Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmannb...@volki.at wrote: It should rather be a type=collection relation. I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often used for features on multiple sites. You can think of type=collection as an abbreviation of type=bare_and_general_collection. All other relations have special members (e.g. inner/outer in multipolygons) or at least special meanings (type=route). type=cluster has also been suggested. I would be ok with it, but it would require a proposal to make it more popular. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - ranger_station
Il giorno 07/ago/2013, alle ore 20:01, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com ha scritto: Note there is overlap between amentiy=ranger_station and tourism=information. A ranger station generally provides information in addition to other services. In the USA ranger stations have well established symbols, distinct from those used for tourist information only sites. that s not an issue, you can add both tags to the same object if this makes sense (I suggest to also add information=* to be more explicit) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway highway
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 02:13, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com ha scritto: Can I have waterway=dam highway=* you could, but I'd suggest to use distinct objects and add layer tags to one in order to define stacking. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway highway
Hi, Thanks to all who responded. On 2013-08-08 06:40, malenki wrote : You could map the dam as area with the highway crossing it. Yes, I finally did that. Even if the dam is a mere 6.5 m wide, it makes sense. On 2013-08-08 02:49, Paul Johnson wrote : I don't see how those tags are mutually exclusive. As for a dam being a waterway, makes about as much sense as highway=traffic_signals to me. It depends what tags you're speaking of. Doing as said above, I got a Crossing waterway/highway (at dam ends) compliment from JOSM. Expecting Osmose soon. Having had them share the same nodes, which I like less because invisible, that would have been overlap compliment, even at different layers unless this will be accepted one day. https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/7788 See what I mean? Cheers, André. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:13 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, The waterway=dam http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dam definition is all well but it doesn't give a damn about what runs on top ;-) Can I have waterway=dam highway=* ? I feel like Osmose hides nearby ready to jump. The actual case I meet is one of a dam incorrectly tagged as a bridge. And I inherit a menagerie of highway related attributes. And, once again, I'm baffled by a dam being a waterway, like a crossing being a highway and an artificial water reservoir being a natural. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 06.08.2013 15:51, Yuri D'Elia wrote: 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? This is a super-relation, with other relations as members. This is not allowed for multipolygon relations. It should rather be a type=collection relation. This is how water areas such as riverbanks use to be joined, and I use collection relations for sets of rocks etc. too. Don't expect dumb renderers like Mapnik to render superrelations, though. Very good explaination. It seems to me that the closest tagging scheme might be a loose area with place=locality. Would that be a good idea? That depends on what the name belongs to. If it's the name of a lake, forest, or other physical feature, place=* would be just wrong. After reading all the replies, it seems that if a group of lakes has a name, I would probably use either a multipolygon (if feasible) or a super-relation, with the appropriate natural tag. Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location sounds reasonable. It also looks like that the ThunderForest maps are correctly rendering the place=location tag: http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=11lat=46.5215lon=11.37205layers=000B I will now convert this group to a super-relation. My issue with normal multipolygons is also that smaller, unnamed lakes inherit the name of the relation, which is incorrect. These proposals are somewhat obsolete, as natural=* has widely been accepted as the key for all geomorphological features. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural, group 3. A valley is just the complement of a ridge or arete. Just draw a line along the valley and tag it with natural=valley. I still have doubts about this. For the valley I'm speaking about the whole region, which is an area. By looking at your next pointer (about mountain_range), it looks like I can follow the same scheme and use region_type=valley as a subtype. 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. natural=mountain_range is already in use for the Alps. The mountain groups within the Eastern Alps are tagged place=region, see the members of relation 2113486. This has been incredibly helpful! I assume this is the data that is being used to render the topographic map at dianacht.de? (http://geo.dianacht.de/topo/) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 17:47, Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto: Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location sounds reasonable. thing is that place=locality is very generic, you don't get additional information what the name refers to, especially if tagged on a node cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/08/2013 07:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location sounds reasonable. thing is that place=locality is very generic, you don't get additional information what the name refers to, especially if tagged on a node Understood. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/08/2013 08:56 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmannb...@volki.at wrote: It should rather be a type=collection relation. I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often used for features on multiple sites. You can think of type=collection as an abbreviation of type=bare_and_general_collection. All other relations have special members (e.g. inner/outer in multipolygons) or at least special meanings (type=route). type=cluster has also been suggested. I would be ok with it, but it would require a proposal to make it more popular. What about type=site with the appropriate natural tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site I was just looking at the wiki, and type=collection seems to be pretty frowned upon. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: 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. natural=mountain_range is already in use for the Alps. The mountain groups within the Eastern Alps are tagged place=region, see the members of relation 2113486. So, I was looking about using place=region for valleys. At least for the valleys I was looking into, it seems that Italy already has a boundary=administrative multipolygon for most of them, although in rare cases some natural features are more detailed than the administrative boundary. Let's take this for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/47143 where the administrative boundary matches exactly with the actual valley. I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region, region:type=valley? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: It should rather be a type=collection relation. I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. +100 Especially, if you read: Relations are not meant to be used as collections cu fly ___ 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 19:25, Yuri D'Elia wrote: 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? As official as this mailing list. I will not have the time nor power to make it an proposal but you are welcome to take my idea. Using boundaries has a lot of advantages as there are already well establish super-relations and labels to describe the capital of the area if existing. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
Il giorno 08/ago/2013, alle ore 20:45, Yuri D'Elia wav...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto: I guess in this case I can simply re-use the geometry in a new relation with the proper valley name with type=multipolygon, place=region, region:type=valley? I'd use type=multipolygon natural=valley cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - ranger_station
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: Il giorno 07/ago/2013, alle ore 20:01, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com ha scritto: Note there is overlap between amentiy=ranger_station and tourism=information. A ranger station generally provides information in addition to other services. In the USA ranger stations have well established symbols, distinct from those used for tourist information only sites. that s not an issue, you can add both tags to the same object if this makes sense (I suggest to also add information=* to be more explicit) Only in that you'd want (most,typical) rendering agents to treat ranger_station as the primary key. tourism=information is primary if there are no other keys. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Hiking tracks as POIs in Brazil
Hello, OSM currently has no hiking tracks mapped in Brazil. We are now receiving (copyright-free) POIs of hiking tracks (representing where they start) from a local mapping community (which gathered this data for over a decade). Unfortunately, we do not have the details of the tracks yet, but I think the POIs could be contributed to OSM in a preliminary form as long as they include a fixme tag. This could be a great way to start mapping these tracks (essentially by calling for help where it's needed). Every POI would get these tags: - tourism=attraction (best approximation I could think of) - name in the format Track: [original name] (in Portuguese Track would be replaced by Trilha) - fixme=Please provide the detailed contour of the route. (in Portuguese it would be fixme=Detalhar trilha de caminhada.) The prefix ensures that the tracks are easily told apart from other attractions and that bots can operate on the data if necessary. Our alternatives seem to be a proposing a new tagging scheme (not so useful for a temporary set of POIs) or not import anything at all (seems wasteful). What do you think? -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 19:39, Yuri D'Elia wrote: At least it is semantically correct, while type=site relations are often used for features on multiple sites. [...] What about type=site with the appropriate natural tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site See my paragraph that I quoted on top. Now in more detail: The proposal says: If all the elements contained within an area (the perimeter) belong to the site, and no elements of the site exist outside the area, then it is inappropriate to use this relation. That means that the relation should only be used for elements in differing locations, i.e. NOT on one site. It is absurd to call that a site relation. I also dislike the suggested special member roles: The positioning of the label depends on the font size, the free space, the map section and zoom level etc. and should therefore be determined by the renderer. The perimeter is implied by the other members. The entrance is implied by the entrance=* node(s) on the perimeter. All in all, I see nothing good in the type=site proposal. I was just looking at the wiki, and type=collection seems to be pretty frowned upon. I don't know about the frowning. If you just look at pros and cons, you will prefer type=collection over type=site. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
On 08.08.2013 21:15, fly wrote: On 08.08.2013 01:24, Pieren wrote: I really hate type=collection. One of the worst idea in OSM. All relations are collections. +100 Especially, if you read: Relations are not meant to be used as collections It is interesting that you agree by +100 although your reason is the negation of Pieren's reason. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hiking tracks as POIs in Brazil
What you are looking for is a tagging for trailhead I suppose. Are these trails signed (trailblazed)? I notice that the National Park OSM initiative does not propose an OSM tag for their trailhead sign (see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_National_Park_Service_Tagging) I personally would be in favour of creating a formal tag for trailheads (I had pondered this in the past on occasion,but never taken action). Volker (Italy) On 9 August 2013 04:58, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, OSM currently has no hiking tracks mapped in Brazil. We are now receiving (copyright-free) POIs of hiking tracks (representing where they start) from a local mapping community (which gathered this data for over a decade). Unfortunately, we do not have the details of the tracks yet, but I think the POIs could be contributed to OSM in a preliminary form as long as they include a fixme tag. This could be a great way to start mapping these tracks (essentially by calling for help where it's needed). Every POI would get these tags: - tourism=attraction (best approximation I could think of) - name in the format Track: [original name] (in Portuguese Track would be replaced by Trilha) - fixme=Please provide the detailed contour of the route. (in Portuguese it would be fixme=Detalhar trilha de caminhada.) The prefix ensures that the tracks are easily told apart from other attractions and that bots can operate on the data if necessary. Our alternatives seem to be a proposing a new tagging scheme (not so useful for a temporary set of POIs) or not import anything at all (seems wasteful). What do you think? -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ 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] Hiking tracks as POIs in Brazil
Hi, I don't think that kind a sign with a label hiking path starts is a attraction. Maybe you are locking for something like this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost Henning ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
