Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
On Jul 26, 2022, at 6:05 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 10:42, stevea wrote: > We map cannabis facilities in California; cannabis is legal here. > > Production facilities, or only shops? I have mapped several shops, as their location must "thread careful needles," like being so many thousands of feet away from schools and such, so they are necessarily located in what are relatively out-of-the way places. If I knew of "industrial plants (for cannabis)" — heh, see what I did there?! — I WOULD map them, but again, I might not necessarily include a name=* tag, especially if they were quite closed to the public (as most "industrial plants" are). My point is, they are legal, they are not "top secret" (like a military facility, for which we have specific tagging, and laws-on-the-ground which REALLY guide what is legal, expected human behavior regarding these facilities). And again, if they are especially strict with access=no (as I imagine they would be, with "upped" surveillance like gates, guards, fences, cameras...these are mappable, too), then include an access=no tag to underscore that "they are there, they are not there for YOU." > I am of the opinion that "if it is in the world, it can be mapped." There > are things that people say we SHOULD not map, and I have even seen some > well-reasoned arguments which cause me to nod my head. > > Yeah, discussion also on Discord is concerning Verifiability - is there a > sign out the front which says what it is? I've had discussion about this regarding key:owner on our wiki. [1] If it IS a sign (plaque, building dedication stone...) that asserts actual, current ownership, that is certainly definitive, and has every reason to enter OSM. But "government records" (I argue in the Talk page of that wiki) can also be used, as long as this practice doesn't hew too closely to turning OSM into a "cadastral-like database of land- and business-ownership information." I mean, we map fast_food restaurants (businesses, yes, these ARE open to the public), along with their opening_hours, website, phone_number...etc., so we certainly can map OTHER businesses. Even those not open to the public (it's good as we denote that). But again, a polygon of the outline of the building tagged building=industrial is at least a start, and such "little starts" are frequently how good, verifiable, reliable data are "built up" (over time) in OSM. > (I note with some amusement that you cay "Cannabis 'plant'" > > LOL! :-) Once in a while, mild linguistic ambiguity can (and does) give rise to mild amusement. [1] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:owner , and see its Talk page, too. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
Graeme and Steve, I think Steve is pretty close to my thoughts in his last para. My thoughts are ... Is it generally known?Has it been verifiedCould publication on OSM pose a risk I think keeping it as a general tag for the time being sounds reasonable. Ewen Sent from Mail for Windows From: steveaSent: Wednesday, 27 July 2022 10:44 AMTo: Graeme FitzpatrickCc: OSM-AuSubject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities? On Jul 26, 2022, at 5:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:> Have just spotted a Note where an anonymous user has given company name & address details for a Medicinal Cannabis plant.> > Checking to confirm details & found a news article that said, yes, the plant is near Mildura, but "Due to the nature of its business, however, it has a secret location and isn’t open to the public." > > The company involved doesn't have the plant address listed on it's website.> > Should we map it? We map cannabis facilities in California; cannabis is legal here. I am of the opinion that "if it is in the world, it can be mapped." There are things that people say we SHOULD not map, and I have even seen some well-reasoned arguments which cause me to nod my head. For example, I once mapped some hiking trails (as access=no) on closed-to-the-public land. I was asked by the owner (land steward, really; ownership is a "public land trust") to remove them, as he convinced me that "these trails are still under development, they are not yet 'real' trails, but will be after they are developed and the land is properly opened to the public." You might choose to use "more generic" tags, like building=industrial and "leave it at that." (I note with some amusement that you cay "Cannabis 'plant'" and that could be a manufacturing facility, or a rooted dicotyledon growing in the earth — I assume the former). Adding something like access=private couldn't hurt (if true).___Talk-au mailing listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
Thanks, Steve On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 10:42, stevea wrote: > > We map cannabis facilities in California; cannabis is legal here. > Production facilities, or only shops? I am of the opinion that "if it is in the world, it can be mapped." There > are things that people say we SHOULD not map, and I have even seen some > well-reasoned arguments which cause me to nod my head. Yeah, discussion also on Discord is concerning Verifiability - is there a sign out the front which says what it is? You might choose to use "more generic" tags, like building=industrial and > "leave it at that." Yep, that may be the best option? > (I note with some amusement that you cay "Cannabis 'plant'" LOL! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
On Jul 26, 2022, at 5:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Have just spotted a Note where an anonymous user has given company name & > address details for a Medicinal Cannabis plant. > > Checking to confirm details & found a news article that said, yes, the plant > is near Mildura, but "Due to the nature of its business, however, it has a > secret location and isn’t open to the public." > > The company involved doesn't have the plant address listed on it's website. > > Should we map it? We map cannabis facilities in California; cannabis is legal here. I am of the opinion that "if it is in the world, it can be mapped." There are things that people say we SHOULD not map, and I have even seen some well-reasoned arguments which cause me to nod my head. For example, I once mapped some hiking trails (as access=no) on closed-to-the-public land. I was asked by the owner (land steward, really; ownership is a "public land trust") to remove them, as he convinced me that "these trails are still under development, they are not yet 'real' trails, but will be after they are developed and the land is properly opened to the public." You might choose to use "more generic" tags, like building=industrial and "leave it at that." (I note with some amusement that you cay "Cannabis 'plant'" and that could be a manufacturing facility, or a rooted dicotyledon growing in the earth — I assume the former). Adding something like access=private couldn't hurt (if true). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Mapping "secret" facilities?
Have just spotted a Note where an anonymous user has given company name & address details for a Medicinal Cannabis plant. Checking to confirm details & found a news article that said, yes, the plant is near Mildura, but "Due to the nature of its business, however, it has a secret location and isn’t open to the public." The company involved doesn't have the plant address listed on it's website. Should we map it? Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Head or point on non-coastal land
On 26/7/22 07:16, Tom Brennan wrote: What tag do you recommend using for heads or points that are away from the coast? There seem to be a variety of methods people have used, none of them particularly satisfactory: 1. Map them as a peak eg Catt Head: natural=peak https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4420272847 I have done a few of these along the Gross Valley. In many cases there is a peak and I have taken the view that the 'head' is the top of the peak. 2. Map them as a locality eg Inspiration Point: place=locality https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8107812662 3. Map them as a lookout eg Sublime Point: tourism=viewpoint https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/410055825 4. Map them as a point and also a locality, presumably because point is not rendered by most renderers(?) eg Point Pilcher: natural=point, place=locality https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6164541885 natural=point only has some ~400 uses world wide, no wiki page so .. low uses = no rendering. Choosing one of the additional tags will get rendering .. but it should be appropriate to the feature not just 'tagging for the render' Here are a couple of unmapped examples: https://maps.ozultimate.com/?id=1658781656252 If it's on the coast, "cape" seems to be the preferred tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcape However, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for similar features on land. Yep. I have a similar difficulty with club=surf_life_saving, emergency=lifesaver, lifesaver=base ... as that does not render. If put on the building then the name of the club renders.. Having gone along the coast of NSW and put them to nodes and entered a few more off the DCS Base Map .. I am now going along and setting the details on the associated building... sigh. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
