Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 18:12, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 17:05, Steve Doerr wrote: > >> On 12/08/2020 19:27, Paul Allen wrote: >> >> > I would interpret 'Collects', 'Issues', 'Spreads', and possibly 'Sinks' as >> verbs in the third person singular, rather than plural nouns. >> >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Allen wrote: > > If we decide that > we want to tag such things in the first place. as there was significant discussion how to tag them, it doesn’t seem that not mapping them is an option we still have to discuss Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 17:05, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 12/08/2020 19:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > I would interpret 'Collects', 'Issues', 'Spreads', and possibly 'Sinks' as > verbs in the third person singular, rather than plural nouns. > That's a bit of an issue, although I think you've included

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On 12/08/2020 19:27, Paul Allen wrote: e source of a river is defined by one of the following terms: Collects- where the source is a bog or a marsh Spring- where the source is a natural spring Issues- where the source is an emission from an agricultural drain, or where the streamre-emerges from

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 02:36, Tod Fitch wrote: > > One question I have on this is how much are the OS maps tailored to the UK > environment? > The OS maps of the UK are very much tailored to the UK environment. I don't know if they are, or ever were, responsible for mapping portions of the

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 6:23 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:57, Paul Allen > wrote: > > I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions. I'm not saying > we should automatically do what they do. But I do think we ought to

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:57, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions. I'm not saying > we should automatically do what they do. But I do think we ought to > consider > what they've done and think about it before committing ourselves. > "Maybe" (as OSM

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The “rise” where the stream comes back to the surface would usually be > mapped as natural=spring > Ordnance Survey makes the distinction between issues and springs. An issue is where a waterway reappears after a (natural, not a culvert)

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

The “rise” where the stream comes back to the surface would usually be mapped as natural=spring If there is also a cave entrance at the same spot where the watercourse exits a cave, then the tag natural=cave_entrance can be used - Joseph On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 6:21 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:21, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The WIki picture of a sinkhole happens to be large, but in karst terrain > they come in all sizes. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5599524737 is > a sinkhole of quite a small stream. > It's been a long time since I've been near (never on)

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:08 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner wrote: > >> >> For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation, >> look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa. It looks like >> someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner wrote: > > For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation, > look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa. It looks like > someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but > forgot to add the water. > As I

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:37:40 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:36, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing > > Imagery with an area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239 > > and flows generally to the east and north only to

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing Imagery with an area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239 and flows generally to the east and north only to dissipate around 33.06076,-116.06077. The collection area is no problem nor is the ephemeral waterway until about

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Aug 12, 2020, at 4:49 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 19:19, Tod Fitch > wrote: > > It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is indeterminate > [1], thus the problem mapping it. > > Ordnance Survey represents this as a

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:36, Tod Fitch wrote: > Not yet mapped, but my prototype case can be seen in the Bing Imagery with > an area that collect water around 33.99268,-116.22239 and flows generally > to the east and north only to dissipate around 33.06076,-116.06077. > There's water there?

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 18:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Would waterway=spreads only be used for intermittent streams/rivers where > the waterway spreads out and evaporates on the surface? > I hadn't even considered its use with intermittent streams. > > If the water appears to sink into sand,

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Would waterway=spreads only be used for intermittent streams/rivers where the waterway spreads out and evaporates on the surface? If the water appears to sink into sand, gravel or fractured karst rock, would we want a different tag instead, e.g. waterway=sink? I understand that

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 17:07, Tod Fitch wrote: > > To clarify it for me, the a “waterway=spread” tag would be used on a node > (rendered possibly as an asterisk) or on a way? Or either depending the > situation? > I'd say "spreads" rather than "spread" because that's the term OS uses. I've only

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 19:19, Tod Fitch wrote: > > It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is > indeterminate [1], thus the problem mapping it. > Ordnance Survey represents this as a sort of star of very short waterways at the approximate point of disappearance and labels

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 02:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 07:03, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> > On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch wrote: >> > >> > Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK, >> Canada and the US [1]. And there is an

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

I’ve not seen a suggestion for this case yet that has any traction. . . It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is indeterminate [1], thus the problem mapping it. > Definition of indeterminate: > 1a : not definitely or precisely determined or fixed : vague > b : not known in

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 07:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK, > Canada and the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What > are the opinions using: > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 06:20, Tod Fitch wrote: > I’ve yet to find a term or tag name that I like for the case where the > water disappears from the surface in a desert environment. & I don't think you're going to find one, because there's "nothing" to point to on the ground & say "There, that's

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

I’ve yet to find a term or tag name that I like for the case where the water disappears from the surface in a desert environment. One issue is the location will vary depending on how big the storm was (or perhaps for a seasonal stream how wet the preceding wet season was). So it might be a tag

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch >: > It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has an > appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch wrote: > > Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK, Canada > and the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What are the > opinions using: > > storm_drain = inlet I would suggest to use

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

This is specifically about how to label the end point where the waterway doesn't drain into another waterbody, not how to label an intermittent stream in general. On Fri, 24 Jul 2020, 07:05 Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 01:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > >> >> We are still

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 01:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > > We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out > over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate > this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this > discussion that has

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around here are not circular and many appear to be too small for a person to

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch : > It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has > an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a > place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around > here are

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 16:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out > over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate > this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this > discussion that has any

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On 22/07/2020 11.25, Tod Fitch wrote: Digression: The wiki page for natural=sinkhole [3] says that it is a tagging error to use natural=sink_hole. When I look at taginfo I see nearly 2000 occurances of natural=sink_hole and none for natural=sinkhole [4]. I guess the write of the wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Re: natural=sinkhole - this tag has been used 9908 times: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=natural=sinkhole It is widely distributed: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=sinkhole#map In contrast, natural=sink_hole appears to have only been used in 2 areas in England, mostly

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Manhole=drain has more than 2000 uses, most of them seem to be water drainage grids with no access for humans. But if you want to retag them with something different you would need to do this manually. I would not touch it, even if it is an unfortunate tagging. On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 21:33, Alan

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 11:28, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are >> not suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage >>

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:59, Volker Schmidt wrote: > manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are not > suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage > > People have used manhole=drain for that

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

manhole=drain is widely used in OSM for water drainage grids, that are not suitable for people to entr - se the photo on the wikipage On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, 22:55 Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 18. Jul 2020,

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

sent from a phone > On 18. Jul 2020, at 20:42, Alan Mackie wrote: > > The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain? but this is for manholes, not suitable for small grates where a person can not enter. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Jul 18, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > On 18/07/2020 19:41, Alan Mackie wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch wrote: >> >> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications of >>

[Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

During this period of “social distancing” I’ve been trying to work down the number of errors that tools like Osmose have reported about my editing. I am getting close to starting on the warnings about waterways not connecting properly. There are a couple of situations that I’ve mapped that I

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:53:09PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: > > >> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications > >> of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag > >> them as errors to be fixed. > >> > > The desert ones aren’t sink holes.

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On 18/07/2020 19:41, Alan Mackie wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen > wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch mailto:t...@fitchfamily.org>> wrote: What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications of

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:42, Alan Mackie wrote: > > I'd be tempted to just put culvert tagging on the node and add a barrier > tag for any gratings. I'm sure that will also annoy the validators, but it > should at least indicate to other mappers that it goes somewhere. > It will annoy

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

Jul 18, 2020, 19:52 by t...@fitchfamily.org: > During this period of “social distancing” I’ve been trying to work down the > number of errors that tools like Osmose have reported about my editing. I am > getting close to starting on the warnings about waterways not connecting > properly.

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch wrote: > >> >> What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications >> of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag >> them as errors to be fixed. >> > > One

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch wrote: > > What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications > of a water way ends at this point and that the QA tools should not flag > them as errors to be fixed. > One of the things we need is an anti-spring. Marked on Ordnance