Re: [OSM-talk-be] folk sports in Belgium

[Santens Seppe]

I've added quite a few krachtbal pitches and popinjay (staande wip) masts in 
recent times, so it's cool to see all of these on a dedicated map!

I agree with Jakka that bolletra and krulbollen/staakbollen (and maybe other 
variants) should be added, but I'm not sure how/if these are mapped.

Seppe

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Jakka [mailto:vdmfrank...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 21 augustus 2019 13:00
Aan: talk-be@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-be] folk sports in Belgium

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dboules petanque ?
https://www.westtoer.be/nl/doen/bolletra


Op 21/08/2019 om 11:49 schreef Ruben:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:39:41 +0200, joost schouppe  
> wrote:
>> After a bit of research, I retagged all "kaatspleinen" / "place de pelotte"
>> to sport=pelota. I think this is a decent tag for this. Folk sports are
>> hard, because there are local variants, and you have to decide if you want
>> to tag with the very specific local way of playing or keep it simple and
>> generalize a bit.
>>
>> I took advantage of the moment to create a little map of the 90 fields in
>> Belgium:
>>
>> https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/adc0b8-Folk_sports_in_Belgium#
>>
>> Which other sports should I add to that map?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dkrachtbal maybe?
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>



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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?

[Francois Gerin]

Thanks for the comments, it confirms that it was relevant to share on this.

It's already time to share a little more on my own conclusions then.

@Marc Marc:
Thanks for using option 3. The global/general idea to map only the 
reality is good and important, but what appears a contradiction here is 
not, IMHO. (See here below.)
PS: You're right for the highway path/footway. I fully agree, and this 
what I do in my area. But in the area of the example, another habit is 
in place... So I respected it. This is another issue, which is a 
consequence of the French translation of the web editor menus, according 
to me.
Thanks for the comment on the description tag, good point, I'll add it 
to the other case.


@Marc Gemis:
I fully agree with the general rule "map the existing" and was applying 
it in these cases too until recently. In fact, this is the reason of my 
mail... I extend on this here below.
Thanks for the disused tag, I missed it. It will be useful in some other 
cases, but here it cannot apply. (See here below.)
I'm contributing also to balnam, which is an organization that monitors 
those paths and footways, which is absolutely not the same purpose as 
OSM, and both are very useful, each one in its area. Also, the official 
administration in charge of this monitoring is so slow (years!) than the 
life cycles with OSM would result in a complete mess.
Also there are several administrations for several purposes, and quite 
inefficient in many ways, even if some have real good intents.


@Tim Couwelier:
Indeed the user's perspective is critical, and this is part of the 
various items I integrated in my own analysis of this issue. Thanks for 
the confirmation, it also goes in the direction I expected. But this is 
more related to the rendering than the data itself.



So, since we "agree", a little more from my own conclusions...

- Yes, I fully consent to the "map the current reality" approach. And in 
fact, this is what I was doing before I had to reconsider my way of 
thinking and finally change my mind. This rule must be kept as the main 
lead. However, like all rules, especially the "global" and "generic" 
ones, there are exceptions... And here it is one that, IMHO,  requires a 
specific attention, so as to document it for the (probably many) 
contributers who face this.


- An important aspect, that is missed by the general rule and fully part 
of the exception, is the timing: The path *appears and disappears very 
periodically*, according to the cultures on the field... If someone 
removes the path from the map, I'll add it again soon after, when the 
path is back. This would lead to big frustrations and/or litigations, as 
well as a lot of noise in the database... Resulting in a situation that 
is negative for everybody. (While having all the data in the DB and 
rendering properly would lead to a positive situation fro everybody.)


- The comment from Tim about the users is particularly important, but it 
is more a question of rendering than data in the DB. (That was what I 
pointed to in my original message, "Side issue" note.)
A flag, being trail_visibility or another, makes it possible for cheap, 
and it satisfies the software development rule "issues must be solved at 
their root cause".


- We prefer not to add yet another tag just for this. The disused tag 
does not match either, it would change every few months. The 
trail_visibility much better matches matches the case, even if not 
perfect... Think of a street closed periodically, here and then, for the 
time a building (1-4 years) is made in a city. It would be strange to 
see a tag "trail_*" for a street in a city.
=> This is just to mention that the notion is wider, I'm not asking for 
a solution for this case, the solution of the trail_visibility is just 
fine for me. But if something new has to be made, probably it should be 
made generic enough to also cover more generic cases. Maybe just adapt 
the trail_visibility to make it more generic.



That's it for now on my side. And I guess sufficient to bring the point 
to everyone...
While waiting for a possible other option/consensus, I'll continue to 
proceed with solution 3, which is not contradicting the important "map 
the real state" rule, according to me. It does not contradict because 
the official way still exists in reality, even if it is sometime hidden 
for a few weeks/months a year, in a cyclical way.


Thanks for your participation and comments. If some have 
meetings/discussion sessions, I think it would be a good topic...


Regards,
François


On 8/21/19 11:42 AM, Tim Couwelier wrote:

I'm with 'second marc' on this one - I chose to map ground truth.

In part because that's generally 'how things should be mapped', in 
part because otherwise we receive criticism from avid users, who are 
highly annoyed to get stuck / at dead ends because they saw a path on 
their map and it's nowhere to be found.


While I fully support efforts to keep such paths functional / 
accessibl

Re: [OSM-talk-be] folk sports in Belgium

[Jakka]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dboules petanque ?
https://www.westtoer.be/nl/doen/bolletra


Op 21/08/2019 om 11:49 schreef Ruben:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:39:41 +0200, joost schouppe  
wrote:

After a bit of research, I retagged all "kaatspleinen" / "place de pelotte"
to sport=pelota. I think this is a decent tag for this. Folk sports are
hard, because there are local variants, and you have to decide if you want
to tag with the very specific local way of playing or keep it simple and
generalize a bit.

I took advantage of the moment to create a little map of the 90 fields in
Belgium:

https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/adc0b8-Folk_sports_in_Belgium#

Which other sports should I add to that map?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dkrachtbal maybe?

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





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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] folk sports in Belgium

[Jakka]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dboules petanque ?


Op 21/08/2019 om 11:49 schreef Ruben:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:39:41 +0200, joost schouppe  
wrote:

After a bit of research, I retagged all "kaatspleinen" / "place de pelotte"
to sport=pelota. I think this is a decent tag for this. Folk sports are
hard, because there are local variants, and you have to decide if you want
to tag with the very specific local way of playing or keep it simple and
generalize a bit.

I took advantage of the moment to create a little map of the 90 fields in
Belgium:

https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/adc0b8-Folk_sports_in_Belgium#

Which other sports should I add to that map?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dkrachtbal maybe?

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





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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] folk sports in Belgium

[Ruben]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:39:41 +0200, joost schouppe  
wrote:
> After a bit of research, I retagged all "kaatspleinen" / "place de pelotte"
> to sport=pelota. I think this is a decent tag for this. Folk sports are
> hard, because there are local variants, and you have to decide if you want
> to tag with the very specific local way of playing or keep it simple and
> generalize a bit.
> 
> I took advantage of the moment to create a little map of the 90 fields in
> Belgium:
> 
> https://www.mapcontrib.xyz/t/adc0b8-Folk_sports_in_Belgium#
> 
> Which other sports should I add to that map?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dkrachtbal maybe?

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?

[Tim Couwelier]

I'm with 'second marc' on this one - I chose to map ground truth.

In part because that's generally 'how things should be mapped', in part
because otherwise we receive criticism from avid users, who are highly
annoyed to get stuck / at dead ends because they saw a path on their map
and it's nowhere to be found.

While I fully support efforts to keep such paths functional / accessible /
known to the public, mapping them when they aren't to be found in the field
does not seem like the way go.

Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 10:46 schreef Marc Gemis :

> Seems my opinion is different from the other Marc.
>
> AFAIK, the OSM consensus is to map what is on the ground, in this case
> only the by-pass. You could keep the "official" path, with some tag
> disused:highway or so, but IMHO, that is just clutter that makes it
> harder for others to edit. When your local council does not bother to
> re-instantiate the official path, it will soon loose that status, not?
>
> As far as the removal of the "official" path is concerned, it probably
> depends on what "official" means. If it is e.g. in the Atlas der
> Buurtwegen and was not officially removed by the council, you should
> contact your council and describe the problem. I did that once and the
> day after, the track was open to the public again.
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:59 PM Francois Gerin 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is a probably subjective issue, that has certainly already been
> > discussed, but I cant' find a search engine for the mailing archives.
> >
> > Problem:
> > It's very frequent, in Belgium and certainly in many places, that a
> > private or farmer steals a footway because he dislikes people pass there
> > or just to extend his field for free.
> > The **official** path is then often no more visible and, sometime, there
> > may have an **unofficial** by-pass in the area.
> > The official trace MUST be kept because, well... it is official. :-)
> > And also because the by-pass MAY disappear at any time.
> >
> > Envisioned solutions:
> > 1. Keep official path only.  =bad because it does not reflect the
> > reality (which may stand for many years!)
> > 2. Delete the official one, draw the by-pass. =rejected, because the
> > official must be kept, or we may loose both
> > 3. Keep both, but flag the hidden one with trail_visibility tag. =best
> > option found up to now, which seems accepted widely+officially
> >
> > Questions:
> > A. Is there any OSM consensus for a solution, at the global/worldwide
> > community level?
> > B. If not, is there any Belgian community consensus?
> > C. If not, is there any widely accepted option?
> > D. If not, is there any better solution than option 3?
> >
> > (Side issue: the current rendering on OSM does not express that this
> > path is poorly visible. But at least the flag is there for other
> > rendering tools/layouts.)
> >
> > Two examples I had to do:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700172645
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629096505
> >
> > Thank you in advance for any pointer/doc/wiki/consensus! :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > François
> > (aka fgerin on OSM)
> > (aka fge1 on balnam)
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?

[Marc Gemis]

Seems my opinion is different from the other Marc.

AFAIK, the OSM consensus is to map what is on the ground, in this case
only the by-pass. You could keep the "official" path, with some tag
disused:highway or so, but IMHO, that is just clutter that makes it
harder for others to edit. When your local council does not bother to
re-instantiate the official path, it will soon loose that status, not?

As far as the removal of the "official" path is concerned, it probably
depends on what "official" means. If it is e.g. in the Atlas der
Buurtwegen and was not officially removed by the council, you should
contact your council and describe the problem. I did that once and the
day after, the track was open to the public again.

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:59 PM Francois Gerin  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is a probably subjective issue, that has certainly already been
> discussed, but I cant' find a search engine for the mailing archives.
>
> Problem:
> It's very frequent, in Belgium and certainly in many places, that a
> private or farmer steals a footway because he dislikes people pass there
> or just to extend his field for free.
> The **official** path is then often no more visible and, sometime, there
> may have an **unofficial** by-pass in the area.
> The official trace MUST be kept because, well... it is official. :-)
> And also because the by-pass MAY disappear at any time.
>
> Envisioned solutions:
> 1. Keep official path only.  =bad because it does not reflect the
> reality (which may stand for many years!)
> 2. Delete the official one, draw the by-pass. =rejected, because the
> official must be kept, or we may loose both
> 3. Keep both, but flag the hidden one with trail_visibility tag. =best
> option found up to now, which seems accepted widely+officially
>
> Questions:
> A. Is there any OSM consensus for a solution, at the global/worldwide
> community level?
> B. If not, is there any Belgian community consensus?
> C. If not, is there any widely accepted option?
> D. If not, is there any better solution than option 3?
>
> (Side issue: the current rendering on OSM does not express that this
> path is poorly visible. But at least the flag is there for other
> rendering tools/layouts.)
>
> Two examples I had to do:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700172645
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629096505
>
> Thank you in advance for any pointer/doc/wiki/consensus! :-)
>
> Regards,
> François
> (aka fgerin on OSM)
> (aka fge1 on balnam)
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] hidden official path vs. unofficial by-pass : consensus?

[marc marc]

Hello,

I like and use solution 3.

but at the global level, somes mappers dislike to map/keep
a path that doesn't exist on the ground anymore, despite
it's an official one, and thus sometime delete it.

the best is probably to contact an association that work
for their conservation but I have no idea if they are interested
in a very small path and no idea how long it take to get it back.

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629096505
highway=footway + bicycle=yes : thus a highway=path ?
description is very usefull in this case,
it's a good idea to also add it to the previous ex.

Regards,
Marc
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Neighbourhoods in Ghent mapped as a point

[Santens Seppe]

Hi Pieter,

It might take a bit more work to join the boundaries of the neighbourhoods with 
the existing boundaries of the city and the city sections. If the open data of 
the city of Ghent should diverge from what is already in OSM, it should be 
decided upon which dataset has the truth, which is not always straightforward ☺

Cheers,

Seppe

Van: Lionel Giard [mailto:lionel.gi...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 20 augustus 2019 9:54
Aan: OpenStreetMap Belgium
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk-be] Neighbourhoods in Ghent mapped as a point

Yes the node approach is only done when the boundaries are unknown (and so this 
is an approximation) but in this case, as we have the boundaries as open data, 
we could add them indeed. You can see it in the wiki page 
too. Thus, creating a polygon 
using the exact boundaries of the open data with the tag "place=neighbourhood" 
+ "name=*" should be fine. You can just import a shapefile or similar format in 
JOSM for example, and tag it correctly.

Le lun. 19 août 2019 à 10:35, Pieter Colpaert 
mailto:pie...@openknowledge.be>> a écrit :
Hi all,

Neighbourhoods in Ghent are mapped as a point. See for example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2274965455

The problem with this is that nominatim will add the neighbourhood to an
address string, based on the nearest point. An address still in the
Brugse Poort therefore will get an obvious wrong neighbourhood attached
to it. See for example
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=appelstraat+27%2C+9000+Gent&polygon_geojson=1&viewbox=.
This point is in the Brugse Poort, but it is closest to the point of the
neighbourhood Malem.

Should we change these point to be polygons instead?

There is also an official Open Data list of “wijken” (which is not
entirely the same though) on the open data portal of the city of Ghent:
https://datatank.stad.gent/4/grondgebied/wijken → Should we map these
bounds in OSM as well? And how?

Kind regards,

Pieter

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