Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

[Dave Swarthout]

+1
Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand, simple to
implement, and simple to parse when thinking of the facility as a single
thing with many amenities - like a mall, office complex, or another large
establishment that handles lots of visitors visitors and offers them
amenities.

I like landuse=religious and use it frequently. In fact, I would use it
more often except that we can't seem to come to an agreement about its
validity. Here in Thailand practically every wat (temple) is surrounded by
a wall and the area thus enclosed is easy to see in aerials and easy to
tag. It makes perfect sense to tag such areas with a landuse, just as we do
for a mall, commercial, industrial, or retail landuses.


On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 14/02/2015 1:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> 2015-01-03 16:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić :
>
>> Landuse=religious AFAIK started being used for land that is owned by a
>> religious entity, and in it there would be schools, playgrounds, priest
>> living grounds, and so on. Then this was disputed
>
>
>
>
>  +1, "religious" really isn't a _landuse_ in these cases, they seem
> perfect examples where a tag religion=* would do the trick and no new tag
> would be needed.
>
>  cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>
> What 'landuse' would you say it is? It does not fit in any of the values
> given on the wiki
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse
>
> There are over 2,900 tagged landuse=religious currently. as shown by the
> taginfo.
>
> This is more than the values  'churchyard', park, wasteland, harbour... so
> the mappers are using it. Probably because it make sense to them.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

[Warin]

On 14/02/2015 1:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-01-03 16:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić >:


Landuse=religious AFAIK started being used for land that is owned
by a religious entity, and in it there would be schools,
playgrounds, priest living grounds, and so on. Then this was disputed




+1, "religious" really isn't a _landuse_ in these cases, they seem 
perfect examples where a tag religion=* would do the trick and no new 
tag would be needed.


cheers,
Martin




What 'landuse' would you say it is? It does not fit in any of the values 
given on the wiki

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse

There are over 2,900 tagged landuse=religious currently. as shown by the 
taginfo.


This is more than the values  'churchyard', park, wasteland, harbour... 
so the mappers are using it. Probably because it make sense to them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

[johnw]

> On Feb 13, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2015-01-03 16:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić  >:
> Landuse=religious AFAIK started being used for land that is owned by a 
> religious entity, and in it there would be schools, playgrounds, priest 
> living grounds, and so on. Then this was disputed
> 
> 
> 
> +1, "religious" really isn't a _landuse_ in these cases, they seem perfect 
> examples where a tag religion=* would do the trick and no new tag would be 
> needed.

I’m still not understanding the confusion around the tag. If I took out the 
word “religious” and “religious entity” out of the example and put in 'retail' 
and ‘mall owner’ - there would be no problem putting landuse=retail on the site 
of a mall - which is well defined and easily mapped - and tagging amenities of 
the ground - AKA parking, gardens, playground, buildings, sheds, etc.  We can 
have churches tagged as a shop in a retail landuse - if there is a small shop 
stuck in the corner of a churchyard (and the churchyard is well defined), why 
is having the shop labeled remotely a problem? it’s simply part of the church 
facility grounds. 

While there are edge cases - usually where mapping the grounds are difficult -  
there are probably hundreds of thousands of religious facilities that have well 
defined and easily mapped grounds, which include amenities for use by the 
patrons, or even the public.

Hospitals have easily defined grounds, and often have kids areas, shops - there 
are convenience stores in most large hospitals in Japan - but we would never 
exclude their presence from the hospital landuse. 

Similarly, Office buildings often have courtyards, outdoor speaking areas, and 
other large, not directly "office" related areas - but the 6 building campus at 
1 infinite loop for Apple in Cupertino wouldn’t have only the 6 buildings 
tagged as commercial - the parking, courtyrd, the speaking area,  the company 
store, and support facilities are all part of “Apple Campus 1” - a single 
commercial landuse. 

The landuse many religious places occupy is the grounds of the facility, and 
the shape and outline of the grounds are often well defined - and more 
importantly - well known to the people in the community.  It is common to map 
temple grounds here in Japan - not only the buildings themselves, but the 
grounds they occupy, which is very easy to do with good imagery. 

The amenities - graveyards, gardens, parking, temples, belltowers, statures, 
and occasionally parks, playgrounds, and the home of the Monk(s) are considered 
to be “part of the temple facilities” Some may have daycare or preschool 
facilities - usually the larger, established “schools” then fall under the 
school landuse and the church is the operator - but the church itself takes up 
space - usually separate (and not necessarily adjacent) space - it is not a 
school. It is not a park. it is not a retail or commercial establishment. It is 
a religious facility. and as with any facility complex, there are amenities on 
the site of the facility. Why is having them included in a single “religious 
grounds” landuse not desired? Every basic landuse type needs a landuse tag.  
Having amenity define the landuse (as with hospital and school) was a mistake, 
but one that cannot be rectified now. Every major building complex type 
deserves a landuse tag - otherwise it is confusing as hell to beginning mappers 
- and makes creating future landuse tags harder - hospital is excluded - what 
about fire stations? police stations? 

Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand, simple to 
implement, and simple to parse when thinking of the facility as a single thing 
with many amenities - like a mall, office complex, or another large 
establishment that handles lots of visitors visitors and offers them amenities. 

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 14.02.2015 22:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
> ... it also says that it shouldn't be used on relations, which would
> exclude perfectly valid multipolygons, such as this one:

Multipolygons are a means to map areas. So they are covered by the area
icon.

The relation icon stands for relations that are not areas,
just as the way icon stands for ways that are not areas.

> It appears that again people are trying to use the wiki to "tell other
> people how to map" rather than "describe how things tend to be mapped".

Nobody is telling anyone not to use multipolygons.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[Warin]

On 15/02/2015 8:11 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:



It appears that again people are trying to use the wiki to "tell other 
people how to map" rather than "describe how things tend to be mapped".


A tenancy to instruct rather than guide?

The wiki should be a usefull guide as to best practice rather than rule 
book.



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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[SomeoneElse]

On 14/02/2015 07:45, Lukas Sommer wrote:

Hello.

The english wiki page key:building says that this key may not be used
on nodes.


... it also says that it shouldn't be used on relations, which would 
exclude perfectly valid multipolygons, such as this one:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/109230

It appears that again people are trying to use the wiki to "tell other 
people how to map" rather than "describe how things tend to be mapped".  
There actually seems to have been a minor edit war about it.  Here's the 
discussion:


http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Key:building#onRelation.3F

It's a shame, because it means when people see stuff in there that 
obviously doesn't match how people map things they'll just ignore the 
information in there that _is_ useful.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

> I see nothing wrong with building=* on a node, used 772612 times.
> 
> Typical cases are:
> 
> - somebody collects house numbers along a road, but has no access
>to the geometry. Thus she can use plain addr: tags on unbuilt
>properties, and add building=* where a building is visible.
> 
> - aerial imagery of lower resolution, where the buildings are
>just distinguishable but

- start_date=* + building=yes for a building that doesn't appear yet on 
any imagery (or nobody has yet noticed that the latest imagery has it).


-- 
 i.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> Personally, I don't think building nodes are really useful. They are
> little more than a formalized note, as most applications using buildings
> will want areas.


It terms of locating the building, and understanding it's function, nodes
give me essentially 100% of the utility.
I see no problem here.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[Dave Swarthout]

I must chime in on this discussion. I disagree with Tobias' view. Some of
us are mapping in areas with very low resolution imagery. Yet, if a house
is visible, especially in remote regions, I want to be able to map it even
if it's not clear enough or large enough to have a shape drawn. I have
mapped such habitations with a node and find it very useful. JOSM even
obliges by rendering them with a small house icon. I also map petrol
stations with a single node. It holds all the critical information a
motorist might need and is a quick and easy way to add important
information to OSM. I am not going to start drawing each petrol station in
Thailand, where I do most of my mapping, because frankly I believe my
mapping energy could be used much more fruitfully in other ways. I'm
content to let those sorts of enhancements wait until we have all the roads
and water features added.



On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> On 14.02.2015 12:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> > I see nothing wrong with building=* on a node, used 772612 times.
>
> Which is still only 0.006 of all buildings.
>
> Personally, I don't think building nodes are really useful. They are
> little more than a formalized note, as most applications using buildings
> will want areas.
>
> But as long as there is no confusion that areas are always desirable,
> and that building nodes are a temporary solution waiting for more
> detailed mapping, allowing nodes will hopefully not cause problems.
>
> > I noticed in the history there seem to be conflicting opinions
> > about relations as well, some see multipolygons as relation and
> > some not.
>
> After a long and exhausting discussion, this is now clearly defined in
> the documentation of the respective templates. The area icon does cover
> multipolygon relations.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waste_collection - a new Feature Proposal - RFC

[fly]

Am 14.02.2015 um 02:41 schrieb Dave Swarthout:
> I think amenity=waste_disposal with sub tags for the type of waste being
> disposed of could be a workable solution. It's more complicated than using
> another top level tag like dump_station, etc., for sewage but allows for
> more specificity when desired. This seems to be a good, general purpose,
> top level tag.

+1

It will work far better than waste=* or rubbish=* on there own if you
also think about the amenity=recycling and the possible overlaps.

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

Re: [Tagging] route=running

[fly]

Am 13.02.2015 um 11:19 schrieb Andreas Labres:
> On 05.02.15 06:44, Andreas Labres wrote:
>> Would it be O.K. to add route=running to the Wiki?
> 
> I'd also need a value for nordic walking routes, could this be 
> route=nordic_walking?

What is the difference between a nordic_walking and a running route ?
Does it really matter or am I only allowed to run/walk along with sticks
in my hand ?

While I understand that we need tags for running <-> nordic_walking <->
fitness_trail we might think about one category and an additional tag.

> Here is an example of the signpost for a running and a walking route:
> 
> http://www.bad.tatzmannsdorf.at/typo3temp/yag/11/1130x505827a8921.jpg
> 
> www.laufarena.at gives details of the routes in that area.
> 
> running:
>L11 Panoramalauf
>L12 Höhenweg
>L13 Wechselblick
>L14 Wendepunktstrecke Golfplatz
>L15 Tschabachrunde
>L16 Neustiftrunde
>L17 Aufwärmrunde
>L18 Resortrunde
>L19 Drumlingrunde
> 
> nordic walking:
>W11 Friedensweg
>W12 Panoramarunde
>W13 Hianzenweg
>W14 Quellenweg
>W15 Moorweg
>W16 Bernsteinweg
> 

By the way the type=route wiki page [1] first lists foot and later talks
about hiking.

Thought foot is a higher category and we might difference between hiking
and walking.

Cheers fly


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route


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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[Tobias Knerr]

On 14.02.2015 12:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> I see nothing wrong with building=* on a node, used 772612 times.

Which is still only 0.006 of all buildings.

Personally, I don't think building nodes are really useful. They are
little more than a formalized note, as most applications using buildings
will want areas.

But as long as there is no confusion that areas are always desirable,
and that building nodes are a temporary solution waiting for more
detailed mapping, allowing nodes will hopefully not cause problems.

> I noticed in the history there seem to be conflicting opinions
> about relations as well, some see multipolygons as relation and
> some not.

After a long and exhausting discussion, this is now clearly defined in
the documentation of the respective templates. The area icon does cover
multipolygon relations.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

[Tom Pfeifer]

I see nothing wrong with building=* on a node, used 772612 times.

Typical cases are:

- somebody collects house numbers along a road, but has no access
  to the geometry. Thus she can use plain addr: tags on unbuilt
  properties, and add building=* where a building is visible.

- aerial imagery of lower resolution, where the buildings are
  just distinguishable but

Buildings on nodes used to be rendered in the tiles-at-home style.
It was recently discussed on carto for the main map, but decided
not to in order to encourage mapping the geometry.

But it should still be considered correct tagging.

I noticed in the history there seem to be conflicting opinions
about relations as well, some see multipolygons as relation and
some not.

tom

Lukas Sommer wrote on 2015-02-14 08:45:

Hello.

The english wiki page key:building says that this key may not be used
on nodes. However, most (but not all) of the english wiki pages for
the individual values (like building=apartments) allow the usage on
nodes.

I’m not sure if it is useful to have a different policy for different
values here. Wouldn’t it be more useful to have to have the same rules
for _all_ values of the key “building=*”?




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