On 4/8/20 7:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for
4 more days.
I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately.
As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could
easily be construed to
- Mensaje original -
> De: "Joseph Eisenberg"
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:56:31
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> The graphics in this document are mainly models of current flow, rather than
> actual
On 2020-08-04 22:46, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:54, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
>> Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as
>> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.
>
> I suspect the answer is contained within the question. We have
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 18:30, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The status of the Gulf of Taranto is disputable as it appears to have no
> basis in international law.
it is indeed disputed by the UK, the US and maybe others, but according to the
Italian baseline it is completely in
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:54, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as
> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.
>
I suspect the answer is contained within the question. We have the words
"ocean" and "estuary" because we consider
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/4/20 18:28, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very
> > seldom tagged that far upstream.
>
> From my Chesapeake Bay example, in OSM, Havre de Grace (290km inland) is
> a
The graphics in this document are mainly models of current flow, rather
than actual measurements, but it is mentioned that the average current
flow, neglecting wind, is only 0.1 m/s in the Rio de la Plata. Since winds
of 5 m/s are routine according to the paper, the currents vary strongly
based on
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First
> Peoples translates to 'the river flows both ways.' The division in
> the flow lies less in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed
> of the current. It flows 'upstream'
- Mensaje original -
> De: "Kevin Kenny"
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:28:55
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >
> wrote:
>>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:31 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First
> Peoples translates to 'the river flows both ways.' The division in the
> flow lies less in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed of the
> current. It flows
"The locals certainly make a distinction between the waters of the
Sacramento and American rivers and those of San Pablo and San Franscisco
Bays, or those of Puget Sound and the many rivers that empty into it. They
also make a distinction between the bays, or the sound, and the ocean. "
And so do
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower part of
> the mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries
> where winds and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does
> the
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:54 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> It's perfectly possible to make a physical definition of an estuary which
> allows the line of the natural=coastline to be placed across the lower
> Hudson, rather than at Troy or Albany, if we look at salinity and currents
> rather than
Re: " Your argument is that the first dam or waterfall is the only
'objective' way to place it. "
That's not what Christoph has proposed. You can read his suggestions at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
It provides a great deal of lee-way
Hi,
On 8/4/20 18:28, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very
> seldom tagged that far upstream.
From my Chesapeake Bay example, in OSM, Havre de Grace (290km inland) is
a "coastal"city
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> A water polygon remains a water polygon whether its boundary is
> `natural=coastilne`, `waterway=river`, `natural=water` or whatever.
> Nobody is arguing over the physical extent of surface water coverage.
I am sorry that i cannot make you see my
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:59 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I am not saying that OSM should only record physical geography. I am
> saying that natural=coastline is a physical geography tag and should be
> defined based on physical geography criteria. If there is no consensus
> about this we can
It's perfectly possible to make a physical definition of an estuary which
allows the line of the natural=coastline to be placed across the lower
Hudson, rather than at Troy or Albany, if we look at salinity and currents
rather than just tides: and we must, because some parts of the coast in the
Two more types came to my mind:
1. Courtyard area (Дворовая территория)
Another type of service road that is currently probably not tagged with
any subtag came to my mind right now: Something like a multi-use
courtyard area bounded by buildings around the
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> Moreover, I'm somewhat puzzled at Christoph's insistence that
> 'natural=coastline' have a strict physical definition, and dismiss
> local understanding as merely political and cultural. In almost all
> other aspects of OSM, the understanding of
On 2020-08-04 17:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> +1, similarly in Italy, the baseline is defined through (relatively few)
> coordinates in a law, which is located always on the most outer points of the
> land or on islands, it has few to do with the coastline. For example the Gulf
> of
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:24 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> This means that the line tagged with natural=coastline is on the inland
> side of all marine water, including mangroves, salt marshes, and tidal
> channels, as far as possible. It makes sense that in estuaries, the route
> of the ways
Right. With the current wiki meaning, the natural=coastline should be placed in
the line between Punta del Este and Punta Rasa.
These are verifiable physical facts. The limit has to be put in some place, and
it is clear to all local mappers that the best option to put the limit is
there. It is
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 16:27, David Dean wrote:
The main problem with this is the retrofitting of the missing service=* tags
Unless we start a mega campaign to add service=* to all highway=service, we
will have to live with the actual situation for ever.
Some roads are "service" only and other
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 17:24, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Looking at the Phillipines and Indonesia, the baseline has very little
> relation to the physical geographical tide lines, since it merely connects
> the outer edges of islands in the archipelago.
>
> Similarly, in
I agree.
Colin Smale skrev: (4 augusti 2020 11:26:30 CEST)
>On 2020-08-04 10:06, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community
>if you could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a
>reason as mandatory. Is it because this feature
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>
> It's all about semantics.
No, physical geography is not.
> How could I answer your question if you are not able to define what
> you mean by natural=coastline?
I am able to explain how i would define natural=coastline and i have
We are not talking about a concept like "the coastline", we are talking
about the tag "natural=coastline", which in OpenStreetMap has been defined
(for over 12 years) as "The mean high water (springs) line between the sea
and land (with the water on the right side of the way) ".
"The natural
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:57 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> Follow-up question on that: are all route relation names/refs mapped as
> route=highway in the US usable as an address part or is that restricted to
> certain routes and/or regions (for example, rural only)?
>
>
It's case-by-case. Near me,
- Mensaje original -
> De: "Alan Mackie"
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 11:35:29
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 14:19 , < mural...@montevideo.com.uy > wrote:
>> - Mensaje original
- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann"
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 11:17:32
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>>
>> I linked several
- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann"
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 8:04:55
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> On Monday 03 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>>
>> i will try.
>>
>>
>> in
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Adam Franco wrote:
> It seems to me that the main underlying conflict is that (at least in
> the default Carto rendering on openstreetmap.org a few years ago) the
> Rio Plata was getting rendered as land at low-zooms and South America
> simply looks wrong when such a
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 14:19 , wrote:
> - Mensaje original -
> > De: "Christoph Hormann"
> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 9:14:32
> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>
> > Almost all
Once again, thanks for everyone's great comments, but I'm not entirely sure
what, if any, consensus we can draw from our discussions here.
To my mind, we are all in agreement that we should have values for the
service tag for 'main parking access' and 'main property/campus access',
although some
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>
> I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are
> verifiable geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its
> a riverbank [...]
I am not going to start a discussion here on the semantics of terms
like
It seems to me that the main underlying conflict is that (at least in the
default Carto rendering on openstreetmap.org a few years ago) the Rio Plata
was getting rendered as land at low-zooms and South America simply looks
wrong when such a large water area is rendered as land.
- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann"
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 9:14:32
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
> Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political
> in nature.
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:44, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> Frederik asks, "was our voting process changed recently", to which I believe
> the answer is, "yes, abstentions are no longer included in the count"
The “new” process is also flawed, as a no vote can bring a proposal to
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:16, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> It might actually be better to introduce the opposite rule - that
> yes-votes need to explain why they are willing to dismiss sustained
> critical voices in the discussion.
This is a good point, and it is also
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Christoph, I guess it could be seen from looking at the email headers
> or when reading in a threaded view, but for the convenience of
> everybody I’d ask you to add a bit of context to your contributions
> here (in particular to whom you
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 14:16, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political
> in nature.
Christoph, I guess it could be seen from looking at the email headers or when
reading in a threaded view, but for the
Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political
in nature. Discussing those will lead us nowhere. Hence my suggestion
to you in the other mail to consider this exclusively from the physical
geographic perspective.
The only point i could identify in your writing that
On 03/08/2020 19.56, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 01:10, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Parking lot access roads are a common example; I don't really feel that
these are "driveways", but I also prefer to reserve "parking_aisle" for
ways that actually *have* parking spaces along them.
On Monday 03 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>
> i will try.
>
>
> in my last mail i'm questioning the coastline placement in several
> rivers. so,
> -what are we mapping the coastline for?
> -what we want from the "coastline"?
> -what questions are we going to answer, or could we
Thanks for the heads up Joseph. I also read what Imagico wrote1 and voted no.
I recommend others to do the same.
Cheers
pangoSE
1
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Ground=253931=2016970=2016363
Joseph Eisenberg skrev: (3 augusti 2020 23:17:18
CEST)
Frederik asks, "was our voting process changed recently", to which I
believe the answer is, "yes, abstentions are no longer included in the
count"
Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't at first glance see anything in
the process rules, but I'm outside in the sun using a phone...
On Tue, 4
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 09:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 04.08.20 10:06, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> >> Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
>
> > Which rules?
>
> Should I have written "was our voting process changed recently", or what
> exactly are you asking? I meant the established way of
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 10:26, Colin Smale wrote:
> Putting a proposal to the vote should IMHO not be done unless the
> discussions are clearly pointing towards approval. A vote is not a
> substitute for the discussion, it should be a confirmation that
> consensus has been achieved.
With all the
On 2020-08-04 10:06, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community if you
> could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a reason as
> mandatory. Is it because this feature shouldn't be mapped, is it because
> there is an alternative
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> looking at the "bare_soil" proposal I was surprised to read:
>
> "Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted
> in the voting process."
>
> Is that something that we have added by consensus?
I don't think so - but
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:28:43PM -0400, Jmapb wrote:
> On 8/3/2020 6:07 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > There is some fuzzy matching, you can expect to work, for example
> > abbreviations like street -> st or even New York -> NY. But going from
> > ref=NY-214 to 'State Highway 214' is already a
Hi,
On 04.08.20 10:06, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
> Which rules?
Should I have written "was our voting process changed recently", or what
exactly are you asking? I meant the established way of proposing and
voting for tags as outlined in
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 09:59, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Has this been used in other votes in the past?
the instructions have always stated that opposing votes should explain why they
are against it. In practice this is not a significant hurdle, because many
reasons go like
To be more clear:
in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=2018441=2018440
I removed
"Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in the
voting process."as it is an undiscussed modification of a proposal voting and a
refusal to
I partially reverted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=prev=2014966
and followed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
Note that
"People should not just vote "oppose", they should give a reason for their
proposal, and/or
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 08:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
Which rules?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community if
you could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a reason as
mandatory. Is it because this feature shouldn't be mapped, is it because
there is an alternative tag. So if the vote fails all this feedback can be
Hi,
looking at the "bare_soil" proposal I was surprised to read:
"Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in
the voting process."
Is that something that we have added by consensus?
It sounds like a somewhat sneaky measure to ignore opposition votes, or
discourage
Hi,
On 03.08.20 22:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I have previously proposed that estuaries should be mapped by extending
> the coastline upstream to the limit of the estuary, and also mapping the
> area of the estuary as water with water=estuary
I wonder if we're not becoming too theoretical by
60 matches
Mail list logo
