Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement
Hi, 2013/8/1 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl The proposal is more or less ready. No recent comments to the proposal. However, we are in the middle of the holiday season and I don't think it would be a good idea to call for a vote before late August or so.3 No comments except my suggestion for hosted features on a pole or tower at the end of Transformer Type chapter. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Transformer_type But It's wise to wait for september to start voting indeed :) Cheers, *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Witch tag should I use? (flood reservoir)
Hi, There is a landuse=farmland next to a river and a dam between them. Occasionally (probably 5-10 years) when the level of the river is extremely high, professionals open the dam and water floods the entire farmland, instead of the threatened settlements. This area is officially designated for this purpose, but it is allowed to use as farmland normally. I can't find any tags for mark this secondary function. What should I use for this? Greetings, László Csatlós (Plutoz) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Hi everyone. I'm in the alps, and I've been mapping some areas in the region. I have two questions regarding tagging where I couldn't find a decent consensus on the wiki. There are many areas in the region that go by a specific name. I have two cases where a group of lakes (as a whole) is known by a name, but then each single lake has also his own lake. I found an existing example in France, Les 7 Eaux: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866 which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation. Unfortunately, the relation has some problems: - not rendered anywhere? I would expect that when the scale is high enough, and there's no place to render the lake names, the name of the relation is shown. But it's not. On the contrary, unnamed lakes simply take the name of the relation. - sometimes I not only have lakes, but I might have other features inside that area, that are logically part of the same known spot. Is a relation still a good idea in that case? It seems to me that the closest tagging scheme might be a loose area with place=locality. Would that be a good idea? I did a test, here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/46.4696/10.7590 but again, no renderers seem to pick up this important information (the name - the boundary itself is not important!), which would be especially important for a topographic and landscape map. A related question is the name of the valleys. I saw several proposed tags in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Region http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Valley but not really an official tagging scheme. Valley names are very important features for a topographic map. Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. Thanks! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement
On 06.08.2013 10:16, François Lacombe wrote: Hey François No comments except my suggestion for hosted features on a pole or tower at the end of Transformer Type chapter. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Transformer_type But It's wise to wait for september to start voting indeed :) You can also have a longer voting periode or even expand the periode if you won't get enough votes. Voting is sick but in your case I understand your decision. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. I don't know about the others, but I've been thinking about this one, and there's a simple solution. Drawing a big polygon around the whole mountain is not very effective. There are no clear boundaries for a mountain. But what we can do is put a tag like mountain=* on all natural=peak nodes. Maybe even on alpine_huts and other features. That way some software could find arbitrary boundaries using that data and SRTM data. Maybe valleys can be solved in the same way. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Witch tag should I use? (flood reservoir)
Hey László Have a look at boundary=protected_area [1]. In your case it would be protect_class=15 See also [2]. Cheers fly [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-June/013661.html On 06.08.2013 10:56, László Csatlós wrote: There is a landuse=farmland next to a river and a dam between them. Occasionally (probably 5-10 years) when the level of the river is extremely high, professionals open the dam and water floods the entire farmland, instead of the threatened settlements. This area is officially designated for this purpose, but it is allowed to use as farmland normally. I can't find any tags for mark this secondary function. What should I use for this? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/06/2013 04:14 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. I don't know about the others, but I've been thinking about this one, and there's a simple solution. Drawing a big polygon around the whole mountain is not very effective. There are no clear boundaries for a mountain. But what we can do is put a tag like mountain=* on all natural=peak nodes. Maybe even on alpine_huts and other features. That way some software could find arbitrary boundaries using that data and SRTM data. Maybe valleys can be solved in the same way. Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I'm thorn. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. I wouldn't tag rivers or forests with those tags, just nodes or little ways. Tagging everything within the mountain with that tag would create lots of data that could be considered garbage. But if you only tag peaks and alpine_huts, maybe it could be manageable. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. I made this picture, maybe it clears my point: http://i.imgur.com/CeFG2WO.png A software would look for the lowest contour line (altitude) that is between points with different mountain tags. I have a feeling it would work, but I never tried it. Maybe some problems would arise. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Maybe the solution is a separate OSM database, used specifically for these polygons. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 06.08.2013 16:27, Yuri D'Elia wrote: On 08/06/2013 04:14 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication for the name placement. Did you have a look the picture of the week [1] a few weeks ago ? I don't know about the others, but I've been thinking about this one, and there's a simple solution. Drawing a big polygon around the whole mountain is not very effective. There are no clear boundaries for a mountain. But what we can do is put a tag like mountain=* on all natural=peak nodes. Maybe even on alpine_huts and other features. That way some software could find arbitrary boundaries using that data and SRTM data. No this will not work. We need some sort of area and probably more than one tag, plus a hut might be in a valley, a mountain subsubgroup, a mountain subgroup and a mountain group and still in an extra region Maybe valleys can be solved in the same way. Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Still I think it is the only way to go Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I think the best would be to invent a new boundary type. boundary=topologic or geographic topologic/geographic=valley/cordillera/mountain_range/region and some ranking for the categories As the borders are often not that clear and also not that important they should not be rendered and do not have to be that exact but for rendering names like in [1] we need them. My 2 cents fly - [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Maxbe-stubaier-beschriftung_en.png ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/06/2013 04:27 PM, Yuri D'Elia wrote: Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical information either. It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I'm thorn. I'm attaching a crude osm file I edited quickly to demonstrate the problem. Valleys usually end exactly at the mountain ridges. Valleys also end at the border of a mountain region or at the border of another valley. Between valleys, the border is purely arbitrary (it's mostly determined by geographic properties). In the alps I would expect a mosaic which is essentially totally filled with valleys. A relation would be great to re-use existing geometry, but some new boundary type will also be needed to mark the end where's no additional geometry can be reused. I also created two (inexact) mountain groups. Mountain groups actually form a complimentary mosaic, as you see in the file. A mountain group would start at the middle of a valley (which I didn't do in the example, but you get the point) and end at another one. The only exception might be where you have very large valleys, like the Val D'Adige, where the group doesn't start in the middle exactly (but doing so wouldn't exactly be wrong either). For mountain groups I do not see any existing geometry that could be reused, except occasionally for the nodes where the valleys cross. A new boundary type is definitely needed, and the edges could be shared with a mountain group relation. ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' upload='true' generator='JOSM' node id='-385' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.6430679777813' lon='11.052495557349316' / node id='-366' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.49188168894685' lon='11.043871730621769' / node id='-347' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.459302571583' lon='10.36979709656485' / node id='-345' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.348707668264105' lon='10.364026723600112' / node id='-343' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.31049752324693' lon='10.494821428967915' / node id='-341' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.356644089129794' lon='10.727664750611696' / node id='-339' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.42752467234013' lon='10.91235837302667' / node id='-337' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.59815137198975' lon='11.092740082077869' / node id='-335' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.601607818458966' lon='10.867083282707044' / node id='-333' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.61197583489281' lon='10.763597361976476' / node id='-332' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.60802634834044' lon='10.573873173970435' / node id='-321' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.83957020991874' lon='10.644301092245405' / node id='-319' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.805147933633975' lon='10.724790141702512' / node id='-317' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.82088656606407' lon='10.826838757978491' / node id='-315' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.930928039250446' lon='11.023030816030195' / node id='-313' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.8955821746472' lon='11.125798084533468' / node id='-311' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.81252599107442' lon='11.23718917976429' / node id='-308' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.697313033657714' lon='11.088428168714096' / node id='-306' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.67315605116175' lon='11.047464991758245' / node id='-304' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.62678384457391' lon='10.862771369343271' / node id='-303' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.641587804517854' lon='10.611243089789806' / node id='-223' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.39911725379921' lon='10.983395899954589' / node id='-221' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.4202488648184' lon='11.004914609498558' / node id='-219' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.436595031792024' lon='10.971137954815664' / node id='-213' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.644455683599396' lon='11.210808472618753' / node id='-211' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.52888351182877' lon='11.30495191439448' / node id='-209' action='modify' visible='true' lat='46.476944108594104' lon='11.358850831441648' / node id='-207' action='modify'
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net On 08/06/2013 04:27 PM, Yuri D'Elia wrote: It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what kind of spotty tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves. Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such boundaries for name placement. I'm thorn. I'm attaching a crude osm file I edited quickly to demonstrate the problem. Valleys usually end exactly at the mountain ridges. Valleys also end at the border of a mountain region or at the border of another valley. +1, valleys aren't too big usually and should be clearly defined, there is already a proposal for ridges and it is also used: natural=ridge http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natural%3Dridge to define a valley it should be enough to add the adjacent ridges to an area relation (type=area) and add tags like natural=valley, name=* ... renderers could in the future connect the ridged to create an (implicit) area (e.g. to put a text inside). For other areas other data types might be more adequate: Some years ago on the German ML there was this interesting idea to define (fuzzy) areas (e.g. lower scale topographic regions like the European Alps). You put existing objects (like nodes, ways or relations) into a relation with the roles inside or outside and some algorithm would calculate an area that includes all inside and excludes all outside objects. You won't have to be very precise with this, as this kind of rough information is only required on lower scales where some kilometers more or less won't change anything, just a few nodes should suffice to define something as huge as the Alps, and you could reuse (preferably simple and stable like peak-nodes) existing geometry. In the alps I would expect a mosaic which is essentially totally filled with valleys. +1 A relation would be great to re-use existing geometry, but some new boundary type will also be needed to mark the end where's no additional geometry can be reused. if you need explicit boundaries between 2 valleys (see above the area relation which doesn't require to explicitly draw these, but allows to do so if required (role=lateral). I also created two (inexact) mountain groups. Mountain groups actually form a complimentary mosaic, as you see in the file. A mountain group would start at the middle of a valley (which I didn't do in the example, but you get the point) and end at another one. +1, usually you will have a river or stream there, as it is the locally lowest point (i.e. the needed geometry is already there). An argument against reusing rivers to define mountain groups is that they often add a lot of complexity and you'd usually not need the borders of a mountain group with the precision this allows for (adding relations augments complexity and raises the barrier for other mappers to edit). Cheers, Martin http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dridge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/06/2013 07:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: For other areas other data types might be more adequate: Some years ago on the German ML there was this interesting idea to define (fuzzy) areas (e.g. lower scale topographic regions like the European Alps). You put existing objects (like nodes, ways or relations) into a relation with the roles inside or outside and some algorithm would calculate an area that includes all inside and excludes all outside objects. You won't have to be very precise with this, as this kind of rough information is only required on lower scales where some kilometers more or less won't change anything, just a few nodes should suffice to define something as huge as the Alps, and you could reuse (preferably simple and stable like peak-nodes) existing geometry. The message from fly, about about boundary=topologic/geographic though would solve nicely valleys, mountain groups _and_ other topographic features under a single umbrella, and it's quite easy to achieve. to fly: Is this some form of official proposal? Calculating a concave hull from points, especially where you have nested geometry is very messy process (I used to do it as a gis developer in the past). I wouldn't really expect decent results even for name placement. +1, usually you will have a river or stream there, as it is the locally lowest point (i.e. the needed geometry is already there). An argument against reusing rivers to define mountain groups is that they often add a lot of complexity and you'd usually not need the borders of a mountain group with the precision this allows for (adding relations augments complexity and raises the barrier for other mappers to edit). Ridges can also be quite complex. Also, many times they end way before the end of the end of the hill or do not exist at all (flat top mountains). Just to say that the geometry might not always be there. Also, is there a tagging scheme for the lowest point/depression of a valley? (I was looking for it recently). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net Ridges can also be quite complex. Also, many times they end way before the end of the end of the hill or do not exist at all (flat top mountains). good point Just to say that the geometry might not always be there. Also, is there a tagging scheme for the lowest point/depression of a valley? (I was looking for it recently). waterway=river or stream cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement
On 06/08/2013 10:16, François Lacombe wrote: No comments except my suggestion for hosted features on a pole or tower at the end of Transformer Type chapter. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Transformer_type The proposal has been adapted for pole mounted transformers using the suggestion of RM87. But It's wise to wait for september to start voting indeed :) Due to holidays I prefer to delay the voting a bit. Ole ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Witch tag should I use? (flood reservoir)
Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_prone and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/floodplain. Gilbert54 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Re : Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Joining any kind of features into a relation would make sense to me. If someone feels that a particular feature belongs to the geographical group, then he/she will add it to the relation and its border will grow naturally, being more and more precise. Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Re : Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Hi, On 06.08.2013 23:10, yve...@gmail.com wrote: Joining any kind of features into a relation would make sense to me. If someone feels that a particular feature belongs to the geographical group, then he/she will add it to the relation and its border will grow naturally, being more and more precise. Madness! Who's going to maintain the Black Forest region then which will contain hundreds of thousands of features? Also - remember we want to map things that are verifiable. Some areas might indeed have a clear boundary; others will be blurred. Ask the local bakery whether they're in the Black Forest and they'll say no; ask at the holiday rental property next door and they'll say sure ;) 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] Re : Tagging of topographic areas with a name
For the largest geographical features, we will probably encounter node count limits in the editors. Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 06.08.2013 23:10, yve...@gmail.com wrote: Joining any kind of features into a relation would make sense to me. If someone feels that a particular feature belongs to the geographical group, then he/she will add it to the relation and its border will grow naturally, being more and more precise. Madness! Who's going to maintain the Black Forest region then which will contain hundreds of thousands of features? Also - remember we want to map things that are verifiable. Some areas might indeed have a clear boundary; others will be blurred. Ask the local bakery whether they're in the Black Forest and they'll say no; ask at the holiday rental property next door and they'll say sure ;) Bye Frederik -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Witch tag should I use? (flood reservoir)
This is looks fine, thanks! 2013/8/6 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Hey László Have a look at boundary=protected_area [1]. In your case it would be protect_class=15 See also [2]. Cheers fly [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=protected_area [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-June/013661.html On 06.08.2013 10:56, László Csatlós wrote: There is a landuse=farmland next to a river and a dam between them. Occasionally (probably 5-10 years) when the level of the river is extremely high, professionals open the dam and water floods the entire farmland, instead of the threatened settlements. This area is officially designated for this purpose, but it is allowed to use as farmland normally. I can't find any tags for mark this secondary function. What should I use for this? ___ 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] amenity=police
To move this forward I've put this in proposal draft form: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dranger_station While the amenity amenity tag is overloaded, it seems more practical to put ranger stations next to fire and police stations, at least for now. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
