date:20180924

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> I live in country with long ridges, and almost anything with enough isolation 
> and a little bit of prominence winds up being a named summit.

Yea, long strings of peaks are difficult to deal with.

A caldera relation would handle a single volcano with many named peaks, such as 
Mt Akagi - they look like an alligator floating in a pond. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23360789861/in/album-72157638113676925/

Sometimes, depending on the angle, they appear as a range, but it when viewing 
from above, their circular nature is present. 

The big blue mountain ridges are circular volcanoes (Mt Haruna) and collaped 
volcanoes (Mt Miyogi). 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/6752512409/in/album-72157638113676925/

But making a relation to handle your example is very difficult, similar to the 
many long, layered mountain ranges made by tectonic action in Japan. 

I don't know how to handle such things. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091212455/in/album-72157638113676925/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/6752512409/in/album-72157638113676925/

Also, Japan is very young geologically, and the extreme erosion from the rain 
has brought several square KM of soil down into the valleys (along with 
quarantary volcanic eruptions) , making soft hills that stick up everywhere. 
Every lump has a name, and even little lumps on lumps have names. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091304694/in/album-72157638113676925/

Each of these situations: 

- calderas and very large peaks with named features 
- ranges and ridges of jumbled random peaks 
- lumpy hills and "mountains" on flat/gently sloping  terrain 

Might require a unique approach. 

=Peak is unsuited to handle all three, and simply using ele or a prominence 
score probably can't either. Both are important components, though. 

I agree it will only be mapped correctly via the opinion of local/regional 
mappers - but having them "tune" or "adjust" the values after a programaticaly 
generated solution might be best - however I have no idea how that might be 
done. 

Until then, giving mappers the tools to denote "importance" to mountains the 
same way we do for roads (track to trunk) and waterways (ditch to river) is the 
only viable way forward. 

Javbw. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

2018-09-24 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:25 PM John Willis  wrote:
> it would be nice if there was a "caldera relation" to connect them all
together, which would allow the rendering of the named, yet overall
unimportant =peaks to be reduced.

The idea of a relation that would link a peak to its key col and line
parent would do nicely for that.  All of the peaks around a caldera, except
for the highest, are going to be subsidiary peaks, directly or indirectly,
of the true summit.

I live in country with long ridges, and almost anything with enough
isolation and a little bit of prominence winds up being a named summit.
Otherwise, you would get into the situation where you call everything a
subsidiary peak, and that doesn't feel quite right on a ridge like this.


And there are clusters like this one: One of those has over 600 m of
prominence. The one next to it has about 60 m of prominence. Which is
which? The elevations of the summits differ by less than 10 m. (The locals
count them as distinct peaks.)


I'm fine with listing prominence, so that renderers can decide for
themselves what's 'significant', but I think that to distinguish 'mountain'
from 'hill' we need to leave the final decision to the locals.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Emergency=levee_breach_materials

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 6:55 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Piles of sand could also be used for flood control (eg to fill sandbags)

Are there permanent mappable locations for such materials - materials 
purposefully set aside for a single purpose? 

I always think of sandbags as a make-shift solution, and sand as a generic 
building material. 

but if there is some permanent stockpile set aside for flood control in other 
countries, perhaps “flood_control_materials” is a good tag value. 

javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 7:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I am not even sure if restaurants are a type of retail

Restaurants sell food. Unless it is an “amenity” that belongs to a larger 
thing, I assume that all restaurants are building=retail. this is especially 
true of fast food restaurants. 

there may be situations where a restaurant is a point inside a larger building 
(a tower with a restaurant on top, a hotel with a restaurant inside, an 
apartment complex with a small restaurant on the first floor, etc ), but a 
purpose-built building along a road with a parking lot is certainly retail. 

we have =office and =hotel,  a type of building=commercial, so if you suggest 
we make building=restaurant, that seems fine to me. But in it’s absence, 
building=retail is the correct value (to me). 

javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> I don't think it works call each of those local high points on Mt Fuji's 
> crater a "hill", if they are all at >3000m elevation with steep slopes 
> dropping >1000 meters down to the valley or plain below.

I think it does - because the rim  and the drop-off doesn't belong to them 
really —  it is a property of the the caldera / overall mountain. 

It is only their height above the low point of the caldera rim that truly 
matters (most of the time). 

the caldera / crater is the “mountain”  - the little peaks are hills around the 
caldera rim. 

they sit upon it, like an ant on my head. they do not get to inherit my head as 
part of their height *when* deciding if it is important or not. Otherwise, each 
hair on my head would count as a =person - which is what we are doing now, 
which seems counter-productive. 

The highest point may be one of those little peaks, and where everyone goes, 
and it has the highest =ele value of all the little peaks, ***but the =ele 
value is shared with the =volcano tag as well***. 

I know there are mountains where the lesser peaks are important — Mt hoei on 
the side of Mt Fuji is a good example — but for most little points on 
calderas/stratovolcanoes I am familiar with, they are little ant-size “peaks” 
that stand upon the body of the volcano. 

They may have a large MSL elevation, but very little importance unless you are 
on the mountain itself. Very few people could name any of them, whereas Mt Fuji 
itself is internationally famous. I assume the same is true for most mountains 
- local, regional, or national). 

This confusion lead to some horrible mis-tagging of mount fuji I just repaired. 

there was a =volcano tag for Mount Fuji, A =volcano tag for the crater of mount 
fuji, a =peak tag for one of the small peaks *with* a (mount fuji) 
parenthetical, and an incomplete =cliff+ =volcanic_caldera_rim line around the 
crater. 

=cliff+ =volcanic_caldera_rim line for the rim of the crater/caldera. 

=volcano tag for the body of the volcano, centered in the caldera. 

= peak or =hill for the little points around the edge (whatever solution is 
agreed upon). 

it would be nice if there was a "caldera relation" to connect them all 
together, which would allow the rendering of the named, yet overall unimportant 
=peaks to be reduced. 

This would exclude =peaks on the “arms” of large mountains or further down the 
sides (like Mt Hoei), which might have to be solved by another tagging 
solution.]

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:15 AM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because the
> kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).

the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the past) - but if 
it is just a restaurant now, then it is building=retail. 

If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is a 
building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel, and another pin 
for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in hotels is usually a separate 
mappable place, as it’s purpose, operating hours, and access to the general 
public is different than the hotel itself. 

there are all kinds of amenities - pubs, restaurants, bed&breakfasts, Ryokans, 
fast food shops, etc,  But if they take up the entire building, almost all of 
them would fall into building=retail or building=hotel.  you are tagging the 
purpose of the building - not it’s design, except in the rarest of cases. 

the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not the 
exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that building 
looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^

I understand the “rest stop” nature of the building - there are similar 
buildings in Japan, some larger complexes registered as official “road 
stations” often using the nickname "Oasis” with the government, and others that 
are merely private businesses that provide a place to sit and relax and enjoy a 
coffee - but mapping the small  private businesses that do this as anything 
other than a “cafe” or “restaurant” or “convenience store” is very very 
difficult without some larger complex with a larger landuse with more 
amenities. 

http://www.nanmoku.ne.jp/modules/oasis/index.php?content_id=4/ 

an official “Road station” on a very narrow road in the mountains. 

http://michinoeki-shimonita.com 

A pretty large road station down in the valley. 

they are a collection of several shops and amenities - not a single building 
with a single purpose. 

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

The small sub-summits around the caldera of a tall volcano (eg Mt Fuji) are
a great example of why prominence=* is useful.
I don't think it works call each of those local high points on Mt Fuji's
crater a "hill", if they are all at >3000m elevation with steep slopes
dropping >1000 meters down to the valley or plain below.
But if they are all natural=peak, we need a way to distinguish them,
besides elevation. The highest point on Mt Fuji will have a very high
prominence (>1500 meters), while the other peaks will have <100m
prominence. Prominence separates true mountain peaks from sub-peaks nicely,
in an objective way.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:26 AM John Willis  wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 25, 2018, at 5:08 AM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from
> a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence.
>
>
>
> TL;DR - you are dealing with a very high volume of named “sub-peaks /
> prominences / whatever-mountaineering-term-you-want ” on large mountains
> *and* a large volume of small and modest hills in valley floors or
> otherwise flat terrain - Perhaps prominence can handle them, but please
> remember that this is not *just* about defining sub-peaks of very tall
> mountains - there are a lot of little tiny hills that in some cultures
> would never be named that have officially mapped names in others.
>
> *
>
> There are landscape types *and* cultural naming traditions that lend
> themselves to using =peak exclusively - places with very large mountains
> with easily identifiable points as the top.
>
> in California, at least down in San Diego, naming almost all mountains
> using =peak is probably acceptable. tiny lumps and bumps on the mountains
> and on the valleys simply aren't named (at least offically, I have looked
> at a lot of topos). Official maps are not cluttered with mountains names.
>
> I was amazed when I moved to Japan - the mountains are not only much
> denser, but they are very jagged. And since people lived in hamlets around
> each of them for hundreds and hundreds of years, every lump, bump, and
> little hill the size of a 4 story building is a named “mountain”.
>
> Google even makes fun of it when they made an online ad for “okay google”
> about a tourist family that confused the 30m tall “Mt Fuji” in my town with
> the iconic Mount Fuji when getting directions.
>
> I was browsing reddit a couple days ago, and someone posted a map from
> 1843 that someone drew of the regions surrounding Mount Fuji. it is roughly
> 400x300 KM.
>
> https://i.redd.it/p72gso7m90o11.jpg
>
> every one of those little green bumps is a full =peak.  there are probably
> 5X little bumps and lumps on them that are named. **And then** there are
> the little hills that poke out of a valley floors by 20-50 meters that also
> get officially named - you could hide them behind an average size school
> building - but are named. local natural paper maps have names cluttering up
> every available spot on the paper.
>
> even modest hills get rendered the same as massive volcanoes.
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d3a7f027a0b83fdf143af0569445bb87788d857a/68747470733a2f2f662e636c6f75642e6769746875622e636f6d2f6173736574732f363231323635362f323038363931312f61393431393065362d386536312d313165332d383034372d3534393334653936373363372e6a7067
>
>
> Also, several caldera volcanoes are nationally or internationally famous,
> and they have named every little point along their asymmetrical rim - the
> volcano tag for them should be rendered z8, and the smaller hills around
> the top at z16 - but as it stands there is no way to say “these little
> points on the rim are insignificant compared to the 2000m tall volcano
> visible to 20 million people and namesake to thousands of things and
> places, and these 6 little points are only important to people hiking
> nearby. “
>
>
> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/f1b781cd91970b27ff390b5355cab2ffa8531578/68747470733a2f2f662e636c6f75642e6769746875622e636f6d2f6173736574732f363231323635362f323038363937382f66353063353562342d386536322d313165332d383932392d3531303536366134633433622e6a7067
>
>
> trying to map all of these as =peaks ***reeks*** of data pollution.
>
> I hope a good solution is found - EVEN IF it is just the mapper’s
> intuition. enough input should provide consensus.
>
> Javbw
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 5:08 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>> There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from a
>> (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence.

TL;DR - you are dealing with a very high volume of named “sub-peaks /
prominences / whatever-mountaineering-term-you-want ” on large mountains *and*
a large volume of small and modest hills in valley floors or otherwise flat
terrain - Perhaps prominence can handle them, but please remember that this is
not *just* about defining sub-peaks of very tall mountains - there are a lot of
little tiny hills that in some cultures would never be named that have
officially mapped names in others.

There are landscape types *and* cultural naming traditions that lend themselves
to using =peak exclusively - places with very large mountains with easily
identifiable points as the top.

in California, at least down in San Diego, naming almost all mountains using
=peak is probably acceptable. tiny lumps and bumps on the mountains and on the
valleys simply aren't named (at least offically, I have looked at a lot of
topos). Official maps are not cluttered with mountains names.

I was amazed when I moved to Japan - the mountains are not only much denser,
but they are very jagged. And since people lived in hamlets around each of them
for hundreds and hundreds of years, every lump, bump, and little hill the size
of a 4 story building is a named “mountain”.

Google even makes fun of it when they made an online ad for “okay google” about
a tourist family that confused the 30m tall “Mt Fuji” in my town with the
iconic Mount Fuji when getting directions.

I was browsing reddit a couple days ago, and someone posted a map from 1843
that someone drew of the regions surrounding Mount Fuji. it is roughly 400x300
KM.

https://i.redd.it/p72gso7m90o11.jpg

every one of those little green bumps is a full =peak. there are probably 5X
little bumps and lumps on them that are named. **And then** there are the
little hills that poke out of a valley floors by 20-50 meters that also get
officially named - you could hide them behind an average size school building -
but are named. local natural paper maps have names cluttering up every
available spot on the paper.

even modest hills get rendered the same as massive volcanoes.
https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d3a7f027a0b83fdf143af0569445bb87788d857a/68747470733a2f2f662e636c6f75642e6769746875622e636f6d2f6173736574732f363231323635362f323038363931312f61393431393065362d386536312d313165332d383034372d3534393334653936373363372e6a7067

Also, several caldera volcanoes are nationally or internationally famous, and
they have named every little point along their asymmetrical rim - the volcano
tag for them should be rendered z8, and the smaller hills around the top at z16
- but as it stands there is no way to say “these little points on the rim are
insignificant compared to the 2000m tall volcano visible to 20 million people
and namesake to thousands of things and places, and these 6 little points are
only important to people hiking nearby. “

https://camo.githubusercontent.com/f1b781cd91970b27ff390b5355cab2ffa8531578/68747470733a2f2f662e636c6f75642e6769746875622e636f6d2f6173736574732f363231323635362f323038363937382f66353063353562342d386536322d313165332d383932392d3531303536366134633433622e6a7067

trying to map all of these as =peaks ***reeks*** of data pollution.

I hope a good solution is found - EVEN IF it is just the mapper’s intuition.
enough input should provide consensus.

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=peak

But https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dhill says:
"Many natural =peak
 should probably be
natural =hill, but
differentiating these might be difficult."

This is why we have the Proposal process for new features.
If natural=hill is proposed and accepted, it would certainly be important
to tag hills with prominence.

But if we include prominence and elevation tags on all peaks, database
users can set their own preferred prominence and elevation cut-off to
define peaks.

For example, the South Summit of Mount Everest is higher than any peak in
the world except the main summit of Everest, but it only has 11 meters of
prominence.
So it is usually considered a sub-summit of Everest, rather than an
independent peak.

A database user can request a list of all natural=peak with elevation>600
and prominence>100 (or 200 or 600) to get a list of all mountain peaks.
To find hills, look for natural=peak with elevation<600 and prominence>10
or 50 or whatever?

Joseph


On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 5:09 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 24/09/18 20:24, Fredrik wrote:
> > Ref prominence, there is
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=hill.
> >
> > There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated
> > from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence.
>
> Are you trying to create a new term there, are you trying to reflect
> existing English language usage or existing OSM usage?
>
> In OSM there are a bunch of "natural=hill" already, and the current
> usage near me https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CcO seems to be "the highest
> place around, but not very high, and certainly not high enough to be
> worth tagging as a natural=peak".
>
> In British English a hill is just something that's not as big as a
> mountain; there's no special prominence requirement.  The actual size
> varies depending on who you talk to (see e.g. the different sizes quoted
> at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain ).
>
> Neither of those seems to match that wiki page.  There _are_ lists of
> mountains and hills based on prominence (see e.g.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_(geography) - I'm sure other
> regions have similar lists).
>
> It'd be great to map prominence, provided that the source used was
> "clean" licence-wise.  I'm not sure that current usage is - it'd be nice
> to think that https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CcU was all based on survey or
> calculation based on suitable elevation sources, but I somehow doubt that.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

2018-09-24 Thread Andy Townsend


On 24/09/18 20:24, Fredrik wrote:
Ref prominence, there is 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=hill.


There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated 
from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence.


Are you trying to create a new term there, are you trying to reflect 
existing English language usage or existing OSM usage?


In OSM there are a bunch of "natural=hill" already, and the current 
usage near me https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CcO seems to be "the highest 
place around, but not very high, and certainly not high enough to be 
worth tagging as a natural=peak".


In British English a hill is just something that's not as big as a 
mountain; there's no special prominence requirement.  The actual size 
varies depending on who you talk to (see e.g. the different sizes quoted 
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill and 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain ).


Neither of those seems to match that wiki page.  There _are_ lists of 
mountains and hills based on prominence (see e.g. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_(geography) - I'm sure other 
regions have similar lists).


It'd be great to map prominence, provided that the source used was 
"clean" licence-wise.  I'm not sure that current usage is - it'd be nice 
to think that https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CcU was all based on survey or 
calculation based on suitable elevation sources, but I somehow doubt that.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

2018-09-24 Thread Fredrik

Ref prominence, there is 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=hill.


There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated 
from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence.


Please add a better description if you can.

--

FredrikLindseth


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

2018-09-24 Thread Tobias Zwick

What about buildings like these though? (de: "Gasthof" / "Gaststätte" -
"guest yard" = tavern / "guest place" = restaurant)

https://noew.infomaxnet.de/data/imxplatformj/images/301_gasthof_fink_bad_erlach_1.jpg
http://www.norbert-maas.com/foto/800_tetzelstein-8889.jpg
https://www.harzinfo.de/fileadmin/Mediendatenbank/Bilder/Orte/Sankt_Andreasberg/Rinderstall.jpg
https://images.1000ps.net/images/motorradhotels/hotel_866_1.jpg

I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because the
kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).

Tobias

On 24/09/2018 05:37, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 7:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer,
> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant
> but it is not used very often yet.
> 
> 
> Can you care to explain why building=retail is not enough detail? I
> would think that a combination of building=retail + amenity=fast_food
> (whether on the same polygon or on separate polygon + interior node) is
> already sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

The tag, "prominence=*" has been in use for a number of years, but the
proposal was abandoned before a vote back in 2009. I have revived the
proposal and now request your comments and suggestions before bringing
it to a vote: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/key:prominence

"Use the tag prominence=* to specify the Topographic prominence of a
natural=peak in meters"

"Topographic prominence is a objective measurement of how significant
a peak is. For example, lists of tallest mountains use a minimum
prominence cutoff of 100, 200 or 300 meters to define an independent
peak. In general, all peaks with very high prominence (over 1500
meters) are important mountains. But not all important peaks have high
prominence."

"Prominence might be used to select peaks for rendering, or to select
significant peaks for analysis by database users. A scheme which can
work both for Denmark and Switzerland, would be: If too many peaks are
present within a particular area of the map at a certain zoom level,
select the ones with highest prominence. Different thresholds might be
used for when to render a peak symbol only, versus render the peak
with a name label or elevation."

"The prominence of a peak is the same as its elevation if it is the
highest point on a continent or island. All other peaks on the same
landmass have a prominence that is lower than their elevation, found
by subtracting the elevation of the lowest saddle (also called the
"key col") along the ridge that connects to the next higher mountain."

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence
An introduction to Topographic Prominence
http://www.peaklist.org/theory/orometry/article/Orometry_1.html

-Joseph

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

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

2018-09-24 Thread Jerry Clough - OSM

 

On 24/09/2018 07:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
  
 
 Right! Especially on my island, New Guinea.  
  That’s why we need to check the height of saddles and peaks “by hand”, or 
better yet by survey with GPS.  
  OSM is the right place for this data, and some map styles and database users 
will find it useful to analyze data about mountain areas and peaks. 
  For example, even those lists of “tallest peaks” actually use topographic 
prominence as a cutoff. Otherwise the highest peaks on Earth would all be rocks 
and bumps on the slopes of Everest.  
  Most of us just estimate the prominence of a peak intuitively, before 
choosing to add one to the map. Clearly, a 5 meter tall bump isn’t a peak. 
Perhaps a 10 meter rise may have a name in England or Denmark, where mountains 
are scare. In other contexts a peak won’t be named unless it is 100m or 200m 
above the nearest saddle on a ridge.  
  Joseph 
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:59 PM Yves  wrote:
  
I don't see no issue in mapping prominence for those interested in.
 Just to mention for the sake of the discussion that 'sufficiently accurate 
DEM' doesn't exists globally.
 Yves ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
   
  
 ___Tagging mailing 
listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging A 
few points on this thread: * Prominence has been added for every significant 
peak in Scotland (along with which hill-bagging group they are members of). The 
peaks called Marilyns (a play on the more famous Munros - peaks over 3000 ft) 
are entirely based on prominence, and are sufficiently well known in the UK to 
have a guidebook. Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Cbi * What Michael 
describes sounds very much like something close to topographic isolation 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation). Co-incidentally I looked 
at calculating something like this after a recent conversation with Stefan 
Keller (prompted by a wikipage on Dominance: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Maxbe/Dominanz_von_Gipfeln). I simply 
calculated the closest, higher peaks for all Swiss peaks and then filtered by 
that distance (e.g. over 5 or 10 km). This produces a reasonably good 
distribution of peaks (see 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qoe2y9d6n6pjh0c/ch_peak_iso.jpg?dl=0), and can 
obviously be adjusted by other parameters. * One problem with prominence is 
that it is probably most easily obtained from non-open sources (such as those 
used to populate wikipedia), and equally there is temptation to use copyright 
maps for information on saddle points. For the peaks with a very significant 
prominence (say 1000 m or more) this is less of a problem as most can be 
deduced very quickly. * Peak names can be an issue when the high point is part 
of a group of peaks with an encompassing name (Dufourspitze Monte Rosa, 
Breithorn Occidentale/Westgipfel comes to mind). The Matterhorn traditionally 
has 2 summits (the Swiss & Italian ones), but only one is mapped, avoiding this 
issue for that peak.
  * Many peaks which sit on national boundaries are not on located as part of 
the border way on OSM, and may therefore not be included in peaks with a 
country filter. There are several examples near Zermatt. Thanks to Kevin Kenny 
& others who have pointed out the theoretical value of prominence. Jerry
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Default Language Format

Please see the Proposal page for the new tag, "language:default="
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Default_Language_Format

Description:
"Specify the default language format used for names, and recommend use
of language-specific name tags.

"By making it easier to use language-specific name:code=* tags to be
used instead of the default name=* tag, this proposal will encourage
the use of name tags that include the language code for all features.
This will improve the quality and utility of the database. It will be
possible to display non-Western languages in their correct orientation
and script, properly display multilingual names, and to research the
most commonly used language formats in a particular area.

"The key language:default=* with a 2 or 3 letter ISO language code
should be tagged on administrative boundary relations, such as
countries, provinces and aboriginal communities. This is the language
used for the majority of named features within a particular region, as
indicated on public signs and in common use by the local community. If
the language can be written in more than one script, a qualifier can
be added to specify the script format. More than one language code can
be listed, separated with a semicolon, if the local community uses
more than one language on signs or by consensus.

"The language tag should be applied to the largest boundary relation
that accurately represents the language used for default names. When a
smaller administrative boundary has a different default language
format, this boundary should receive a language tag as well. This
would include boundaries of provinces or aboriginal lands where a
different language is used.

"The language tag may also be applied to individual features when the
name is in a different language than the default for the region, or
when the feature crosses a border."

Please read the whole page, which has quite a number of examples and a
detailed rationale for the proposal, then please comment here or on
the discussion page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Default_Language_Format

Thank you for all of your comments, criticisms and suggestions
-Joseph

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

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

2018-09-24 Thread Dave F


Wouldn't those who need this information be using a contours overlay?

Cheers
DaveF

On 23/09/2018 01:00, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I've been tagging peaks (natural=peak) with the key
prominence=

Prominence is a natural feature...



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

2018-09-24 11:55 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :

> Well, OsmAnd lets you see different categories of buildings in different
> colors. I was actually going to try this out in a branch of the standard
> style (Openstreetmap Carto) to see if it could help.
> Right now the main categories of buildings fit with the areas:
> building=retail with landuse=retail
> building=office with landuse=commercial
> building=school with amenity=school etc
>
> And if restaurants are a type of retail, the building type should be a
> subcategory of retail.




I am not even sure if restaurants are a type of retail. It may well depend
on the definitions which might not be the same on a global level. It is up
to you to decide whether a restaurant building is a subtype of retail or a
type on its own (and everybody can do it as she pleases if you tag
building=restaurant) but if you subtag like retail=restaurant it is
enforced that it must be seen as a subtype of retail.

We do not do subtagging with building=residential (if there is a more
precise term like house, apartments, etc.), why would we do it for
restaurants?

Looking around in the internet, it seems that restaurants are not even
clearly retail landuse (nor would I restrict tagging building typology to
landuse classes). E.g. "In some downtown commercial zoning districts
restaurant uses are categorized simply as retail businesses and are not
treated differently from other retail uses, while in other districts the
definitions for restaurants  uses are regulated  specifically."
http://sf-planning.org/restaurantfood-service-use


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

Well, OsmAnd lets you see different categories of buildings in different
colors. I was actually going to try this out in a branch of the standard
style (Openstreetmap Carto) to see if it could help.
Right now the main categories of buildings fit with the areas:
building=retail with landuse=retail
building=office with landuse=commercial
building=school with amenity=school etc

And if restaurants are a type of retail, the building type should be a
subcategory of retail.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 2018-09-24 8:08 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :
>
>> I’d recommend tagging all retail buildings, including fast foot and
>> restaurants, with building=retail.
>> A building built for fast food can easily be converted to a sit-down,
>> full-service restaurant without any modifications to the building
>> structure.
>
>
>
> not actually sure about this (space requirements for cooking and storage
> may vary, etc.), but I am sure you won't be able to convert a fast food
> restaurant to a shopping mall, department store or kiosk.
>
>
>
>
>> And a restaurant in a storefront building could turn into a different
>> type of retail when the lease is up.
>>
>
>
> yes, but this is about the restaurant usage, the storefront building
> remains a storefront building.
>
>
>
>>
>> How about building=retail plus retail=fast_food or =restaurant to show
>> the specific type of use?
>
>
>
>
> what is the advantage?
>
>
>
>
>> Or just add the amenity=fast_food tag to the building outline if that
>> works
>>
>
>
> it generally does not work, because it mixes different concepts into one
> tag, which you can only interpret by guessing and with additional knowledge
> (which properties belong to the building and which to the restaurant use).
>
> 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] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-23 0:13 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> ... the German wiki says that service_times are for religous services!
>


no, it says they are also for religious services. It said it was for
religious services in the short (template) definition, but which has been
amended now to better comply with the longer definition text.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-23 0:13 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> On 2018-09-22 23:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> maybe service_times could cover it, opening_hours are about something
> different.
>
>
> I agree they are different but the wiki infers that service_times are more
> individual times (i.e. not periods) and the German wiki says that
> service_times are for religous services!
>

While you can add individual (start-) times, which makes sense for example
for churches, where the duration of the service may vary, in principle the
syntax is the same as for opening_hours. The translation in the German wiki
should be orrected if it reduces the use case to religious services.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

2018-09-24 8:08 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :

> I’d recommend tagging all retail buildings, including fast foot and
> restaurants, with building=retail.
> A building built for fast food can easily be converted to a sit-down,
> full-service restaurant without any modifications to the building
> structure.



not actually sure about this (space requirements for cooking and storage
may vary, etc.), but I am sure you won't be able to convert a fast food
restaurant to a shopping mall, department store or kiosk.




> And a restaurant in a storefront building could turn into a different type
> of retail when the lease is up.
>


yes, but this is about the restaurant usage, the storefront building
remains a storefront building.



>
> How about building=retail plus retail=fast_food or =restaurant to show the
> specific type of use?




what is the advantage?




> Or just add the amenity=fast_food tag to the building outline if that
> works
>


it generally does not work, because it mixes different concepts into one
tag, which you can only interpret by guessing and with additional knowledge
(which properties belong to the building and which to the restaurant use).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?