[Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted before you can enter them). There are 2 alternatives: a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain, not the tower). b) ele is the elevation of the highest point at the tagged spot, i.e. the top of the tower Comments welcome. The idea is to clarify this aspect on the wiki page for the key ele. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
2012/2/20 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted before you can enter them). There are 2 alternatives: a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain, not the tower). +1 I believe ele=* should be applied only to the terrain, and height would be the physical distance between the point at ele=* elevation and the one at ele+height elevation. b) ele is the elevation of the highest point at the tagged spot, i.e. the top of the tower -1 Comments welcome. The idea is to clarify this aspect on the wiki page for the key ele. For istance if there would ever be a DEM compatible with OSM licenses, I think it would be imported in ele=* tags. cheers, Martin cheers, Stefano. ___ 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] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would mean that the ground level is at this height. In some specific cases this might bring problems though: imagine a lot of stones and earth is transported on the hilltop, the elevation clearly changes. If you build a building there the elevation is unchanged. Now what if you cover this building with earth to look more natural? How thick layer of earth is required for the elevation to change? But these cases will be uncommon and I still vote for a) Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2012/2/20 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted before you can enter them). There are 2 alternatives: a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain, not the tower). b) ele is the elevation of the highest point at the tagged spot, i.e. the top of the tower Comments welcome. The idea is to clarify this aspect on the wiki page for the key ele. 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] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Hi, On 02/20/2012 01:06 PM, LM_1 wrote: As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would mean that the ground level is at this height. Should one not then, to avoid misunderstandings, use ele only on ground-level features? We can define away on the wiki all we want; there will always be people who read ele on a building to mean its height. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Generelly yes, but if there is a tower on the summit, there is not really any other way. Lukáš 2012/2/20 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, On 02/20/2012 01:06 PM, LM_1 wrote: As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would mean that the ground level is at this height. Should one not then, to avoid misunderstandings, use ele only on ground-level features? We can define away on the wiki all we want; there will always be people who read ele on a building to mean its height. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Hi, On 02/20/2012 01:26 PM, LM_1 wrote: Generelly yes, but if there is a tower on the summit, there is not really any other way. You would normally put a natural=peak tag next to the tower anyway. Or if you don't, then attach ele to the bench near the base of the tower or so ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
At 2012-02-20 03:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On the German ML we are currently discussing how to applicate ele to towers (and similar situations). There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted before you can enter them). This is the standard for FCC (communications) and FAA (airspace) in the US. Well, close at least - elevations are generally above mean sea level - I don't know how that relates to the WGS84/GPS and/or survey elevation but I'd expect them to be close. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
After questions on talk-it this wiki action was identified: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurfaceaction=historysubmitdiff=701000oldid=696691 Is it consensus to use sett instead of cobblestones for most of the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with sett. I don't recall any discussion on this topic. Until now I thought it was consensus to use the tags surface=cobblestones for more or less uneven paving with stones and surface=paving_stones for more or less even surfaces paved with stones. How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap to distinguish on a finer granularity between different pavings? Anyway, changing main values of main tags in the wiki without further announcement, discussion or voting should be deprecated. cheers, Martin [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surface#values ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
At 2012-02-20 04:06, LM_1 wrote: As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would mean that the ground level is at this height. I might add that, if you put a tower on top of the building, I'd expect the ele tag on the tower to be the sum of the building's ele and height tags. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
At 2012-02-20 04:26, someone wrote: We can define away on the wiki all we want; there will always be people who read ele on a building to mean its height. I think this may be a language issue. In American English at least, one would not use/read the word elevation to mean the height of an object - one would always use/expect to read height for that. The words are not synonymous. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
Hi, Hi,On 02/20/2012 01:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I don't recall any discussion on this topic. Until now I thought it was consensus to use the tags surface=cobblestones for more or less uneven paving with stones and surface=paving_stones for more or less even surfaces paved with stones. Me too. Anyway, changing main values of main tags in the wiki without further announcement, discussion or voting should be deprecated. Does that mean I must not change it back ;)? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Is it consensus to use sett instead of cobblestones for most of the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with sett. How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap to distinguish on a finer granularity between different pavings? You shouldn't be using sett instead of cobblestones in any case, because they're not the same thing. My understanding is that cobblestones are irregular stones, used in pretty much their natural state for paving, whereas setts are specifically shaped, brick-sized pieces of rock (granite in the case of Guildford High Street, where I live) that form a smoother surface (but not as smooth as a metalled road). Paving stones, I'd venture, are another class again, where they can either genuinely be flat stones or cast material, but larger than setts or cobblestones, perhaps over 50cm. In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. Jonathan. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net writes: This is the standard for FCC (communications) and FAA (airspace) in the US. Well, close at least - elevations are generally above mean sea level - I don't know how that relates to the WGS84/GPS and/or survey elevation but I'd expect them to be close. above mean sea level (not claiming the FCC doesn't use it; I've seen it too) is basically sloppy from a surveying/geodesy viewpoint; the notion of mean sea level only applies at a specific tide gauge. The modern concept is orthometric height relative to a given vertical datum (in the US, NAVD88). This is more or less the same conceptually as MSL except that it doesn't presume that mean sea level at all tide gauges is the same (as NGVD29 did). Orthometric height is based on gravity, rather than geometry, and is more or less distance normal to the geoid, a surface of constant potential that sort of matches sea level. WGS84 proper measures locations relative to the ellipsoid. One would refer to the measured height (transformed to lat/lon/height from XYZ in earth-centered earth-fixed) as an ellipsoidal height. But because what everyone wants is orthometric height (partly because of tradition and existing data, and partly because water flows downhill relative to orthometric height), one uses a geoid model that estimates the distance From the ellipsoid to the geoid. From that one gets an estimate of orthometric height. On every GPS receiver I've seen, the altitude is intended to match orthometric height, and is ellipsoidal height adjusted by the geoid model. So it's ok to talk about WGS84 elevations, but we should be clear that we mean elevations intended to be usable as orthometric heights using the geoid model. ellipsoid/geoid separates are large; around me it's ~30m. But errors in geoid models and differences in semi-modern (20th century and newer) vertical datums are a meter or so, at least in North America. So despite my ranting, this is mostly ignorable for OSM. pgpQpUXswOprE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain, not the tower). In practice, this is closest to how I would have interpreted it. I would usually expect ele to define the elevation of the base of the feature that carries the tag. If an object stands on the ground, then this is identical to the elevation of the ground at that point. But in the case of e.g. a tunnel, it would refer to the surface of the road running through the tunnel - and therefore an elevation below the ground elevation. The road running on top of the hill would have different ele values than the tunnel running through it. So no, ele is imo not the elevation of the ground, it is the elevation of _the object mapped with the ele tag_. However, in the case of a building, that building's elevation is given at ground level. As a result, the ele tags on features on the ground will be the same as ground ele. The ele tags on features above or below the ground, such as bridges or tunnels, will be different from ground ele, though. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Martin There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. +1 (I think there is no other way of doing it) There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted before you can enter them). I do not understand what that means. For me height is always in meters, and meters don't change with the system of reference (unless they move close to the speed of light ) There are 2 alternatives: a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain, not the tower). +1 b) ele is the elevation of the highest point at the tagged spot, i.e. the top of the tower I would say abolutely not, even though there are examples where, say a restaurant on top of a tower gives the elevation from see level, but that most likely be altitude and not elevation. I would stick to this terminology: The tip of a tower with *height* x meters on top of a mountain peak at * elevation* y meters is at an *altitude* of y+x meters. Volker Comments welcome. The idea is to clarify this aspect on the wiki page for the key ele. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Volker SCHMIDT Via Vecchia 18/ter 35127 Padova Italy mailto:vosc...@gmail.com office phone: +39-049-829-5977 office fax +39-049-8700718 home phone: +39-049-851519 personal mobile: +39-340-1427105 skype: volker.schmidt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Am 20. Februar 2012 14:21 schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. +1 (I think there is no other way of doing it) well, you could say that height is the maximum vertical extension and thus also comprising the underground part of a structure. There is also consensus to tag elevation data in WGS84 (so that numbers in local systems would typically have to be converted before you can enter them). I do not understand what that means. For me height is always in meters, and meters don't change with the system of reference (unless they move close to the speed of light ) It's not the meters that change, it is where you set your 0.00 level that is changing b) ele is the elevation of the highest point at the tagged spot, i.e. the top of the tower I would say abolutely not, even though there are examples where, say a restaurant on top of a tower gives the elevation from see level, but that most likely be altitude and not elevation. well, this is what one could read from the current wiki definition (which we could make less ambiguous after this discussion). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Simple solution: use ele:top=* for the elevation of the top. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
The problem is that setts are often referred to as cobbles, in common parlance. If someone tags something as cobbles, I'd probably reckon they were actually setts 99% of the time. http://g.co/maps/bnndk The stuff in the road is cobbles; in the gutter and on the pavements is setts. So having a clear setts/cobbles (illustrated) distinction is good, but I wouldn't rely on it. A warning to data users is probably wise. Richard On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Is it consensus to use sett instead of cobblestones for most of the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with sett. How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap to distinguish on a finer granularity between different pavings? You shouldn't be using sett instead of cobblestones in any case, because they're not the same thing. My understanding is that cobblestones are irregular stones, used in pretty much their natural state for paving, whereas setts are specifically shaped, brick-sized pieces of rock (granite in the case of Guildford High Street, where I live) that form a smoother surface (but not as smooth as a metalled road). Paving stones, I'd venture, are another class again, where they can either genuinely be flat stones or cast material, but larger than setts or cobblestones, perhaps over 50cm. In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. Jonathan. __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 20. Februar 2012 14:21 schrieb Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: There is consensus that the key height is describing the height of the structure from the ground to the top. +1 (I think there is no other way of doing it) well, you could say that height is the maximum vertical extension and thus also comprising the underground part of a structure. You could say that, but I've never met a person who takes a shovel and goes dig up some roots when they are asked about the height of the tree. And the same goes for other man made/natural structures standing around us. Cheers, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] undesignated bike lanes (Re: [Talk-us] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:cycleway=buffered_lane)
On 2/20/2012 8:23 AM, Hillsman, Edward wrote: While we are discussing this, we should also agree on how to tag bicycle lanes that are unmarked. We have a surprising number of these in my area of the world. They have no signs (I know, they are no longer required to) and no markings within the lanes, but they clearly are intended to be bicycle lanes—they have the dashed pavement approaching intersections, and deviations to the left of right-turn-only lanes. Should these be “cycleway=unmarked_lane”, which I believe you have used, or “cycleway=lane, cycleway:marking=unmarked” or “cycleway=lane, marking:cycleway=unmarked”? For the record, FDOT calls these undesignated bike lanes. I used unmarked_lane since the mandatory bike lane law here refers to a lane marked for bicycle use. Since they are not marked as travel lanes, in addition to not being mandatory, they are not always kept clear of debris. I believe I asked on one of these lists when I began tagging them, as well as here: http://commuteorlando.com/forum/index.php?topic=366.15 It's a similar question to whether a wide sidewalk with no special markings should be tagged as a cycleway=track or just sidewalk=*. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
Jonathan Bennett wrote: In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. A sett (a word I've never heard before) is apparently colloquially called cobblestone. To the extent that even the image in the Wikipedia article about sett is called Cobblestones_01.jpg. We cannot just introduce a new surface value sett: That would change the definition of surface=cobblestone to no longer include sett surfaces. But almost all surface=cobblestone currently in the database have actually a sett surface, and according to the wiki documentation until now, this was the expected way to tag them - it was using a sett surface as an illustration for the meaning of surface=cobblestone. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
Probably better to introduce a new value to mean yes-they-really-are-cobbles. Perhaps cobbles (as opposed to cobblestone) On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Jonathan Bennett wrote: In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. A sett (a word I've never heard before) is apparently colloquially called cobblestone. To the extent that even the image in the Wikipedia article about sett is called Cobblestones_01.jpg. We cannot just introduce a new surface value sett: That would change the definition of surface=cobblestone to no longer include sett surfaces. But almost all surface=cobblestone currently in the database have actually a sett surface, and according to the wiki documentation until now, this was the expected way to tag them - it was using a sett surface as an illustration for the meaning of surface=cobblestone. Tobias __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
On 20.02.12 12:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain, not the tower). elevation vs altitude vs height: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vertical_distances.svg /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 02/20/2012 01:06 PM, LM_1 wrote: As I understand it option a) is correct. If put on a building it would mean that the ground level is at this height. Should one not then, to avoid misunderstandings, use ele only on ground-level features? We can define away on the wiki all we want; there will always be people who read ele on a building to mean its height. Bye Frederik Also, if the building is built into a slope, both the elevation of the ground level and the height of the building above the ground will depend on which specific part of the building you are discussing. -- 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
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
From what has been written here it seems that elevation clearly does not contain buildings. Frederik Ramm: You would normally put a natural=peak tag next to the tower anyway. Or if you don't, then attach ele to the bench near the base of the tower or so ;) Most peaks with some construction on them have a pile of stones or some other marking with some elevation label. Yes, I usually would put natural=peak there. Not always there is a peak nearby. Imagine an end-station of a ski lift that does end under the peak. It seems sensible to put elevation tag on it, but there is no suitable natural object nearby. Therefore it should be clear how to map this. Lukas ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Named railway locations
We recently had a discussion on the talk-ca list about named railway locations that had been tagged as railway=station (see this thread). It was proposed to take the discussion to the tagging list in order to come to a consensus that's consistent and in line with other countries. To quickly summarize the issue: there are a lot of railway=station tags in places where there is no train station. Instead, they are what has been described as follows: FYI, I work for a railway for what it's worth. Pretty much every 10 miles or so is a named location. I wouldn't tag it as a station but a POI seems appropriate to me as a railroader :-) Rail fans would also use the POI as reference points for photography and video. Trains communicating with the dispatcher use these locations to identify their location. Us railway folks, these name POI are part of our general conversation, such as 73 is approaching Ridout. The names are chosen using a similar process as say bridge names. The could refer to a respected employee or as a memorial to an employee who died while on duty. Around Ingersoll are Blain and Lihou who where engineers who died in a head on train collision. Two examples in Montreal can be seen here (Cape and Bridge) http://osm.org/go/cIrPCS5Q The various pages on railway tagging don't seem to provide an obvious tag for this situation, presumable because these named points don't exist in many other countries. It has been suggested to use the generic place=locality tag, but that doesn't seem to be ideal to me. Does anyone have suggestions on how to tag? Harald. -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x199DC50F ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Custom mailboxes
Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this going a bit too far? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named railway locations
Well the British railway speak for such locations would probably be TRUST reporting point or timing point. They are typically junctions, crossovers or passing places (if there's no station). So I'm not sure there's a public term available. Maybe railway=location? Richard On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Harald Kliems kli...@gmail.com wrote: We recently had a discussion on the talk-ca list about named railway locations that had been tagged as railway=station (see this thread). It was proposed to take the discussion to the tagging list in order to come to a consensus that's consistent and in line with other countries. To quickly summarize the issue: there are a lot of railway=station tags in places where there is no train station. Instead, they are what has been described as follows: FYI, I work for a railway for what it's worth. Pretty much every 10 miles or so is a named location. I wouldn't tag it as a station but a POI seems appropriate to me as a railroader :-) Rail fans would also use the POI as reference points for photography and video. Trains communicating with the dispatcher use these locations to identify their location. Us railway folks, these name POI are part of our general conversation, such as 73 is approaching Ridout. The names are chosen using a similar process as say bridge names. The could refer to a respected employee or as a memorial to an employee who died while on duty. Around Ingersoll are Blain and Lihou who where engineers who died in a head on train collision. Two examples in Montreal can be seen here (Cape and Bridge) http://osm.org/go/cIrPCS5Q The various pages on railway tagging don't seem to provide an obvious tag for this situation, presumable because these named points don't exist in many other countries. It has been suggested to use the generic place=locality tag, but that doesn't seem to be ideal to me. Does anyone have suggestions on how to tag? Harald. -- Please use encrypted communication whenever possible! Key-ID: 0x199DC50F ___ 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] Named railway locations
Richard Mann wrote: Maybe railway=location? Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established place=locality for tagging a 'lieu-dit'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieu-dit: The name usually refers to some characteristic of the place, its former use, a past event, etc.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Named-railway-locations-tp5499478p5499546.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named railway locations
Yes, I remember *Adlestrop* ... On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Richard Mann wrote: Maybe railway=location? Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established place=locality for tagging a 'lieu-dit'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieu-dit: The name usually refers to some characteristic of the place, its former use, a past event, etc.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Named-railway-locations-tp5499478p5499546.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Named railway locations
Le lun. 20 f�vr. 2012 à 08:13 -0800, Richard Fairhurst a ecrit : Richard Mann wrote: Maybe railway=location? Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established place=locality for tagging a 'lieu-dit'. railway=locality makes perfectly sense, indeed. As a railway user, I found this a nice feature of your rail network. I'd be habby to find the equivalent here in France, but to my knowledge we have only PK (kilometer point) signs. -- ° /\Guillaume AllègreOpenStreetMap France /~~\/\ allegre.guilla...@free.fr Cartographie libre et collaborative / /~~\tél. 04.76.63.26.99 http://www.openstreetmap.fr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named railway locations
One possibility is railway=station state=abandoned (where that's correct, of course). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named railway locations
Richard Mann wrote: Yes, I remember Adlestrop ... ...the name because one afternoon Of inappropriate railway=station tagging the express train[1] drew up there Unwontedly. It was late June. cheers Richard [1] or at least, as near as we get to one on the Cotswold Line. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Named-railway-locations-tp5499478p5499655.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Custom mailboxes
I would not do that or care for such information, but why not... There is no too far LM_1 2012/2/20 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this going a bit too far? ___ 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] Custom mailboxes
On 2/20/2012 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this going a bit too far? I would say that it depends - if the mailbox is truly custom, and not just a mass produced novelty mailbox, that it would qualify as artwork, just as much as any other artwork. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Custom mailboxes
Hi. If it's an artwork, I would tag it as an artwork. If it's a landmark (yes, that IS possible - if I think e.g. about some areas in Sweden), I would probably tag as something like that In no way I would tag the name of the owner as that dives IMHO too far into privacy issues. regards Peter Am 20.02.2012 16:53, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this going a bit too far? ___ 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] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
Am 20. Februar 2012 15:11 schrieb Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: Probably better to introduce a new value to mean yes-they-really-are-cobbles. Perhaps cobbles (as opposed to cobblestone) +1, I also believe that we are lacking some additional tags for some kinds of stone pavings. cobbles seems fine to me. 1. Sometimes I would have needed a roman_paving for very old and uneven paving of huge blocks (historic roman roads). Is there something already in use? These can not be driven on by bike, and only at pedestrian speed by cars (dependent on the condition). 2. Very even paving made of marble, granite or similar (usually polished, almost no joints) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Named railway locations
Am 20. Februar 2012 17:13 schrieb Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Or even railway=locality, to tie in with the well-established place=locality for tagging a 'lieu-dit'. +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
OK, following this discussion it seems clear that either nobody interprets the wiki literally (the elevation at a given point), or that the English term elevation never refers to man_made structures. In each of these cases the tagged value for ele would be the elevation of the surrounding ground. I suggest to improve the wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele reads: Elevation (height above sea level) of a point in metres. This is mainly intended for mountain peaks but could also be used for elevation of airport runways and many other objects. For OpenStreetMap, please use the elevation above sea level defined by the World Geodetic System, revision WGS 84. I amended this: In the case of buildings and other man_made structures use the elevation of the surrounding ground, not of the structure itself. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Am 20. Februar 2012 14:43 schrieb Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Simple solution: use ele:top=* for the elevation of the top. if top is a reference system for elevation data... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: OK, following this discussion it seems clear that either nobody interprets the wiki literally (the elevation at a given point), or that the English term elevation never refers to man_made structures. In each of these cases the tagged value for ele would be the elevation of the surrounding ground. I suggest to improve the wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele reads: Elevation (height above sea level) of a point in metres. This is mainly intended for mountain peaks but could also be used for elevation of airport runways and many other objects. For OpenStreetMap, please use the elevation above sea level defined by the World Geodetic System, revision WGS 84. I amended this: In the case of buildings and other man_made structures use the elevation of the surrounding ground, not of the structure itself. cheers, Martin If a structure is located on sloping ground, do you record the elevation of the highest point in contact with the structure, the lowest point, halfway between the highest and lowest points, or what? -- 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
Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway
On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net wrote: I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are free to use *any* tags they like. ... Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any How would you know whether a tag had acceptance? Wouldn't documenting it somewhere make sense? Maybe...in a wiki? I did say document and discuss the OP. What would you call acceptance? Would approved be a reasonable synonym for that? No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other tags, sometimes with mass edits. The wiki and (currently broken) approval mechanism is not some horrible bureaucracy that exists to ruin your life. It's there so we, as a community, can document the tags we use, and agree on how we use them. While it's ok to spontaneously invent a new tag and use it to solve your current problem, you can surely see the benefits of everyone eventually converging on the same tag? And if so, what would you do with all the old tags that people used before you converged? Wouldn't you deprecate them? No, some tags will wither away, fine. Some seemingly similar tags will exist side-by-side and that is fine too. Most importantly, distinctive differences can emerge too. Just think this through. Approval implies some sort of enforcement, without enforcement what is the point of approval? Just who would make this enforcement happen and how? What would that do to an open project? If only approved tags are used then how would mappers map what they actually see? Wait weeks for some committee to discuss, argue and approve or reject the tag? If you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for? If approval or 'acceptance' means a tag is rendered or used in a router or whatever then which tool do you mean? There are hundreds run by OSM and other organisations, companies and individuals. Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
John F. Eldredge: If a structure is located on sloping ground, do you record the elevation of the highest point in contact with the structure, the lowest point, halfway between the highest and lowest points, or what? This is related to the question: Where do you measure the structure's height from? To allow the top = ele + height calculation that has been mentioned in this thread, it would be desirable if the answer to both was the same. At the last 3D rendering workshop I attended, the general idea appeared to be to measure height from the lowest point in contact with the ground. But it's indeed not properly documented anywhere afaict. And while it seems intuitive enough for height, it might not appear that way for ele. Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers
Am 20. Februar 2012 21:09 schrieb John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: If a structure is located on sloping ground, do you record the elevation of the highest point in contact with the structure, the lowest point, halfway between the highest and lowest points, or what? The lowest point would be OK for standard situations* (and for structures which are not accessible). It could also be the ground level at the entrance (and if its more entrances the main one, and if that is not clear the lower entrance) or the floor level of the lowest normal floor. I think we will anyway at some point have to decide where is the 0-level for buildings (in the context of 3D and building details). cheers, Martin * a non-standard situation might be atop a cliff with supporting beams that run down the cliff or something like this. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other tags, sometimes with mass edits. IMHO that doesn't follow at all. If people are doing unwanted mass edits, then we should find a way to discourage them. The solution is not to discard any notion of an official or accepted tag. Just think this through. Approval implies some sort of enforcement, without enforcement what is the point of approval? Just who would make this enforcement happen and how? What would that do to an open project? If only approved tags are used then how would mappers map what they actually see? Wait weeks for some committee to discuss, argue and approve or reject the tag? If you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions. I'm not sure where to start. - Approval does not imply enforcement. I don't know why you'd think that. Just because we have rules doesn't mean anyone particularly enforces them. - if only approved tags are used - I explicitly said that it's ok to invent tags to solve a particular problem, then work with others to converge on a convention - then how would mappers map what they actually see - by using the documented tags, and if that doesn't work, extending them, or inventing new ones. - wait weeks... - no. It definitely doesn't follow that you should wait for some process rather than using a tag. You should use the best tag available, and update as a result of community consensus. - if you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for - well, I'm not arguing for a particular process. But the answer is so people tag as consistently as possible with each other. Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. Again, you're making unwarranted assumptions. I haven't suggested anything like that. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tag approval process or its absence (was: Voting for Relation type=waterway)
2012/2/20 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net: Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. I have to disagree. If the tag structure is not homogenised, it makes the data useless. Non-standard and/or undocumented tags are impossible to process in any reasonable way, even if they look perfectly complete and informative to human. The possibility of free tags is great, but once some tagging style proves as usable (and better than any other), it should become a standard and used exclusively (or be challenged by a better one later). Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2012/2/20 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net: On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net wrote: I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are free to use *any* tags they like. ... Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any How would you know whether a tag had acceptance? Wouldn't documenting it somewhere make sense? Maybe...in a wiki? I did say document and discuss the OP. What would you call acceptance? Would approved be a reasonable synonym for that? No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other tags, sometimes with mass edits. The wiki and (currently broken) approval mechanism is not some horrible bureaucracy that exists to ruin your life. It's there so we, as a community, can document the tags we use, and agree on how we use them. While it's ok to spontaneously invent a new tag and use it to solve your current problem, you can surely see the benefits of everyone eventually converging on the same tag? And if so, what would you do with all the old tags that people used before you converged? Wouldn't you deprecate them? No, some tags will wither away, fine. Some seemingly similar tags will exist side-by-side and that is fine too. Most importantly, distinctive differences can emerge too. Just think this through. Approval implies some sort of enforcement, without enforcement what is the point of approval? Just who would make this enforcement happen and how? What would that do to an open project? If only approved tags are used then how would mappers map what they actually see? Wait weeks for some committee to discuss, argue and approve or reject the tag? If you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for? If approval or 'acceptance' means a tag is rendered or used in a router or whatever then which tool do you mean? There are hundreds run by OSM and other organisations, companies and individuals. Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ 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] Tag approval process or its absence (was: Voting for Relation type=waterway)
That's some kind of consideration, like the one I proposed some time ago, about building a clean tagging scheme, but has led to a discussion about another topic and died. My +1 will always go to cleaning. Cheers, Stefano ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag approval process or its absence (was: Voting for Relation type=waterway)
Hi, On 02/20/2012 10:59 PM, LM_1 wrote: The possibility of free tags is great, but once some tagging style proves as usable (and better than any other), ... which will never be the case ... it should become a standard and used exclusively ... in which geographic / cultural region? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
