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

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] 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] 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] 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] 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 >> >>

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...

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

part of whatever landuse (residential, > commercial, ...) describes the area outside the road. > > > > If it's "municipal greenery" it's probably either landuse=highway (if it's > still part of the public right of way) or landuse=recreation_ground. > > > > No

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

, 13 June 2018 19:24 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: 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, c

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] 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

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

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > > 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > > How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in > a country based on OSM-data ? > > > I would start from something like: total area of area covered by > >

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

On 12/06/18 22:59, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto: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

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

If a country's community decided to adopt one tagging method of forests, wood and tree areas, and retagged all existing usage accordingly, more could be done with (answered by) the data for that country. As it stands, I don't see that happening in any country any time soon. Especially

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

12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com : > How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in > a country based on OSM-data ? > I would start from something like: total area of area covered by landuse=forest and natural=wood after

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

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 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 even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10. > A group is

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

2018-06-12 11:37 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote: > >> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not >> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often >> called "Xyz Forest" >> >> >> interesting, can you give a real world

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

While I'm in favour of the landcover tag, landcover=trees is also not really true. In most forests areas I know, trees do no occupy all the space. There is plenty of room for grass, green plants and bushes on the ground. In some cases there is no other vegetation and it's just sand (or ground).

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

For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified. I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass, trees, scrub,

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

On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not >

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

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not > > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often > called "Xyz Forest" >

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

On 12/06/18 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 8. Jun 2018, at 17:32, Kevin Kenny wrote: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the public? there are 2 competing tags, leisure=nature_reserve and

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

sent from a phone > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote: > > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often called > "Xyz Forest" interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has

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

sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2018, at 17:32, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, which are widespread in the areas > that I map and are important to the public? there are 2 competing tags, leisure=nature_reserve and boundary protected area for this kind of

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

>>> I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a >>> brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys. >> Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw? Yes, boards of experts. Subject matter experts. Almost every significant theme that could

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

On 09/06/18 21:13, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote: On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that competition is

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

sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2018, at 10:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I would start from easy wins, for example why we have both FIXME and fixme > tags? +1 We have done something similar in the past: unification of yes, 1 and true for example. > Why we still have wikipedia:pl,

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

09-06-2018 16:56 tarihinde Paul Allen yazdı: > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > A 'benevolent dictator'. > > Let us know if you find one. > > > He's called Linus Torvalds.  Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux

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

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: A 'benevolent dictator'. > > Let us know if you find one. > He's called Linus Torvalds. Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux to be able to take control of OSM. And some people object to his use of expletives. If somebody

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

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is >> actually how the land is used. >> So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently. >> > > So

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

On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote: > On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that > competition is essential for progress > in OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we

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

On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the

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

On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that > competition is essential for progress > in OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more

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

On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: > >> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress > >> in OSM. > > How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is > "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is > our data quality

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

On 2018-06-09 10:00, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in >> OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is our data quality improving? Do we

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

On Saturday 09 June 2018, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: > > I have been editing in OSM for almost four years, and I've been a > member of this mailing list almost since then.  I read every single > post. During that time I have never seen what I would consider a > consensus reached on anything.  I'm

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

On 09/06/18 01:32, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote: 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show

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

> If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things differently ... I'm not. I am asking about an existing and growing tagging practice and existing tagging proposal, trying to see if things could move a little towards a solution within existing standard OSM practice. I only

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

8. Jun 2018 17:32 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, > which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the public? > What is the best strategy for keeping these areas

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

On 08/06/2018 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote: In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to address that. To echo what other people have suggested, you are entirely free to set up a rendering* of whatever OSM tags you want as however you want.  To do that for Belgium

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

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > This is not 'deprecating' landuse=forest - - > > it's still there, it can be there indefinitely, it can render correctly. > > > It is exactly deprecating it - see for example > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation > > "In several

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

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com: > > In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a > land use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is > covered with trees.' > > > I see no

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

I am justr trying to get concrete answers and apply them to the argument at hand. Thanks for the answers. In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to address that. I have not seen wiki pages just to force rendering, though, but I can see how it sort of builds the

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

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant > > criterion for decisions in the standard style if to render a > > certain tag. Tags have been added to rendering with less than a > > hundred uses and tags have been rejected with

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

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:34 Peter Elderson wrote: > > Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases.. > > that > convincing most that they need to change gets very hard. > > True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive > changes, 100% backwards

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

>> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is >> appropriate? > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion > for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag. Tags > have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and

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

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I > didn't see anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system - > derailing the community processes" . Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional

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

Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I didn't see anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system - derailing the community processes" . At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is appropriate? At what usage level should it be documented

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

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > > ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top > > down tagging system - by derailing the community processes > > I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why > the strawman argument? Just look at the edit

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

> ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top down tagging system - by derailing the community processes I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why the strawman argument? 2018-06-08 12:00 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz

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

On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with > it is to edit it > > (it generally takes less time than complaining). I try to do that but don't really have the stomach to engage in turf wars with defenders of

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

On 08/06/18 19:03, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de : The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on the wiki consider it their mission to

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

> In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it is to edit it Would you like me to add more realistic and more common examples of landuses which are not landuses? I just checked the residential I live in and most of the landuse=forest an landuse=grass areas are much

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

On 08/06/18 19:05, Peter Elderson wrote: Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on the map. natural=wood works... and is 'free' of the land use requirement. The word 'natural' has been taken to

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

Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on the map. 2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > 8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com: > > - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer

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

6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de : > The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a > significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on > the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct use of > tags (based on

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

8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com : > - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as > landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that > are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually

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

On 08/06/18 18:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has 9[sic!] uses. I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to

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

So you would need a commitment from the tagger side not to do that, because it would invalidate the experiment. Maybe a provision can be made for cautious transitional measures if the experiment results in a go? Then all projects are aware and there is no need for undiscussed mechanical edits.

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

> > Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has > 9[sic!] uses. > I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition not used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules of "we should use the accepted tags in wiki...". But whatever,

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

8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : >> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestryand it >> has 9[sic!] uses. > > I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to > landuse=forestry ... there would then

  1   2   >