Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Yes, you missed something. I think you also miss lot of things. Reply you got were mostly sarcastic and it's a vague discussion in an obscur ML. Launch a bot after receiving 3 confuse answers on a mailing list is not a consensus. Many users do not read this thread and discover an unknwon tag in the area they work. It usually consider as a bad thing in OSM to change things without real consensus (long discussion and a majority of the people that participate to the discussion agree) and without any documentation. If everybody act like you did, OSM would become a big mess. On the tree discussion. Yes tree tag was starting for remarkable tree but now the real use is for tree. Of course users that tag remarkable tree would see there work disolve by this, but it's allready done. Adding cluster with a bot is not a good option, 2 remarkable tree can be close (i add example here in my town). We have to discuss and found a reasonable option. Original single tree tag was probably an error, because as it has been said, we usually tag remarkable things with a remarkable tag not a common one... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange Why don't i run a bot that change cluster to bazinga, i prefer this word ? (isarcasm) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Throwing my hat in like a true masochist... I have added perhaps 100 trees - urban/rural, in 'clusters' and on streets where I would not say there is a cluster but where they are closer than 50m. I am also interested in an import from my local council. The wiki is clearly ambiguous and not followed consistently - if at all - by mappers. Either resolution will therefore impose a new unambiguous definition on a large proportion of nodes entered by many mappers. This is unavoidable. The only course of action is to propose one or more unambiguous definitions on the wiki, explaining their retroactive effect, and to put those to a vote. Further emails arguing one way.or another will clearly fail to bring about any resolution. Regards, Tom On 11 Sep 2010 08:51, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Yes, you missed something. I think you also miss lot of things. Reply you got were mostly sarcastic and it's a vague discussion in an obscur ML. Launch a bot after receiving 3 confuse answers on a mailing list is not a consensus. Many users do not read this thread and discover an unknwon tag in the area they work. It usually consider as a bad thing in OSM to change things without real consensus (long discussion and a majority of the people that participate to the discussion agree) and without any documentation. If everybody act like you did, OSM would become a big mess. On the tree discussion. Yes tree tag was starting for remarkable tree but now the real use is for tree. Of course users that tag remarkable tree would see there work disolve by this, but it's allready done. Adding cluster with a bot is not a good option, 2 remarkable tree can be close (i add example here in my town). We have to discuss and found a reasonable option. Original single tree tag was probably an error, because as it has been said, we usually tag remarkable things with a remarkable tag not a common one... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange Why don't i run a bot that change cluster to bazinga, i prefer this word ? (isarcasm) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org htt... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tall masts supported by guy wires
What's the preferred way of tagging a mast like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowridge_from_entrance_gate_200704270010.jpg From memory I had thought it was man_made=mast, but I cant find any mention of that on the wiki. I see on the wiki there is a man_made=tower + tower:type=communication combination, but I'm not sure the picture above is a tower. To my mind a tower is something free standing, whilst a mast is a much thinner structure supported by wires David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
I agree with Pierre-Alain. Whether or not a particular tree is worth noting is a subjective decision, and can be based upon its appearance, its location, what notable events may have occurred near it, etc. Yes, being the only tree for some distance can be a factor, but it isn't the only possible factor. A bot can't judge these other factors; it requires a human with local knowledge, and different people with the same local knowledge may have varying opinions about the notability of a particular tree. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees From :mailto:pdora...@mac.com Date :Sat Sep 11 02:50:59 America/Chicago 2010 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Yes, you missed something. I think you also miss lot of things. Reply you got were mostly sarcastic and it's a vague discussion in an obscur ML. Launch a bot after receiving 3 confuse answers on a mailing list is not a consensus. Many users do not read this thread and discover an unknwon tag in the area they work. It usually consider as a bad thing in OSM to change things without real consensus (long discussion and a majority of the people that participate to the discussion agree) and without any documentation. If everybody act like you did, OSM would become a big mess. On the tree discussion. Yes tree tag was starting for remarkable tree but now the real use is for tree. Of course users that tag remarkable tree would see there work disolve by this, but it's allready done. Adding cluster with a bot is not a good option, 2 remarkable tree can be close (i add example here in my town). We have to discuss and found a reasonable option. Original single tree tag was probably an error, because as it has been said, we usually tag remarkable things with a remarkable tag not a common one... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange Why don't i run a bot that change cluster to bazinga, i prefer this word ? (isarcasm) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guy wires
2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:27 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: What's the preferred way of tagging a mast like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowridge_from_entrance_gate_200704270010.jpg From memory I had thought it was man_made=mast, but I cant find any mention of that on the wiki. I see on the wiki there is a man_made=tower + tower:type=communication combination, but I'm not sure the picture above is a tower. To my mind a tower is something free standing, whilst a mast is a much thinner structure supported by wires It's a guyed tower. a tower is self-supporting, which might be read as contradictory to guys (unless you consider the guys being part of the tower itself). I wouldn't actually tag antennas as towers. The wiki doesn't help a lot, defining a tower as A man made tower, but it indicates in some way that tagging should refer to what is commonly referred to as a tower. There is another issue I found while searching tower: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tower subtagging might have been appropriate for those as well, at least they are much more towers than antennas are. (not all tall structures are commonly identified as towers). another issue I see with the man_made=tower definition in the wiki is the construction part which was introduced without any notification here or discussion (AFAIK) : tower:construction lattice NodeThe tower is constructed from steel lattice (most have guy wires) this is fine beside the most have guy wires because 1) that's not true IMHO 2) most is not suitable for a definition. Either yes or no or it's not a criteria IMHO. tower:constructionfreestandingNodeThe tower is freestanding 'heavy' construction such as concrete, steel or wood this is the basic definition required to be a tower, it is not a construction principle and not opposed to lattice. tower:constructiondishNodeThe 'communication tower' is a parabolic dish is not a tower, but a tower might have dishes attached tower:constructiondomeNodeThe 'communication tower' is a dome (or 'golf-ball') construction, with antenna elements concealed from view the same issue as dish. If it is not a dome supported by a tower but just a dome this will not be a tower IMHO. tower:constructionconcealed NodeThe 'communication tower' is concealed/disguised (for example: made to look like a tree). IMHO not a construction type either. What about masquerade=yes or something similar? I'd like to see different subtags here: purpose/usage and construction type, construction time, shape, construction style (gothic, baroque, rationalist, neo-traditional, renaissance, futurist, industrial (this is of course a generalization, but can help the normal mapper and could be further refined by specialists) ...) Purpose: there are church towers, bell towers, watch towers, towers in city walls (and gate-towers in specific), towers in castles (regional differences, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergfried ) , towers in town houses (e.g. in medieval cities), skyscrapers (might not be desired here, let's discuss it), defensive towers (different types: inside a wall/part of a fortress, or freestanding, used as support for anti aircraft cannons or normal cannons ( http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Kufstein_burgen.jpgfiletimestamp=20060417221241 ) or bowmen, or...), towers as support for restaurants, viewing platforms, antennas, ...), and lots of others there are also various kinds of industrial towers (e.g. cooling towers, ...) construction types: lattice (steel, wood, plastic/fibreglass, concrete(?)) solid ones (masonry, concrete (pre-fabricated or on the ground one), wood) ... Shape: regarding the bottom/support: rectangular circular hexagonal octagonal (e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Neunkirchen-am-Brand-St.-Michaelkirche-Turmspitze.jpegfiletimestamp=20050606154539 ) polygonal (other amount of polygons, probably the better approach, polygonal and corners=8 instead of octagonal) other regarding the top (tower:top): tower:top=cone (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Round_tower,_Glendalough.jpg ) pyramid (e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Schlieren_Gaswerk_Turm-2.jpgfiletimestamp=20060901154641 ) sphere/dome (or modern multipolygonal sherized constructions) flat (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UCSBStorkeTower.jpg ) onion_dome (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kostroma_resurrection.jpg ) regarding the base (tower:base) above ground. regarding the foundation (tower:foundation) below ground / at ground level regarding the shaft (might be assumed that the shaft is what is tagged without subtags i.e. the main tower or the base, but this depends on how the tower is actually constructed, of how many different vertical parts it
Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guy wires
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: It's a guyed tower. a tower is self-supporting, which might be read as contradictory to guys (unless you consider the guys being part of the tower itself). Then explain the heavy use of guyed tower by professionals: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22guyed+tower%22 You may be using the dictionary definition of tower (though the dictionaries I checked don't rule out guy wires on a tower), but it's apparently not a distinction that's always made in the real world. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Nop, Thanks for adding tags to trees in my locality. I assume from the fixme tag (fixme = set better denotation) on each tree that you think I should be denoting something about the tree. I added a type, a botanical name (name:botanical), I gathered the data from a survey on the ground, oh yes, and it is definitely a tree. You have added a denotation=cluster. Apart from the fact that denotation is not a word I'd use, why does cluster come into it? I added a tree to OSM. Nearby is another object, that also is a tree. They were planted there to provide apples to the allotment holders. Are they an orchard? No. Are they a wood, or a copse? No. Is the fact that they are close together relevant? No. If I have the slightest interest in their proximity to each other can I discern that from the geo-data? Yes. Of course when you visited the site to see the trees you would have been able to see all this, but wait - you didn't visit? You just arbitrarily added tags to objects you've never visited? Tags that don't make sense and other people have asked you to stop adding? How rude. You have proved how skilful you are at automated edits, so please, use these powerful skills to remove the graffiti you have added to so many objects across the world. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guy wires
2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: It's a guyed tower. a tower is self-supporting, which might be read as contradictory to guys (unless you consider the guys being part of the tower itself). Then explain the heavy use of guyed tower by professionals: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22guyed+tower%22 You may be using the dictionary definition of tower (though the dictionaries I checked don't rule out guy wires on a tower), but it's apparently not a distinction that's always made in the real world. well, probably a guyed tower is a such (complete term) and not a tower. A tower can (structurally) usually be regarded a cantilevered system, see this schema: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/0/09/Eulerfaelle1.png (the first case on the left). I'm not really (at this point of the discussion) objecting against tagging those (with appropriate subtags) as man_made=tower in OSM, but I wanted to raise the awareness that it is structurally not correct. We might discuss this and come to the conclusion, that for simplicity reasons we might still tag these as tower. What do you think about the changes to tower:construction and suggested extended subtagging? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guy wires
On 12 September 2010 01:39, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to be able to tag something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/b5/Stundturm_Schaessburg.JPG or this with parametrical values that allow for three-dimensional reconstruction as simple 3D-models: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Dom_von_Altenburger_Stra%C3%9Fe_2003-09-22.JPG which is a rectangular base (quite frequent) and a cone-shaped broken (one corner) top with octagonal top-base (locally also frequent for this time and purpose) These are commonly called spires... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spire ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On 9/11/10 12:06 PM, Chris Hill wrote: You have proved how skilful you are at automated edits, so please, use these powerful skills to remove the graffiti you have added to so many objects across the world. i think that he simultaneously ran this bot while announcing that he was opting out of the discussion suggests that reverting the changeset(s?) is in order. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guy wires
2010/9/11 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 12 September 2010 01:39, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to be able to tag something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/b5/Stundturm_Schaessburg.JPG or this with parametrical values that allow for three-dimensional reconstruction as simple 3D-models: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Dom_von_Altenburger_Stra%C3%9Fe_2003-09-22.JPG which is a rectangular base (quite frequent) and a cone-shaped broken (one corner) top with octagonal top-base (locally also frequent for this time and purpose) These are commonly called spires... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spire yes, but that's what I called tower:top which is a more generic approach. My question was more related to the shape of the spires then to their role of being part of a construction (tower). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guywires
- Original Message - From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com Cc: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guywires 2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/9/11 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: It's a guyed tower. a tower is self-supporting, which might be read as contradictory to guys (unless you consider the guys being part of the tower itself). Then explain the heavy use of guyed tower by professionals: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22guyed+tower%22 You may be using the dictionary definition of tower (though the dictionaries I checked don't rule out guy wires on a tower), but it's apparently not a distinction that's always made in the real world. well, probably a guyed tower is a such (complete term) and not a tower. A tower can (structurally) usually be regarded a cantilevered system, see this schema: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/0/09/Eulerfaelle1.png (the first case on the left). I'm not really (at this point of the discussion) objecting against tagging those (with appropriate subtags) as man_made=tower in OSM, but I wanted to raise the awareness that it is structurally not correct. We might discuss this and come to the conclusion, that for simplicity reasons we might still tag these as tower. What do you think about the changes to tower:construction and suggested extended subtagging? My personal opinion is that the man_made=tower tag is getting a bit generic, in that it seems to be for any man made structure which is tall. Personally I'd like to see a different top level tag to differentiate between more solid structural towers such as towers http://www.visitingdc.com/images/eiffel-tower-picture.jpg http://www.canadaphotoseries.com/files/canada/images/Toronto-CN-Tower.jpg http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/13/f5/fa/qutab-minar-tower.jpg and what are more commonly thought of as masts (though I accept that the industry definition of these probably are lattice towers, or solid towers) such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowridge_from_entrance_gate_200704270010.jpg http://www.cuphosco.com/images/GSM1.gif though I accept that there will be problems in cases such as http://www.freefoto.com/images/04/02/04_02_58---Mobile-Phone-Mast_web.jpg?k=Mobile+Phone+Mast where is this a tower, or a mast, according to my definition above? David cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported by guywires
2010/9/11 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net: Personally I'd like to see a different top level tag to differentiate between more solid structural towers such as towers http://www.visitingdc.com/images/eiffel-tower-picture.jpg http://www.canadaphotoseries.com/files/canada/images/Toronto-CN-Tower.jpg http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/13/f5/fa/qutab-minar-tower.jpg and there is quite a lot of (mostly older) towers that merit the man_made=tower but would on the other hand be nice to be differentiated with subtagging: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Towers_Munich_Petueltunnel_Olympia-Toren_BMW-Hoofdkantoor_muurwerk_en_staaltoren_lucht_afzuigen_uit_tunnel_via_schoorsteen_Luc_Deleu_Foto_2005_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_Wiesbaden_PICT0067.jpgfiletimestamp=20081230100700 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Pisa_Turm.jpgfiletimestamp=20100206122335 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Friedberg_%28Hessen%29_Adolfsturm_4735.jpgfiletimestamp=20090616222157 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Parachute_Jump-1.jpgfiletimestamp=20060618220728 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SanGiminiano.jpg http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Montesantangelo0002.jpg http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poetto.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:DSC04737_Istanbul_-_La_Moschea_Blu_-_Minareti_-_Foto_G._Dall%27Orto_29-5-2006.jpgfiletimestamp=20061220231311 as well as those being integrated in buildings http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/BelfortBrugge.jpg having special functions (here: catch the wind) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qanat_wind_tower.svg while beeing more than just industrial installations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bad_Gir_Yazd_Dolat_Abad.jpg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dcontrol_tower being military ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier_watchtower.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Flag-G-Turm_Augarten.jpg/450px-Flag-G-Turm_Augarten.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Berlin_Wall_Watch-Tower_Typ_BT-11_2_apel.JPGfiletimestamp=20071203114529 while those are all man_made=tower IMHO, that should not be the only tag to describe them. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] trees and waterways
I'm wondering what the difference is between the recent discussions about trees and waterways. Here's the way things look to me: *The wiki says something should be tagged a certain way: (lone or significant tree for natural=tree | direction of the way should be downstream for waterway=river, stream, and maybe other values) *People don't always see the definition on the wiki, and thus don't tag according to it, instead: (using natural=tree for any tree | not determining which way a waterway flows and drawing it in that direction) *Many features are now mapped differently from how the wiki says Yet the result is different: with trees, consensus seems to be to change the definition, while with waterways, we seem to be avoiding the problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: In the second case there is only a problem according to one person. The other people are not ignoring the problem.They are just smarter. Oh fuck off. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: ... Perhaps have you a proposition. But for my part, it seems natural to use the natural flow of the way has the natural flow of the river. It may be natural once one knows that you're supposed to represent the direction. But I've come across many waterways that were mapped without regard for the direction. Three examples, mapped by three different people: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71760642 Eight Mile Canal: flows west into the St. Johns River http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44644481 Canal L-406: flows south into Canal L-405 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7044872 Venetian Canal: flows north into Lake Maitland (I believe) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:19:00 + John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I agree with Pierre-Alain. Whether or not a particular tree is worth noting is a subjective decision, and can be based upon its appearance, its location, what notable events may have occurred near it, etc. Yes, being the only tree for some distance can be a factor, but it isn't the only possible factor. A bot can't judge these other factors; it requires a human with local knowledge, and different people with the same local knowledge may have varying opinions about the notability of a particular tree. I have known very few notable trees. As a child there was one which was known as the place where Elizabeth I was sitting when she was told she was Queen. There was one in Western Queensland known as the birthplace of the Labour Party. They are very special places which need noting. Then there are single trees which make landmarks on a route. All other trees are normal (to my way of thinking about the world) and don't need any additional notes. They may even be standalone trees which are more than x metres from anything else. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported byguywires
- Original Message - From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging towers WAS Re: tall masts supported byguywires 2010/9/11 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net: Personally I'd like to see a different top level tag to differentiate between more solid structural towers such as towers http://www.visitingdc.com/images/eiffel-tower-picture.jpg http://www.canadaphotoseries.com/files/canada/images/Toronto-CN-Tower.jpg http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/13/f5/fa/qutab-minar-tower.jpg and there is quite a lot of (mostly older) towers that merit the man_made=tower but would on the other hand be nice to be differentiated with subtagging: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Towers_Munich_Petueltunnel_Olympia-Toren_BMW-Hoofdkantoor_muurwerk_en_staaltoren_lucht_afzuigen_uit_tunnel_via_schoorsteen_Luc_Deleu_Foto_2005_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_Wiesbaden_PICT0067.jpgfiletimestamp=20081230100700 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Pisa_Turm.jpgfiletimestamp=20100206122335 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Friedberg_%28Hessen%29_Adolfsturm_4735.jpgfiletimestamp=20090616222157 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Parachute_Jump-1.jpgfiletimestamp=20060618220728 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SanGiminiano.jpg http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Montesantangelo0002.jpg http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poetto.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:DSC04737_Istanbul_-_La_Moschea_Blu_-_Minareti_-_Foto_G._Dall%27Orto_29-5-2006.jpgfiletimestamp=20061220231311 as well as those being integrated in buildings http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/BelfortBrugge.jpg having special functions (here: catch the wind) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qanat_wind_tower.svg while beeing more than just industrial installations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bad_Gir_Yazd_Dolat_Abad.jpg http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dcontrol_tower being military ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier_watchtower.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Flag-G-Turm_Augarten.jpg/450px-Flag-G-Turm_Augarten.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Berlin_Wall_Watch-Tower_Typ_BT-11_2_apel.JPGfiletimestamp=20071203114529 while those are all man_made=tower IMHO, that should not be the only tag to describe them. Martin I agree that's what I meant by my rather unclear statement Personally I'd like to see a different top level tag to differentiate.. I think man_made=mast could be usefully brought (back) into the OSM tagging scheme. David cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:45:04 -0400 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: ... Perhaps have you a proposition. But for my part, it seems natural to use the natural flow of the way has the natural flow of the river. It may be natural once one knows that you're supposed to represent the direction. But I've come across many waterways that were mapped without regard for the direction. Three examples, mapped by three different people: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71760642 Eight Mile Canal: flows west into the St. Johns River http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44644481 Canal L-406: flows south into Canal L-405 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7044872 Venetian Canal: flows north into Lake Maitland (I believe) You could add rivers I have mapped to that list (Murray, Darling, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan) although I think the directions may have been edited. At places you would find that the rivers I did were made of segments which go in different directions because I had no care for the direction ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
- Original Message - From: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 9:38 PM Subject: [Tagging] trees and waterways I'm wondering what the difference is between the recent discussions about trees and waterways. Here's the way things look to me: *The wiki says something should be tagged a certain way: (lone or significant tree for natural=tree | direction of the way should be downstream for waterway=river, stream, and maybe other values) *People don't always see the definition on the wiki, and thus don't tag according to it, instead: (using natural=tree for any tree | not determining which way a waterway flows and drawing it in that direction) *Many features are now mapped differently from how the wiki says Yet the result is different: with trees, consensus seems to be to change the definition, while with waterways, we seem to be avoiding the problem. I think the difference can be summed up as: With the tagging of trees the definition in the wiki was unclear; lone or significant can mean different things to different people. With the tagging of waterways the comment that the way should be drawn in the direction of the water flow is quite clear, specific, and not really open to any misinterpretation. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
Hi, For the Canada canvec dataset, the map feature is available, and direction of the way was not taken into account. So the tag 'oneway=yes' was not used as a preset. However, for those who are interested in making the waterflow correct (and render an arrow). In Canada we do have geobase National Hydrography set that shows that tag (the data has been converted into osm format and is available). And for the rest of the world, by looking at the contour lines on the cyclemap (or created from groundtruth contours) you can extrapolate what direction the water flows and add the oneway tag to confirm this. cheers, sam On 9/11/10, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:45:04 -0400 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: ... Perhaps have you a proposition. But for my part, it seems natural to use the natural flow of the way has the natural flow of the river. It may be natural once one knows that you're supposed to represent the direction. But I've come across many waterways that were mapped without regard for the direction. Three examples, mapped by three different people: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71760642 Eight Mile Canal: flows west into the St. Johns River http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44644481 Canal L-406: flows south into Canal L-405 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7044872 Venetian Canal: flows north into Lake Maitland (I believe) You could add rivers I have mapped to that list (Murray, Darling, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan) although I think the directions may have been edited. At places you would find that the rivers I did were made of segments which go in different directions because I had no care for the direction ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
- Original Message - From: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: ... Perhaps have you a proposition. But for my part, it seems natural to use the natural flow of the way has the natural flow of the river. It may be natural once one knows that you're supposed to represent the direction. But I've come across many waterways that were mapped without regard for the direction. Three examples, mapped by three different people: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71760642 Eight Mile Canal: flows west into the St. Johns River http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44644481 Canal L-406: flows south into Canal L-405 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7044872 Venetian Canal: flows north into Lake Maitland (I believe) It is quite possible that the persons who mapped those waterways did not know the direction of the flow when mapping them. They may have felt it was best to at least map the fact the river existed, and then hope that someone with greater knowledge would later come along and check / correct the direction of flow. Alternatively they may not have realised they were supposed to map the waterway so its direction was the same as the river flow. We do have many people of different OSM experience contributing to the map. Maybe you could politely ask the people who mapped these rivers if there are aware of the preferred way of drawing them. In that way they are less likely to make the same mistake again. The mapping of many features added to OSM are over time refined and improved, in this way the crowd makes a better map. You have noted the direction of the ways ware wrong, and are thus able to correct them and improve the OSM data. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:10 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: I think the difference can be summed up as: With the tagging of trees the definition in the wiki was unclear; lone or significant can mean different things to different people. With the tagging of waterways the comment that the way should be drawn in the direction of the water flow is quite clear, specific, and not really open to any misinterpretation. That's true, but it's not the whole story. Much of the problem with trees is that enough people had tagged them without knowing what the wiki said, and so the actual tagging deviated from the documentation on the wiki. That's also the case with waterway direction. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Alternatively they may not have realised they were supposed to map the waterway so its direction was the same as the river flow. Almost certainly this. There's not even anything on the main waterway page; you have to go to one of the subpages to see the direction convention. The mapping of many features added to OSM are over time refined and improved, in this way the crowd makes a better map. You have noted the direction of the ways ware wrong, and are thus able to correct them and improve the OSM data. I only noticed most of them because I went looking for examples. Otherwise I would have had no way of realizing the direction didn't match the wiki. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
