Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

Martin - thanks for the thoughtful reply. 

I read it carefully, and I think you kind of misunderstood me again, please 
bare with me. 


On Jul 24, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw :
> My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging 
> scheme.
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of 
> the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land

But the ratio of single use to mixed use in many environs I have been in (both 
Japan & California, at least) is probably close to 10:1. Tokyo is gonna be a 
lot worse, but most of the actual "land" in Japan is dominated by (slowly 
dying) suburban towns and villages spread out across the countryside, Just as 
Southern California is dominated by fast swaths of suburban detached houses. 

I'm talking about the building+landuse combos for this "single use" environment 
for now.

> .
> Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential 
> building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I 
> surely won't tag as building=church but they get an amenity=place_of_worship).
> In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a 
> building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are 
> building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such.
> see
> http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof

That is a beautiful train station!  Totally building=train_station & 
tourism=museum,  but not railway=station, right?
It's a lot nicer than my local station: building=roof + amenity=shelter + 
shelter_type=public_transport.
http://goo.gl/maps/ppGOE

> Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as a 
> hackspace and eventspace:
> http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location
> Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated.

You are absolutely right, there are a lot of mixed use cases, and being able to 
represent mixed use is a challenge (business on 1st floor, residential above, 
or old-use new-use buildings like the train station above.  Because of 
non-existant zoning in Japan, there are quite a few "home businesses" in solid 
residential neighborhoods - a shop inside a single room of a house. Not an 
attached building either -  the owner can walk from their kitchen into their 
hair salon without even a door separating the two - just a step down from the 
delicate house flooring to a solid floor where you wear shoes.


> 
> these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar 
> cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation the 
> building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed with 
> the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep structure 
> and references to the former use. 



But for a majority of the buildings I'm mapping here in rural/"suburban" Japan, 
there isn't as much mixed use or repurposed use as you would imagine - most 
homes are purpose-built 2 story, single family detached homes with a wall 
around them.  It is very easy to designate their use. most of them are built on 
land subdivided from old rice fields, so things are fairly spread out compared 
to the city center. This goes with shops/stripmalls, convenience stores, 
hospitals, schools, apartments, and other buildings.  I live near a corn field, 
an aprtment complex, a cow farm, an metal stamping shop, a hula dance studio, a 
car repair shop, 3 farmyards, mushroom greenhouses, a cemetery, a buddhist 
temple, a 7-11, and ~10 detached homes. this is all within around 300m of my 
house in "rural" Japan. but every one of those has an easily defined border 
associated with the buildings - and an easily understood landuse tag to go with 
them. 

500m away is an elementary school, with no landuse value. it depends on 
amenity=school for **some unknown reason** to define it's landuse. Until 
recently, the temple also had no landuse value to define the area the temple 
grounds occupy, but now landuse=religious exists.

> 
>  
> Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for tagging 
> objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it comes to 
> mapping area+building for common town building types.
> 
> 
> yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the 
> plurality of building types, there are lots of them.

It's not the building types themselves I'm trying to discuss - but the scheme 
of building+landuse or building+amenity that maps the building+land. 
with the myriad of building types, I understand the need for a lot of tags - 
and it seems like the multiple values for a main tag 
(eg: building=church/chapel/cathedral/etc) is slowing being replaced with 
maintag+subtag  (eg; building=shop shop=*), but that is a discus

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-24 19:04 GMT+02:00 John Packer :

> I am working on the key's aerodrome in the hope it can substitute the key
> type=* on classifying an aerodrome, because it conflicts with relations
> like multipolygon (as shown above).
>
> I will also include this information in the wiki page Key:aerodrome
>
>
John,

that's perfectly fine, what I intended to say was: there was a redirect
from the Key:aerodrome page which you have changed to a key page with
definitions that looked like generally agreed on established definitions,
but what they are (also according to your own statements and comments) is
work in progress on a proposal.

I have for now reverted the page to the redirect (your draft is still
available in the history and be used for a proposal) so we can continue
discussion to consolidate this and come to a proposal.

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

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Christian Quest]

The problem with type=* is that you have no clue on what it relates...

When an object combines for example amenity=* and building=*, type is
related to which one ?

Most OSM tags are hierarchical:
aeroway = aerodrome
  aerodrome = *

When investigating taginfo, also check WHERE unusual values are used.
I'm using overpass API to load these object in JOSM... check who created
them.
Most of the time, it is only a couple of contributors, and many times this
is related to some import.

-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Janko Mihelić]

2014-07-24 19:04 GMT+02:00 John Packer :

> Martin,
> Sorry, I should have talked a little about the history behind this before.
>
> Initially aeroway=aerodrome used the key type=* to further classify it's
> type.
>

This looks like 90% of the values describe if it's a military or a
non-military aerodrome. I'd rather replace this with military=yes/no,
public=yes/no tags, private=yes/no tags, agricultural=yes/no,
scientific=yes/no and other tags. Putting all this in one "aerodrome" tag
seems unnecessary to me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[John Packer]

Martin,
Sorry, I should have talked a little about the history behind this before.

Initially aeroway=aerodrome used the key type=* to further classify it's
type.
Nowadays, the key type=* is infamous because it is the de facto way of
especifying relation's types, and therefore shouldn't be used for anything
else.
Consequently, people started moving away from using type=* to using either
aerodrome:type=* or aerodrome=*.
But type=* it still used much more than both aerodrome=* and
aerodrome:type=* together. Probably it was used on earlier imports of
airport data.
Below you can see values of the key type=* when used together with
aeroway=aerodrome around the globe:

public: 2349
multipolygon: 284
military: 281
civil: 232
private: 173
military/public: 68
public;military: 38
non-public: 37
destination_sign: 30
joint (civil and military): 25
civil / military: 22
joint: 13
public/military: 13
civilian: 10
public / military: 10
airstrip: 8

To make this list shorter, I removed from this list all values that
appeared less than 6 times, and "merged" the values when all that changed
was some letter's case or white.

I am working on the key's aerodrome in the hope it can substitute the key
type=* on classifying an aerodrome, because it conflicts with relations
like multipolygon (as shown above).

I will also include this information in the wiki page Key:aerodrome



2014-07-24 11:23 GMT-03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-07-24 14:11 GMT+02:00 John Packer :
>
> If anyone thinks this should be a proposal, and know enough about
>> aerodromes to do so, feel free to make one.
>
>
>
> thing is that right now it looks as if this was state of the art, i.e. an
> established scheme, what it surely isn't, also compared to actually used
> values for this key.
>
> 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] sport=horse_racing unnecessary sport=equestrian

[fly]

Am 24.07.2014 12:26, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> Maybe [sport=equestrian; equestrian=racing] would be better?
> 
> 
> 2014-07-24 11:52 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss  >:
> 
> "horse racing" is a very different animal (pun intended) to e.g
> 3 day
> eventing, country point-to-points, gymkhanas, etc.
> 
> 
> But do you plan to tag those with sport=horse_3_day_eventing,
> sport=horse_country_point-to-__points and sport=hose_gymkhana?
> 
> Because I have the impression they are all still sport=equestrian
> just like racing.

My first thought was that equestrian is used for mixed and dressage or
jumping usage and racing only for the race courses.

Myself would appreciate sport=equestrian with
equestrian=racing/dessage/jumping/* as subkey.

cu fly

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag road junction names and traffic signal names?

[Lukas Sommer]

junction=yes will probably be rendered by openstreetmap-carto soon.

However:

– Can we accept a simple (not connected) node with junction=yes and name=*
in spite of the problems in turn-to-turn navigation?

– Is using a relation for this to complicate? But it would be a clean
solution to have the “name” tag in the relation and the nodes where the
ways cross as members in the relation.

– Could we maybe simply draw an area around the junction, sharing nodes
with the incoming/outgoing ways? Less clean than a relation, but easier to
use.

Lukas Sommer


2014-07-24 16:07 GMT+00:00 Dan S :

> If place=hamlet is wrong, I believe place=locality is often used as a
> generic tag for nodes indicating named locations. Not really a
> solution but a simple option.
>
> Dan
>
> 2014-07-24 17:01 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer :
> > Yes, I know that junction=yes works fine for simple crossroads. My
> question
> > is: How should we map complex junctions like
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2351057522#map=19/5.34399/-4.00300
> Using
> > just an unconnected node like in this example (even after removing the
> wrong
> > place=hamlet tag) maybe is difficult for turn-to-turn navigation
> software.
> > So, how can we solve this?
> >
> > Lukas Sommer
> >
> >
> > 2014-07-24 15:29 GMT+00:00 Christian Quest :
> >
> >> Have you looked at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Ajunction
> >>
> >> "junction=yes can be useful for a simple junction node that has a name=*
> >> tag"
> >>
> >> I'm using that in the OSM-FR rendering... and even deal with
> >> traffic_signals icon shift to display both icon+name. ;)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-07-24 16:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer  >:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2014-07-24 15:24 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer :
> >>>
>  Current situation:
>  We have the tags highway=traffic_signals (for traffic signals on road
>  junctions or at straight roads – typical for Japan) and junction=yes
> (for
>  road junctions with or without traffic signals – typical for Ivory
> Coast) in
>  use at OSM. Both tags are almost exclusively used on nodes. They can
> be used
>  together with name=*. This works quite well for simple crossroads
> (example:
>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png)
> 
>  Shortcomings of the current situation:
>  It isn’t defined how to tag more complex cases.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> maybe the junction key can be used more universally (with different
> >>> values), we are already using it also with junction=roundabout, only
> that it
> >>> could be disputed that junction=roundabout is covering the whole
> junctions
> >>> (the entries and exits you often have to a roundabout could be seen as
> part
> >>> of the junction for instance). More in-use values can be found here:
> >>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/junction#values
> >>> Some of them maybe aren't junctions (what kind of junction is
> >>> "approach"?), others are diverging from our standard mantra (no
> >>> abbreviations), like "spui" or "ddi" and might merit retagging?
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Tagging mailing list
> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
> ___
> 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 tag road junction names and traffic signal names?

[Dan S]

If place=hamlet is wrong, I believe place=locality is often used as a
generic tag for nodes indicating named locations. Not really a
solution but a simple option.

Dan

2014-07-24 17:01 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer :
> Yes, I know that junction=yes works fine for simple crossroads. My question
> is: How should we map complex junctions like
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2351057522#map=19/5.34399/-4.00300 Using
> just an unconnected node like in this example (even after removing the wrong
> place=hamlet tag) maybe is difficult for turn-to-turn navigation software.
> So, how can we solve this?
>
> Lukas Sommer
>
>
> 2014-07-24 15:29 GMT+00:00 Christian Quest :
>
>> Have you looked at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Ajunction
>>
>> "junction=yes can be useful for a simple junction node that has a name=*
>> tag"
>>
>> I'm using that in the OSM-FR rendering... and even deal with
>> traffic_signals icon shift to display both icon+name. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-07-24 16:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-24 15:24 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer :
>>>
 Current situation:
 We have the tags highway=traffic_signals (for traffic signals on road
 junctions or at straight roads – typical for Japan) and junction=yes (for
 road junctions with or without traffic signals – typical for Ivory Coast) 
 in
 use at OSM. Both tags are almost exclusively used on nodes. They can be 
 used
 together with name=*. This works quite well for simple crossroads (example:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png)

 Shortcomings of the current situation:
 It isn’t defined how to tag more complex cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> maybe the junction key can be used more universally (with different
>>> values), we are already using it also with junction=roundabout, only that it
>>> could be disputed that junction=roundabout is covering the whole junctions
>>> (the entries and exits you often have to a roundabout could be seen as part
>>> of the junction for instance). More in-use values can be found here:
>>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/junction#values
>>> Some of them maybe aren't junctions (what kind of junction is
>>> "approach"?), others are diverging from our standard mantra (no
>>> abbreviations), like "spui" or "ddi" and might merit retagging?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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 tag road junction names and traffic signal names?

[Lukas Sommer]

Yes, I know that junction=yes works fine for simple crossroads. My question
is: How should we map complex junctions like
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2351057522#map=19/5.34399/-4.00300 Using
just an unconnected node like in this example (even after removing the
wrong place=hamlet tag) maybe is difficult for turn-to-turn navigation
software. So, how can we solve this?

Lukas Sommer


2014-07-24 15:29 GMT+00:00 Christian Quest :

> Have you looked at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Ajunction
>
> "*junction*=yes  can
> be useful for a simple junction node that has a name
> =*
>  tag"
>
> I'm using that in the OSM-FR rendering... and even deal with
> traffic_signals icon shift to display both icon+name. ;)
>
>
>
> 2014-07-24 16:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>>
>> 2014-07-24 15:24 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer :
>>
>> Current situation:
>>> We have the tags highway=traffic_signals (for traffic signals on road
>>> junctions or at straight roads – typical for Japan) and junction=yes (for
>>> road junctions with or without traffic signals – typical for Ivory Coast)
>>> in use at OSM. Both tags are almost exclusively used on nodes. They can be
>>> used together with name=*. This works quite well for simple crossroads
>>> (example:
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png)
>>>
>>> Shortcomings of the current situation:
>>> It isn’t defined how to tag more complex cases.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> maybe the junction key can be used more universally (with different
>> values), we are already using it also with junction=roundabout, only that
>> it could be disputed that junction=roundabout is covering the whole
>> junctions (the entries and exits you often have to a roundabout could be
>> seen as part of the junction for instance). More in-use values can be found
>> here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/junction#values
>> Some of them maybe aren't junctions (what kind of junction is
>> "approach"?), others are diverging from our standard mantra (no
>> abbreviations), like "spui" or "ddi" and might merit retagging?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
>
> ___
> 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 tag road junction names and traffic signal names?

[Christian Quest]

Have you looked at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Ajunction

"*junction*=yes  can
be useful for a simple junction node that has a name
=*
 tag"

I'm using that in the OSM-FR rendering... and even deal with
traffic_signals icon shift to display both icon+name. ;)



2014-07-24 16:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-07-24 15:24 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer :
>
> Current situation:
>> We have the tags highway=traffic_signals (for traffic signals on road
>> junctions or at straight roads - typical for Japan) and junction=yes (for
>> road junctions with or without traffic signals - typical for Ivory Coast)
>> in use at OSM. Both tags are almost exclusively used on nodes. They can be
>> used together with name=*. This works quite well for simple crossroads
>> (example:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png)
>>
>> Shortcomings of the current situation:
>> It isn't defined how to tag more complex cases.
>>
>
>
>
> maybe the junction key can be used more universally (with different
> values), we are already using it also with junction=roundabout, only that
> it could be disputed that junction=roundabout is covering the whole
> junctions (the entries and exits you often have to a roundabout could be
> seen as part of the junction for instance). More in-use values can be found
> here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/junction#values
> Some of them maybe aren't junctions (what kind of junction is
> "approach"?), others are diverging from our standard mantra (no
> abbreviations), like "spui" or "ddi" and might merit retagging?
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag road junction names and traffic signal names?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-24 15:24 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer :

> Current situation:
> We have the tags highway=traffic_signals (for traffic signals on road
> junctions or at straight roads – typical for Japan) and junction=yes (for
> road junctions with or without traffic signals – typical for Ivory Coast)
> in use at OSM. Both tags are almost exclusively used on nodes. They can be
> used together with name=*. This works quite well for simple crossroads
> (example:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png)
>
> Shortcomings of the current situation:
> It isn’t defined how to tag more complex cases.
>



maybe the junction key can be used more universally (with different
values), we are already using it also with junction=roundabout, only that
it could be disputed that junction=roundabout is covering the whole
junctions (the entries and exits you often have to a roundabout could be
seen as part of the junction for instance). More in-use values can be found
here: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/junction#values
Some of them maybe aren't junctions (what kind of junction is "approach"?),
others are diverging from our standard mantra (no abbreviations), like
"spui" or "ddi" and might merit retagging?

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

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-24 14:11 GMT+02:00 John Packer :

> If anyone thinks this should be a proposal, and know enough about
> aerodromes to do so, feel free to make one.



thing is that right now it looks as if this was state of the art, i.e. an
established scheme, what it surely isn't, also compared to actually used
values for this key.

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

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Fernando Trebien]

I'm not familiar with them, maybe they'd just be instances of
aerodrome=private if the user needs to own a plane or be the pilot, or if
permission to fly is given not by a flight authority but by a third party
such as the aerodrome owner. Or maybe these would be new values for
aerodrome=*.
On 24 Jul 2014 05:58, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  wrote:

>
>
> > Am 24/lug/2014 um 00:55 schrieb Fernando Trebien <
> fernando.treb...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > aerodrome=international would mean "a public airport/aerodrome that
> > primarily enables regular citizens to hire flights directly to other
> > countries", and to achieve this it would need some supporting
> > infrastructure (immigration, customs, etc.).
>
>
> what about cargo? test flights / research / runways on manufacturing plant?
>
> 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

[Tagging] How to tag road junction names and traffic signal names?

[Lukas Sommer]

How to tag road junction names and traffic signal names?

Background:
In some countries (Japan, Korea, Ivory Coast…) people orient themselves in
the local area using the names of road junctions (like crossroads or
roundabouts) or traffic signals rather then the names of streets. While
street names also exist, they are not important for orientation. (Note:
This is about orientation in the local area, thus different from the names
of motorway junctions who’s names serve for orientation at large distances.)

Use case:
This information is necessary for rendering maps and can be useful for
turn-to-turn navigation.

Current situation:
We have the tags highway=traffic_signals (for traffic signals on road
junctions or at straight roads – typical for Japan) and junction=yes (for
road junctions with or without traffic signals – typical for Ivory Coast)
in use at OSM. Both tags are almost exclusively used on nodes. They can be
used together with name=*. This works quite well for simple crossroads
(example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png
)

Shortcomings of the current situation:
It isn’t defined how to tag more complex cases. This should be made clear –
also because we want to have a suitable rendering for this in
openstreetmap-carto (
http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/374).

Ideas for road junction names (countries like Ivory Coast):
Example: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_2.png
is a junction in Ivory Coast. How can we tag the junction? If we make a
node at the red point (centre of the junction), this will be fine for
rendering (rendering the name at the position of the red point), but not as
easy for turn-to-turn navigation because the point is not part of a way. We
could also tag the four nodes where the ways cross. This will be fine for
turn-to-turn navigation, but not as easy for rendering (sorting out
duplicates because you should render the name only once, not four times).
Furthermore, you have to provide the same information four times (and you
can make a spelling mistake four times). You could also use a new relation
type, which contains the four nodes where the ways cross. This is a clean
solution, but complicates to use for beginners, and complicate for a quite
simple task like adding a name of a junction. We could also make an area
(closed way) around the junction area, sharing nodes with all incoming and
outgoing ways. This would be less “clean” tagging than a relation would,
but it is much easier to use for beginners, and be still quite easy to
process for rendering and (I think) also routing. (PS: Another type of
“complex junctions” are roundabouts like
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/5.35590/-4.07360 in Ivory Coast. You
will not use the name=* tag on the way that makes up the roundabout itself
because this would render like in western countries as a label of the
street itself. Instead, you need something different that renders bigger –
so the tagging should also provide a solution for this use case.)

Ideas for traffic signal names (countries like Japan):
On the ground, each traffic signal in complex crossroads seems to have its
own sign showing the name. Searching a little bit around, I’ve found at
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Crossroad-names-td5754463.html
> As theory, the names of Japanese traffic signals are given to each
> signals, not to a junction.
> (and basically, the signals on a same junction has same names)
However, rendering each name four times may not be very nice. Google and
Bing display the name only once (
http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#18/34.3847/132.4542&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-map&mt3=geofabrik-topo),
in the middle of the crossroad. They even display the traffic signal icon
only once. Currently, in OSM there seem to be for Japan the name at each of
the nodes where the ways cross. How can we get a clean and reliable tagging
here, which is suitable for rendering and turn-to-turn navigation?

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

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[John Packer]

It is kind of a proposal, but it isn't in the sense that I don't want to be
responsible for it.
I know little beyond the basics of aerodrome, and currently do not have the
interest of researching this much further.
If anyone thinks this should be a proposal, and know enough about
aerodromes to do so, feel free to make one.

I want this issue to progress to the point of having at least the basics
well-defined, that's why I'm pushing it by editing the wiki.
Note that I'm doing so while making the wiki page look clearly "draft-y"
and marked as a {{Stub}}, so others feel invited to edit it or add comments.



2014-07-24 5:38 GMT-03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> Am 23/lug/2014 um 21:43 schrieb Christian Quest :
>
> Have you looked at taginfo ?
>
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=aerodrome#overview
>
> aerodrome=international is already in use, it is even the first in
> quantity (157)
>
>
>
> +1, I think the wiki page should become a proposal and current usage
> should be reflected (if there are some values that are in use but currently
> discouraged this should also be mentioned for example)
>
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw :

> My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging
> scheme.
>


I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of
the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land.
Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential
building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I
surely won't tag as building=church but they get an
amenity=place_of_worship).
In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a
building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are
building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such.
see
http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof
Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as
a hackspace and eventspace:
http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location
Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated.

these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar
cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation
the building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed
with the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep
structure and references to the former use.



> Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for
> tagging objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it
> comes to mapping area+building for common town building types.
>


yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the
plurality of building types, there are lots of them.


>
>
> So (1), as a noob tagger, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding
> something when it comes to mapping houses, businesses, industrial, etc -
> because I see landuse categories as a great way to map the usable land the
> building and it's **related** amenities.
>


something is generally related (spatially), when the areas overlap or one
is inside the other. You do not need tags for this.



>
> Since I am having trouble conveying this to you, I made a chart. it is a
> little big (120KB) to be on the mailing list, so I put it online.
> http://www.javbw.com/chart.png
>


I understand the intention of this chart, but I believe it is
oversimplistic and not useful for practical mapping. "house" is a quite
generic type, e.g. I'd go for something more specific like
"detached_house", "terraced_house" etc., or rather than building=industrial
there could be "production_hall", "warehouse" etc. (which are still quite
generic types and might merit subtagging, e.g. "packing_warehouse"). Inside
an industrial area you'll often find different typologies of industrial
buildings (and also commercial buildings and maybe even residential
buildings like a villa for the owner).


>
>
> I want to simplify tagging areas and buildings by having enough landuse
> tags to cover the major types
>


agreed, there are some missing values, mostly these are tags that would
cover areas that are already covered by a tag that is in a different
namespace than "landuse" (i.e. introducing those tags would merely
duplicate the existing information but might simplify evaluation of the
data/simple mid zoom renderings etc.).
E.g. we might want something for highly mixed spaces like you can find them
in the centre of traditional european cities (mixed between residential,
commercial, retail, education, culture, religion, health but typically not
industrial).



> Most beginning mappers aren't going to be in JOSM or Potlach, but use iD
> and the wiki (me currently)
>


Yes, tagging using presets bears generally the problem that you have to get
the meaning of a tag from one word and that you have to trust in the
interpretations that the makers of your editor / preset have applied.
Getting to know the basic keys and values and then search (and have a look
at taginfo) seems like a viable but timeconsuming solution, and I agree
that the wiki is not always easy to read (you'd have to look also on the
history for every article, due to wikifiddling) and I am sure there are
lots of inconsistencies no matter how hard we try...



> - and the arbitrariness of the tagging system documented in the wiki is
> very difficult to internalize, so you can map without constant reference to
> the wiki to find out what different tagging schema this area+building has
> vs all the rest (townhall vs a house vs a school are all completely
> different for no **necessary** reason).
>


they are not different at all:
building=detached_house
building=townhall
building=school

they are completely consistent ;-)

Now for the functions:
amenity=townhall
amenity=school
no tag for a private residence (not mapped due to privacy concerns)

also completely consistent.


 cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw :

> My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging
> scheme.
>


I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of
the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land.
Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential
building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I
surely won't tag as building=church but they get an
amenity=place_of_worship).
In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a
building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are
building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such.
see
http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof
Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as
a hackspace and eventspace:
http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location
Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated.

these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar
cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation
the building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed
with the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep
structure and references to the former use.



> Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for
> tagging objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it
> comes to mapping area+building for common town building types.
>


yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the
plurality of building types, there are lots of them.


>
>
> So (1), as a noob tagger, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding
> something when it comes to mapping houses, businesses, industrial, etc -
> because I see landuse categories as a great way to map the usable land the
> building and it's **related** amenities.
>


something is generally related (spatially), when the areas overlap or one
is inside the other. You do not need tags for this.



>
> Since I am having trouble conveying this to you, I made a chart. it is a
> little big (120KB) to be on the mailing list, so I put it online.
> http://www.javbw.com/chart.png
>


I understand the intention of this chart, but I believe it is
oversimplistic and not useful for practical mapping. "house" is a quite
generic type, e.g. I'd go for something more specific like
"detached_house", "terraced_house" etc., or rather than building=industrial
there could be "production_hall", "warehouse" etc. (which are still quite
generic types and might merit subtagging, e.g. "packing_warehouse"). Inside
an industrial area you'll often find different typologies of industrial
buildings (and also commercial buildings and maybe even residential
buildings like a villa for the owner).


>
>
> I want to simplify tagging areas and buildings by having enough landuse
> tags to cover the major types
>


agreed, there are some missing values, mostly these are tags that would
cover areas that are already covered by a tag that is in a different
namespace than "landuse" (i.e. introducing those tags would merely
duplicate the existing information but might simplify evaluation of the
data/simple mid zoom renderings etc.).
E.g. we might want something for highly mixed spaces like you can find them
in the centre of traditional european cities (mixed between residential,
commercial, retail, education, culture, religion, health but typically not
industrial).



> Most beginning mappers aren't going to be in JOSM or Potlach, but use iD
> and the wiki (me currently)
>


Yes, tagging using presets bears generally the problem that you have to get
the meaning of a tag from one word and that you have to trust in the
interpretations that the makers of your editor / preset have applied.
Getting to know the basic keys and values and then search (and have a look
at taginfo) seems like a viable but timeconsuming solution, and I agree
that the wiki is not always easy to read (you'd have to look also on the
history for every article, due to wikifiddling) and I am sure there are
lots of inconsistencies no matter how hard we try...



> - and the arbitrariness of the tagging system documented in the wiki is
> very difficult to internalize, so you can map without constant reference to
> the wiki to find out what different tagging schema this area+building has
> vs all the rest (townhall vs a house vs a school are all completely
> different for no **necessary** reason).
>


they are not different at all:
building=detached_house
building=townhall
building=school

they are completely consistent ;-)

Now for the functions:
amenity=townhall
amenity=school
no tag for a private residence (not mapped due to privacy concerns)

also completely consistent.


 cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] sport=horse_racing unnecessary sport=equestrian

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Maybe [sport=equestrian; equestrian=racing] would be better?


2014-07-24 11:52 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss :

> "horse racing" is a very different animal (pun intended) to e.g 3 day
>> eventing, country point-to-points, gymkhanas, etc.
>>
>
> But do you plan to tag those with sport=horse_3_day_eventing,
> sport=horse_country_point-to-points and sport=hose_gymkhana?
>
> Because I have the impression they are all still sport=equestrian just
> like racing.
> __
> openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Change in rendering in Mapnik of Nature Reserves.

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 24 July 2014 00:10, Dave F.  wrote:
> Thanks for pointing that out to me. As I said, I personally had no problem
> with 'NR' but I'd be OK with it's removal is there was some king of infill.
> ATM there is none & it looks virtually invisible.

I'm not sure if this is in the right place, but I've previously added
some comments to the commit that implemented the changes:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/3e5cbea1413ef2fea0d43bffee51c39d940a4c6d

In short -- I think we need an area-based rendering to make these
visible. But at higher zooms, a shading probably won't work very well
over other landuse colours, so a repeating glyph is probably the best
approach. "NR" probably isn't the best thing to use for an
international audience, but I'm sure someone could come up with a
pictographic symbol instead.

Robert.

> On 23/07/2014 23:52, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>>
>> On 23 July 2014 23:16, Dan S  wrote:
>>>
>>> Not really an issue for the "tagging" mailing list - I don't think the
>>> people who maintain the style are on here. If you're talking about the
>>> main osm.org style then it's "openstreetmap-carto", maintained here:
>>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/
>>
>> More precisely for this issue:
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/200
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/491
>>
>> -- Matthijs


-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Tagging] sport=horse_racing unnecessary sport=equestrian

[Andreas Goss]

"horse racing" is a very different animal (pun intended) to e.g 3 day
eventing, country point-to-points, gymkhanas, etc.


But do you plan to tag those with sport=horse_3_day_eventing, 
sport=horse_country_point-to-points and sport=hose_gymkhana?


Because I have the impression they are all still sport=equestrian just 
like racing.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] sport=horse_racing unnecessary sport=equestrian

[SomeoneElse]

On 24/07/2014 10:35, Andreas Goss wrote:

Is there a reason to keep sport=horse_racing?


"horse racing" is a very different animal (pun intended) to e.g 3 day 
eventing, country point-to-points, gymkhanas, etc.


Cheers,

Andy


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

[Tagging] sport=horse_racing unnecessary sport=equestrian

[Andreas Goss]

Is there a reason to keep sport=horse_racing?

Equestrian seems to defined as


This broad description includes the use of horses for practical working 
purposes, transportation, recreational activities, artistic or cultural 
exercises, and competitive sport (!!!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrianism



Horse racing is an equestrian sport, involving two or more jockeys riding 
horses over a set distance for competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_racing


This seems to cover racing.

If this is about seperating tracks (racing vs. non-racing) then I think 
it should be done with a different tag than the sports tag. (leisure=* 
or equestrian=* see also http://www.olympic.org/sports)


- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dequestrian
- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dhorse_racing
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 24/lug/2014 um 00:55 schrieb Fernando Trebien :
> 
> aerodrome=international would mean "a public airport/aerodrome that
> primarily enables regular citizens to hire flights directly to other
> countries", and to achieve this it would need some supporting
> infrastructure (immigration, customs, etc.).


what about cargo? test flights / research / runways on manufacturing plant?

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

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 23/lug/2014 um 21:43 schrieb Christian Quest :
> 
> Have you looked at taginfo ?
> 
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=aerodrome#overview
> 
> aerodrome=international is already in use, it is even the first in quantity 
> (157)


+1, I think the wiki page should become a proposal and current usage should be 
reflected (if there are some values that are in use but currently discouraged 
this should also be mentioned for example)

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