Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Jul 28, 2016 9:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:
> From the older scheme there is also the boundary=national_park tag in use
with 18000 occurences:
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park

There's some reluctance in the US to use that tag for things that are not
national (Adirondack Park) or not parks (Green Mountain National Forest).
Those two examples are specific ones for which boundary=national _park
seemed the least misleading legacy tagging. Leisure=nature_reserve gets
applied to the more strongly protected areas inside.

I'm working hard to make sure that New York is ready for the new schema,
and I've added about 1500 boundary=protected_area tags over the last few
months. Don't punish me by saying that I must remove the less informative
tagging and have all that work disappear from the rendering while I'm
waiting for the database and renderer  to catch up. That's all I'm asking.

It seems that some of the purists here are answering, 'No. If you want to
see state forests, render the map yourself.' I do render it myself. I still
think other people would want to see them, too.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-27 19:34 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny :

>
> I also note that it isn't just a US thing. Calling an "area of outstanding
> natural beauty" boundary=national_park, or a "regional park" or
> "marine protected area" leisure=nature_reserve is just as much
> tagging for the renderer as using one of those tags to label a
> National Forest, a state park, or any one of the other legal zoo
> of protected areas that we have over here, and yet I see such things
> all over the map of the UK. It's not a lie, exactly, quite. Those are all
> areas set aside to protect some aspect of nature. It's not quite
> as precise tagging as boundary=protected_area with an
> appropriate protect_class, but it seems to be impossible for even
> the Britons to resist tagging for the renderer to at least that extent.
>


+1, that's exactly the situation.

leisure=nature_reserve is a quite inclusive tag, any kind of natural
protection can get this tag. The tag boundary=protected_area is even
broader in meaning (e.g. including protection of cultural assets), but with
a subtag becomes more specific. Using both tags is not "lying" but telling
a story in details and getting understood and passed on only the most basic
sense.
>From the older scheme there is also the boundary=national_park tag in use
with 18000 occurences:
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-28 15:00 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> Isn't one of the problems that they would have to reimport the
> complete database ?
>


yes, but this is something that has to be done from time to time anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Kevin Kenny
 wrote:
> It's also a decision that can be deferred. Enabling hstore while keeping
> the existing columns would be Mostly Harmless, particularly if the keys

Isn't one of the problems that they would have to reimport the
complete database ?

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>  I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
> nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
> osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
> style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
> for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
> columns directly.
>

It's also a decision that can be deferred. Enabling hstore while keeping
the existing columns would be Mostly Harmless, particularly if the keys
that have identified columns are not duplicated in the hstore. It does have
the effect of making the hstore keys "second class citizens", but is
a lot better than the current approach of denying access altogether to
keys outside a specific, enumerated set.


> There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
> possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
> that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
> ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
> tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the
> map!"
>

"Niche requests" are an indicator of project vitality. Your statement
comes across as saying, "the lack of hstore provides us with a
convenient excuse not to be responsive to users and contributors."
I hope that isn't what you meant.

It's probably worth noting that in the related discussion of access=permit
that I'm not proposing ever to make a distinction between the types
for the purpose of rendering the main map. I simply want the information
for maps that I render myself. There's a huge difference between
"make a distinction between objects of type A and type B" and
"make a distinction between objects of type A and nothing."
The first suppresses detail, the second suppresses existence.

> That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> > choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> > public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> > marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)
>
> I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
> "faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
> into one central mapping style.
>

I agree wholeheartedly. It's important to note: that sword cuts both ways.
There's a fair amount in the way of Eurocentric (and, more specifically,
UK-centric) specialities baked into the current system. Unless handled
delicately, the whole localization issue comes across as relegating
non-European communities to their respective ghettos. But yes, we
do need maps better adapted to national and local conditions.

> I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
>
> I think you're just too impatient.
>
>
You're right. It's only about three years that the discussion of "hstore on
the central server" has been going on sporadically, during all of which
time I've been running an hstore-enabled rendering chain on my personal
tile server. I suppose it isn't reasonable to expect something like that to
happen in less than a decade.

I think that some people fail to comprehend the scale of the problem
over here. Without "tagging for the renderer", virtually nothing that you
see on https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/43.121/-74.539
would be visible: the major highways, city names, and waterbodies
would remain, but everything else would be gone. Not "badly rendered",
simply absent. And that's the case all over the continent -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/37.003/-110.814 shows what it's
like in the West. The National Parks, National Forests, BLM lands,
and so on are our administrative disticts in the rural US. Asking
to render an administrative boundary that encloses an area the size
of Slovenia, if not Belgium - as some of these areas do -
doesn't seem to me to be too unreasonable a request.

I also note that it isn't just a US thing. Calling an "area of outstanding
natural beauty" boundary=national_park, or a "regional park" or
"marine protected area" leisure=nature_reserve is just as much
tagging for the renderer as using one of those tags to label a
National Forest, a state park, or any one of the other legal zoo
of protected areas that we have over here, and yet I see such things
all over the map of the UK. It's not a lie, exactly, quite. Those are all
areas set aside to protect some aspect of nature. It's not quite
as precise tagging as boundary=protected_area with an
appropriate protect_class, but it seems to be impossible for even
the Britons to resist tagging for the renderer to at least that extent.
I see that they have the protected_area tagging in place on most
if not all of those areas, all ready to go when and if the renderer
supports it. I do that as well, on the areas that I've edited recently.

I'm not cleaning up the mess, exactly, quite. I'm just replacing
it in my area 

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Dave Swarthout]

@Kevin; I'm glad to see someone is interested in clearing up the mess in
the Adirondack Park and sorry to hear about your frustration concerning
rendering of the protected areas in NYS. Although I no longer hike in that
area because I moved to Alaska in 1983 I have a strong and continuing
interest in it because for many years that was where I went to go
wilderness camping. I've hiked the High Peak region and walked the
Northville-Placid Trail. The many Wilderness and Primitive areas tagged
with landuse=forest is clearly inaccurate but the massive amount of work
needed to actually trace the wooded areas, swamps and bare mountain tops
that make up those Wilderness areas in order to tag them properly has
prevented me from even getting started.

To me, the landuse=forest tag is meant for tree covered areas that are
being grown and managed to supply wood for construction, paper, or what
have you. I'm not going to step into the landcover=trees vs natural=wood
controversy except the say that in the styles I use with the mkgmap program
I render them identically. Also, I think perhaps using a separate set of
styles for the U.S., Europe, Japan, or elsewhere might be a suitable
solution to the various inconsistencies we find in the OSM renderings

I don't have any other input at the moment that will help you but I want to
thank you for your work so far and to encourage you to continue your effort
to resolve those issues.

Cheers,
Dave



On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 07/27/2016 02:36 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > The part that I can't do anything about is getting hstore activated on
> > the main rendering database. That's a matter of turning a switch -
> > osmosis, osm2pgsql, mapnik, everything is ready for it - but this
> > problem isn't important enough for the amount of planning, testing and
> > downtime that would be needed to turn it.
>
> Who has told you that? I don't see (a) that everything is ready for it
> nor (b) that it would require any downtime. For example I'm running
> osm-carto with hstore and using views so I don't have to modify the
> style; but it hasn't been shown whether that would be a good approach
> for OSM or whether the carto style should be changed to use hstore
> columns directly.
>
> > Any change that
> > fundamental is a risk to the project
>
> It's a change that is more complicated than flicking a switch and other
> things might have priority, but "a risk to the project"? Really? Have
> you come up with that yourself or can you quote someone on that?
>
> > no issue that is important enough to justify the change will ever arise.
>
> There's quite a few people who have changes in waiting that are only
> possible with the hstore extension. Of course there lies a danger in
> that - without the excuse of "needs hstore", we might suddenly find
> ourselves having to cater to lots of niche requests, aka "if there's a
> tag to differentiate X and Y then I want to see that difference on the
> map!"
>
> > That leaves US users in a bit of a quandary, with only a few viable
> > choices: beef up openstreetmap.us  to be the
> > public face of the project on this side of the ocean (a disaster from a
> > marketing perspective, to have two competing faces)
>
> I don't think so. In fact I would like to see more regional diversity in
> "faces", instead of everyone trying to cram their national specialities
> into one central mapping style.
>
> > I'm sorry if I'm prickly. I'm frustrated.
>
> I think you're just too impatient.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:34 PM, David Bannon 
wrote:

> Might be worth your while looking at how others are using the data, OsmAnd
> do a great job of rendering some of the detail found in the database. And
> make a pretty attractive looking map at the same time. There are lots of
> other 'consumers' of OSM data.


Even though I say it who shouldn't, I do a pretty fair job as a "consumer"
of OSM data myself. It only increases my frustration to know that we could
have an information-dense rendering like
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/karl.html?la=42.1694=-74.1057=13
and don't.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[David Bannon]

On 27/07/16 12:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:
.

 How about we make a deal that when the "correct" tagging actually 
becomes visible on at least one layer of the main site, I go back and 
remove the "legacy" tagging, which can be done with a mechanical edit?
Kevin, I share your frustration but suggest that is the wrong approach. 
Image Feature A is correctly rendered but not so Feature B.  We won't 
encourage the rendering mob to render B by tagging everything as A.


Might be worth your while looking at how others are using the data, 
OsmAnd do a great job of rendering some of the detail found in the 
database. And make a pretty attractive looking map at the same time. 
There are lots of other 'consumers' of OSM data.


David


___
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] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/27/2016 5:11 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
>> But all right. I'll settle for either "landuse=forest" or
>> "leisure=nature_reserve" as something that at least does not misrender
>> horribly, and note that such tagging is retained for the benefit of legacy
>> renderers.+
>>
>
> Yuck.
>  Your 'state parks' are administrative boundaries. Don't tag for the
> render.


How many more years must I wait, then, before they will become visible on
any of the tile layers on openstreetmap.org? If it hadn't been a couple or
three years already, I'd be more patient. A New Yorker would find it
astonishing not to see the Adirondack Park, which occupies about a sixth of
the land area of the state, but if it were not mistagged 'national park'
there would be nothing to trigger its rendering. The smaller state parks,
state forests, and similar reserves likewise would likewise have no
attributes visible to the renderer.

I know what protected areas I've added - about 1500 multipolygons of them.
I've got a file with relation and way ID's. (Plus, they were added under
distinct user IDs, so I can recover them by examining the edits made by
those users.) How about we make a deal that when the "correct" tagging
actually becomes visible on at least one layer of the main site, I go back
and remove the "legacy" tagging, which can be done with a mechanical edit?

SO THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION ABOVE: "How would other people divide and tag a
>> state park whose property line extends offshore?" (The particular case I
>> have in mind is fairly complex; there are places where the park's boundary
>> is coterminuous with the high tide line, other places where it's set back
>> some distance from the water, and yet other places where it extends far
>> down the foreshore or out into permanent open water.)
>>
>
> Tag the state park boundary as an administrative boundary, don't include
> any landcover tags on it.. the landcover should be a separate area/entity.


Right. landuse=forest isn't land cover, it's land use. natural=wood is land
cover. There's "forest" land that at the moment is "natural=scrub" because
it's managed as producing forest and recently harvested. And there's
"forest" land that's natural=wetland because the beavers have decided that
they're using it. (There's also "forest" land that is under the legal
fiction that it's being managed for timber production, but is so
resource-poor that it's unlikely to produce anything in the foreseeable
future. All I have to go on, for the most part, is the legal designation.)

>
>
>> TOP-DOWN vs BOTTOM-UP MAPPING
>>
>> It gets tremendously more complicated if detailed land use and land cover
>> are needed. Then there will be complex webs of multipolygons, sharing some
>> but not all of the ways. As a matter of fact, I have a strong preference
>> for NOT sharing ways among, say, preserve boundaries and things such as
>> "natural=wood" because they make editing really complicated and seldom
>> describe the situation in the field. Trees grow where they will unless
>> humans remove them. They are no respecters of property lines.
>>
>> Is that what everyone else does? Do even the roughest sketches (drawing
>> the boundaries of parks, for instance) with webs of multipolygons sharing
>> many of the ways, so that one set of multipolygons can be tagged for the
>> protected area, another for the land use, and still another the land cover?
>> If so, it seems to make for an editing nightmare.
>>
> Yep.. I'm on the side of separating the landcover and landuse ways .. they
> only follow one another for things like 'state forests' that are used for
> lumber production (primary use, secondaries of recreation and conservation)


That's what State Forest means in New York, and I've tagged State Forests
with landuse=forest. (Also boundary=protected_area protect_class=6, which
is obviously The Right Thing.) Alas, they tend to be large parcels, and the
'landuse=forest' tag, to a lot of people here, means that every square
metre should be covered with trees. Unfortunately for that assumption,
there are lots of waterways, marshes, rock outcrops, talus slopes, and
what-not within the State Forests.  Since it's all at least hypothetically
managed for production of forest products, it's all tagged with
'landuse=forest', resulting in trees being painted atop waterways and such
like. That's the result of not making a distinction between land use and
land cover. That's fine, I can live with rendering bugs if the objects are
at least present.

Lands that the state labels Wild Forest are something else entirely. Wild
Forest totally forbids sale, harvest, or destruction of timber. It's about
half a grade below Wilderness. The chief difference is the level to which
motorized access is permitted, which amounts to "Wild Forest - in certain
rare circumstances; Wilderness - never" and the fact that Wild Forest is
much more likely to be second-growth (although 

Re: [Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[Warin]

On 7/27/2016 5:11 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
The immediate question: I have the boundary multipolygon for a large 
state park. The park has several stretches of waterfront. In some 
places the boundary of the park follows the high tide line. In others, 
it's set back from the shore (and the waterfront may have another 
owner). And in other cases the boundary extends far offshore (which 
may have implications for boaters). How best to divide and tag it so 
that the park exists as a unified entity, but does not result in 
rendering land or trees in the water?




Now from some gratuitous ranting, because I'm getting discouraged:


:-)You are not alone! My ideas below, feel free to disagree.



ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

My last question here, regarding how to tag public lands for which 
permission is required (but routinely granted) got answers that left 
me in a deeper state of confusion. The general consensus seemed to be 
"there is no difference between those and private lands other than the 
personality of the landowner, and they therefore must be tagged alike: 
access=private". That answer did not satisfy - I want a map that 
renders those cases differently, and things tagged alike cannot be 
rendered differently." Moreover, I don't hold out much hope that a 
formal proposal, wikified and voted, would end any differently; the 
voters are mostly on this list. (Also, nobody answered my question 
about how to initiate such a proposal.) I'm leaving Long Island 
mistagged with "access=yes" and not touching the "access=permit" on 
the New York City watershed parcels that I imported a few months ago 
(without a peep on "imports" about that detail of the proposal).


So that particular aspect of the project is "on hold" for now.

If you want finer detail then consider adding a sub tag e.g.
access=private
private= ... umm just how would you distinguish between a wilderness are 
where access permission is very restrictive and native lands where 
access is just a paper application that is easy to get and native lands 
where permission takes, say, 3 months of processing? You would need to 
consider what values to have for the 'private' key.  Once you do it and 
have some practicae at it .. add an OSM wiki page on it describing what 
it is so others know. I have a few wiki pages to add .. 
sport=hammer_throw, discus_throw, long_jump etc.




FOREST BOUNDARIES

I'm also trying hard not to resurrect the argument about "forests." 
The general consensus is that there simply is no way to tag the case, 
important in the US, of "a tract of land legally managed for wild-land 
resource production (wood and other products)." In this community, 
that idea simply cannot be separated from "land covered with trees". 
There are also other confusing ideas such as a "natural wood". The 
last, it appears, means either also "covered with trees" or else 
"virgin stands of old-growth forest", and also appears to connote 
"unmanaged" - which is a contradiction, since our few remaining tracts 
of wilderness are managed intensively to keep them that way. I've come 
to accept that any correct tagging will not render,


I and others take this view

natural=wood ... any area covered by trees ('natural' or not, managed or 
not)
landuse=forest .. any area of trees used to produce wood products - 
lumber, sap, oils etc.
and most nearly correct taggings will suffer from rendering gaffes 
like trees in water. (The concept of "a pond in the forest" apparently 
is sufficiently foreign that the phrase, on this forum, is nonsensical 
to the point of being meaningless: "surely you mean a pond SURROUNDED 
BY the forest?") So I do the best I can to tell as few lies as 
possible while still choosing a tagging that will be visible on the 
renderer, recalling that "boundary=protected_area" does not render. I 
don't expect, given the amount of progress toward rendering it in the 
last two or three years, that I'm going to see rendering of protected 
areas on any maps I don't produce.


Lets concentrate on the tagging - rendering is a separate issue with 
many choices.


A pond/lake in a forest - don't tag the water area with an area of trees.
Don't confuse an administrate area (state park) with land cover areas 
... these are separate features and should have their own separate OSM 
existence - and those OSM existences should be independent.


That's fine, I can live with doing my own rendering, although it 
increasingly means that I have to keep my own data on the side because 
there's no way to represent it semantically in OSM's tagging 
structure. It's at worst an inconvenience.


STATE PARKS (and many other types of public land)

New York, like many US States, has a system of "State Parks," which 
are land managed primarily for the purpose of public outdoor 
recreation. (Some of them have secondary purposes such as resource 
conservation. In particular, the large parks near the New York-New 
Jersey border exist at least in part to protect watershed for the