Re: [Tagging] RFC: Japanese address, place revise (Block system address)
Thank you for reply. Here is a most simple example. If we need more complex ones, I'll make them. * City level Whole Chiba city Chiba city has 6 suburbs. See subarea member of relation, for details. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2679956 * Suburb level This is one of the suburb. Named Chuo-ku (means Center ward. 中央区) Chuo-ku has 7 Upper Neighbourhoods. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2679950 * Upper Neighbourhood This is one of the Upper Neighbourhood. Named Matsunami area. (松波) Matsunami area has 4 Lower Neighbourhoods. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2905610 * Lower Neighbourhood This is one of the Lower Neighbourhood. Named 1 Chome area(means 1st area, 一丁目 or 1丁目). 1 Chome is divided into 19 blocks. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2905589 * Block address 1 Chome of Matunami has 19 blocks. The polygon divided by roads are called block. Those are well not mapped on OSM, here is a sample image. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Japanese_address_blocknumber.png * Housenumber address e.g. 12th block has 7 houses. Each house has it's own housenumber. (In some case, may contain branch, gap, or missing numbers.) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Japanese_address_housenumber.png * Same area on other maps. ** Japan Government map http://portal.cyberjapan.jp/site/mapuse4/index.html?lat=35.61716lon=140.110089z=17did=DJBMM ** Yahoo! Japan Maps http://yahoo.jp/Ihjmkg And then, I'm afraid of my choise of the words to place tag namimg. May be some conflict will occur on use of quarter with other country. Regards. 2013/9/18 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com Perhaps this is one of those a picture is worth a thousand words type situations. I know that the Japanese system for addressing is quite different than the system we think of in the West. Can you perhaps show us what a map of addresses looks like in another map, and then show an OSM example of what your proposal would look like? Obviously the most important community that this needs to make sense to are local (Japanese) mappers, but it might be nice if the rest of us understood as well. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Satoshi IIDA mail: nyamp...@gmail.com twitter: @nyampire ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
2013/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com I think it is a bad idea to connect the meaning of osm tags to definitions in wikipedia, because the content of wikipedia articles is not something we control. When the wikipedia article changes (e.g. it gets extended or restrained by splitting it up) it doesn't imply that the objects with a certain tag in osm change nature. I agree that can sometimes be a problem, but wikipedia articles about terms like school, power plant, lake can hardly be changed in meaning. Anyway, connection to wikipedia articles is only a small, secondary part of my proposal. Links between tags themselves is something we have to document somewhere. We have to have a place where a data consumer sees that amenity=fastfood is a specific kind of a amenity=restaurant. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
2013/9/19 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: 2013/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com I think it is a bad idea to connect the meaning of osm tags to definitions in wikipedia, because the content of wikipedia articles is not something we control. When the wikipedia article changes (e.g. it gets extended or restrained by splitting it up) it doesn't imply that the objects with a certain tag in osm change nature. I agree that can sometimes be a problem, but wikipedia articles about terms like school, power plant, lake can hardly be changed in meaning. Anyway, connection to wikipedia articles is only a small, secondary part of my proposal. Links between tags themselves is something we have to document somewhere. We have to have a place where a data consumer sees that amenity=fastfood is a specific kind of a amenity=restaurant. ...but it isn't! It's a closely-related concept, but to me the concept fast food place is not a subcategory of restaurant. This illustrates, to me, that an attempt to add an ontology on top of the tagging is likely to be vulnerable to the problems it aims to solve. However, it's possible we could start to have a fairly low-key move towards ontology by simply using mediawiki categories. For example if you add [[Category:placestogetameal]] to the wiki pages for fast_food, restaurant, cafe, then it's rather likely that data consumers can use some of the pre-existing mediawiki tools (as used in http://dbpedia.org/ for example) to extract structured data that expresses tags' relations. So if you start with wiki categories you could get fairly far without having to impose a strong ontology. Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
Am 19.09.2013 12:24, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: On 19/set/2013, at 12:10, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: We have to have a place where a data consumer sees that amenity=fastfood is a specific kind of a amenity=restaurant. is it? If we want to follow the operators of big fast food brands, then yes, as they call their shops restaurant themselfes. If we use the OSM nomenclature, it's not - as it's either amenity=restaurant or amenity=fast_food, but not both (except if someone would use multiple values in the tag). regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
2013/9/19 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de If we want to follow the operators of big fast food brands, then yes, as they call their shops restaurant themselfes. that's the difference between marketing and the real world. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
2013/9/19 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com However, it's possible we could start to have a fairly low-key move towards ontology by simply using mediawiki categories. For example if you add [[Category:placestogetameal]] to the wiki pages for fast_food, restaurant, cafe, then it's rather likely that data consumers can use some of the pre-existing mediawiki tools (as used in http://dbpedia.org/ for example) to extract structured data that expresses tags' relations. yes, but that is also not easy or feasible without taking into account local specialties. In Germany, many petrol stations offer something to eat (they have a sort of small bakery warming up baked stuff, sell warm sausages etc.), in Italy this is much more rare (you can find it sometimes outside the bigger cities - sometimes). Is a pub a place where you can get something to eat? depends. Some kiosks also offer something to eat, etc. Also Youth Clubs sometimes offer something to eat. Some don't. Or places to get tobacco: in France you can get them in bars and pubs (sometimes, but not so rare), in Germany you can get them in supermarkets and petrol stations, in Italy you will get them only in special shops with the appropriate sign, and in other countries it might be even more different. Or places to buy alcohol. OK, tobacco and alcohol might be special cases because they are kinds of drugs and there are quite different regulations all over the world, even inside the EU in different countries. Maybe it is be feasible for many topics but not all to make this kind of simply ontology. You could at least find places where you will definitely find something to eat, even if you won't cover all places where you might get something to eat. For practical reasons it is also very important WHEN you can get a certain service (ever looked for a place to eat in Southern Italy between 14 and 16:30?) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
2013/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com is it? I don't know, and nobody does because we don't have an ontology. If someone asks me, then yes, fastfood is a restaurant. If someone asks you, than a restaurant means slow food. If we decide it's slow food we don't put them one over the other. If we decide otherwise, we do. But I have a feeling we have to put clear boundaries for data consumers to use our data more efficient. We could also put geographic administrative boundaries in the equation, and say amenity=restaurant is one thing in Germany, and other in China. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
Hi, I am relatively new to OSM. I have one point to make. I am pretty sure that the persistence of traversible structures is one of the reasons that Wikipedia admins are ... effective? It seems like (as a user of Wikipedia) that there are literally thousands of people who have robots trawling all over doing automated this and that. Is there a way we could start down a path like that? I know some people are watching coastlines and other things. What should I be doing to get on that wagon? A -- Alex On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/9/19 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de If we want to follow the operators of big fast food brands, then yes, as they call their shops restaurant themselfes. that's the difference between marketing and the real world. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
This illustrates, to me, that an attempt to add an ontology on top of the tagging is likely to be vulnerable to the problems it aims to solve. Any such thing would want to express relationships, so that e.g. renderers which have never seen the tag before can say aha, they say that I could render this like a restaurant if I haven't added an icon for it it specifically. However, it's possible we could start to have a fairly low-key move towards ontology by simply using mediawiki categories. For example if you add [[Category:placestogetameal]] to the wiki pages for fast_food, restaurant, cafe, then it's rather likely that data consumers can use some of the pre-existing mediawiki tools (as used in http://dbpedia.org/ for example) to extract structured data that expresses tags' relations. So if you start with wiki categories you could get fairly far without having to impose a strong ontology. This seems entirely the wrong way up. Surely much better to start with a machine-readable, properly structured, extendable, schema and fderive the human readable documentation from it, than try to extract information from unstructured data intended for human readers. The point of a schema is to bring the documentation into the world of semantic web - share data not articles, so that programs can do something useful with it as well as people. Defaults, varying by nationality (what's the speed limit here if it isn't stated otherwise), descriptions in the same place in multiple languages, alternative names for tags in different languages, class hierarchies of objects, suggested related properties (I see you're adding a post box here, you might want to add its identifier, it's a hotel - if you can please tell us the operator, how many bedrooms, etc) and so on - rather than embedding this knowledge separately and independently and often differently in every program that works with OSM. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
2013/9/19 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com I don't know, and nobody does because we don't have an ontology. If someone asks me, then yes, fastfood is a restaurant. If someone asks you, than a restaurant means slow food. Maybe some fast foods could qualify as restaurants while others don't? Generally I'd tend to say no, but I'd also guess that there are some edge cases. IMHO the great invention of OSM is that it isn't based on an ontology but on free tagging. The world is too complex (and dynamic) to be entirely described by an ontology. It seems appealing to try though, I admit, but it will always result in flattening complexity (and therefor detail and small but fine distinctions). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
2013/9/19 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com but it will always result in flattening complexity (and therefor detail and small but fine distinctions). On the contrary, I have a feeling this would increase complexity. Right now, if you invent a new tag, for example amenity=slow_food_restaurant, there is a very small chance renderers will pick it up. And if renderers don't pick it up, other mappers won't. But if the renderer renders the whole places where you eat for money with a spoon and fork icon, then you can use that tag with no fear that it will become unused and forgotten. Right now people cram various real-life objects into well known tags just because they are rendered. How is this not flattening complexity? Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
On 19/09/2013 14:45, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: IMHO the great invention of OSM is that it isn't based on an ontology but on free tagging. The world is too complex (and dynamic) to be entirely described by an ontology. It seems appealing to try though, I admit, but it will always result in flattening complexity (and therefor detail and small but fine distinctions). If you can't actually describe the subtleties to other people in a way that makes sense to them, then you have failed to do what you set out to do by introducing the difference in the first place, because it is simply incomprehensible. But if you can describe it to people, then with a suitable structure, I am sure it is possible to describe it to machines as well, so that they can do something useful with it even if they haven't been programmed to every last nuance. Not least, to offer it on menus as a possibility (together with a human readable description or pointer thereto), and to render it as if it were something very similar if that makes sense to the person who introduced it. The key thing is the knowledge is centralised and that it can offer some upward compatibility in the face of rapid and anarchic change. Can I suggest people look at by TagCentral proposal from SOTM10, slides and video linked from here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2010_session:_Tag_Central:_a_Schema_for_OSM where I thought about this in quite some detail. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] mailing list good practice (user's and software's)
On 2013-09-17 01:40, Glenn Plas wrote : On 2013-09-17 01:02, André Pirard wrote: On 2013-09-16 11:52, Glenn Plas wrote : If you want to be serious about this then a new topic should be initiated by sending a new mail instead of a reply with a new subject. Every decent mailclient out there -usually- does not use the subject to 'thread' mails. instead it uses certain fields in the mail headers. I noticed that mail-man (the mailing list handler of THIS list) does not seem to add those headers (in fact, they seem to be removed from outgoing mails, I cannot find those fields like below). example of those are : References: 20130914070031.83C7A1561AD6@server21 CANHB50fV+JQ_DYnu91QYaURcRyAKk-pqbHGFMQmYzQZAeC=x...@mail.gmail.com 5236af60.2050...@byte-consult.be In-Reply-To: 5236af60.2050...@byte-consult.be This is what the (E)mailers usually use when exchanging mail correspondence (non mailing list) when hitting 'Reply' To be complete: top-posting (putting comments ABOVE the previous messages) is usually really a big nono in the mailing list fields. You should put follow-up comments BELOW the original mail. Personally, It doesn't bother me too much, but on plenty of mailing lists people go absolutely nuts over that fact , more true on long email exchanges, as you need to read a long reply from bottom to top in order to follow the conversation. Of course many clients let you sort using the subject field. If you make sure to bottom-post, automatically you'll be removing the non-relevant sections at the top to compact the response. I admit , when being too quick, I'm a sinner too against that rule once in a while. Some lists have their own requirements, but in general bottom-posting is considered Netiquette, top-posting isn't. It makes you scroll twice to follow a conversation. (go down to find the start, then read up). English : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style You're right, my main gripe is against the mailing list software mailman itself because it does not allow HTML. It does archive a HTML version of the archive but when you look at it on the server you see HTML code. By allow HTML, I mean simple HTML: text style, lists, tables etc, not eccentric showy stuff. I've sent an e-mail to mailman about this and they replied * that we, technical people, do not need HTML because we don't use it much. I think you misunderstood my mail. At the very bottom of that partly quoted mail I stated : . I am very much against using html in mails. I believe HTML belongs on a website, not a mail. I prefer plain-text.. Sorry :) Glenn No, I didn't misunderstand your e-mail and I said 'You're right'. My topic is not what the users do but what mailman does and that's why my quote is partial. I restored the full English text here above, and no, what I had read does not contain I am very much against using html in mails and my text was not related to that phrase. I collaborated with the ietf guys for e-mail and MIME+HTML and I can tell you they are not dumb-asses. Millions of people are using what they did. People forget that the first reason to be of HTML is HT, hypertext http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext, which is as elegant as necessary to write sensible text, relegating with links the details to further reading. That does not belong only to Web site; some people even wrote HT books. It was also used in the precursors Gopher, WAIS etc. I sometimes use titles and index in long e-mails. I rarely write Web pages to send someone a message. What the ietf intended to include in e-mail is the simple HTML I speak of, not the extravagant one. It allows tables to be included in e-mail. It allows HT links to be used without interspersing text with ugly URLs. It allows basic formating. Your reference, which isn't at all against HTML, advocates the blockquote as a better way to quote text to avoid paragraphs ending up like this one or the last one you quote. blockquote certainly does not belong to websites!!! See following e-mail. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] mailing list good practice (user's and software's)
On 2013-09-17 05:29, Marc Gemis wrote : André, in digest mode, your mails are replaced by a link to the html content. In non-digest mode your mails appear fine. The result is that I never read your mails on the tagging mailing list that I follow i digest mode. It's just too much work to open an additional page to see whether it's interesting enough to read. Hi Marc, Thanks for your report, but that's strange. I always send my e-mails to the list in both text and html formats (alternative in the same e-mail), so that everybody should be pleased. But they're not! The text mode is (almost) perfectly readable on the archive server https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2013-September/004552.html, also containing a link to the html version that they call an attachment (they seem not to understand the word alternative). Of course, the tables that we sometimes need to send are pure garbage in text mode. I explained how I'm using a Gmail account as a perfect mailing list archiver. I also use the filters of Gmail as a perfect e-mail redistributor, like a manually maintained mailing list, the only problem is that the number of recipients is limited. Definitely, that mailman is the most antediluvian and frustrating software there is. A conspirator. Please file a bug and ask them to work as well as Gmail and to implement simple HTML filtering. followed below ... (1) archive server lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2013-September/004552.html for those who prefer not to click On 2013-09-17 13:23, ael wrote : On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 01:02:23AM +0200, André Pirard wrote: On 2013-09-16 11:52, Glenn Plas wrote : If you want to be serious about this then a new topic should be initiated by sending a new mail instead of a reply with a new subject. Every decent mailclient out there -usually- does not use the subject to 'thread' mails. instead it uses certain fields in the mail headers. I noticed that mail-man (the mailing list handler of THIS list) does not seem to add those headers (in fact, they seem to be removed from outgoing mails, I cannot find those fields like below). You're right, [but] my main gripe is against the mailing list software mailman itself because it does not allow HTML. Please, please no. HTML should only be in an attachment if and only if it cannot be avoided. Apart from bloat, it is a security risk. Email != HTML. Attachment? Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary1107514545383645585== This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===1107514545383645585== Content-Type: *multipart/alternative*; boundary=060707090800060503050609 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --060707090800060503050609 Content-Type: *text/plain*; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --060707090800060503050609 Content-Type: *text/html*; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --060707090800060503050609-- Can't you see that word *alternative***? *You can choose***!!! If you prefer to use text, please do, but do not prevent those who understood HTML to use it!!! Security: correction: the security risk is Windows and similar software. Read it: what I advocate is simple html for which there is absolutely no security risk. Those who launch a full browser, and especially an unsafe one running Javascript and, worse, Activethings, to display *any html* e-mail take as much risk as when displaying a Web page. Using simple html or filtering e-mail to obtain simple html as I suggested or interpreting only the simple part of html is perfectly safe, especially on a virus resistant system like Linux or OS X. Some may remember the RTF (rich text format) specification that people that you may want to call crazy have used in e-mail before html existed to allow what I advocate, for example writing a letter in e-mail. No one ever spoke of risk before RTF was abandoned and HTML deviated. The mad thing is this (just an example): X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 BODY text=3D#00 bgColor=3D#ff DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Monsieur ... /FONT/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONTnbsp;/DIV DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Je vousnbsp;rappelle .../FONT/DIV a s o for more than 50 lines, switching to the same font font for every paragraph, even empty ones. And Apple Mail is even worse. They ignore the philosophy of simple HTML that is to use no font, just a size number, no line width, the user adjusts to his convenience, etc... Now here's Thunderbird doing more complicated: ul li.../li li.../li /ul p.../p pCheers,br And here's an OSM simple HTML page speaking: ul lia href=http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle?uselang=fr view-source:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle?uselang=frbicycle/a = yes/li lia href=http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot?uselang=fr
Re: [Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
On 09/19/2013 05:32 AM, Dan S wrote: 2013/9/19 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: Anyway, connection to wikipedia articles is only a small, secondary part of my proposal. Links between tags themselves is something we have to document somewhere. We have to have a place where a data consumer sees that amenity=fastfood is a specific kind of a amenity=restaurant. ...but it isn't! It's a closely-related concept, but to me the concept fast food place is not a subcategory of restaurant. This illustrates, to me, that an attempt to add an ontology on top of the tagging is likely to be vulnerable to the problems it aims to solve. Well, some people are going to agree that a particular set of tags are subcategories, and some aren't. Having previously worked for ten years for a food broker, which dealt with both grocery-store and food-service clients, I can tell you that the division between fast food and slow food isn't as sharp as you might think. Many establishments prepare some items from scratch, and others from a semi-prepared state. So, I would class fast-food establishments as a type of restaurant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
