Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times (
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values) you can
create a page to document this, however, you would also need to mention
that historic=threshing_floor is much more common (actually
Out of curiosity I decided to look at how USGS defines lakes and ponds
after noticing that their Feature Code is listed as lake/pond. Here is how
they define the two, as well as rivers and streams and mountains and hills.
*There are no official definitions for generic terms as applied to
Re: "what about artificial lakes that are not for storing water?"
Most of those are landuse=basin (or water=basin + natural=water if you
prefer the newer tagging scheme), and while they are not exactly for
"storing water", they might be for "preventing flooding", or "temporarily
holding excess
I think the question here isn't if pond makes sense for data consumers.
Mappers are what matters in this case. If there is a little 4 meter pond,
mappers will not tag it as a lake because it sounds wrong. So they will
probably tag it just natural=water. But then we lose information about if
it is
Re: is water=* tag needed?
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:36 AM Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> "Is a water= tag even needed at all in these cases then? natural=water +
name="Foobar Pond" seems to cover it. I'm not sure what specific added
information is conveyed by "lake", "pond", or even
Is a water= tag even needed at all in these cases then? natural=water +
name="Foobar Pond" seems to cover it. I'm not sure what specific added
information is conveyed by "lake", "pond", or even "lake_pond". It's a
natural body of water with a name. If we need tagging to indicate
freshwater vs
Yes, it matters if it's flowing water, because rivers/streams (and
artificial waterways like canals, ditches and drains) are clearly distinct
from standing water bodies like lakes, reservoirs and basins. This is a
clearly observable difference which local mappers can survey.
Currently a number of
On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 19:30, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> Re: is water=* tag needed?
>
> But since water=pond is not clearly defined as natura/semi-natural vs
> man-made, we have a large number of features where the water=* tag is not
> providing this information. Since the previous tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/training%3Dbicycle
To describe the bicycle lessons often provided by shops or other bicycle
related places
This attribute could be applied to different kinds of POIs : an NGO or
public administration could provide such lessons
Thank you, Joseph.
If no one opposes, I'll do just that.
Regards.
Às 16:43 de 12/11/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:
Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values)
you can create a page to document this,
I'm wondering if rather than deprecating water=pond, it would be better to
keep it as a value with overlapping usage to lake (like river/stream) and
instead focus tagging on the actual differences between different bodies of
water.
I'd suggest two new tags that get at the heart of what I've been
See comments on the last proposal:
"*It is redundant. I really don't understand why we need another tag for a
room or building where families and friends can come and view someone who
has died before their funeral. The tag shop=funeral_directors fits
perfectly the definition of this new tag
sent from a phone
> On 12. Nov 2020, at 21:10, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> You need to explain this on the new proposal page. Note that on
> Tag:shop=funeral_directors it says "an event (sometimes with the deceased's
> body present) to honor the deceased for mourners are held here in
Although, I understand that there could exist some special meanings of
the word "park":
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/park
The most widely understood meaning also documented in Wikipedia seems
to be consistent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park
And anyway, terms must be understood in their GB
I strongly disagree with the notion of splitting ponds and lakes by natural or
artificial/man-made.
Not only is this often incredibly difficult to verify, it also leads to this
complex situation of needing multiple tags for what are, essentially, the same
features.
The current notion of an
nathan case wrote:
Not only is this often incredibly difficult to verify, it also leads to this
complex situation of needing multiple tags for what are, essentially, the same
features.
A well-designed tagging scheme (doesn’t have to be a formal proposal, but
benefits greatly by being dressed
I am surprised nobody has suggested a pondness or lakicity scale yet.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op do 12 nov. 2020 om 02:46 schreef stevea :
> If we're going to do "this:"
> > So perhaps we could create a new tag water=natural_pond for small,
> natural or semi-natural lakes which are currently
I started the voting process on the Admission proposal. Admission is a
potential new concept in OpenStreetMap, and it might get updated in the
future, but I think this is a good first step. Thanks for taking the time
to vote and comment!
Am 11.11.2020 um 18:25 schrieb Peter Elderson:
I am getting a foot vs hiking feeling. Everybody knows a difference,
nobody has the same difference. In the end, it does not matter.
Hmm - does it matter, if it is a river or a stream or a lake or a pond?
Especially a lake with a river flowing
On Nov 12, 2020, at 3:18 AM, bkil wrote:
> Although, I understand that there could exist some special meanings of
> the word "park":
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/park
Jó napot, bikl!
There is quite a bit of history here, both past (early in OSM, as leisure=park
developed and was both
Am Do., 12. Nov. 2020 um 02:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water
> body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged
> as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a
21 matches
Mail list logo
