Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:25:14 +0200 Christoph Hormann wrote: > place=locality is currently used as a generic tag for anything with a > name for which no established more precise tag exists. > > This kind of contradicts the idea of OSM which would normally suggest > to invent a new tag then for

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

> Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use “archipelago”. Here's a small group of only two islands that is definitely not an archipelago, (as I understand that term, i.e., a "chain" of

[Tagging] Place=archipelago wiki page update

I've just updated the wiki page for the in-use tag "place=archipelago". The main changes are: - Described an archipelago as a named chain, cluster or group of closely related islands - warning against creating giant multipolygons by mapping the whole Philippines as a single multipolygon relation

Re: [Tagging] tags for a live stock sale yard

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 06:52, bkil wrote: > Warin did not mention how they are purchased, i.e., whether an auction > is being held Yep, as mentioned previously, livestock are (almost ?) always sold via auction. Have a look at https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2082183102010269 which shows a

Re: [Tagging] tags for a live stock sale yard

Typically these are auction sales. On 16/04/19 06:57, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:52 PM bkil wrote: Compared to marketplaces, I think stockyards would be interesting to a lot less map users (probably only to contracted partners who regularly bring in livestock). Not to

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

On 15/04/19 22:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark or route marker, or just for fun? I don't know. I would assume as a landmark, to form a meeting place or a simple navigational aid. I don't even know if the present wheel is the

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

Those are good points. I’ve created stub wiki pages for Key:abandoned:place and Key:disused:place - please edit if you have things to add. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:15 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> A side remark. Triggered by comparing

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

Can you give an example of one of these groups of named islands? If they are close together and divided from other islands in the area, I would use “archipelago”. And multipolygons should be used for any feature that consists of several areas. Islands always qualify as an area, so there’s no need

Re: [Tagging] tags for a live stock sale yard

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:52 PM bkil wrote: > Compared to marketplaces, I think stockyards would be interesting to a > lot less map users (probably only to contracted partners who regularly > bring in livestock). Not to mention anyone who lives downwind!

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

Joseph wrote: There is a request to render place=archipelago now (Issue #3394); I will look into it. It's only used 740 times, so it would help if more people start using the tag. It would certainly be useful here in Indonesia. (BTW, I would recommend tagging archipelagos as simple nodes or as

Re: [Tagging] tags for a live stock sale yard

Warin did not mention how they are purchased, i.e., whether an auction is being held, or if only market haggling is being done. Assuming the latter, what has been said is still consistent with amenity=marketplace + marketplace=livestock. This sounds like a different feature:

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned > railways (and smilar), > a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ... > a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned railways (and smilar), a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ... a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of identifiable features. One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2019, at 13:45, Tobias Wrede wrote: > > tourism=camp_pitch (following tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site) > would be my preferred choice. +1, btw, there are already 226 of these: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch Cheers,

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

> I'm certain the gold rushes Alaska experienced > during the past 150 years contributed to many of these abandoned "Populated > Places". I've checked, and I don't see any tag like "historic=campsite" or similar. This could account for many of the named places I know in my home area in Northern

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

On 4/15/19, Lionel Giard wrote: > In Belgium (where i map), we generally use this tag for place without > population ... like a crossroads I would suggest highway=junction with name=* > a field landuse=meadow or =farmland with name=* > part of a forest natural=wood with name=* > some hills

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

Yes, that's one locality for every four persons in the state, an interesting statistic. Many of these are indeed GNIS imports and some of those are also tagged with "gnis:Class": "Populated Place" which is often inaccurate. I'm certain the gold rushes Alaska experienced during the past 150 years

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

That's an interesting example. Was the wheel put there as a landmark or route marker, or just for fun? If the tag "place=locality" didn't exist, how would you tag this? On 4/15/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > As an example of a locality that has never had a population > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Hi, I follow Martin's reasoning that camp_site=camp_pitch more looks like it being a specification of camp_site rather than describing a feature within. Following Marc's examples (parking and sports centre) tourism=camp_pitch (following tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site) would be my

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

> There are countless old settlements, gold mining camps, road building > camps, airstrips, and even Native American villages scattered around our > immense state. Most are indeed abandoned and sometimes I add abandoned=yes > to the tags, especially if there is no longer any sign of habitation >

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

place=locality is currently used as a generic tag for anything with a name for which no established more precise tag exists. This kind of contradicts the idea of OSM which would normally suggest to invent a new tag then for the type of feature you have. Subtagging the generic tag to make it

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

As a mapper in Alaska, I rely heavily upon the USGS Topographic map layer to provide names for geographic features. Alaska has many places that perfectly fit the definition Warin provided from the Wiki: *All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

Le 15.04.19 à 11:04, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > - a closed way tagged as "tourism=camp_site" and "barrier=hedge" will > > render with a hedge line around the outside, but the campsite color > > fill on the inside. >

Re: [Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

Am Mo., 15. Apr. 2019 um 11:11 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > Adding also natural=rosk_shelter (or similar) in addition would be also > perfectly fine. > natural=rock_shelter would not seem perfectly fine to me, it describes a function, hence should be amenity or

Re: [Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

Apr 14, 2019, 10:28 PM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Apr 2019, at 14:13, Andrew Harvey <>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com >> >> > wrote: >> >> The Australian community has indicated that amenity=shelter + >>

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

> the rendering could decide to not render it at all [when a closed way is double-tagged with 2 features] Unfortunately this isn’t feasible. Normally we render a feature like a fence or hedge in a separate “layer” so that they are on top of certain features like landuse, and below other features

Re: [Tagging] tags for a live stock sale yard

Hi You seem to be describing a stockyard that is associated with an auction. Could these be relevant starters for tags? Tony On 15/04/2019 00:23, Warin wrote: In Australia commercial livestock (sheep, cattle) are sold through these livestock markets. They may be transported for several

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:14, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > So in case of option 2, > - a closed way that was tagged "barrier=hedge" only will be rendered as a > line. > - a closed way tagged as "barrier=hedge" AND "area=yes" will be > rendered with a green fill for the

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

As an example of a locality that has never had a population https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/117041320 /The Wheel/ (a car wheel - no tyre) was originally mounted on a tree by bushwalkers to mark the hub of the Blue Labyrinth's ridges. No one has ever lived there. Plenty of people go past,

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

From the original start of place=locality /All current place tags are for either populated areas, or for larger areas of County sized or bigger. The place=locality tag is useful for places that have a specific name, but do not necessarily have any geographic feature or population centre that

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

In Belgium (where i map), we generally use this tag for place without population that have a name ("lieu-dit" in french (look at this wikipedia article) ), like a crossroads (like "Carrefour de la Justice" (literally "crossroads of justice")), a field, a

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:55, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The most important value would be one for a locality that is a former > populated place but no longer has a population. I’ve always understood the population part of the locality tag definition as a way of saying

Re: [Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

At the moment consensus on talk-au is to use a new tag, natural=rock_overhang. On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 06:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > shelter is under the amenity key because it is shelter _for_ humans, it > implies minimum dimensions (shelter for mice would have different > requirements).