[talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden
Recently, the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens were changed from leisure=garden to leisure=park. This change prompted some discussion ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73984430) but no firm conclusions really arose, with the gardens still being mapped as a park at this stage. As botanic gardens are a reasonably common feature of major Australian cities, I looked at other cases around Australia, and found that tagging on these areas is quite inconsistent, with some being tagged as gardens such as Melbourne’s Royal Botanic Gardens, the Adelaide Botanic Gardens and (up until recently) Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens. Whereas, the Brisbane City Botanic Gardens, the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, and several others are mapped as parks. As the previously linked discussion highlighted, these spaces are quite diverse in their use and could easily be interpreted as parks, but at the same time, their design, function and general day to day use is considerably more horticulture/botany focused when compared to (as some examples) Hyde park in Sydney or the larger area of Kings Park in Perth. Additionally (also as discussed in the link), the tag garden:type=botanical descends in "tagging hierarchy" (whatever that is worth) from leisure=garden. The notion that this tag should be removed from a functional botanical garden or that it should sit alongside leisure=park doesn’t seem like it’s correct. Should all botanical gardens be changed to match one another? Is leisure=park or leisure=garden more correct in some/the majority/all of these cases? Regards, Daniel (WoodWoseWulf) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What is a discussion brief?
23 Sep 2019, 11:50 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > If you have a specific problem .. Australian .. or problems ... then tell us > what they are > +1 Yeah, additional discussion/definitions/materials may be useful. But what is the problem that you try to solve?___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What are the Facts?
Hi, if I may offer two pieces of advice for a successful discussion on mailing lists. On 23.09.19 12:35, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: > What are the Facts? > I have decided to publish the discussion brief in two parts: “The Facts” > and then “The Issue”. This is me telling you I am going to do that. I > will send you the first part tomorrow. First, try not to "lead" the discussion. Open a topic, see what people have to say, digest, and reply a couple days later. Repeat that process. If you "drive" things by being very present and writing lots of things in a small timeframe, people will quickly tire of engaging and you will be talking to a brick wall. My second recommendation is, and I admit this is not always possible or easy, try to limit the number of discussions you open simultaneously to one, otherwise people will get confused easily and mix your different issues together ESPECIALLY if the subject is imprecise. Also, I have the impression that the message I am replying to might contain a mix of quoted material and your original writing but it is not obvious to me which are your words and which are copied from elsewhere. I case you have used text formatting to distinguish - e.g. bold, or color - it has not surived! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What are the Facts?
Herbert, All this is quite a lot and lacks clear issues to discuss. It also reads to me as if you would be writing down some text that has been developed by a larger group and you are writing done their view? Keep in mind that little response to your lengthy text does not mean consent or endorsement. -- On 23 September 2019 8:35:53 pm AEST, "Herbert.Remi via Talk-au" wrote: >What are the Facts? >> ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.’> >— Daniel Patrick Moynihan >I have decided to publish the discussion brief in two parts: “The >Facts” and then “The Issue”. This is me telling you I am going to do >that. I will send you the first part tomorrow. >"The Facts" is a summary of information from various relevant sources >in OSM Wiki, laws and regulations that apply to the ACT and any other >information of a factual nature which may help clarify “The Issue.” >In principle, the facts should be straight forward. >The first step is the pick through what we know and clarify, confirm >and remove any errors that have crept into the brief. This information >creates a level playing field of knowledge. >Your comments are more than welcome. To quote OSM Wiki, “be bold.” >If you think any of the information is in error, please try to provide >the correct information and preferably with a link, or at least mention >the source of this information. At every level in OSM, it always comes >back to the principle of “verifiable”. It is easy to get things wrong >when we are relying on memory. >Please stick to critiquing the facts and not getting off-topic. I will >process your feedback at the end of the calendar day and integrate the >information into the brief or correct it as is required. >The updated and corrected facts section will be published with the full >brief including “The Issue” on the following day. >The same is true for the quality definition. A word can have many >meanings. This is why the OSM technical definition is so valuable. >The purpose of the quality definition is to define in OSM terms, for >example, what a shared bike path is, within the context of its >information provided in “The Facts”. In other words, we cannot have a >quality definition that is illegal under ACT law or unfit for purpose. >Coming tomorrow 24/9/2019 >The Facts for Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back: >confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] What are the Facts?
What are the Facts? > ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.’> — > Daniel Patrick Moynihan I have decided to publish the discussion brief in two parts: “The Facts” and then “The Issue”. This is me telling you I am going to do that. I will send you the first part tomorrow. "The Facts" is a summary of information from various relevant sources in OSM Wiki, laws and regulations that apply to the ACT and any other information of a factual nature which may help clarify “The Issue.” In principle, the facts should be straight forward. The first step is the pick through what we know and clarify, confirm and remove any errors that have crept into the brief. This information creates a level playing field of knowledge. Your comments are more than welcome. To quote OSM Wiki, “be bold.” If you think any of the information is in error, please try to provide the correct information and preferably with a link, or at least mention the source of this information. At every level in OSM, it always comes back to the principle of “verifiable”. It is easy to get things wrong when we are relying on memory. Please stick to critiquing the facts and not getting off-topic. I will process your feedback at the end of the calendar day and integrate the information into the brief or correct it as is required. The updated and corrected facts section will be published with the full brief including “The Issue” on the following day. The same is true for the quality definition. A word can have many meanings. This is why the OSM technical definition is so valuable. The purpose of the quality definition is to define in OSM terms, for example, what a shared bike path is, within the context of its information provided in “The Facts”. In other words, we cannot have a quality definition that is illegal under ACT law or unfit for purpose. Coming tomorrow 24/9/2019 The Facts for Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back: confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What is a discussion brief?
On 23/09/19 09:41, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: What is a discussion brief? A discussion brief serves to describe comprehensively what we know before we go on to review an issue in OSM. The objective is to decide how to solve a nagging problem. I resist in saying the “best way” as I think often there may be no golden rule to be found. I think it enough that OSM is consistent and that we have a definition of quality. Quality is important because when we are trying “improve” OSM it is often “quality” issues, but if there is no consensus of what quality is, then there will be differing opinions on what to do. tl:dr. Either get to the point .. or I won't read your stuff. And not reading it does not mean I agree with it. Your on the Australian list.. a spade is a spade mate. If you want to talk to the world of OSM then there are other lists. If you have a specific problem .. Australian .. or problems ... then tell us what they are. This process could be done for other states and countries, but I am not getting personally involved in that. ??? Then why go on about it? You seem to think that there is time for people to read through this stuff and try to make sense of it. Wrong. Every one has other things to do and this takes away from that. I hope to release the first discussion brief soon. No, don't. Simply state your personal problem. No managerial words .. just the problem. No 'discussion brief'. Just in simple words .. what problem you have. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] What is a discussion brief?
Herbert, I'm very sorry, but I have no clue what you are trying to achieve with your series of complaints. At least I see them as complaints. it would be helpful to me, that you give a number of real examples where the documentation is lacking or wrong or ... I have the feeling you either do not understand the way OSM works, or that you do understand it, but want to change it completely. Describing some actual problems would solve this. Also, whenever I see someone coming to OSM with a basket full of complaints and "demanding" OSM to change, they clash with the existing community and leave sooner or later. Either disappointed or angry. OSM will not radically change because some random individual does not like the way it works. It's also worrying to me that you write "Going into OSM and mapping is the least of my concerns". Mapping is AFAIK, the number 1 reason for many people in the OSM world. Did you already map something? Was that a problem? If so, why? That are things we can help with, by giving answers here, or updating the Wiki. I wonder whether we can help you if you stay vague and describe some high level workflow or procedures. Hopefully Discussion C confusion about tagging bike tracks in the ACT will be a real tagging issue. regards m. On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:43 AM Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote: > > What is a discussion brief? > A discussion brief serves to describe comprehensively what we know before we > go on to review an issue in OSM. The objective is to decide how to solve a > nagging problem. I resist in saying the “best way” as I think often there may > be no golden rule to be found. > I think it enough that OSM is consistent and that we have a definition of > quality. Quality is important because when we are trying “improve” OSM it is > often “quality” issues, but if there is no consensus of what quality is, then > there will be differing opinions on what to do. This is one of the reasons > that discussion can become quite circular: the same word means to different > people different things. > Therefore, please go through the facts presented at the top of this brief and > the quality definition and try to find fault with it. The information should > be true and factual. The quality definition should be complete (nothing > missing) and fit for the purpose described in the brief. > The next step is the review of the OSM guidelines and Australia guidelines. > Everybody in OSM knows something of these. Even beginners need to know some > basics. This section is intended to provide a level playing field: it is a > reminder and education all in one. I hope this helps get the participation of > the widest possible audience, not just the knockers. Again, please go through > the facts presented in this section and suggest corrections if any errors are > found. > The next section of the discussion brief will present a problem with > inconsistency or quality found in OSM and specifically in the ACT, which is > my area of interest. The purpose is to reconcile what is in OSM with the > guidelines and other known facts (laws and regulations) to decide what is the > best way to proceed. I think in most cases, the decision will be to revert to > the guidelines. There is an issue here that the guidelines are often > ambiguous or even conflicting. This can be resolved by changes to state, > country or general guidelines. Considering all the work already done, I think > guidelines are in many cases likely to be serviceable and that the problem is > more likely to arise from poor or inconsistent implementation. A social > solution is then best which involves bringing the current generation of > mappers for the area up to speed, once again. This is a perpetual task. > The final step is to fix the problem. Going into OSM and mapping is the least > of my concerns. OSM mappers do that very well and it is the reason that OSM > is so successful. Another task that may arise from time to time is updating > OSM guidelines. This is a wiki job and not suited to everybody. Any football > team has only one goalkeeper but many players on the field. Wiki is like > that. You need some people doing it but many more mapping. We would hope, > that the wiki guidelines are the first place that the mapper goes, but if > not, then it will guide future controversy. At the very least, this process > should feed some mapper experience back improving the guidelines. > This process could be done for other states and countries, but I am not > getting personally involved in that. I would like to thank, however, the many > people who do map areas they have never been and never likely to go. This > makes the OSM task a lot easier for the rest of us. > I hope to release the first discussion brief soon. > Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back - confusion about tagging > bike tracks in the ACT. > I look forward to your contributions. > > _
