Re: [talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

2015-12-21 Thread Warin 

On 17/12/2015 10:26 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote:

You're not likely to get much of a response from the editors you contacted. The 
Barrington Tops boundary was drawn in by a user that hasn't edited for 5 years.


 Well the initial addition did not have it as the Barrinton Tops NP. That was 
added later ... anyways ...
I have put my foot in it ... and I'm now trying to add the detail of various 
parks, forests, conservation areas etc etc. And learning the joys of 
multi-polygons.

It will be better in the end.

Working on Nowendock (sp?) NP and surrounds. Might have been better to leave 
the original tags in place until I had the detail tags worked out... mutter 
mutter...

So 'my' new policy (amongst others .. will have to write them down somewhere so 
I can remember to kick myself when I don't follow them) ..
Don't delete/modify until you have the new stuff ready.

I am also trying to add 100 Sydney street names per day ... best return for 
effort is to pick an area with lots missing - download it and work on that lot 
at once.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

2015-12-17 Thread Andy Townsend 

On 16/12/2015 21:58, Warin wrote:

On 17/12/2015 8:35 AM, Ben Kelley wrote:


Use is not consistent.


Situation normal.


(If you harvest the natural trees, which one is it?)



forestry.


See the Forest page on the wiki,





The http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest page describes 4 different 
approaches, and unfortunately because of the different approaches 
someone consuming the data will struggle beyond "here be trees" for any 
of them.  As I understand it that's why the approach of the OSM 
"Standard Style" is what it is (though there's no reason for mappers to 
try and capture more detail though).


Cheers,

Andy



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

2015-12-16 Thread Andrew Davidson 
You're not likely to get much of a response from the editors you contacted. The 
Barrington Tops boundary was drawn in by a user that hasn't edited for 5 years.

http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=25968044

An the Myall edits about 2 years old.


The Blue Mountains boundary dates back to 2012:

http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=169174227


It is probably quite safe to assume that any existing boundaries are 
"approximate" and can be replaced.


Tagging things with a layer that don't actually physically pass over or under 
something else is tagging for the 
renderer.




On Thursday, 17 December 2015, 8:26, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi ...
I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and came 
across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area includes 
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes National 
Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area includes 
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.

They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2 
changesets- no response so far.

They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as such I 
think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees, source=imagery" 
with no name nor other identifying tags. They are all much much larger 
than their name would suggest.

The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has tag 
'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest that has pine 
trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ... it is hair splitting 
but I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)

The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to suppress its 
rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to over write it. I 
am tempted to use the same tagging method on all three ways.

Comments please?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

2015-12-16 Thread Warin 

On 17/12/2015 8:35 AM, Ben Kelley wrote:


Hi.

I thought natural=wood was for trees that had not been planted for the 
purpose of forestry.


landuse=forest is where they were planted for forestry.


+1


Use is not consistent.


Situation normal.


(If you harvest the natural trees, which one is it?)



forestry.


See the Forest page on the wiki,





but landcover=trees seems incorrect.



Why?

I would take it that the area is covered in trees.
What human purpose they are put to is not specified by the landcover tag.


  - Ben.

On Dec 17, 2015 8:25 AM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Hi ...
I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and
came across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area
includes National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area
includes National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.

They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2
changesets- no response so far.

They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as
such I think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees,
source=imagery" with no name nor other identifying tags. They are
all much much larger than their name would suggest.

The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has
tag 'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest
that has pine trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ...
it is hair splitting but I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)

The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to
suppress its rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to
over write it. I am tempted to use the same tagging method on all
three ways.

Comments please?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

2015-12-16 Thread Warin 

Hi ...
I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and came 
across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area includes 
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes National 
Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area includes 
National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.


They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2 
changesets- no response so far.


They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as such I 
think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees, source=imagery" 
with no name nor other identifying tags. They are all much much larger 
than their name would suggest.


The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has tag 
'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest that has pine 
trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ... it is hair splitting 
but I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)


The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to suppress its 
rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to over write it. I 
am tempted to use the same tagging method on all three ways.


Comments please?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

2015-12-16 Thread Ben Kelley 
Hi.

I thought natural=wood was for trees that had not been planted for the
purpose of forestry.

landuse=forest is where they were planted for forestry.

Use is not consistent. (If you harvest the natural trees, which one is it?)
See the Forest page on the wiki, but landcover=trees seems incorrect.

  - Ben.
On Dec 17, 2015 8:25 AM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi ...
> I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and came
> across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
> Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area includes
> National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
> Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes National
> Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
> Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area includes
> National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
>
> They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2 changesets-
> no response so far.
>
> They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as such I
> think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees, source=imagery" with
> no name nor other identifying tags. They are all much much larger than
> their name would suggest.
>
> The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has tag
> 'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest that has pine
> trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ... it is hair splitting
> but I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)
>
> The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to suppress its
> rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to over write it. I am
> tempted to use the same tagging method on all three ways.
>
> Comments please?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Inappropriate tagged areas

2015-12-16 Thread Andrew Harvey 
+1 for separating out landcover and administrative boundaries into
separate ways.

In practice it's often a good approximation to simply combine these,
however once you want more accurate data they'll need to be separated
out.

On 17 December 2015 at 08:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi ...
> I'm using LPI to tag National Park and State Forest boundaries and came
> across some large "Inappropriately tagged areas".
> Way 25968044tagged as Barrington Tops National Park, this area includes
> National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
> Way 232137774 tagged as Myall State Forest, this area includes National
> Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
> Way169174227tagged as Blue Mountains National Park, this area includes
> National Parks, State Conservation Areas, State Forests.
>
> They don't have a source, I have made comments on the first 2 changesets- no
> response so far.
>
> They appear to be tracing forest areas from satellite imagery, as such I
> think they would be best tagged as "landcover=trees, source=imagery" with no
> name nor other identifying tags. They are all much much larger than their
> name would suggest.
>
> The last one already has an encompassingRelation: 3550886 that has tag
> 'natural=wood'. At least some of that area is State Forest that has pine
> trees .. As an Ozie I don't call them 'natural' ... it is hair splitting but
> I'd rather use 'landcover=trees'. :-)
>
> The first one carries a tag "layer=-5", I assume this is to suppress its
> rendering or at least allow any other tagged there to over write it. I am
> tempted to use the same tagging method on all three ways.
>
> Comments please?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au