Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already? why explain the same issues a hundred times? You can find the answer in the ML archive and in the wiki. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Am 29.01.2011 13:33, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/1/29 John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already? why explain the same issues a hundred times? You can find the answer in the ML archive and in the wiki. If you advertise your own proposal(s) a hundred times here, then please also mention the (widely used) alternatives. Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: and just like previous threads I'm still to be convinced we need landcover=*, I just don't see the point of introducing a 3rd type that only serves to confuse things. basically the idea was that natural could be restricted to geographical features. This is in line with most of the tags there. coastline, cliff, spring, bay, cave_entrance, beach, volcano, peak and many more are all geographical features. They should not be mixed up with physical landcoverage like mud. So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it is: The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which can be used to supply extra information about the surface in conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features. So it is meant to be additional what landcover is not (can be used exclusively). Landcover seems to the logical counterpart of landuse, it is a widely used term and will facilitate understanding the tagging scheme. Surface=paved does make sense, landcover=paved doesn't IMHO. surface=trees doesn't sound well. landcover=trees is a perfect statement. If you look at the documented surface values: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface you will find that all of those are about the surface of highways, you can also see this by looking at the pictures. Landcover would be used differently and would mainly have different values. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 29 January 2011 23:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it is: The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which can be used to supply extra information about the surface in conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features. So it is meant to be additional what landcover is not (can be used That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond highways for things like golf bunkers, eg surface=sand because natural=beach wasn't suitable. Also the Map Features page lists natural=mud and surface=mud, but apart from mud flats (natural=wetland + wetland=mud), where would you actually use landcover=mud? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond highways can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see surface used for something different than highways. If you look at the actual values you can see that they are nearly completely highway-values: also from a data consuming e.g. rendering point of view I see more disadvantage then advantage to not separate landcover as a feature from surface as an attribute to highways. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 00:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: also from a data consuming e.g. rendering point of view I see more disadvantage then advantage to not separate landcover as a feature from surface as an attribute to highways. Can you expand upon that with a less vague example? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 That was the follow up etc, I can't find the original thread, however it would have been about the same time. it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a well established feature that now would require intense changes of tags. I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach, surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one. there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than trying to render every possible use of sand. obvious. Generally we call this tagging for the renderers and we don't have to discuss about it. This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the Map Features page and tagging presets other wise? I don't know if there is places on earth you would tag like this. Probably not. But neither would I tag natural=mud. For mud flats I'm not sure. I don't live at a tidal coast so I don't have to bother. Looking at the actual used values there is tidal_flat and saltmarsh which could be suitable as well (as I said, I don't know). There is one near me and that's pretty much what I did, tagged it as a natural=wetland since it had more than just mud as the primary feature. mud will probably mostly be surface=ground on highways. or dirt or or at least for the most part I'd hope the road wasn't muddy :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 you are pointing me to an open ticket for which there might be good reasons _not_ to realize it in order to prove your statement That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond highways for things like golf bunkers ? Come on, it was never expanded, you would like it to be expanded. it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a well established feature that now would require intense changes of tags. I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach, surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one. Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not yet established so it wouldn't be a big change. there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than trying to render every possible use of sand. this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to distinguish between casual sand and a bunker. This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the Map Features page and tagging presets other wise? to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in second place to do with rendering and is not tagging for the renderer. Any kind of data evaluation should be possible. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 01:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Come on, it was never expanded, you would like it to be expanded. You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people. As for expansion, you really should spend 2 seconds looking into things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:surfaceaction=history Specifically: (cur | prev) 2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs) (1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo) Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not yet established so it wouldn't be a big change. Why is it better suited? You haven't given a single reason as to why it's better, you just keep saying it is as if you are hoping that it will make it true some how. If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we just use it? this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to distinguish between casual sand and a bunker. In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used, which seems to be a good thing imho... to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in second place to do with rendering and is not tagging for the renderer. Any kind of data evaluation should be possible. Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever weird thing might be a very distant second. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people. It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree that sand is a good value for surface, but at the same time there could be landcover=trees. things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:surfaceaction=history Specifically: (cur | prev) 2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs) (1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo) I took a look and I find this edit highly disputable, and indeed some of it in the actual state of the page says now the opposite ;-) e.g. default for roads. I think that someone must be able to tell from the data if a road is paved or not without further analysis, but with this definition you must know for every part of the world what is considered a road. If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we just use it? we could. What are the other objects already tagged with surface? What are the suggested values for surface on other objects then ways? I neither find this in the wiki nor significantly in the data. I could also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well). Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense. This has also effects for the users of the data. If you import the data into specialized database, with only surface as key, you would have one column less. This can be either good or bad (less columns with the same implications would be preferably, while you would have more effort to filter what you don't need). ... In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used, which seems to be a good thing imho... yes, for rendering you can use whatever key-name, I'd like to think which properties are better described. For vegetation landcover seems more appropriate while surface seems better for material. ... Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever at a certain point, you will not be able to show everything on every map, but there will be maps that show what you want, (probably maps made by you). Which information/aspect and the logics how it is diplayed are up to the makers of the rulesheet. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 03:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree that sand is a good value for surface, but at the same time there could be landcover=trees. Isn't there plenty of other tree options already, why do we need yet another one? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: I could also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well). Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense. even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand? The beach could often include also bars, restaurants, parking space, paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more generalizing while surface shouldn't. I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those other locations have their own POI or polygon? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Steve Bennett stevagewp@... writes: IMHO there are some subtle differences between these concepts: surface=rock landuse=rock natural=rock The first to me suggests that the ground beneath some other feature, like a path or a park, is rock. surface=* is almost always a supporting tag, rather than a tag by itself. The second is a bit odd, but would imply an area that is not used for anything because it's rocky - perhaps some kind of barren wasteland. The third describes a geological feature that is useful as a landmark. There are trees over there, there are rocks over here. I agree, and further more, the word rock can mean a lot of things like skerries and boulders. That is why the proposal is on bare_rock instead. An alternative could be bedrock. Regarding the first concept you mention: the ground in a feature. It could be of bare_rock, in Sweden we have some cliff bathes that is some kind of beach with a rock surface. I guess there could be roads on bare rock on some places in the world, where the surface tag could come in use. Beach and road with subtag of surface is probably to prefer over natural=bare_rock. But if there is no other good tag for the area then you can use the landcover tag of natural=bare_rock, instead of leaving it blank. Regarding the second concept: landuse=rock that could be landuse=quarry http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quarry Regarding the third concept of geological landmarks. To get a more lively map with nice landmarks there probably should be more tags like hillock, stone_pillar, monolith, cliff, plateau, hill. The more detailed tagging on these hills could use natural=bare_rock, natural=cliff, natural=scree for the parts with rock surfaces and other tags for the vegetated parts. In the same way as the old abutters tag is the description of the terrain useful to orient yourself: there are trees over there, there are bare_rock over here. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
