[Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways

[Fernando Trebien]

Hello everyone,

Time and again I get myself thinking why is that we use a single
classification system for rural and urban ways. To me, an urban
tertiary is usually very different from a rural tertiary, both
physically and functionally.

For several applications, such as navigation software, a distinction
would be very interesting, allowing the display of rural primaries and
secondaries when zooming out, a more accurate speed guess when the
maxspeed tag is missing (based on these tables, which seem to assume
that the urban/rural boundary is mapped using a place=* tag, perhaps
an old idea: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed).
The only benefit I can see of mixing the two classification systems
into a single system is not being required to duplicate a rendering
rule.

-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] generalized survey : proposed wiki update

[David Bannon]

Andre, sorry, I support what you are trying but not quite sure you have
the proposal ready yet. I cannot post to the Belgium list so assume you
see this on "tagging" ?

Can you please give a few examples of how the data would appear ? I
think that might clarify it. In particular, how you will datestamp data
derived from the wide range of sources likely to been used ?

Now, which wiki page do you propose to make this change to ? Is it
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source  ?

Interestingly, its already contains the recommendation
"source:name=survey 10 November 2012" - I was not aware of that ! Of
course, that recommendation has two problems, the suggested date is a
non regular format and sort of implies its only used with "source:name="
not just "source=". 

Incidentally, I'd avoid the word 'mandatory' if I was you. Why not post
the words you propose to add to the wiki page ? eg -

Insert a new bullet under "How to Use" -
* "source=survey 2014-06-15" to indicate the date this data was know to
be current.

Alter the existing (second) bullet point to make it show an ISO date
format.

...Some discussion text about how use of a date is strongly recommended
and what it should be expected to mean

David 


On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 19:03 +0200, André Pirard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Following this discussion here is a proposed clarification to
> Key:source.
> The goal is to define the word, make date mandatory, use ISO format,
> define per source tag meaning.
> Is there any objection or suggestion for changes?
> 
> survey -mm[-dd] (with one blank and an ISO 8601 format date) can
> be used within the data of any source.KEY=* or source=* tag to
> indicate that, on that date, the source(s) of KEY were the most recent
> and the data was verified to be correct for that KEY. In source=*,
> survey means the same for all possible (required) keys (even those
> absent by default), but it can be overridden by survey in some
> source.KEY tags. survey helps to avoid making already done
> verifications, especially because a source publication date is not a
> verification date. survey can contain the date of dateless sources
> like visual or knowledge. It can help humanly assisted bulk imports.
> Please update the survey date of what you verify (a substantial time
> later), even if you don't add survey dates yourself.
> 
> Suppose an *.osm file is built from an imported source.  The map
> contributors are requested to move/update  the map elements to osm.org
> after verifications such as coordinates.  If the *.osm map elements
> contain a survey value such as source=survey , then a
> program can find out by checking for an equal or later survey date
> what map elements have been moved/updated to osm.org and hence build a
> remaining.osm file containing what remains to be done.  A FIXME can be
> added at import time to already existing osm.org elements to warn
> about the ongoing import.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> André.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] [OSM-talk-be] generalized survey : proposed wiki update

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:03 PM, André Pirard 
wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> Following this discussion here is a proposed clarification to Key:source
> .
> The goal is to define the word, make date mandatory, use ISO format,
> define per source tag meaning.
> Is there any objection or suggestion for changes?
>

OSM doesn't have  mandatory tags.

We work by consensus and agreement. You can't impose a tagging system on
changesets.

- Serge
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Reviewing the use of addr:housename

[Andrew Hain]

The uses of the tag addr:housename in the database[1] does not match
documentation[2] well. A high prroportion of uses are accidental; there were
some bug reports[3][4] against iD, which used to have a housename box at the
beginning of every point for entering addresses, pointing out doubtful use
by new mappers. The top 100 values of the tag tell their own story.

--
Andrew

[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Ahousename#values
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr
[3] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/1525
[4] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2124

Bloc   1 265
(empty string) 531
1  472
bloc   385
2  379
3  373
4  335
5  293
6  279
7  269
9  263
8  258
10 240
12 224
11 211
edificio   209
Mairie 206
16 202
15 192
14 189
18 189
s/n184
Edificio   179
Heidehaus  168
San Antonio II 164
17 164
Taman Cantek   159
Rathaus159
20 155
19 152
13 146
casă   146
22 143
21 139
Berg Studentby 138
25 136
26 135
23 132
Rose Cottage   130
24 129
A  124
28 122
Taman Ridgeview Phase 12   121
The Cottage121
27 118
The Lodge  116
B  111
31 103
29 100
32 99
30 98
C  98
Pfarrhaus  96
Garages95
Arcaden94
Haus 1 94
33 91
Nöhren Hof 89
The Bungalow   88
36 88
Edificio␣  88
Haus 2 88
Vestergård 87
Casă   86
Lidl   84
34 84
35 84
D  84
Østergård  83
40 80
38 77
Ældrecentret Kærgården 77
Магазин76
C.C. Condado Shopping  75
37 74
CSI Warehouse  73
Bahnhof73
42 71
44 71
Березники  71
39 70
45 70
The Coach House70
41 69
Stevnshøj  69
Gemeindehaus   68
E  68
McDonald's 68
Golden Haven Memorial Park 66
Gemeindeamt65
Unit 1 65
43 64
Højgård64
The Vicarage   63
Makado 63
46 62
Top Center 62
Netto  62
Møllebækkollegiet  61
Garage 61


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] generalized survey : proposed wiki update

[André Pirard]

Hi,

Following this discussion here is a proposed clarification to Key:source
.
The goal is to define the word, make date mandatory, use ISO format,
define per source tag meaning.
Is there any objection or suggestion for changes?

*survey* -mm[-dd] (with one blank and an /ISO/ 8601

format date) can be used within the data of any source.KEY=* or source=*
tag to indicate that, on that date, the source(s) of KEY were the most
recent and the data was verified to be correct for that KEY. In
source=*,  survey means the same for all possible (required) keys (even
those absent by default), but it can be overridden by survey in some
source.KEY tags. survey helps to avoid making already done
verifications, especially because a source publication date is not a
verification date. survey can contain the date of dateless sources like
visual or knowledge. It can help humanly assisted bulk imports. Please
update the survey date of what you verify (a substantial time later),
even if you don't add survey dates yourself.

Suppose an *.osm file is built from an imported source.  The map
contributors are requested to move/update  the map elements to osm.org
after verifications such as coordinates.  If the *.osm map elements
contain a survey value such as source=survey , then a
program can find out by checking for an equal or later survey date what
map elements have been moved/updated to osm.org and hence build a
remaining.osm file containing what remains to be done.  A FIXME can be
added at import time to already existing osm.org elements to warn about
the ongoing import.

Cheers,

André.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts

[Philip Barnes]

I think I should comment on this, I know this roundabout very well,
actually too well.

It is definitely a roundabout, that is how it is know in the UK, and in
common with many signalised roundabouts, not all traffic joining is
under traffic light control, these routes do give way to traffic on the
roundabout.

In this case traffic joining from Wigston Lane and Stonesby Avenue give
way to traffic on the roundabout, there are no lights in these
instances. 

This roundabout originally had no lights, but they were added with the
ring road.

BTW the name Pork PIe comes from the round library, known as the Pork
Pie library, any round building gets tagged as pork pie in Leicester.

Phil (trigpoint)





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders

[Dudley Ibbett]

In the UK what you describe sounds like a “field margin”.  



Here is an example web page, but search on google  under “field margins” for 
more information.  

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife/habitats/arable-field-margins

Farmers generally cultivate up to the field boundaries in the UK but there have 
been schemes to encourage them to leave “field margins”  to support wildlife.


Regards


Dudley






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Yves
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎13‎ ‎June‎ ‎2014 ‎15‎:‎33
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools, Simone Saviolo



Field border literally means the border of a field, so I fear the tag meaning 
is not as clear as it should.



On 13 juin 2014 14:35:34 UTC+02:00, Simone Saviolo  
wrote:

2014-06-13 14:15 GMT+02:00 Simon Wüllhorst :



Hello Guys,

currently I’m tagging the country around my place (farmland, farmyards, meadow 
and so on). Farmlands are typically surrounded or seperated by small 
areas/borders of several vegetations (trees bushes, at least in Germany), 
called Field Borders (or Feldrain in German, more Informations: 
http://extension.missouri.edu/p/g9421 or 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldrain). They are important for farmers (to 
improve crops growth) and they also useful for a better orientation and 
navigation in this country.


I started a thread on forum.osm.org (It’s a german thread, so if you have 
questions, please ask me) to get tips for the correct/ideal tagging of these 
areas (important:it’s an area, not a way!). 


In summary I got a lot of suggestions, for example natural=scrub or 
natural=wood, ….


The problem of all these suggestions were, they all describe the type of 
vegetation and not the purpose of these areas. Besides the vegetation of these 
areas are much various, so you can’t describe them by using one or two 
“vegetation”-tags.


According to the post of “dieterdreist” 
(http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=422045#p422045) I thought 
about to create/use a completely new tag/value.


At this point I’m not shure which key would be correct. I’m thinking about 
natural=fieldborder or landuse=fieldborder. On the one landuse=fieldborder 
seems to be the better choise, because field borders have got a farming 
purpose. But on the other hand they are grown as they are and are not really 
managed.


So what whould be your favourite key/value for Filed Borders or what are you 
thinking about this topic in general.


PS: After the latest update of the mapnik style farmlands/farmyards are 
sourrounded by a little border. Some people say that would be raise the 
motivation to create smaller seperations of farmland-areas (an own 
farmland-area for every farmland and not a farmland-area for a whole region). 
In my opinion the inroduciton of a Filed Border tag would support these idea, 
too.




I'm a big supporter of small farmland areas too, and I'm starting to pay more 
attention to what lies between a field and its neighbour. In my case, though, 
most fields are rice fields, which are only separated by a small earth levee 
(http://www.ecori.it/images/gallery/1.jpg). When they're not close to each 
other, it's because a track or a waterway runs in that space. While some of the 
larger levees are often lined with trees or bushes, I'm not sure this would 
still qualify as field border, in the sense of the landuse (in other words, I 
wouldn't think that that vegetation is provided for agricultural/habitat 
reasons, but it may be, I'm no agronomist). Anyway, some such areas have been 
tagged by their vegetation characteristics. 





I think the best solution is to provide both tags, one about the vegetation, 
one about its agricultural function, as these two functions are largely 
orthogonal in my view. 




Ciao,




Simone




Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging