Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/28 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net how do you define main area? Aren't the shafts vertical access / ventilation shafts that lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised). The main area is the area where all the bigger buildings of the mine are. IMHO the mine is the mine, not buildings. The buildings are buildings (also as tag: building=xy). They could/should be also comprised in the mine polygon/ relation. An airshaft could be a single node outside of this area - inside of the mining area (which would be underground but in projection still occupy the same space). You almost always know the name of the mine. But it is too complicated to create a relation for the mineshaft, to assosiate it with that mine - escpecially when only the mineshaft is mapped. It's not more complicated than any other relation: just add all parts as members. The easiest case is just the mineshaft beeing mapped: the relation then has only one member (till other parts get added/mapped). All mineshafts i know have their own name. That's why you cannot use the name-tag for the name of the mine. So at the moment there are: name - name of the mineshaft itself mine - name of the mine which the mineshaft is part of operator - name of the operator of the mine OK, seems reasonable (and easy to map, what is always important in OSM). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/24 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net: - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd not recommend to do it with tags but either with a polygon, or with a relation (e.g. site-relation) or both. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/21 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Dave F.: However, I believe that using a common key instead of disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using different *values* would have been the better alternative. Common Key? Can you give an example? If you mean status=disused, I'm not sure how that get around the problem of ignoring all other keys. Yes, I mean status=*, and I'm aware that it doesn't avoid the problem - however, the problem would have to be solved only once for all possible status values. A check for status will filter out objects with e.g. status=planned, too, even if only construction, disused and abandoned were known when status was introduced. This wouldn't be helpful either, as status could be as well running, working, in use or whatever. Why would I want to filter these out? IMHO you can only use information that you do understand, other you will have to ignore. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/24 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net: - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd not recommend to do it with tags but either with a polygon, or with a relation (e.g. site-relation) or both. cheers, Martin I do not see a possibility to express it with a polygon. Mineshaft are often outside of the main area of the mine. I already thought about a relation. But AFAIK the site-relation is also just a proposal at the moment. Besides it is quite easy to map a mineshaft, but difficult to map the rest of the mine, if there are no satellite pictures. And it would be senseless to make a relation which contains only the mineshaft. So IMO there should be tag with the name of the mine. This does not prevent to add the mineshaft to a site-relation as well. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Some questions: - Do you think it is better to use a namespaced tag (mineshaft:type) or a normal tag (mineshaft_type)? In the current proposal the first one is used. But looking at other features i think that in this case a normal tag would be better. It's also bunker_type for example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker. - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? There were no further comments, so I've changed mineshaft:type to mineshaft_type. I've also added the mine-tag. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/28 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net 2009/10/24 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net: - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd not recommend to do it with tags but either with a polygon, or with a relation (e.g. site-relation) or both. cheers, Martin I do not see a possibility to express it with a polygon. Mineshaft are often outside of the main area of the mine. how do you define main area? Aren't the shafts vertical access / ventilation shafts that lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised). I already thought about a relation. But AFAIK the site-relation is also just a proposal at the moment. yes, but there doesn't seem to be a better one (AFAIR just route, multipolygon and restrictions are approved relations). Besides it is quite easy to map a mineshaft, but difficult to map the rest of the mine, if there are no satellite pictures. or the company provides you the information, or you work there. That's anyway not a problem to discuss: either you have the info and put it or you don't and will most likely not put it. And it would be senseless to make a relation which contains only the mineshaft. So IMO there should be tag with the name of the mine. This does not prevent to add the mineshaft to a site-relation as well. sure, just put name=name_of_the_mine like for any other feature. A problem might arise if the mineshaft has a name itself and/or if there is more than one mineshaft. In these cases I'd still opt for the relation. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
how do you define main area? Aren't the shafts vertical access / ventilation shafts that lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised). The main area is the area where all the bigger buildings of the mine are. An airshaft could be a single node outside of this area and that's why a polygon can not express that the mineshaft is part of the mine. But perhaps you meant something different with polygon. or the company provides you the information, or you work there. That's anyway not a problem to discuss: either you have the info and put it or you don't and will most likely not put it. You almost always know the name of the mine. But it is too complicated to create a relation for the mineshaft, to assosiate it with that mine - escpecially when only the mineshaft is mapped. sure, just put name=name_of_the_mine like for any other feature. A problem might arise if the mineshaft has a name itself and/or if there is more than one mineshaft. In these cases I'd still opt for the relation. All mineshafts i know have their own name. That's why you cannot use the name-tag for the name of the mine. So at the moment there are: name - name of the mineshaft itself mine - name of the mine which the mineshaft is part of operator - name of the operator of the mine lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
Some questions: - Do you think it is better to use a namespaced tag (mineshaft:type) or a normal tag (mineshaft_type)? In the current proposal the first one is used. But looking at other features i think that in this case a normal tag would be better. It's also bunker_type for example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbunker. - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the mine the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate? mine=...? lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Peter Childs schrieb: Yes But, If a Pub is tagged amenity=pub disused=yes The thing looks like a put (ie large pub like lables) hence works relatively well as a land mark, it just happens to be closed and does not sell Beer anymore. Its still useful if its a landmark. same as a disused mine shaft is. Once it gets knocked down, or reused, or as something else then the tags need changing. There is no but here. A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. If you stand in front of it, you'll now this once was a cafe. Larger paved area in front, view to a lake, maybe even chairs piled and locked, ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. If you stand in front of it, you'll now this once was a cafe. Larger paved area in front, view to a lake, maybe even chairs piled and locked, ... Former places here usually don't bother to take down signage, they get taken down when a new owner moves in. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.comwrote: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. Is it a cafe? No. Should it be tagged as a cafe? No. The disused tag can have certain uses when the object tagged does not really change if it is used or not. A power line is basically a pwoer line even if it disconnected and a cemetary is basically a cemetery even if it is no longer used. But a cafe or pub? Absolutely not. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Ulf Lamping wrote: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. Whether you think it's still a café (or a pub) or not might depend on how hungry or thirsty you are. If I was, I wouldn't consider it one. It's probably a decision best left to someone stood there in front of it rather than trying to impose a structure from above. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Someoneelse schrieb: Ulf Lamping wrote: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. Whether you think it's still a café (or a pub) or not might depend on how hungry or thirsty you are. If I was, I wouldn't consider it one. What part of former cafe is it that don't you understand? If someone tells you there once was a cafe at the end of the road and there you should turn left, do you expect to get some coffee or tea and a cake there? I very certainly wouldn't. It's probably a decision best left to someone stood there in front of it rather than trying to impose a structure from above. That sentence makes no sense in the context of what I've written. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Ulf Lamping wrote: What part of former cafe is it that don't you understand? Well, amenity=former_cafe I certainly DO understand. I thought that you were arguing in favour of the construct further up the thread: amenity=pub disused=yes To my mind a pub that doesn't serve beer some of the time isn't a pub. It's probably a decision best left to someone stood there in front of it rather than trying to impose a structure from above. That sentence makes no sense in the context of what I've written. What I was trying to say (and has also been explained perhaps more clearly by others) is that in some contexts disused=yes can make sense. It's impossible to imagine all the possibilities sat behind a keyboard. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On 21 Oct 2009, at 09:44, Ulf Lamping wrote: Peter Childs schrieb: Yes But, If a Pub is tagged amenity=pub disused=yes The thing looks like a put (ie large pub like lables) hence works relatively well as a land mark, it just happens to be closed and does not sell Beer anymore. Its still useful if its a landmark. same as a disused mine shaft is. Once it gets knocked down, or reused, or as something else then the tags need changing. There is no but here. A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. If you stand in front of it, you'll now this once was a cafe. Larger paved area in front, view to a lake, maybe even chairs piled and locked, ... It is not helpful if you are looking for a list of places that you can get a coffee/beer/snack. If you want to use old cafes as a landmark you could use old_amenity=cafe to say that it is no longer open and serving customers. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote: What part of former cafe is it that don't you understand? the disused part I understand former_cafe quite well and i wonder how we got to cafe from mineshaft ?? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/21 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Someoneelse wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one man-made=mineshaft and no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? landuse=quarry ? 364 uses in tagwatch and how many of them are mines? The thing is, that there are quite different types of quarries, dependant on what you are after. This is an example for lignite mining in Germany, where you usually have huge areas and equipment: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Tagebau_Garzweiler_Panorama_2005.jpg actually there you are after lignite that is quite profund (up to 100 m) whilst this is what I would expect from quarry: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Quarry.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Lobejun1.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Cararra-Steinbruch.JPG here they are getting plates and cubes, mostly not too profund, and generally much smaller areas, but the material is quite hard. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. So propose landmark=cafe. Much easier than changing the definitions of both amenity and amenity=cafe. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Lesi wrote: ... There should be man_made=peak. There will be if you tag one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal -RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
It seems like it would make more sense to have a tag called peak, with attributes natural or manmade, rather than the other way around. After all, every object in the world is either manmade or natural. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:39:48 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft) Lesi wrote: I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use natural=peak. Not sure what to use at the moment, but they're definitely not natural. Cheers Dave F. That's right. But they are peaks. There should be man_made=peak. The problem is, that after a recultivation a slag heap or a rubbish dump often can not be distinguished from a natural peak. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Tobias Knerr wrote: Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM: We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it doesn't know without causing problems. If I don't support distinguishing between different variants of amenity=parking, I just ignore parking=* tags entirely, and while the result is less useful, it's still correct. If I don't support disused features, I can just ignore disused=yes tags ... no wait, I can't. Of course, in order to make mapping convenient, it's sometimes necessary to break that concept (with access tags, for example), and probably we won't be able to get rid of disused/abandoned/construction/planned/proposed/etc anymore. Unfortunately, people didn't seem to like my status=disused/... proposal very much. Tobias Knerr I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but anyway... Are you suggesting there's no exception rule for renderers?: Ignore all subsequent keys except for ones label disused or abandoned Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Dave F. wrote: I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but anyway... Are you suggesting there's no exception rule for renderers?: Ignore all subsequent keys except for ones label disused or abandoned I agree that a renderer should be able to deal with tags like disused=yes. I also agree that disused is widely used, so it cannot reasonably be ignored anymore, and replacing it with an alternative way of tagging probably is no longer an option. However, I believe that using a common key instead of disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using different *values* would have been the better alternative. Once applications would have learned about the key, they would have been able to handle new values immediately. I also recommend that, when tags are created in the future, they should be designed so that they can be ignored unless there are important reasons for breaking that rule. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Tobias Knerr wrote: Dave F. wrote: I can't work out if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but anyway... Are you suggesting there's no exception rule for renderers?: Ignore all subsequent keys except for ones label disused or abandoned I agree that a renderer should be able to deal with tags like disused=yes. I also agree that disused is widely used, so it cannot reasonably be ignored anymore, and replacing it with an alternative way of tagging probably is no longer an option. However, I believe that using a common key instead of disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using different *values* would have been the better alternative. Common Key? Can you give an example? If you mean status=disused, I'm not sure how that get around the problem of ignoring all other keys. railway=station status=disused If status is ignored, this would still display as a functioning station. Once applications would have learned about the key, they would have been able to handle new values immediately. I also recommend that, when tags are created in the future, they should be designed so that they can be ignored unless there are important reasons for breaking that rule. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Dave F.: However, I believe that using a common key instead of disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using different *values* would have been the better alternative. Common Key? Can you give an example? If you mean status=disused, I'm not sure how that get around the problem of ignoring all other keys. Yes, I mean status=*, and I'm aware that it doesn't avoid the problem - however, the problem would have to be solved only once for all possible status values. A check for status will filter out objects with e.g. status=planned, too, even if only construction, disused and abandoned were known when status was introduced. A check for c./d./a.=yes will not filter out planned=yes, thus increasing the required effort for monitoring tagging trends and adapting applications. Therefore, I'd consider a common key an improvement, but of course the problem of ignoring keys would still exist. The problem could only be avoided completely by using things like disused_KEY = VALUE or KEY = disused + disused = VALUE, but the widespread use of disused/...=yes seems to demonstrate that not all mappers like these. The idea was that maybe the common key approach could be some kind of compromise. As I said, though, I don't believe that an attempt to establish an alternative to disused=yes could be successful. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. So propose landmark=cafe. Much easier than changing the definitions of both amenity and amenity=cafe. Nobody is changing any definitions. They are just using a combination of two existing and widely used tags. Much, much easier than writing a proposal for a new tag. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is not that uncommon in germany. So propose landmark=cafe. Much easier than changing the definitions of both amenity and amenity=cafe. Nobody is changing any definitions. They are just using a combination of two existing and widely used tags. Much, much easier than writing a proposal for a new tag. If nobody is changing any definitions, then tagging a former cafe with amenity=cafe is wrong on two counts. Amenity is the primary tag for useful and important facilities for visitors and residents. amenity=cafe is for a generally informal place with sit-down facilities selling beverages and light meals and/or snacks. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Gustav Foseid writes: Is it a cafe? No. Should it be tagged as a cafe? No. Clearly one could verify that the location seems to be a cafe. Thus this is not a question about whether it should be tagged, but instead how it should be tagged as a former cafe. May I suggest use of the Nelson Algorithm for resolving this controvery? Create Tag:amenity=formercafe and edit Tag:amenity=cafe to point to Tag:amnenity=formercafe ? The fact that this discussion has mutated and blossomed tells me that we've gotten away from documentable fact and gotten into the realm of opinion. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Cartinus writes: Nobody is changing any definitions. They are just using a combination of two existing and widely used tags. Much, much easier than writing a proposal for a new tag. If it's obviously the right thing to do, then do it, and DOCUMENT IT IN THE WIKI so that other people can follow your lead. Or follow somebody else's lead. Or invent a new, better tagset. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
Hello, based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: resource? lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net Hello, based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: resource? lesi Not sure thats going to work Power Plants produce Electricity from the resource Mine Shafts produce the resource. A Processing Plant, will produce one resource and take in a different one, I agree standardizing on resource might be a good idea but we might need resource_output and resource_input or somthing Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Peter Childs wrote: I agree standardizing on resource might be a good idea but we might need resource_output and resource_input or somthing Are you an economist? from my worldview which deals with people and biological systems i don't see an importance in designating where on its path the resource lies how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
there are mineshafts and BIG mineshafts and open cut mines and mining in english has its own language to describe the parts of the mine For open cut mines there is another draft. IMO they are something completly different. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining The intention of this proposal is to tag the most important and most visible part of a mine - not the other parts, which are just normal buildings. The area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial. and some mineshafts have winding gear on headframes and lots of other things Having winding gears is the main purpose of a headframe IMO. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one man-made=mineshaft and no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one man-made=mineshaft and no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? In the area I map the mineshafts are currently not mapped at all. Also looking at mineshafts in other parts of the world they are very often not mapped. Sometimes they are tagged with tourism=attraction (especially when they can be visited), sometimes with historic=mine (if they are disused), sometimes there is only a note, that there is a mineshaft. But it seems mostly they are not mapped because people do not know how to tag them. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
and no references to surface_mining There is also landuse=quarry which can be used for surface mines. But actually they are not part of my proposal - it refers only to underground mining. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Someoneelse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one man-made=mineshaft and no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? I checked 2 places I know of for surface mining: one uses landuse=quarry (IMHO errateously) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.60024lon=14.24461zoom=15layers=B000FTF the other one is not in use anymore and does not define any area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5545lon=14.0141zoom=13layers=B000FTF cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net: It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one man-made=mineshaft and no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? In the area I map the mineshafts are currently not mapped at all. Also looking at mineshafts in other parts of the world they are very often not mapped. Sometimes they are tagged with tourism=attraction (especially when they can be visited), sometimes with historic=mine (if they are disused), sometimes there is only a note, that there is a mineshaft. But it seems mostly they are not mapped because people do not know how to tag them. There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't get anywhere near it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't get anywhere near it. You're missing the point: this is not about whether it is possible to get there or not, but how to map them, which tags to use if you know where they are, which parts might be interesting, etc. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2009/10/20 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't get anywhere near it. You're missing the point: this is not about whether it is possible to get there or not, but how to map them, which tags to use if you know where they are, which parts might be interesting, etc. cheers, Martin I didn't miss anything, just pointing out why they aren't mapped, and it isn't because people haven't figured out what to tag them with. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote: how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to add an extra level of indirection, so that you don't end up having disused or closed things being confused with things that are still in operation. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
There is probably a good reason only tourist attractions are mapped because you wouldn't be allowed to go near one unless you worked there, there is a mine shaft on the other side of town but I wouldn't get anywhere near it. I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argument half of the features of OSM should not be mapped e.g. historic=wreck or streets within the ground of a factory. And once again: mineshafts which have a headframe are very good points of reference. Often names of mineshafts are also used to describe where something is (e.g. somebody could say: You will not know the street, but it's near the Foobar Mineshaft.). Mineshafts and mines are also mapped on many commercial maps. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote: how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to add an extra level of indirection, so that you don't end up having disused or closed things being confused with things that are still in operation. Shaun Could you explain this further, I do not understand what you mean. disused=yes is quite popular and used in combination with many other things. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net: I know mineshaft you can get very close to (2-3m). With your argument half of the features of OSM should not be mapped e.g. historic=wreck or streets within the ground of a factory. And once again: mineshafts which have a headframe are very good points of reference. Often names of mineshafts are also used to describe where something is (e.g. somebody could say: You will not know the street, but it's near the Foobar Mineshaft.). Mineshafts and mines are also mapped on many commercial maps. If most of the world only has low res sat imagery, and shaft heads usually are only a few pixels wide on low res, so how do you mark them if you can't get close to them? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On 20 Oct 2009, at 14:44, Lesi wrote: On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:05, Lesi wrote: how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes Do NOT use something like disused=yes as a modifier, you instead need to add an extra level of indirection, so that you don't end up having disused or closed things being confused with things that are still in operation. Shaun Could you explain this further, I do not understand what you mean. disused=yes is quite popular and used in combination with many other things. I'll take an example of an amenity=cafe since it's one that I know slightly better. If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Instead you should use something like old_amenity=cafe, or amenity=closed;closed=cafe, that way there won't be any confusion. As another example for when a road is under construction, you can use highway=constriction;construction=primary, thus routing engines won't route along that road. If you added a construction=yes or similar tag, it would require so much more complex logic in the processing of the osm data that it wouldn't be practical to do it this way. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
I worried that the use of language might prove to be confusing and the the buildings associated with a mine should have a separate tag. 1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from the mine entrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way' that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going into a hillside 2. What we want to locate, or map, are mine entrances. Mine entrances to are mostly small and most go horizontally into hillsides. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Mine_entrance.jpg I assume most are too small to map as an area in OSM. They would have to be mapped as a node. 3. There are plans to supply info on structures associated with mines as part of the tag, notably the Pit Head. I think this could be confusing and people would map the outline of the Pit Head structure and tag it as a 'mineshaft'. The Pit Head should be mapped separately as a building and this should be made clear. 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term for the building or structure. Jason 2009/10/20 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net Hello, based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: resource? lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from the mineentrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way' that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going into a hillside 2. What we want to locate, or map, are mine entrances. Mine entrances to are mostly small and most go horizontally into hillsides. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Mine_entrance.jpg I assume most are too small to map as an area in OSM. They would have to be mapped as a node. I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about adits, that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms. 3. There are plans to supply info on structures associated with mines as part of the tag, notably the Pit Head. I think this could be confusing and people would map the outline of the Pit Head structure and tag it as a 'mineshaft'. The Pit Head should be mapped separately as a building and this should be made clear. I am not sure what you mean here. The pit head is always above the mineshaft, so it makes no sense to map the mineshaft and the pithead seperatly. 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term for the building or structure. Headframe is the more correct term. A headframe is the structural frame above an underground mine shaft (see Wikipedia). Usually winding shafts have such a headframe, air shafts do not. A pit head could also be a building with an enclosed headframe. But the intention of this tag is to express if the headframe is visible, because it is a prominent point of reference. Look at the examples in the wiki. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
I think you are mixing up audits and mineshafts. Mineshafts always go verticaly or almost-verticaly into the ground. You are talking about adits, that is something completly different and should be dealed with in another proposal. See Wikipedia for definitions of these terms. Of course I meant adit and not audit. Some people would call it a gallery. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Instead you should use something like old_amenity=cafe, or amenity=closed;closed=cafe, that way there won't be any confusion. I agree with you, but at the moment disused=yes is widely used and not deprecated. So there is no reason to use a different system with mineshafts. I would recommend to start a proposal to deprecate disused=yes and replace it with =closed;closed=. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: The area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial. Too broad a definition industrial covers too much mining is quite different a landuse heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have to rehabilitate the area in the same way as mining ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: Having winding gears is the main purpose of a headframe IMO. but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Someoneelse wrote: no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? I've used quarry for an open cut mine, but it isn't appropriate for the size of feature involved. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote: If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. But a disused mineshaft is still a mineshaft, it's just an abandoned one. As another example for when a road is under construction, you can use highway=constriction;construction=primary, thus routing engines won't route along that road That logic makes sense for a highway that is under construction. But I'm not sure it makes sense for an abandoned mineshaft. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: Of course I meant adit and not audit. Some people would call it a gallery. In Australia I've heard level gallery stopes and probably some other words i've forgotten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Jason Cunningham wrote: 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term for the building or structure. I don't claim to be an expert on mining language but pit head is the area / buildings surrounding the shaft, and headframe sits exactly over the shaft. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
but when the mine shaft is disused the winding gear is removed I can not confirm this. All disused mineshafts I know still have their winding gear, only the cables are removed. But even if the winding gear is removed you can tag with headframe=yes. Of courde, if the whole headframe is removed the mineshaft should be tagged with disused=yes;headframe=no. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
how will you tag unmined deposits in such a scheme? If there is a unmined deposit, the mineshaft is not in use anymore - disused=yes. lesi I wasn't thinking of disused, i was thinking of still there, with or without a mineshaft Perhaps, my English is too bad, but I do not really understand what you mean. With unmined deposit you mean the resource, but what has the resource to do with the existence of a mineshaft. Underground resources can not be mapped. lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Underground resources can not be mapped. why not? isn't that what a geology map does? I was commenting on the resource proposal really Now I get your point. The resource-tag describes for which resource the mineshaft was built. If the mineshaft is disused, it is irrelevant if the deposits are mined or unmined. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/20 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Lesi wrote: The area of the mine can be tagged with landuse=industrial. Too broad a definition industrial covers too much mining is quite different a landuse heavy industry doesn't build up piles of waste (mullock heaps) and then have to rehabilitate the area in the same way as mining +1 landuse=surface_mining? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
Someoneelse wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Surface_Mining It would be helpful to know what people are mapping these features as currently - looking in the UK I can see one man-made=mineshaft and no references to surface_mining. Do you know what people are using currently? landuse=quarry ? 364 uses in tagwatch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Shaun McDonald wrote: If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a widely used tag. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Lesi wrote: I was already planning to start a proposal for heaps. At the moment I use natural=peak. Not sure what to use at the moment, but they're definitely not natural. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a widely used tag. What does shop=cafe, disused=yes mean? When a cafe is abandoned, it's no longer a cafe, it's now an abandoned building. I think the renderer is right in this example, and the tagger is, most likely, wrong (maybe there is an example of a cafe which is still a cafe, it's just a disused cafe, but this seems rare, and not something that should be widely used). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Shaun McDonald wrote: If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a widely used tag. What does shop=cafe, disused=yes mean? When a cafe is abandoned, it's no longer a cafe, it's now an abandoned building. I think the renderer is right in this example, and the tagger is, most likely, wrong (maybe there is an example of a cafe which is still a cafe, it's just a disused cafe, but this seems rare, and not something that should be widely used). Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no problem. Disused quarry, yes. But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition. a generally informal place with sit-down facilities selling beverages and light meals and/or snacks. By that definition, if they aren't selling anything, they're not a cafe. So what is a disused cafe? When they're selling but no one is buying? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Dave F.: Shaun McDonald wrote: If you just add a disused=yes, pretty much nothing that works with the OSM data will recognise that it is no longer a cafe. Don't map for the renderer, router etc. etc. You should be writing a post asking why they don't recognise such a widely used tag. Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM: We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it doesn't know without causing problems. If I don't support distinguishing between different variants of amenity=parking, I just ignore parking=* tags entirely, and while the result is less useful, it's still correct. If I don't support disused features, I can just ignore disused=yes tags ... no wait, I can't. Of course, in order to make mapping convenient, it's sometimes necessary to break that concept (with access tags, for example), and probably we won't be able to get rid of disused/abandoned/construction/planned/proposed/etc anymore. Unfortunately, people didn't seem to like my status=disused/... proposal very much. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Because tags like disused=yes conflict with a general principle in OSM: We don't have a fixed set of tags and mappers can invent and use their own tags, so it should be possible for software to ignore tags it doesn't know without causing problems. If I don't support distinguishing between different variants of amenity=parking, I just ignore parking=* tags entirely, and while the result is less useful, it's still correct. If I don't support disused features, I can just ignore disused=yes tags ... no wait, I can't. Okay, but what if the tag is man_made=mineshaft? Is it safe to ignore the disused=yes tag then? I don't see why not. It's not like man_made=mineshaft means you can grab a pickaxe and go head for it. A mineshaft defaults to *not* being accessible to the public. Whereas a parking lot defaults to being *accessible* to the public (in fact, that's even in the definition, though the definition is somewhat ruined with the weasel-word Generally). Bottom line, is man_made=mineshaft a tag to represent the physical presence of a mineshaft, or is it a tag to represent the use of a mineshaft in mining? If the former, disused=yes is fine. If the latter, it isn't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
Anthony schrieb: Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no problem. Disused quarry, yes. But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition. Well, yes and no. People might remember that there once was a cafe. They might call the building the cafe even if its no longer a cafe in use. So this is what the mapper *may* wanted to express. While I don't think the combination is well done, it but could well have its reasons. However, This obviously doesn't work pretty well in the 4th dimension, if you want to tag: this once was a cafe, before that a pub, before a bakery and before that a police_station. Another even simpler problem, if a node is tagged: shop=bakery amenity=police_station disused=yes disused refers to shop or amenity now? Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)
2009/10/21 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com Anthony schrieb: Disused canal, fine. Disused railway, sure. Disused building, no problem. Disused quarry, yes. But disused cafe? A cafe is a building, or part of a building, which is *used* as a cafe. The use is part of the definition. Well, yes and no. People might remember that there once was a cafe. They might call the building the cafe even if its no longer a cafe in use. So this is what the mapper *may* wanted to express. While I don't think the combination is well done, it but could well have its reasons. However, This obviously doesn't work pretty well in the 4th dimension, if you want to tag: this once was a cafe, before that a pub, before a bakery and before that a police_station. Another even simpler problem, if a node is tagged: shop=bakery amenity=police_station disused=yes disused refers to shop or amenity now? Yes But, If a Pub is tagged amenity=pub disused=yes The thing looks like a put (ie large pub like lables) hence works relatively well as a land mark, it just happens to be closed and does not sell Beer anymore. Its still useful if its a landmark. same as a disused mine shaft is. Once it gets knocked down, or reused, or as something else then the tags need changing. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
