would double-count the amount
of water. If someone tries to analyze the number of lakes or total area of
lakes in the region it could lead to wrong results.

Maybe this is an example where site could work?

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:47 AM marc marc  wrote:

> place=locality and/or type=site
>
> I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of
> object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for
> each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination
> between theose types.
>
> Le 07. 10. 18 à 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
> >
> > - a water area called "Small Pond"
> > - a water area called "Big Pond"
> >
> > What is the best way to tag this?
> >
> > First part for obvious:
> >
> > - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> > - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> > - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
> >
> > But how relation should be tagged?
> >
> > Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would
> > be tagged twice.
> >
> > But maybe it would be OK?
> >
> > If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> > place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
> >
> > Is there a good way to tag something like that?
> >
> > real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[marc marc]

place=locality and/or type=site

I'm not sure it's necessary to create a value to repeat the type of 
object already present in osm. otherwise it would require a value for 
each type of object and a value for each type of possible combination 
between theose types.

Le 07. 10. 18 à 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
> 
> - a water area called "Small Pond"
> - a water area called "Big Pond"
> 
> What is the best way to tag this?
> 
> First part for obvious:
> 
> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
> 
> But how relation should be tagged?
> 
> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would 
> be tagged twice.
> 
> But maybe it would be OK?
> 
> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like
> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
> 
> Is there a good way to tag something like that?
> 
> real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I hoped to avoid that sidetrack.

Question is the same, no matter whatever "and proper type" meanstype=site or 
type=multipolygon.

7. Oct 2018 18:31 by t...@fitchdesign.com :


> Perhaps a site relation. :)
>
>
> On October 7, 2018 9:07:48 AM PDT, Mateusz Konieczny <> 
> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>> Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
>> - a water area called "Small Pond">> - a water area called "Big Pond"
>> What is the best way to tag this?
>> First part for obvious:
>> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond">> - way with natural=water 
>> and name="Big Pond">> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and 
>> proper type
>> But how relation should be tagged?
>> Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas would be 
>> tagged twice.
>> But maybe it would be OK?
>> If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like 
>> place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
>> Is there a good way to tag something like that?
>> real example: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489 
>> 
>>   
>
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Yves]

This case sounds not so abusive of multipolygons. ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Tod Fitch]

Perhaps a site relation. :)


On October 7, 2018 9:07:48 AM PDT, Mateusz Konieczny  
wrote:
>Lest say that we have ngroup of ponds called "Groble", with
>- a water area called "Small Pond"- a water area called "Big Pond"
>What is the best way to tag this?
>First part for obvious:
>- way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"- way with natural=water
>and name="Big Pond"- relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and
>proper type
>But how relation should be tagged?
>Tagging it natural=water seems wrong to me - as result water areas
>would be tagged twice.
>But maybe it would be OK?
>If water is supposed to not be tagged twice - maybe use something like 
>place=water_areas? But it seems not better to me.
>Is there a good way to tag something like that?
>real example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8593489
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging