Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Do we know how these values are calculated, for instance do they come from an 
external source?


--

Andrew



From: Colin Smale 
Sent: 15 August 2016 08:39
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with ref:hectares=* 
with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in hectares.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Just out of interest, are unincorporated areas in Australia tagged with 
boundary relations?


--

Andrew



From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: 15 August 2016 12:00
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Warin]

On 8/15/2016 7:03 PM, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi Will,

Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset 
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would 
have...


Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin boundary 
page [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries

On 2016-08-15 10:41, Will Phillips wrote:


Hi,

This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which 
we use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such 
administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my 
understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or 
they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary data harder to use. 
If I run a query to find which boundaries a node is within, I'd only 
expect real admin boundary areas to be returned. The user is adding 
designation tags (designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they 
aren't real, but this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have 
to check a secondary tag to find out whether a relation is a real 
civil parish or not.


The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and 
other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.


Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations 
covering the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such 
administrative unit has ever existed: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042


I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has 
turned unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.  I accept my 
initial comment suggesting that one of these relations should be 
deleted could have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel 
in justifies his aggressive responses since. I was frustrated at 
finding one of the these non-existent boundaries covering my local 
area with an inaccurate name.


Will

On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity 
in hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and 
also redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the 
geometry anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) 
via a changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:


"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too 
be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your 
interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"


Any thoughts about the tagging?

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on 
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from 
the established tagging [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134



He is active on his diary pages .. and they make entertaining reading 
and are sometimes informative.


_Area..._
Regarding the ref:hectares ... humm while the area might be calculated 
correctly for a 'flat' area .. most have slopes ... don't know if that 
is officially included in area calculations :) Probably not.


There does appear to be some demand for tagging areas .. e.g. Area_sq_m 
(8,164), area:ha (4,109) and others. Unfortunately the tag 'area' is a 
simple indication of a shape being rendered .. and it would be confusing 
to use it as a numerical value. Possibly there needs to be some 
provision/instruction on the OSMwiki for this?

_
__Parishes .. admin boundaries etc..._
Not me! I have not dabbled in this, other than fixing some that were 
broken and I had easy access to the data (not UK ones). Think Alex has a 
diary entry on it with his thinking... might be a place to indicate a 
different interpretation compared to his thoughts (in a polite manner)?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

Hi Will, 

Fully agree with you. I also tried to contribute to that changeset
discussion. If you hadn't reverted that admin level change, I would
have... 

Some of his ideas are on his diary pages [1] and my admin boundary page
[2]. 

Colin 

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary 

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Csmale/ukboundaries 

On 2016-08-15 10:41, Will Phillips wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which we use 
> for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such administrative 
> unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my understanding is that 
> these are legal entities which either exist or they don't. Additionally, it 
> makes OSM boundary data harder to use. If I run a query to find which 
> boundaries a node is within, I'd only expect real admin boundary areas to be 
> returned. The user is adding designation tags (designation=non-civil_parish) 
> to indicate they aren't real, but this is undocumented and data users 
> shouldn't have to check a secondary tag to find out whether a relation is a 
> real civil parish or not.
> 
> The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and other 
> geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.
> 
> Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations covering the 
> whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such administrative unit has ever 
> existed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042
> 
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned 
> unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.  I accept my initial comment 
> suggesting that one of these relations should be deleted could have been 
> worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel in justifies his aggressive 
> responses since. I was frustrated at finding one of the these non-existent 
> boundaries covering my local area with an inaccurate name.
> 
> Will
> 
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
>> ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in 
>> hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also 
>> redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry anyway. 
>> When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a changeset 
>> discussion [1] I got the following response: 
>> 
>> "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able 
>> to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my 
>> mapping. -Alex Kemp" 
>> 
>> Any thoughts about the tagging? 
>> 
>> Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on another 
>> one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the established 
>> tagging [2]. 
>> 
>> Colin 
>> 
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409 
>> 
>> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Will Phillips]

Hi,

This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which we 
use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such 
administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my 
understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or 
they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary data harder to use. If I 
run a query to find which boundaries a node is within, I'd only expect 
real admin boundary areas to be returned. The user is adding designation 
tags (designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they aren't real, but 
this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have to check a secondary 
tag to find out whether a relation is a real civil parish or not.


The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and 
other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.


Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations covering 
the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such administrative unit 
has ever existed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042


I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned 
unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.  I accept my initial 
comment suggesting that one of these relations should be deleted could 
have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel in justifies his 
aggressive responses since. I was frustrated at finding one of the these 
non-existent boundaries covering my local area with an inaccurate name.


Will

On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in 
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also 
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry 
anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a 
changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:


"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be 
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest 
in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"


Any thoughts about the tagging?

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on 
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the 
established tagging [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134



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



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

[Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Colin Smale]

Hi, 

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry anyway.
When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a changeset
discussion [1] I got the following response: 

"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in
my mapping. -Alex Kemp" 

Any thoughts about the tagging? 

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the
established tagging [2]. 

Colin 

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409 

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb