Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

The problem is that natural and artificial are not neatly separated IRL. In Nederland, nature is neatly cut, shaven and shaped. Currently, natural style is preferred. "New nature" is the hype, where heavy machinery creates new landscapes including ponds, lakes, streams and wetlands. Sea dykes

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Hi, I don't agree with the deprecation of water=pond. I find it perfect for small body of water like the ones you can see here for cows watering: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301144562 Ale On 10/11/20 06:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The tag water=pond was added with a large number of

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

I normally use the name of the body of water, e.g. Foo Pond gets water=pond and Bar Lake gets water=lake. It's not clear to me that they have a distinction beyond customary naming, and in my area there are ponds bigger than lakes, though usually the lakes are larger. If there is no distinction

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 15:30, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using > water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones, > No, I don't agree, sorry. Same as the difference between rivers & streams, there is a difference between lakes &

[Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

The tag water=pond was added with a large number of other types of "water=*" in 2011, but it has a poorly defined description. "A pond : a body of standing water, man-made in most cases, that is usually smaller than a lake. Salt evaporation ponds should be

Re: [Tagging] Power line going underground

I’ve added those tags. JOSM still complains but if it fits the power line schema better I guess having some editor warnings is okay. Thank you! > On Nov 9, 2020, at 11:25 AM, Hidde Wieringa wrote: > > Hello, > > You could use "line_management=transition" (and according to the wiki also >

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Nov 9, 2020, at 6:22 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Yes, long, but not (yet!) tedious, at least to me! :-), as I both agree, & > disagree, with some of the points raised. > > Looking forward to the result of the discussions you both may have. I appreciate that, Graeme. As Anders gets back

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 06:06, stevea wrote: > let's take that off-list. Those would be appropriate to discuss ON list, > it's true, and maybe you publish the RESULTS of our off-list discussion > here after we've emailed each other. But I feel we have spent a great deal > of time (and passion!)

Re: [Tagging] Power line going underground

You can suggest not complaining in such case by creating a JOSM issue: see instructions at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket Nov 9, 2020, 21:50 by t...@fitchfamily.org: > I’ve added those tags. JOSM still complains but if it fits the power line > schema better I guess having some

Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2020 10:34:06 +0100 From: Tom Pfeifer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest) I appreciate amenity=place_of_mourning. tom What's wrong with funeral_home?  I've

[Tagging] Power line going underground

There are a number of places where an above ground power line transitions to below ground. I am not equipped to guess where the line runs once it goes below ground so I stop mapping at the last power pole. However the validation in JOSM flags this with a warning and I hate warnings on my

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Mo., 9. Nov. 2020 um 13:15 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > A question, is this database only intended for very large polygons, or > also rather small? > at the moment, the polygons are all rather small, but the intention is to get regions of all sizes, where they exist. As long as it is not so

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

sorry, of course I meant "rather large", in the first sentence ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 20:06, stevea wrote: > > For example, you complain that natural=peninsula doesn't render. So? > That's not a problem with OSM, it is you assuming that a particular > renderer is going to display the semiotics you believe it should, when it > likely does not (exactly as you

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Nov 9, 2020, at 12:59 AM, Anders Torger wrote: > Hello Steve, I admire your passion. Thank you, that is a word both used about me in this project by others and one I use myself. Most apt; some of us in OSM are almost "rabidly" passionate! > This is my perspective: there are many projects

Re: [Tagging] Power line going underground

Hello, You could use "line_management=transition" (and according to the wiki also "location:transition=yes"). See for more examples the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aline_management%3Dtransition with similar entries as the photo you posted. Whether this suppresses the

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Special Economic Zone

The proposal for boundary=special_economic_zone is now open for voting. Thank you to those that have offered comments and feedback on this proposal. Community input has been incorporated into the current version of the proposal. Voting link:

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

Okay, it took a while, but I revised the wiki of the proposal. I removed the possibility of tagging without relations, and added a table with examples of tagging. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Admission#Additional_relation_tags Send your opinions. uto, 27. lis 2020. u

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

A question, is this database only intended for very large polygons, or also rather small? From my mapping perspective here in Sweden fuzzy polygons exist down to say ~1 km size (generally speaking names of hills, valleys, peninsulas etc). In fact the most I run into is in the 2 - 10 km size.

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Le 9 novembre 2020 10:08:42 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >Am Mo., 9. Nov. 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < >tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> In short: technically CC0 may be used, but it would be confusing as ODBL >> would still >> apply anyway. >> >> See

Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

I appreciate amenity=place_of_mourning. tom On 09.11.2020 10:15, woll...@posteo.de wrote: OK, so I haven't really done all the counting, but my impression is that amenity=place_of_mourning has quite some fans while most of the others are at least able to swallow it. Unless anyone explains me

Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

OK, so I haven't really done all the counting, but my impression is that amenity=place_of_mourning has quite some fans while most of the others are at least able to swallow it. Unless anyone explains me that I got that wrong, I think I'll move the proposal there then. Am 05.11.2020 09:43

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Mo., 9. Nov. 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > In short: technically CC0 may be used, but it would be confusing as ODBL > would still > apply anyway. > > See https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0 > > "CC0

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hello Steve, I admire your passion. This is my perspective: there are many projects to contribute to, I have multiple interests, I have a limited amount of hours to contribute. I have worked in many high risk ventures, and seen at least 10 years of my work life's production has just

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 17:44 by jayands...@gmail.com: >>> And there should be several specialized layers: general car navigation map, >>> sport map for hiking/cycling/skiing, transportation. All of that would be >>> possible with vector tiles which are less computationally demanding to >>> create.

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Warning: I am not a lawyer In short: technically CC0 may be used, but it would be confusing as ODBL would still apply anyway. See https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0 "CC0 licenced material is in general compatible, however the license only extends to material

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 14:00 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-11-08, sk, 09:46 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> (and it is from person who put a lot of effort into tagging improvements, >> wikifiddling, >> deprecating some unwanted values, deduplication and validator-related work >> and has >>