Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 13/06/18 23:01, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>: 13. Jun

[Tagging] maxweight=* specified for different axle counts

What is the best way to specify the maximum weight when a sign specifies different weights for different axle counts? The situation in question is here: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VMM_wbgzcm1jFm_APKhQww For those who cannot see the image, the sign says : WEIGHT LIMIT : 2 axle -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

sent from a phone > On 13. Jun 2018, at 13:18, Anton Klim wrote: > > Thanks Martin. I feel like this is a separate, but generally more > wide-ranging proposal considering the scale of facilities it potentially > covers. yes, I set this up because we discovered here it was missing and you

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

So how is this different from placement=transition, then? On Jun 13, 2018 01:04, wrote: No you don’t. transit:lanes describes how the lanes from the end of one way connect to the end of another way in the direction of traffic flow. For each pair of from/to ways, there is going to be

Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

I would go for waiting_room=yes/no And if we have waiting_room=foo/bar subtypes (no idea what subtypes there may be) for amenity=waiting_room in the future, then this naturally also applies to waiting_room tags on other features with any value other than no implying that there is a waiting

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > >> 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: >> >> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : >> >>> Obviously -

Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

I had forgotten to name the property for things that provide a waiting room. Current proposal is "has_waiting_room" (it is less ambiguous than "waiting_room=*" which might also be used for subtypes, but it isn't how we usually operate). Please comment on this as well (same for the waiting area).

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 12:59 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und- > gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/ > > > I see no images, also after disabling ad blocker. > > a pity, because it seems they have even a tree growing through the house > > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have set up 2 new proposals for waiting facilities, waiting room and > waiting area. > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area > and

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >: 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny

Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

These both look pretty straight forward. I don’t see anything objectionable at first glance. It might be interesting to explore how these interact with public_transport=platform. (e.g. train station, you got the platform edge, and behind that you have benches or individual seats along most

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

Well, certainly, tags are abused all the times, especially when people can't find what they want in the editor. This is not the reason I'm thinking of changing the proposed tag to something already proposed here, like airport_lounge, transport_lounge or waiting_lounge (this might be a bit too

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Would this qualify? https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Veluwe/@52.2191306,5.8688533,1379m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c7c9d88ad308b5:0x3d1880bfd62acc1f!8m2!3d52.2387683!4d5.8322737 2018-06-13 12:59 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > 13. Jun 2018 11:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > 2018-06-13 11:49

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

Thanks Martin. I feel like this is a separate, but generally more wide-ranging proposal considering the scale of facilities it potentially covers. Anton 13.06.2018, в 13:43, Martin Koppenhoefer написал(а): > I have set up 2 new proposals for waiting facilities, waiting room and > waiting

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 11:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > 2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > >: > >> >> >> Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged >> >>

[Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

I am asking for your comments on amenity=waiting_room https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area Please preferably comment on the discussion pages of the proposals. Thank you,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

I have set up 2 new proposals for waiting facilities, waiting room and waiting area. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_room Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

From: Mateusz Konieczny Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 19:49 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Cc: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag 13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

and from "maintained or managed woodland", to any group of trees, because after all, trees on a community square, in a park and in a garden are managed as well. At least that is an argument I have heard before. As soon as you start representing trees in a garden as landuse=forest only because the

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wednesday 13 June 2018, Marc Gemis wrote: > > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such > > mapping is correct. > > As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for > timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for > landcover purpose have

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

landcover=* has reached a significant usage despite not being rendered on OSM Carto, nor supported by tools. It does not require big changes to existing data or schemes to add rendering of landcover=trees|scrub|grass. Technically I have not seen any problems to render this, particularly since

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 11:52 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > 13. Jun 2018 11:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a > forest denser? > > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for the current situation, > adding one more > >

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > 13. Jun 2018 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > 2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > >> >> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not >> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster. >> >> Exclude

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such mapping is > correct. As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed and now

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 11:48 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > 13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > > And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any > place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*. > > > And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 11:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > > What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a > forest denser? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for the current situation,

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > 2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > >: > >> >> >>> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not >>> help to

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

After looking over a lot of green areas in and around a few cities, I think some way of recording mixed landcovers, particularly grass and scrub, would be nice2have. A field of grass with a few trees is *=grass, an area of trees with grass underneath is *=trees, but in between a many areas of

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > >> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for >> obvious reasons) and >> > what are the obvious reasons not to record if

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Why not map objective attributes, such as trees per hectare, species, maybe natural vs managed? If the set of attributes is chosen well, then people will be able to apply their own criteria as to what is an "orchard" or a "forest" when consuming the data. After all, OSM is the data, not the

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place > where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*. > And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land use.

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 11:40 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > using landuse=forest to mark any area with trees is mapping for > the renderer (and apparently accepted by a part of the community), > hence the derogatory term. > mapping for the rendereris for deliberately mapping

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not > help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster. > > > Exclude landuse=residential areas. > there are residential plots in actual, "true" forests though. Cheers,

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > > 13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > > I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not > help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster. > > > Exclude landuse=residential areas. > > > So my

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > >: > >> >> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for >> obvious

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for > obvious reasons) and > what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public or privately owned? > access in access tag (very rarely done for objects

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not > help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster. Exclude landuse=residential areas. So my current idea is to create

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > 13. Jun 2018 10:34 by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > > which is "colouring" the map. > > > I am not sure is it intention, but it sounds like attempt to > > find a derogatory term for landcover mapping. I would not use that term if you use

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

totally agree with that. On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:32 AM wrote: > > For me, the situation (as it should be, not as it is) is pretty clear. > > > > > > > > Landuse describes how the land is used. > > > > residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry, ... > > > > None

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Take a look at e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/913806#map=17/51.12071/4.09282=N You will see plenty of houses surrounded by landuse=forest. This is because there are plenty of trees in the gardens near the house (probably the area was a forest before). The current mapping is not

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 11:31 GMT+02:00 : > Landuse describes how the land is used. > > > > residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry, > ... > > > > None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land. > > > > > > > > Landcover describes what's on the land. > > > >

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 10:34 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > 2018-06-13 9:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > >: > >> >>> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones >>> private

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 10:34 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > which is "colouring" the map. I am not sure is it intention, but it sounds like attempt to find a derogatory term for landcover mapping. > But do you have > suggestions for people that do want to record

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

For me, the situation (as it should be, not as it is) is pretty clear. Landuse describes how the land is used. residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry, ... None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land. Landcover

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses, bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 13/06/18 18:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >: * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?) can you please rephrase this? It is not

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > > * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary > function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?) > can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking. > * where the name of the forest has to be placed when

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 13/06/18 17:23, Marc Gemis wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: won't work, see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it. Exclude area

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 9:23 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > > Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area > for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private > residential garden. > The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-) > the latter mapping is

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> > Or if you wish to record landcover without intention of (in this case) to map > > landuse. which is "colouring" the map. I understand that you do not care about anything else than the presence of trees. Fine. But do you have suggestions for people that do want to record something more ?

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-13 9:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones > private backyard. > > > So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including > ones in private backyards). > the question of ownership and the orthogonal

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> Private vs. public does not matter. > Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest. > A tree row in a field is not a forest for me. > > According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions > of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping >

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

2018-06-12 14:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To >> me, a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 >> or maybe

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 08:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: & it's an impossible question to answer, but how many of those 3.5 million tags are on "areas of land managed for forestry"? :-) t be the sa From a random look around .. about half. There is yet another tag that has a fair amount of use ...

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 09:23 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that > one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different > tags. > Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 09:44 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > Private vs. public does not matter. > Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest. > A tree row in a field is not a forest for me. > > According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Private vs. public does not matter. Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest. A tree row in a field is not a forest for me. According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping "groups of trees"

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> won't work, see e.g. >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N >> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it. > > Exclude area with landuse=residential ??

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

13. Jun 2018 07:47 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > won't work, see e.g. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N > > > that's not a forest, that

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 13/06/18 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote: Would it be possible to get the osm-community in Belgium to agree on one tagging principle for trees/wood/forest? And get it done that way? 2018-06-13 7:47 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >: On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pruning (tree management styel)

Hi, I've added topiary and espalier to the proposal. But I don't think the list should be exhaustive in the proposal, so I've added a "user defined" value too. Thanks to m!dgard, the suggested values are now in a pretty table. I'm not convinced of the pruning cycle subtag. Is it what should

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

No you don’t. transit:lanes describes how the lanes from the end of one way connect to the end of another way in the direction of traffic flow. For each pair of from/to ways, there is going to be exactly one node where they connect. That is your via node. From: Paul Johnson Sent:

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Would it be possible to get the osm-community in Belgium to agree on one tagging principle for trees/wood/forest? And get it done that way? 2018-06-13 7:47 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by