Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[André Pirard]

On 2014-07-16 19:09, Andreas Goss wrote :
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/BE-Spelling_shop%3Djewelry
>
>
> I kept it short ;) And I the think the Subject says it all. The use of
> jewellers could of course also be considered.

"BE" means Belgium, for those who do like precision.
British English is "en_UK"  as in the locale "LANG=en_UK.UTF-8".

Osiyo, Sut mae,

André.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[Andreas Goss]

vending=news_papers seems harder to say because it seems some osm
gardeners changed objects that previously had vending=newspapers (for
example [1]), so the actual numbers are skewed.


I don't see why that matters. They are in the database. Now the question 
is should we change them or not.


For shop=jewelry you could just as much make the point, that it is 
rendered and displayed on several maps, which obviously encouraged that 
mapping: 
http://openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=18&lat=48.36377&lon=10.87442&layers=B000TT


And both are supported by JOSM presets.
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> I wouldn't give this tag a general name like landuse=religious. People from
> all over will use this like they see fit, and the tag will soon lose
> meaning. If Japanese temples usually have grounds around them that have
> religious connotations, then I would call it something like
> landuse=japanese_temple_grounds, or landuse=buddhist_temple_grounds, or
> maybe something nicer.

I don't agree.
It's purposely generic, like quarry, industrial, commercial, orchard
and everything else.

If you need to specify the religion then use the religion/denomitation keys.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Andy Mabbett]

On Jul 16, 2014 1:42 PM, "John Willis"  wrote:

> Landuse=religious gives us a generic tag, like landuse retail or
commercial, without having to be so specific.

I'm going to tag my house and garden landuse=atheism

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Janko Mihelić]

I wouldn't give this tag a general name like landuse=religious. People from
all over will use this like they see fit, and the tag will soon lose
meaning. If Japanese temples usually have grounds around them that have
religious connotations, then I would call it something like
landuse=japanese_temple_grounds, or landuse=buddhist_temple_grounds, or
maybe something nicer.

We don't have to mash all cultures together in one-size-fits-all tags.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Willis]

Sure - the land is all owned by the temple. The schools are run by the temple. 
The private residence is the monks residence. He lives next to and operates the 
temple.  In Japan, "next to" usually means attached or less than 1m separating 
the buildings. As many functions are jammed together. Many "suburban" temples 
operate in this manner. Same with the gardens. They are operated as an 
attraction of the temple, but they are not a temple. The nicer temples have 
some kind of grounds around them that could be considered gardens, and some 
even charge access to them.

The "grounds" of Narita-San temple near the main airport is the size of a small 
college, there are 4 or 5 main Buddhist and Shinto buildings, cemeteries, 
Shinto gates, a religious trinket souvenir shop, large event grounds, and a 
massive forest with walking paths, 2 lakes, a few flower gardens, and grassy 
fields, with monuments, shinto shrines, and other small things scattered 
throughout the grounds. It is all a single place, operated by the monks and 
priests that live or work there. For the past 1100 years (it was founded around 
900ad). It all has a single outer wall or barrier, and is considered the 
"Naritasan temple grounds" 

My boss is a monk, and his residence is adjacent to the temple and part of the 
temple land and temple grounds ( meaning, it is inside the walls of the temple, 
accessible only by going to the temple) but the average temple visitor would 
never actually go in there. 

Just like the kitchens in Disneyland - they are part of Disneyland, but a 
patron would never expect to enter - but they are undeniably part of 
"Disneyland" 

Javbw 
Sent from Japan

> On Jul 17, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis :
>> 
>> Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple building, 
>> bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple certainly is 
>> a place of worship, the garden is not.
> 
> 
> Could you expand the idea that the private residence or the public garden 
> should be landuse = religious ? Is this based on ownership by a religious 
> institution, or are there more connections?
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

[Bryan Housel]

Oh yeah this comes up sometimes.

IMO a wine shop and a winery are not the same thing.  The former is something 
they have at the train station to help with the evening commute, and the latter 
is the sort of thing people plan their vacations around.

Oddly we have the mostly standard `craft=brewery`:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Dbrewery
… but winery tagging is fragmented.

You can read this if you want: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Winery




On Jul 16, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Christian Quest  wrote:

> winery / wine
> 
> Winery: A winery is a building or property that produces wine, or a business 
> involved in the production of wine, such as a wine company. Some wine 
> companies own many wineries. (wikipedia)
> 
> so... shop=wine is a wine seller, where shop=winery is a winer maker selling 
> his own production...
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[John Packer]

vending=news_papers seems harder to say because it seems some osm gardeners
changed objects that previously had vending=newspapers (for example [1]),
so the actual numbers are skewed.


[1]: http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=2188351234



2014-07-16 16:41 GMT-03:00 Andreas Goss :

>  I don't think we should change the spelling of an well-established tag
>> (more than 13 000 uses according to taginfo)
>>
>
> So you think we should keep vending=news_papers?
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/vending=news_papers
>
> __
> openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

[Christian Quest]

winery / wine

Winery: A winery is a building or property that produces wine, or a
business involved in the production of wine, such as a wine company. Some
wine companies own many wineries. (wikipedia)

so... shop=wine is a wine seller, where shop=winery is a winer maker
selling his own production...


-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Frank Little]

We don’t disagree that routes can change. But the point is that a route 
relation connecting two different networks (especially true, I believe, for the 
cycle node networks) is unlikely to change unless the network nodes change (and 
that does not happen much).

What does happen is that the actual route (which is in the route relation 
defining the roads and paths between the two nodes) may change for reasons you 
mention. 

My point is simply that the number of connection routes between networks is 
relatively small and of those the number likely to change is very small indeed. 
(Note that changes to the actual roads used is irrelevant; those changes are 
found in the route relation, which is not what we are talking about here. This 
is about the “super-relation” for all the routes in a network.)

(I realise you grasp this, Marc. but not everyone reading this is familiar with 
cycle node networks (or walking node networks) I fear, from the responses so 
far.)

From: Marc Gemis 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:11 PM
To: Frank Little ; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for 
"type=network" ?

O, did you ever walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my 
neighbourhood (Rivierenland)  changes almost yearly: farmers that decide that a 
route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and sometimes, 
nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason. 
The network Kempense Netevallei has many nodes with only 2 routes. It's obvious 
that new routes will be added as soon as the paths are opened to the public. 
Perhaps, after the governments bought the ground form the current landowners.


I've heard that several changes where planned for the cycling networks in 
Flanders. Probably because new cycle path where constructed or due to new road 
layouts.

So both the routes and the collection of route (== the network) changes.

I've said several times on the Belgian mailing list that one should revisit all 
networks again every year, just to keep them up to date. BTW, the maps of 
Rivierenland that could be bought from the tourist office used the old nodes 
for several years. Some websites that use the "official" information from the 
Flemish tourist office had the same problem. Only OSM was up-to-date :-)

BTW, I'm not asking for retagging. I just pointed out that it could be done.


regards___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Frank Little]

Nodes currently are placed (where relevant) in both cycling and walking 
networks.

If one did not include nodes in route relations (I do that and prefer it; Jo, 
as he said earlier, does not), or in the network relation, or in both (slight 
redundancy, but quite useful IMO) then the cycling or hiking network name would 
have to be on the node. 
Again, I fail to see what the advantage would be for such a change.

ALL tagging issues can be resolved by adopting a different set of tagging 
principles and therefore (within reason) can be changed using programming, but 
why would you want to?


From: Marc Gemis 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for 
"type=network" ?


Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a 
node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a cycling 
and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in 
the network:name tag.


So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to do 
this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is.

regards

m
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

O, did you ever walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my
neighbourhood (Rivierenland)  changes almost yearly: farmers that decide
that a route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and
sometimes, nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason.
The network Kempense Netevallei has many nodes with only 2 routes. It's
obvious that new routes will be added as soon as the paths are opened to
the public. Perhaps, after the governments bought the ground form the
current landowners.

I've heard that several changes where planned for the cycling networks in
Flanders. Probably because new cycle path where constructed or due to new
road layouts.

So both the routes and the collection of route (== the network) changes.

I've said several times on the Belgian mailing list that one should revisit
all networks again every year, just to keep them up to date. BTW, the maps
of Rivierenland that could be bought from the tourist office used the old
nodes for several years. Some websites that use the "official" information
from the Flemish tourist office had the same problem. Only OSM was
up-to-date :-)

BTW, I'm not asking for retagging. I just pointed out that it could be done.


regards

m


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Frank Little  wrote:

>   Could you please explain why you believe route relations are likely to
> change, necessitating an update to the network relations? Once a cycle node
> network has been established, there are few changes (few new routes). Older
> networks may be updated with a few new nodes and new relations. But (at
> least in this area) it does not happen very often. The same would be true
> for walking node networks.
>
> But any changes to the specific roads and paths in a route relation do not
> affect the validity of a route relation which is entered in a (cycle node)
> network relation. That is one of the advantages of having both route
> relations and cyclenode network relations which contain them.
>
> Duplicating a connecting route relation so that it can bear the name of
> two network relations would indeed be nonsense. There is only one set of
> route signs between the two networks (specifically, between a node in each
> of the respective networks), so we tag the connection once and enter it in
> OSM once. The route does however belong in both networks, so it naturally
> is placed in both network relations.
>
> Retagging is IMO pointless. It adds nothing and is no better than what we
> already have.
>
> What are the arguments for making substantial changes to all the node
> network relations in the Benelux and near parts of Germany? (The answer
> cannot be: because the wiki makes us do it. If the wiki does not represent
> the way we do things, please feel free to update the wiki.
>
>
>
>  *From:* Marc Gemis 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for
> "type=network" ?
>
>  There is still problem with the "connection" routes. That are routes
> whose start and endpoint belong to different networks. Right now they are
> placed in both network relations and given the role 'connection' in the
> network relation.
>
> Duplicating them in order to give them 2 different network names, is bad.
> Whenever the route has to change, one has to change it twice, or one gets
> inconsistencies. There is also something as "every object is represented
> only once in OSM".
>
> Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now,
> a node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a
> cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the
> network type in the network:name tag.
>
> So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program
> to do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Frank Little]

Could you please explain why you believe route relations are likely to change, 
necessitating an update to the network relations? Once a cycle node network has 
been established, there are few changes (few new routes). Older networks may be 
updated with a few new nodes and new relations. But (at least in this area) it 
does not happen very often. The same would be true for walking node networks.

But any changes to the specific roads and paths in a route relation do not 
affect the validity of a route relation which is entered in a (cycle node) 
network relation. That is one of the advantages of having both route relations 
and cyclenode network relations which contain them.

Duplicating a connecting route relation so that it can bear the name of two 
network relations would indeed be nonsense. There is only one set of route 
signs between the two networks (specifically, between a node in each of the 
respective networks), so we tag the connection once and enter it in OSM once. 
The route does however belong in both networks, so it naturally is placed in 
both network relations.

Retagging is IMO pointless. It adds nothing and is no better than what we 
already have.

What are the arguments for making substantial changes to all the node network 
relations in the Benelux and near parts of Germany? (The answer cannot be: 
because the wiki makes us do it. If the wiki does not represent the way we do 
things, please feel free to update the wiki.



From: Marc Gemis 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 9:15 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for 
"type=network" ?

There is still problem with the "connection" routes. That are routes whose 
start and endpoint belong to different networks. Right now they are placed in 
both network relations and given the role 'connection' in the network relation. 

Duplicating them in order to give them 2 different network names, is bad. 
Whenever the route has to change, one has to change it twice, or one gets 
inconsistencies. There is also something as "every object is represented only 
once in OSM". 

Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a 
node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a cycling 
and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the network type in 
the network:name tag.


So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to do 
this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is.

regards

m___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[Andreas Goss]

I don't think we should change the spelling of an well-established tag
(more than 13 000 uses according to taginfo)


So you think we should keep vending=news_papers?
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/vending=news_papers
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[Andreas Goss]

I agree with John - no need to change the spelling. The differences
between British English and American English are troublesome enough
already (tyre:tire, centre:center, harbour:harbor, etc.:etc.) — why make
another one?


How is this making another one? The differences already exist, no matter 
what we choose.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

[Serge Wroclawski]

Perfect, so now we have a reason to keep both tags!

- Serge

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Steve Doerr  wrote:
> On 16/07/2014 20:11, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
>> there are no delicatessens in the UK.
>
>
> http://www.yell.com/ucs/UcsSearchAction.do?keywords=delicatessen&location=united+kingdom
>
> --
> Steve
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

[Steve Doerr]

On 16/07/2014 20:11, Serge Wroclawski wrote:


there are no delicatessens in the UK.


http://www.yell.com/ucs/UcsSearchAction.do?keywords=delicatessen&location=united+kingdom

--
Steve

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

There is still problem with the "connection" routes. That are routes whose
start and endpoint belong to different networks. Right now they are placed
in both network relations and given the role 'connection' in the network
relation.

 Duplicating them in order to give them 2 different network names, is bad.
Whenever the route has to change, one has to change it twice, or one gets
inconsistencies. There is also something as "every object is represented
only once in OSM".

Putting the network name solely on the nodes might solve this. Until now, a
node only belongs to one walking network. However it could belong to a
cycling and walking network, hence, my previous proposal to include the
network type in the network:name tag.

So all problems for retagging could be solved, one could write a program to
do this. I leave it to others to decide how urgent this retagging is.

regards

m

p.s. as someone asked about the number of objects, here are some numbers:

Detail TotalThe Netherlands BelgiumExplanation HikingBicycle HikingBicycle
Length (km)59.871 6.17633.810 4.03315.850 Total length in kilometers.
Networks 19362  64
 27
 40
 Number of networks. Nodes23.320
5.6279.389 3.7374.567 Number of network nodes.Routes 29.7146.994 12.0085.263
5.449Number of routes.this is taken from http://osma.vmarc.be/


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Pieren  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo  wrote:
> > I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
> > Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.
>
> Again, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the
> proposal is "fair" and is not breaking the "relations are not
> categories" principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend
> some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the
> collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing
> relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution
> around them.
> @Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all
> practices in OSM have to be followed.
>
> Pieren
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

>> A deli and a delicatessen are not the same thing. I'd say a
>> delicatessen is a cuisine of restaurant, and a deli is a type of shop.
>>
> In British English, delicatessen and deli are the same thing. Certainly
> not a cuisine, I would not associate it with a restaurant.

That's because AFAIK there are no delicatessens in the UK.

Please do not mass modify tags of objects, especially those where the
locals have told you that they're meaningful.

- Serge

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 06:11 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
> > There are some values of shop key that seem to be synonymous with other tags
> > and I want to confirm whatever it is true.
> > Unless mentioned otherwise all mentioned tags are values of key shop,
> > numeric values is occurrence count according to taginfo.
> > Before -> are values that IMHO should be replaced by value after ->.
> >
> > fish (368 and documented as replaced by seafood), fishmonger (2106 and
> > documented as replaced by seafood) -> seafood (2110)
> > delicatessen (108) -> deli (4101, documented)
> 
> A deli and a delicatessen are not the same thing. I'd say a
> delicatessen is a cuisine of restaurant, and a deli is a type of shop.
> 
In British English, delicatessen and deli are the same thing. Certainly
not a cuisine, I would not associate it with a restaurant.

A delicatessen, or deli, is either a shop (or a counter in supermarket)
selling cooked meats, cheeses, and other foods such as olives, pates.

Deli is a shortened version of delicatessen.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[Dave Swarthout]

I agree with John - no need to change the spelling. The differences between
British English and American English are troublesome enough already
(tyre:tire, centre:center, harbour:harbor, etc.:etc.) — why make another
one?


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:12 AM, John Packer 
wrote:

> I don't think we should change the spelling of an well-established tag
> (more than 13 000 uses according to taginfo)
>
> See the comments about the abrupt change of power=sub_station to
> power=substation on github[1]. For example:
>
>>  [..] why bother changing the tag? Should we next have a vote on whether
>> it should be spelt railway or spelled railroad? The problem here is not
>> that the tag is mis-spelled, but instead that people are worrying about tag
>> spelling when we should be encouraging people to edit. If enough people
>> spell a tag using a standard incorrect spelling, or a (English standard
>> correct) spelling, then write it up in the Wiki and people who render will
>> know what to do.
>>
>> That is what seems crucial to me: ensuring that people know how to add
>> things, and that people know what they mean once they're added. Correct
>> spelling seems quite secondary to the matter, where correct *rendering*
>> is the crux of the matter.
>>
>
> [1]: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230
>
>
>
> 2014-07-16 14:09 GMT-03:00 Andreas Goss :
>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/BE-
>> Spelling_shop%3Djewelry
>>
>> I kept it short ;) And I the think the Subject says it all. The use of
>> jewellers could of course also be considered.
>> __
>> openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
>> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[John Packer]

I don't think we should change the spelling of an well-established tag
(more than 13 000 uses according to taginfo)

See the comments about the abrupt change of power=sub_station to
power=substation on github[1]. For example:

>  [..] why bother changing the tag? Should we next have a vote on whether
> it should be spelt railway or spelled railroad? The problem here is not
> that the tag is mis-spelled, but instead that people are worrying about tag
> spelling when we should be encouraging people to edit. If enough people
> spell a tag using a standard incorrect spelling, or a (English standard
> correct) spelling, then write it up in the Wiki and people who render will
> know what to do.
>
> That is what seems crucial to me: ensuring that people know how to add
> things, and that people know what they mean once they're added. Correct
> spelling seems quite secondary to the matter, where correct *rendering*
> is the crux of the matter.
>

[1]: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230



2014-07-16 14:09 GMT-03:00 Andreas Goss :

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/BE-
> Spelling_shop%3Djewelry
>
> I kept it short ;) And I the think the Subject says it all. The use of
> jewellers could of course also be considered.
> __
> openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Frank Little]

These are practices which a lot of people have been following for a long 
time.


I do not see a real problem which you are trying to solve here.
Leave it alone, please.

-Oorspronkelijk bericht- 
From: Pieren

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:46 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for 
"type=network" ?


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo  wrote:

I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.


Again, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the
proposal is "fair" and is not breaking the "relations are not
categories" principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend
some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the
collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing
relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution
around them.
@Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all
practices in OSM have to be followed.

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

[Andreas Goss]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/BE-Spelling_shop%3Djewelry

I kept it short ;) And I the think the Subject says it all. The use of 
jewellers could of course also be considered.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo  wrote:
> I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
> Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.

Again, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the
proposal is "fair" and is not breaking the "relations are not
categories" principle. If no, I could modify the wiki and recommend
some solutions (like using query the appropriate tags on the
collection itself instead of creating a relation for that). Existing
relations could be modified along the way when people are contribution
around them.
@Frank I agree that the wiki should formalize the practice but not all
practices in OSM have to be followed.

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Jo]

I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.

It would mean that what is nicely where it belongs at the moment, would be
moved to tags on the nodes and the route relations, causing a
multiplication of tags.

It's simply a matter of moving the 'complexity' from one place to another.

Oh well, we'll have to discuss this on the Belgian and Dutch mailing
lists/forums.

Jo


2014-07-16 18:05 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Pieren  wrote:
>
>> your case, you don't have a predefined list of (master) routes but
>> only a list of path "segments".
>>
>
> What is a list of paths other than a route ?
>
> I totally agree with you that we could represent it without network
> relation, but it's just not worth the effort.
> There are so many things missing or even wrong in the OSM-data, that are
> much more important to fix than swapping one way of mapping things into
> another method.
>
>  regards
>
> m
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Frank Little]

The cyclenode networks we are talking about are specific, published networks 
with route signage and node signs and/or information panels. They are not a 
loose connection of nodes which mappers have decided to gather together in OSM 
for convenience. You will find them in Belgium (where they were invented), the 
Netherlands and some parts of Germany. (And possible elsewhere if people have 
decided to use the same system.) They are observable (route signs, node 
signage, information panels and maps) and exist verifiably in the real world.

There are separate route relations for all the roads and paths signed between 
two nodes and these are included in network relations which contain those route 
relations as well as the nodes.

It would not be convenient (or probably possible) to include all the roads and 
nodes which make up a complete network in a single relation, so that is why we 
have route relations. And it is convenient for all of us who try to maintain 
them in OSM to have all the separate route relations collected in network 
relations.

The same is true for other node networks mentioned (walking/hiking routes, 
equestrian, etc.)

To answer Pieren’s original question: No, you cannot begin removing these from 
the database. 
The wiki needs to follow practice, not the other way round.
From: Paul Johnson 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for 
"type=network" ?

I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation.  Just 
spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an 
additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per city, and at 
least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that can't 
be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each member 
relation.  And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of thousands of 
potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks.  It's like hydroponic 
tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing without much payoff 
except in very few edge scenarios. 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Brad Neuhauser]

I don't know what John's example is, but it would make sense to me to
include the private residence if it is a place where people who are part of
the religious community live, for example a parsonage or a dormitory of a
monastery.  Regarding gardens, they may have a religious purpose
(meditation and reflection, or include a labyrinth) but not be a place of
worship.


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis :
> >
> > Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple
> building, bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple
> certainly is a place of worship, the garden is not.
>
>
> Could you expand the idea that the private residence or the public garden
> should be landuse = religious ? Is this based on ownership by a religious
> institution, or are there more connections?
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Pieren  wrote:

> your case, you don't have a predefined list of (master) routes but
> only a list of path "segments".
>

What is a list of paths other than a route ?

I totally agree with you that we could represent it without network
relation, but it's just not worth the effort.
There are so many things missing or even wrong in the OSM-data, that are
much more important to fix than swapping one way of mapping things into
another method.

regards

m
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple building, 
> bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple certainly is a 
> place of worship, the garden is not.


Could you expand the idea that the private residence or the public garden 
should be landuse = religious ? Is this based on ownership by a religious 
institution, or are there more connections?

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo  wrote:
>> We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
>> entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
>> connecting them.

Numbered node cycle networks are not very different from a bus network
in a town. Instead of numbered and signed junction nodes, you have
numbered (or named) and signed stop positions. The only difference is
that a bus line is not choosing its destination at each junction. In
your case, you don't have a predefined list of (master) routes but
only a list of path "segments".
But again, like "all bus routes in a town" or "all motorways in a
country", you should be able to retrieve the whole list of smaller
routes and junctions with an appropriate set of tags on the nodes and
route relations.

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

a numbered node network consists of 2 things: the nodes, which have numbers
and the routes between the nodes. Those routes are signposted between the
nodes. Currently there are route relations for the routes between the nodes
and network relations with the nodes and the routes.
Yes, one could see the latter as a collection relation, if all data would
be moved down to the route relations and/or the nodes. (or the nodes moved
multiple route relations.)

regards

m


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo  wrote:
>
>> We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
>> entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
>> connecting them.
>>
>
> Isn't that documented in the wiki as a "route" relation, even though in
> this case, the routes aren't defined, the nodes are?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Jo]

Once upon a time, I created a wiki page about the subject:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging

This is one of the more complex situations. Most are simpler than that.

Jo


2014-07-16 17:23 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo  wrote:
>
>> We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
>> entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
>> connecting them.
>>
>
> Isn't that documented in the wiki as a "route" relation, even though in
> this case, the routes aren't defined, the nodes are?
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo  wrote:

> We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
> entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
> connecting them.
>

Isn't that documented in the wiki as a "route" relation, even though in
this case, the routes aren't defined, the nodes are?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Jo]

Again, you are obviously not talking about the same thing.


2014-07-16 16:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson :

> I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation.  Just
> spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an
> additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per city, and
> at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that
> can't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each
> member relation.  And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of
> thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks.  It's
> like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing
> without much payoff except in very few edge scenarios.
> On Jul 15, 2014 10:59 AM, "Pieren"  wrote:
>
>> I discover that OSM contains 1575 relations of "type=network"
>> (taginfo). I guess its definition is coming from this wiki proposal:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network
>>
>> Quotes:
>> "A network groups together routes that share common characteristics,
>> e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road
>> network: "E 1", ..., "E 999"), ... "
>>
>> "Use cases
>>
>> Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other
>> bus routes exist in that city.
>>
>> Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on
>> blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green
>> sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for  20614 (view, XML,
>> Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and  20645 (view,
>> XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx).
>>
>> Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the
>> "D-Netz". However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as
>> well. "
>>
>> Plus some attached relations examples very explicite.
>>
>> As raised in the "discussion" page, is that not exactly breaking the
>> "relations are not categories" ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such
>> relations when we meet them ?
>>
>> Pieren
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Paul Johnson]

I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation.  Just
spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an
additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per city, and
at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that
can't be accomplished in a far more manageable way in what would be each
member relation.  And I'm only talking road networks, and not the tens of
thousands of potentially mappable transit, bicycle, hiking networks.  It's
like hydroponic tomatoes: a great way to seriously complicate growing
without much payoff except in very few edge scenarios.
On Jul 15, 2014 10:59 AM, "Pieren"  wrote:

> I discover that OSM contains 1575 relations of "type=network"
> (taginfo). I guess its definition is coming from this wiki proposal:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Network
>
> Quotes:
> "A network groups together routes that share common characteristics,
> e.g. a common operator, a common classification scheme (e.g. E-road
> network: "E 1", ..., "E 999"), ... "
>
> "Use cases
>
> Person A sees a bus route with number 217 and wonders how many other
> bus routes exist in that city.
>
> Renderer M wants to render all German motorways using white font on
> blue sign (official layout), and all E-roads with white font on green
> sign. This can be implemented by adding rules for  20614 (view, XML,
> Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx) and  20645 (view,
> XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx).
>
> Renderer M wants to render all cycle routes that belong to the
> "D-Netz". However, there are a lot of other national cycle routes as
> well. "
>
> Plus some attached relations examples very explicite.
>
> As raised in the "discussion" page, is that not exactly breaking the
> "relations are not categories" ([1]) principle ? Can we delete such
> relations when we meet them ?
>
> Pieren
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Jo]

You are not tallking about the same thing. We are not talking about a
network of PT routes or motorways.

We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
connecting them.

I can't help it that in the Vechtstreek, they insist on adding the nodes to
the routes as well, I have been working hard to defend the idea of putting
them in the network relations where they have their place. In Belgium and
most parts of the Netherlands the nodes are part of the network relations
and not of the route relations which connect the nodes.

Where they insisted on adding the nodes to the routes as well, I gave up.

Of course, this also means I also gave up on checking those routes for
continuity in the Netherlands, hence the inconsistency.

Jo


2014-07-16 16:10 GMT+02:00 Pieren :

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jo  wrote:
> > We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
> > Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
> > relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
> > network.
>
> Please, give me an example where the nodes cannot belong to the route
> relation and need specificaly a "network" relation.
>
> > Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was
> > described on the wiki.
>
> The wiki is just a "proposal". I don't remember it was discussed on
> any global list (checked in my archives). It was surely not discussed
> in France and the examples I find are personal initiatives.
>
> > And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in
> one
> > go with JOSM.
>
> I appreciate this honesty and I could even accept such thing in
> earlier OSM time where we missed the tools we have today (like
> overpass).
>
> > The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant
> > solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations
> are
> > not categories as such.
>
> This is where we differ. The "netwok" is just an attribut like many
> others (operator, branch). We don't accept this kind of collections
> for restaurants, banks, etc. and we have to be consistent and refuse
> it for routes for the same reasons.
>
> > Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too
> > 'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So
> let
> > it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure all
> the
> > route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm doing
> > every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created
> scripts in
> > JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting these
> scripts,
> > just because you want to change how these networks have been mapped since
> > the very beginning.
>
> It's not the question to "remap everything" but move the network name
> down from the relation to its members. My intent is not to remove all
> of such relations but see if we can reject this proposal and provide a
> better solution in the wiki. Then advise my local community to not use
> them (and remove them in long term).
>
> > You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of
> moot
> > anyway, just like the imports list.
>
> It's always the same. Once we have a conflict between mappers, you
> need a meeting point where everyone can express his opinion and put
> all arguments on the table. What is writen in the wiki can be the
> result of such discussions. Note that the wiki provides a "discussion"
> page and this proposal was already objected since 2009... ([1])
>
> Now, I wanted to see some real examples and followed the ones linked
> in the wiki:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20614 :
> type=network
> network=road
> description=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen"
> operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland
> all members are route relations; route=road; tagged with
> operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland
>
> This could be fixed by adding the tag "network_name=Deutsche
> Bundesautobahnen" in the route relations.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968
> type=network
> network=iwn
> name=Camino de Santiago
> The first member is a route relation:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1247178
> type=route
> route=hiking
> name=Voie de Soulac
>
> And, oh surprise, it belongs to 2 network relations. The second one
> is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3071561
> type = network
> network=iwn
> name=Way of St. James
> name:es=Camino_de_Santiago
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/157868
> type=network
> network=rcn
> name=Gooi en Vechtstreek
> More interesting, it's containing a mix of nodes and relations. Check
> the first relation:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/150267
> type=route
> route=bicycle
> network=rcn
> Check the first node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45909336
> Well, it belongs to the same route relation...
>
> My conclusions so

Re: [Tagging] city/settlement importance -- WAS [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 16.07.2014 15:08, John Willis napisał(a):


If we trust users to tag businesses, shops, cities, roads, and
bridges, why can't we trust them to know their area better than we do?


+1 - not everything has to be official-hard-data driven to be useful, 
meaningful and have sense. In real life there are a lot more of corner 
cases than one can handle...



I'm still waiting to correctly show mountains vs hills, the technical
prominence stuff be dammed.


You can help improve and promote my proposition then:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak

--
Mambałaga

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jo  wrote:
> We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
> Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
> relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
> network.

Please, give me an example where the nodes cannot belong to the route
relation and need specificaly a "network" relation.

> Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was
> described on the wiki.

The wiki is just a "proposal". I don't remember it was discussed on
any global list (checked in my archives). It was surely not discussed
in France and the examples I find are personal initiatives.

> And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one
> go with JOSM.

I appreciate this honesty and I could even accept such thing in
earlier OSM time where we missed the tools we have today (like
overpass).

> The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant
> solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are
> not categories as such.

This is where we differ. The "netwok" is just an attribut like many
others (operator, branch). We don't accept this kind of collections
for restaurants, banks, etc. and we have to be consistent and refuse
it for routes for the same reasons.

> Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too
> 'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So let
> it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure all the
> route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm doing
> every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created scripts in
> JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting these scripts,
> just because you want to change how these networks have been mapped since
> the very beginning.

It's not the question to "remap everything" but move the network name
down from the relation to its members. My intent is not to remove all
of such relations but see if we can reject this proposal and provide a
better solution in the wiki. Then advise my local community to not use
them (and remove them in long term).

> You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot
> anyway, just like the imports list.

It's always the same. Once we have a conflict between mappers, you
need a meeting point where everyone can express his opinion and put
all arguments on the table. What is writen in the wiki can be the
result of such discussions. Note that the wiki provides a "discussion"
page and this proposal was already objected since 2009... ([1])

Now, I wanted to see some real examples and followed the ones linked
in the wiki:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20614 :
type=network
network=road
description=Deutsche Bundesautobahnen"
operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland
all members are route relations; route=road; tagged with
operator=Bundesrepublik Deutschland

This could be fixed by adding the tag "network_name=Deutsche
Bundesautobahnen" in the route relations.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968
type=network
network=iwn
name=Camino de Santiago
The first member is a route relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1247178
type=route
route=hiking
name=Voie de Soulac

And, oh surprise, it belongs to 2 network relations. The second one
is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3071561
type = network
network=iwn
name=Way of St. James
name:es=Camino_de_Santiago

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/157868
type=network
network=rcn
name=Gooi en Vechtstreek
More interesting, it's containing a mix of nodes and relations. Check
the first relation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/150267
type=route
route=bicycle
network=rcn
Check the first node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/45909336
Well, it belongs to the same route relation...

My conclusions so far:
The relation is not used consistently : sometimes you have a "name",
sometimes just an "operator" or "description"; the values of the
"network" key are inconstant.
The relation for all motorways in Germany is only a collection/category.
The "Camino de Santiago" is basically a "route master" linking smaller
route segments together. It's even worse here since the same long
route is modelized twice in the database...
The bicycle network example shows that the nodes are finally on both
types of relations. This could be simplified with a tag like
"network:name".
Shall I continue ?

Pieren

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Network

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] city/settlement importance -- WAS [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.

[John Willis]

> institutions in charge of determining these figures 


What about things that are well known in a country? The "one hundred mountains 
ofJapan" is a common list known to residents, and the "three famous mountains 
of gunma" are also labeled and known by the prefecture where I am (which means 
several million residents know of the three, so having them more prominently 
labeled over their unknown neighbors is highly beneficial to the map we are 
making. 

Every time I read about map making, I hear about how important including and 
excluding things are - I always want to make the map better, but how do we 
provide that in database form without some kind of rank? 

Do we do it on a tag basis - ditch, drain, canal, stream, river are all 
variations on path for water, but mountain gets no hill/ peak/ mount/ caldera/ 
sub-peak separation. I have lots of drains that could be streams, and ditches 
that could be drains, but a choice has to be made.

If we trust users to tag businesses, shops, cities, roads, and bridges, why 
can't we trust them to know their area better than we do?

I'm still waiting to correctly show mountains vs hills, the technical 
prominence stuff be dammed. 
We are serving an inferior map without properly labeled geographic features 
that vary with the zoom level - like every other map does.  I'd like to help 
fix that.

There has to be a way to "crowd source" prominence of things  - I thought that 
is what these wiki based projects were all about. It just may not be *easily* 
verifiable, but there are lists made and official government rankings done for 
many things in many places.


Javbw 

Sent from Japan

> On Jul 16, 2014, at 3:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2014-07-15 19:47 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :
>> Making a rank or importance attribute is entirely subjective. It might as 
>> well be a tag like importance:according_to:Bob=5.
>> If it was objective, then there could be a number like 
>> annual_number_of_tourists=35 or annual_number_of_pilgrims=140. For 
>> economic importance some other figure, a number nobody can refute.
> 
> 
> while I agree somehow, the algorithm might be so complex that you'd have to 
> put a very long list of tags to the object and there might be stuff that is 
> hardly puttable into tags, but might still be verifiable. Also figures like 
> annual_number_of_tourists or annual_number_of_pilgrims are not verifiable by 
> the small on the ground mapper, and institutions in charge of determining 
> these figures might be tempted to cheat in order to appear more important, so 
> there will always remain some doubt ;-)
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Jo]

We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
network.

equestrian networks get rhn. lhn. nhn and ihn don't exist, as far as I know.

Just like Marc I've also been doing it this way since that is how it was
described on the wiki.

At some point I had grouped the network relations in collection relations.
And I admit this was to make it possible to download the whole bunch in one
go with JOSM.

Since the advent of Overpass API this is not needed anymore, so those
collection relations were removed. Those collection relations were indeed
categories and they served the purpose of something which was actually
needed back then.

The combination of route and network relations works and it is an elegant
solution for this type of numbered node networks. The network relations are
not categories as such.

Just like you aren't able to change how PT is mapped, because of too
'complex' when rendering the beast, you won't be able to change this. So
let it be or remap them all yourself. While you're at it, also make sure
all the route relations become continuous once again. This is something I'm
doing every once in a while, as route relations break easily. I created
scripts in JOSM to help perform this task. I don't feel like rewriting
these scripts, just because you want to change how these networks have been
mapped since the very beginning.

The task of checking and correcting the whole bunch usually takes a few
weeks, I'll gladly leave the task for you.

I also think that if you still feel like changing this, you'll have to talk
to all contributors in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany in Dutch,
German and French (there are some of these networks in Wallonia too now
around Marche-en-Famenne, since about 1,5 year).

You can't expect everybody to read this mailing list, which is kind of moot
anyway, just like the imports list. People decide something here and on the
wiki, it gets "approved" and half decade later it still doesn't get
rendered.

Polyglot




2014-07-16 12:52 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> I never said it was not possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
> There was no need to do this so far.
>
> I don't have 2 relations for each route, I have N+1 for N routes. :-)
>
> I just followed what people did before me. I just explain what we are
> doing, don't shoot the messenger :-)
>
> As said before, I don't care, I would happily use any tagging schema for
> this. I'll also admit that your approach looks simpler right now. (until I
> find the first exception that makes things more complex :-) )
>
>  I'm just not going to translate your message in Dutch (French is probably
> not needed) and German and tell the communities, "hey guys, you have been
> tagging this wrong for the past 4 or 5 years"
> So I fear that you overestimate the "power" of the tagging mailing list.
> Why would it be enough that a handful of people, from outside the involved
> communities, in mailing list in a foreign language decide that it's bad
> tagging, that people will suddenly start tagging in a different way ?
> Or that they would retag thousands of nodes and hundreds of relations ?
>
> I can be wrong, but I don't believe that your messages here will have
> sufficient impact to redo the whole thing.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Pieren  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Marc Gemis 
>> wrote:
>> > right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
>> > older relations might contain them.
>>
>> Then you admit it is possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
>> Where now you have two relations instead of one just to avoid a tag
>> "network:name". Don't tell me again it's to avoid a repetition of
>> tags, we do this for many features in OSM. It's not for simplicity :
>> the whole structure is more complicate to understand (more relations
>> and different levels). Again, the real reason is to avoid a query in
>> the database.
>>
>> > I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the
>> tagging
>> > scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network
>> relation.
>> > Anyway, if you want to change it, I propose you write a proposal with
>> all
>> > the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German
>> mailing
>> > lists and forums.
>>
>> I think this single list and the wiki, instead of ten local lists and
>> forums, is more appropriate, no ?
>> I don't have preconception about such relation, if someone find a
>> valid argument/example which explains it's not using relations as
>> categories.
>>
>> Pieren
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@op

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Willis]

Mixed use facilities run by a single organization, for example, a temple with a 
private home, a cemetery, a public recycling center, and a pre-school might 
have the outer area defined by the landuse=religious tag, and the individual 
buildings/areas tagged as needed. 

Really, that facility is 1km from my house. Next to my house is another temple 
with a giant cemetery, temple building, bell tower, private residence, and a 
public garden. The temple certainly is a place of worship, the garden is not. 
The cemetery is maintained by the people there, but one would visit the 
cemetery or garden without going to the temple, or vice versa. They all have 
different names - I believe even the bell has a name

Landuse=religious gives us a generic tag, like landuse retail or commercial, 
without having to be so specific.

Javbw

Sent from Japan

> On Jul 16, 2014, at 8:52 PM, John Packer  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious 
> landuse.
> It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has around 
> 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious
> 
> In my opinion, it seems this tag conflicts with amenity=place_of_worship in a 
> large ammount of cases, if not all.
> I think it could be used for places that are not strictly for worship, but 
> are used in religious practices (for example a religious school that is 
> associated with a particular church, but not on the same grounds).
> Does this seems correct?
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, John Packer  wrote:
> Does this seems correct?

It's something else and is related to a "rendering" issue. The
place_of_worship area is rendered as a black area on the map and is
usually placed on the building polygon. If you want to draw to whole
place which can be more than the building itself, then you have this
"rendering" issue because you see no difference on the map.
Instead of creating a new tag, this could be fixed in the rendering
style sheet where the color and transparency could be different if the
polygon place_of_worship is combined or not with a "building=*" tag.

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Packer]

Hi,

I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious
landuse.
It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has
around 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious

In my opinion, it seems this tag conflicts with amenity=place_of_worship in
a large ammount of cases, if not all.
I think it could be used for places that are not strictly for worship, but
are used in religious practices (for example a religious school that is
associated with a particular church, but not on the same grounds).
Does this seems correct?

Cheers,
John
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Michael Kugelmann]

On 16.07.2014 13:31, John Packer wrote:

but not without adding the appropriate tags to it's members

of course! I never wanted something different.


Cheers,
Michael.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[John Packer]

Kugelmann,
It's true we should delete these relations, but not without adding the
appropriate tags to it's members (else we would be throwing data away).


2014-07-16 8:20 GMT-03:00 Michael Kugelmann :

> Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis:
>
>  In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relation is used to group
>> together all nodes and routes of a walking network.
>>
> relations are NO CATEGORIES in OSM, that's agreed since years!
>
> Please delete these relations.
>
> BTW: it's not possible to keep such a relation up to date  if it has a
> reasonable amount of objects => any new node or way of  the network has to
> be included. But e.g. I didn't know about that relation => I wouldn't
> include a new node or way => would be missing. So I don't see any chance to
> have all objects within a relation. => another argument against a relation
> used as category.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Michael.
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Michael Kugelmann]

Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis:
In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relation is used to group 
together all nodes and routes of a walking network.

relations are NO CATEGORIES in OSM, that's agreed since years!

Please delete these relations.

BTW: it's not possible to keep such a relation up to date  if it has a 
reasonable amount of objects => any new node or way of  the network has 
to be included. But e.g. I didn't know about that relation => I wouldn't 
include a new node or way => would be missing. So I don't see any chance 
to have all objects within a relation. => another argument against a 
relation used as category.




Best regards,
Michael.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

I never said it was not possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
There was no need to do this so far.

I don't have 2 relations for each route, I have N+1 for N routes. :-)

I just followed what people did before me. I just explain what we are
doing, don't shoot the messenger :-)

As said before, I don't care, I would happily use any tagging schema for
this. I'll also admit that your approach looks simpler right now. (until I
find the first exception that makes things more complex :-) )

 I'm just not going to translate your message in Dutch (French is probably
not needed) and German and tell the communities, "hey guys, you have been
tagging this wrong for the past 4 or 5 years"
So I fear that you overestimate the "power" of the tagging mailing list.
Why would it be enough that a handful of people, from outside the involved
communities, in mailing list in a foreign language decide that it's bad
tagging, that people will suddenly start tagging in a different way ?
Or that they would retag thousands of nodes and hundreds of relations ?

I can be wrong, but I don't believe that your messages here will have
sufficient impact to redo the whole thing.

regards

m




On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Pieren  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> > right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
> > older relations might contain them.
>
> Then you admit it is possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
> Where now you have two relations instead of one just to avoid a tag
> "network:name". Don't tell me again it's to avoid a repetition of
> tags, we do this for many features in OSM. It's not for simplicity :
> the whole structure is more complicate to understand (more relations
> and different levels). Again, the real reason is to avoid a query in
> the database.
>
> > I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the
> tagging
> > scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network
> relation.
> > Anyway, if you want to change it, I propose you write a proposal with all
> > the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German
> mailing
> > lists and forums.
>
> I think this single list and the wiki, instead of ten local lists and
> forums, is more appropriate, no ?
> I don't have preconception about such relation, if someone find a
> valid argument/example which explains it's not using relations as
> categories.
>
> Pieren
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
> older relations might contain them.

Then you admit it is possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
Where now you have two relations instead of one just to avoid a tag
"network:name". Don't tell me again it's to avoid a repetition of
tags, we do this for many features in OSM. It's not for simplicity :
the whole structure is more complicate to understand (more relations
and different levels). Again, the real reason is to avoid a query in
the database.

> I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the tagging
> scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network relation.
> Anyway, if you want to change it, I propose you write a proposal with all
> the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German mailing
> lists and forums.

I think this single list and the wiki, instead of ten local lists and
forums, is more appropriate, no ?
I don't have preconception about such relation, if someone find a
valid argument/example which explains it's not using relations as
categories.

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
older relations might contain them.

I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the tagging
scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network relation.
Anyway, if you want to change it, I propose you write a proposal with all
the required changes, and post them to the Belgian, Dutch and German
mailing lists and forums.

I'm not going to stick out my neck for this.

regards

m






On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Pieren  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks
> (cycling,
> > walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network name that
> > takes this into account.
> > So something like : network:rcn:name, network:rwn:name and
> network:ren:name
>
> No, the tags on the node should be moved to the appropriate route
> relation where you also set the network_:name.
>
> > both rcn and rwn are already used in the numbering of the nodes (rwn_ref,
> > rcn_ref). I'm not familiar with the equestrian networks
>
> Is this question related to the "network" relation ?
>
> > Another problem is for routes that form the connection between 2
> networks.
> > Right now, they are placed in the 2 network relations. How would you tag
> the
> > network names for them ?
>
> Create two route relations, one per network.
>
> Pieren
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Richard Mann]

It's established that we use relations for routes, because the components
are related geo-spatially to one another (in a particular order, sometimes
having particular roles such as forward/backward). If a way forms part of
multiple routes, that is fine - just make it a member of multiple relations.

However, when it's a group of nodes that have no geo-spatial relationship,
then it's better to avoid using relations, since it's unnecessary, and just
adds complexity (duplication is regarded as better than complexity). As far
as I can see, the rcn node networks are independent, so all the information
could be on the node.

I think there may be relation hierarchies in public transport as well.
Again, it's better to collect independent routes into a network using tags,
rather than a relation.

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks (cycling,
> walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network name that
> takes this into account.
> So something like : network:rcn:name, network:rwn:name and network:ren:name

No, the tags on the node should be moved to the appropriate route
relation where you also set the network_:name.

> both rcn and rwn are already used in the numbering of the nodes (rwn_ref,
> rcn_ref). I'm not familiar with the equestrian networks

Is this question related to the "network" relation ?

> Another problem is for routes that form the connection between 2 networks.
> Right now, they are placed in the 2 network relations. How would you tag the
> network names for them ?

Create two route relations, one per network.

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> So we get network:name,  network:operator on each node and route, right ?

Since "network" is already in use for "rwn/rcn/etc", its name could be
set in something like "network:name" or "network_name".
I don't see the point with "network:operator" where "operator" is
already used. But tell me if you know an example where the network
operator is differente from the hiking route operator belonging to
this network...

Pieren

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks
(cycling, walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network
name that takes this into account.
So something like : network:rcn:name, network:rwn:name and network:ren:name


rcn= regional cycling network
rwn= regional walking network
ren=regional equestrian network (?)

both rcn and rwn are already used in the numbering of the nodes (rwn_ref,
rcn_ref). I'm not familiar with the equestrian networks

Another problem is for routes that form the connection between 2 networks.
Right now, they are placed in the 2 network relations. How would you tag
the network names for them ?


regards

m



On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> When the name, operator,etc. has to be moved down to the routes and nodes,
> we have prefix all those tags with e.g. network.
> So we get network:name,  network:operator on each node and route, right ?
>
> Please note the network relations are not used to group all routes and
> nodes in a country or province. When you are interested in the nodes &
> routes of 1 network you can only do this via the name of the network.
> So a spatial query won't help much in that case, although I admit that it
> might not be interesting to limit the query to a specific network and not
> to a geographical region.
>
> BTW, I wouldn't mind to start using a tagging schema that doesn't use
> network relations.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Pieren  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo  wrote:
>> > The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered
>> nodes.
>> > There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
>> > These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route
>> relations.
>>
>> Well, you could do the same for all McDonald's restaurants in
>> Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium
>> and say "we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its
>> repetition". What is done by such relations can be done by a query in
>> the database with one or two arguments (like the "operator" or
>> "network" tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info).
>> Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for
>> many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception
>> for footway routes.
>> As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]):
>> "Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic
>> knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all
>> footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia
>> and request all footways, and the collection is made for you
>> on-the-fly."
>>
>> Pieren
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories&oldid=179750
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

When the name, operator,etc. has to be moved down to the routes and nodes,
we have prefix all those tags with e.g. network.
So we get network:name,  network:operator on each node and route, right ?

Please note the network relations are not used to group all routes and
nodes in a country or province. When you are interested in the nodes &
routes of 1 network you can only do this via the name of the network.
So a spatial query won't help much in that case, although I admit that it
might not be interesting to limit the query to a specific network and not
to a geographical region.

BTW, I wouldn't mind to start using a tagging schema that doesn't use
network relations.

regards

m


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Pieren  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo  wrote:
> > The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered nodes.
> > There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
> > These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route
> relations.
>
> Well, you could do the same for all McDonald's restaurants in
> Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium
> and say "we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its
> repetition". What is done by such relations can be done by a query in
> the database with one or two arguments (like the "operator" or
> "network" tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info).
> Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for
> many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception
> for footway routes.
> As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]):
> "Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic
> knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all
> footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia
> and request all footways, and the collection is made for you
> on-the-fly."
>
> Pieren
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories&oldid=179750
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> and would like to add that relations like these are a problem when you try
> to download a small bounding box, and one of those nodes gets in the way,
> and now you have to download all the nodes in that relation.


I don't understand this. Why would you need to download all the nodes in
the relation to move the node around or even to delete it from the relation
?

regards,

m
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Janko Mihelić]

I agree with Pieren, and would like to add that relations like these are a
problem when you try to download a small bounding box, and one of those
nodes gets in the way, and now you have to download all the nodes in that
relation. There's no need for that.

But there is one advantage with those relations, and that is protection
against newbies. Newbies can delete a tag from a node because of some their
strange reason, but they don't know how to remove a node from a relation.
There should be tools that mimic that.

Janko


2014-07-16 10:36 GMT+02:00 Pieren :

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo  wrote:
> > The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered nodes.
> > There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
> > These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route
> relations.
>
> Well, you could do the same for all McDonald's restaurants in
> Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium
> and say "we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its
> repetition". What is done by such relations can be done by a query in
> the database with one or two arguments (like the "operator" or
> "network" tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info).
> Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for
> many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception
> for footway routes.
> As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]):
> "Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic
> knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all
> footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia
> and request all footways, and the collection is made for you
> on-the-fly."
>
> Pieren
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories&oldid=179750
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo  wrote:
> The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered nodes.
> There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
> These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route relations.

Well, you could do the same for all McDonald's restaurants in
Netherlands or all pharmacies in a network or bank branches in Belgium
and say "we move one tag to the upper relation to avoid its
repetition". What is done by such relations can be done by a query in
the database with one or two arguments (like the "operator" or
"network" tag) and a bbox (see XAPI, overpass, etc for more info).
Repeating the network or operator or brand name is not a problem for
many features in OSM. I don't see why we should create an exception
for footway routes.
As it was writen by Frederik Ramm in 2008 ([1]):
"Our database is a spatial database; this means that it has intrinsic
knowledge about the location of objects. If you want to know about all
footways in East Anglia, simply pass in a bounding box of East Anglia
and request all footways, and the collection is made for you
on-the-fly."

Pieren

[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories&oldid=179750

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging