[Tagging] Tagging becoming more mature

What I've said here (about ponds) is something I think a lot of us have long recognized: syntactic design of the sort that Joseph originally expressed concern about, where maybe we deprecate a tag, somebody disagrees, somebody else proposes differences, yet somebody else says "the subject is

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

If we're going to do "this:" > So perhaps we could create a new tag water=natural_pond for small, natural or > semi-natural lakes which are currently tagged as water=pond, and > water=artificial_pond or water=man_made_pond for the majority of water=pond > features which are clearly not natural,

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a replacement. I can see the logic behind that, if a reservoir is thought to be larger and must have a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

If it's unclear I would just leave electricity:grid untagged as there's no way to know if it's yes or no (another advantage of the namespace tagging). In some areas, I think one could relatively safely assume that if all other houses are connected to the grid, that one likely is too. However, 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

That IS what I mean. However, STILL left unsaid is that short of ringing the doorbell and asking the home / business owner "are your solar panels grid-tied, battery-feed, directly converted to an inverter...?" you don't really know. How will you tag those buildings? (I feel a nose sniffing up

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On 10.11.2020 10:56, Andy Mabbett wrote: On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 05:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I think the best option is to deprecate water=pond and suggest using water=lake for natural lakes, even small ones, and use water=reservoir or water=basin (or landuse=reservoir or =basin if you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

If I understood you correctly, this would fall under grid-connected houses that I mentioned in the last example. This was the specific reason why I think namespace tagging seems to be clearer. The house would then be tagged with: building

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Subjective, or partially-subjective criteria for tagging are fine. Several links to science-based definitions by people that think about such things were offered earlier in the thread, and they form a fine basis for documenting what is a lake and what is a pond. We don't all need to agree on

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it to the wiki or create a Feature Proposal? Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu: On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

There is no "it". Everybody has their own "it", and even that may be inconsistent. I am not opposed to ponds and lakes - I just don't see a common definition coming up without "generally" (but not always), "typically"(but may be different), "usually"(except where it's not), "in most countries"

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

I hope this doesn't throw too much additional confusion into electricity:grid, but in many parts of the world (including where I am, California) a frequent method for connecting solar panels to both one's house / commercial building and the grid is to do what is known as "grid-tie," sometimes

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Place of mourning (replacing "Chapel of rest")

Dear all, As already discussed, "place of mourning" seems to be a less bad label than "chapel of rest". Therefore please comment on the following new proposal: Place of mourning: a room or building where families and friends can come and view someone who has died, before their funeral

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev : > My point is that anywhere except UK, “ride-sharing” is the term for Uber, > Lyft, Bolt, and such. While researching, I’ve found road signs and articles > using “Ride Share” or “ride-sharing” in the US, Australia, and Russia. > I am not

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 12:29 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Everybody knows a difference, > If "everybody knows it", then let's define what that difference is and write it down. That is why this list exists. It is a bad idea to presume that different cultures and languages share a common

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

There are lots of tags in OSM that have fuzzy borders with respect to size or importance. Some that I can think of are waterway=river/stream and place=island/islet. Although the island/islet tag does have a hard boundary at least in the JOSM validator and an approximate boundary in the OSM wiki

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

The tagging from the original proposal has now changed significantly in the past weeks and, I think, has gotten more robust and modular. It has, however, then lost backwards compatability although the tag was not used often and it should be straightforward to migrate the tags to the new

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

I am getting a foot vs hiking feeling. Everybody knows a difference, nobody has the same difference. In the end, it does not matter. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 11 nov. 2020 om 16:02 heeft Brian M. Sperlongano > het volgende geschreven: > >  > If the consensus is to go with a limnological

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 15:02, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > If the consensus is to go with a limnological definition - I think that's > fine. Let's lay out the limnological description of "pond" and "lake" and > let mappers sort out edge cases based on their best interpretation of the >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

Regarding the private_hire, I’m not so sure. We indeed you English spelling for tags (colour, neighbourhood), and that’s okay since it’s consistent. But when instead of just spelling we use a UK-specific legal term, it might be not understood. For example, see village_green. My point is that

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

If the consensus is to go with a limnological definition - I think that's fine. Let's lay out the limnological description of "pond" and "lake" and let mappers sort out edge cases based on their best interpretation of the definitions provided. That's no different than the wetland= tag in which

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 15:52 Uhr schrieb Seth Deegan : > If one was to establish a rendering difference, they should probably do so > by computing the lake size in the (the area of the way), rather than its > tagging. > the lake size is determined also by its depth Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Yes, but the range in size of lakes is massive (local ones compared to the Great Lakes in the U.S.). You wouldn’t want the names of smaller lakes showing up at lower zoom levels like the Great Lakes should. If one was to establish a rendering difference, they should probably do so by computing

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake and >> a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful. >> >> In what way is this distinction useful? >

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On 11/11/20 14:10, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"?  If so, what is the difference?  Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"?  If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived from and redundant with

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 13:12, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"? If so, > what is the difference? Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ > Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"? If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived > from and

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

> > This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake and > a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful. > > In what way is this distinction useful? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Is it actually desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond"? If so, what is the difference? Is it just that a body of water is named "XYZ Pond" versus "XYZ Lake"? If so, isn't water=pond versus water=lake derived from and redundant with name? Is there a conceivable scenario where a data

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

On 10/11/2020 05:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: 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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

>From what I understood to me it also seems desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond", although there may be edge cases and no clear cut between both, for many cases it will be clear which one to choose. Maybe most could be solved by depth and surface dimensions, but we are generally missing

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

We should get rid of all tags too close to natural language. I propose a unified tagging scheme: material = dihydrogen monoxyde formula = H2O flowing = yes/no depth = xx Wait, in fact this could be extended to anything from building to trees!! Yves Le 10 novembre 2020 06:26:39 GMT+01:00, Joseph

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

Maybe there is no clear-cut between a lake and a pond - but for me there is at least a clear impression by size of a pond or a lake beyond the transition zone. I never would call a natural small water or a 'Gartenteich' (garden pond) a lake. -- Diese E-Mail wurde von AVG auf Viren geprüft.