Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types
On 7/6/14 3:41 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > How about using "aerodrome=*" to express how the aerodrome is used by > civilians and then add "military=yes" when the airport is also used > for military operations? > you could potentially broaden it a bit, with military=yes being the generic "i have no more data" tag: military=reserve military=nationalguard military=militia military=air_force military=army military=navy (in the US national guard is not automatically redundant with militia; NY state for example has militia units that are distinct from the guard units.) richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types
How about using "aerodrome=*" to express how the aerodrome is used by civilians and then add "military=yes" when the airport is also used for military operations? On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Ole Nielsen wrote: > Also happens outside the US. In Denmark I know of civil airports sharing the > runway with the airforce. Once experienced an aborted approach during a > domestic flight because two F16 fighters suddenly wanted to land. > > Ole > > > On 06/07/2014 20:04, Richard Welty wrote: >> >> no need for lots of anecdotes. it is very, very common for National Guard >> and Reserve units in the US to share airports with civilian services. i >> could >> name a bunch, but i don't think it's necessary, we've all seen the >> military >> facilities while looking out the windows while our flight is taxiing. >> >> richard >> >> >> On 7/6/14 1:55 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: >>> >>> I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville >>> International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation >>> usage, as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base >>> in Smyrna, TN, still containing a small military compound, but mostly now >>> used for general aviation and chartered flights. >>> >>> >>> On July 3, 2014 11:00:45 AM CDT, John Sturdy >>> wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I don't like this way of mapping. There might be some overlaps, what if one > > aerodrome has a military and a public part? Agreed -- I know at least one that is. >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "Nullius in verba." ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types
Also happens outside the US. In Denmark I know of civil airports sharing the runway with the airforce. Once experienced an aborted approach during a domestic flight because two F16 fighters suddenly wanted to land. Ole On 06/07/2014 20:04, Richard Welty wrote: no need for lots of anecdotes. it is very, very common for National Guard and Reserve units in the US to share airports with civilian services. i could name a bunch, but i don't think it's necessary, we've all seen the military facilities while looking out the windows while our flight is taxiing. richard On 7/6/14 1:55 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation usage, as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base in Smyrna, TN, still containing a small military compound, but mostly now used for general aviation and chartered flights. On July 3, 2014 11:00:45 AM CDT, John Sturdy wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: I don't like this way of mapping. There might be some overlaps, what if one aerodrome has a military and a public part? Agreed -- I know at least one that is. ___ 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] Aerodrome types
On 7/6/14 1:55 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville > International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation > usage, as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base in > Smyrna, TN, still containing a small military compound, but mostly now used > for general aviation and chartered flights. > > > On July 3, 2014 11:00:45 AM CDT, John Sturdy wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Janko Mihelić >> wrote: >>> I don't like this way of mapping. There might be some overlaps, what >> if one >>> aerodrome has a military and a public part? >> Agreed -- I know at least one that is. >> >> __John >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types
no need for lots of anecdotes. it is very, very common for National Guard and Reserve units in the US to share airports with civilian services. i could name a bunch, but i don't think it's necessary, we've all seen the military facilities while looking out the windows while our flight is taxiing. richard On 7/6/14 1:55 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville > International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation > usage, as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base in > Smyrna, TN, still containing a small military compound, but mostly now used > for general aviation and chartered flights. > > > On July 3, 2014 11:00:45 AM CDT, John Sturdy wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Janko Mihelić >> wrote: >>> I don't like this way of mapping. There might be some overlaps, what >> if one >>> aerodrome has a military and a public part? >> Agreed -- I know at least one that is. -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types
I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation usage, as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base in Smyrna, TN, still containing a small military compound, but mostly now used for general aviation and chartered flights. On July 3, 2014 11:00:45 AM CDT, John Sturdy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Janko Mihelić > wrote: > > I don't like this way of mapping. There might be some overlaps, what > if one > > aerodrome has a military and a public part? > > Agreed -- I know at least one that is. > > __John > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- 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 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - RFC 2
> Am 06/lug/2014 um 19:12 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > >> Am 05/lug/2014 um 22:43 schrieb François Lacombe >> : >> >> Introducing power_tower=* and power_pole=* to store values instead than >> tower=* or pole=* may be a possibility. >> >> Do you agree ? > > > yes, I'd support this to avoid confusion with tower:type associated with > man_made=tower (e.g. tools like ID are suggesting values based on usage) cheers, Martin (sorry, mail was prematurely sent while coughing ;-) ) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - RFC 2
> Am 05/lug/2014 um 22:43 schrieb François Lacombe > : > > Introducing power_tower=* and power_pole=* to store values instead than > tower=* or pole=* may be a possibility. > > Do you agree ? yes, I'd support this to avoid confusion with tower:type associated with man_made=tower (e.g. tools like ID are ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] man_made=pipeline - is onewayness implied?
> Am 22/giu/2014 um 11:08 schrieb Pieren : > > "flow_direction=forward/backward" and > "oneway=yes" ? not sure if this was already answered, oneway is a legal tag and referring to traffic on the water, while flow_direction is referring to the water itself. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] man_made=pipeline - is onewayness implied?
> Am 05/lug/2014 um 23:30 schrieb André Pirard : > > Lakes usually flow, and I would guess more than canals that are not water > ducts. > They're mostly a river meeting a hole, filling it and overflowing at the > other end. lakes don't flow. They have a layering of different temperature/water zones and by definition do not "flow". They often have an inflow and an outflow (not sure if these are the correct English hydrological terms) so there might be a minor flow present, but the lake as such is non-flowing. This said, there are also other types of non-flowing bodies of surface water. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-06 12:48 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > On 06/07/2014 10:45, sabas88 wrote: > >> Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate. >> >> The important distinction is that a port is an administrative boundary > (which may have several disjunct areas) whereas harbours, terminals, docks, > wharves, basins, quays, etc. are physical features. Since those latter > features will be administered by the port authority, they should all be > within the port boundary(s). > > Take this example, it identifies a container terminal http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2952205#map=17/44.10635/9.85686 In this case the harbour tag should enclose La Spezia harbour. In Genoa, landuse=harbour has been placed to represent a division used by port authority (Sampierdarena West / East) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148700342 For area administered by the authority (so all the harbours / ports), I used a proper boundary from the official data http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2631548 It's correct my representation? Cheers, Stefano > > > ___ > 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] Where do source tags belong?
On 2014-07-06 08:40, Jo wrote : > off list: > > André, I'm in the process of ending the addition of 37000 stops of De > Lijn to OSM. None of them have the holy source tags and still I'm able > to compute which ones still need to be done. > > So I'm not worried about getting bitten in the back. > > I have a system in place which works and which doesn't rely on source > tags. > > It only relies on ref tags (and operator for the Overpass query) I already replied to that too, Jo. How many versions of De Lijn have you applied? If you rely on the existence of the ref= tag in an OSM bus stop to tell that the 2014-04 version of the import has been applied to it, then you will have a problem to tell the same way if a 2015-xx version is applied. source=TEC 2014-04 is required unless you are prepared to change your algorithm with every new update. > I know that you know how to bulk add source tags, the explanation was > only there for when you were going to insisit on adding them yourself. > You can, if you want, but I'm not going to. Just like I stopped doing > so for the ones of De Lijn. That's right/, /I started by adding them > just like anybody else would. > > Then I started reading the imports list and came to the conclusion > they clutter the DB AND it's not clear afterwards which tag they refer > to anyway, or whether they refer to the position. The DB space is insignificant and you may choose to call them source:TEC_data or whatever you like. > So I tend to understand your concern, but I don't happen to share it > and this is based on practical experience built up over the past > years, doing exactly what we want to do with the TEC data: importing > stops and creating route relations based on them. Once. André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
On 06/07/2014 10:45, sabas88 wrote: Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate. The important distinction is that a port is an administrative boundary (which may have several disjunct areas) whereas harbours, terminals, docks, wharves, basins, quays, etc. are physical features. Since those latter features will be administered by the port authority, they should all be within the port boundary(s). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
2014-07-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > On 06/07/2014 08:24, nounours77 wrote: > >> => So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a >> "harbour". >> > In fact it is the other way round. A port my contain one or more harbours. > (In turn, a harbour may contain zero or more docks and a dock may contain > zero or more basins.) A port may also contain one or more terminals. In > smaller ports, the port and harbour may be co-incident, hence the ambiguity > between these terms. > > Thank you both for the comments. I based my proposal on IHO dictionary ( http://www.iho.int/iho_pubs/standard/S-32/S-32-eng.pdf ), seemed a bit strange to me also, but as I interpreted definition 3950 and 2184, harbour is meant as a geographical feature, whereas port is related to infrastructure, and per 3950 port is located in an harbour (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor ) Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate. > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
On 06/07/2014 08:24, nounours77 wrote: => So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a "harbour". In fact it is the other way round. A port my contain one or more harbours. (In turn, a harbour may contain zero or more docks and a dock may contain zero or more basins.) A port may also contain one or more terminals. In smaller ports, the port and harbour may be co-incident, hence the ambiguity between these terms. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals
Dear Stefano, > Accepting the tag landuse=port would improve the detailed tagging of port > areas, for example to tell apart container terminals (easily > distinguishable from satellite imagery) from passenger terminals and so on. Thank you very much for your good strucutured and very detailed proposal. I think it's a good idea to clearly map the port infrastructures, and also to harmonize between OpenStreetmap and OpenSeaMap. What I just do not understand is the basic relation between "harbour" and "port". According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dharbour Port: An administrative area that encloses a harbour area, including the seaward approaches and all land facilities within its jurisdiction. Harbour: The sheltered waters within a port area. They are usually enclosed by moles, breakwaters, quays or natural land features. => So I would expect being "port" a big area around a smaller area which is "harbour". In your Proposal, you write: Harbour: A natural or artificially improved body of water providing protection for vessels, and generally anchorage and docking facilities. Port: A place provided with terminal and transfer facilities for loading and discharging cargo or passengers, usually located in a harbour. => So this would imply that "port" is a individual facility inside a "harbour". I'm not sure yet which of the two makes more sense, is better to describe a harbour, or is closer to the general meaning of the terms. But I really would think it a pity to introduce such a fundamental contradiction in a new proposal. Any Suggestions??? Nounours77___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
