Re: [Tagging] Handle with care (was: Accuracy of survey)
On 9 September 2015 21:46:54 GMT+01:00, "André Pirard" wrote: >There are various reasons for warning other mappers to be careful about >their updates. >I once temporarily overlaid two walking routes to show the effect of >displaying two sorts of icons. >Or I left in for a while drawing errors of a plugin as the best way to >show the author what I talk about. >Despite a don't touch note explaining why, a good soul passes, not >reading note and makes a "correction". Please run experiments like this on a test db, not on the main one. It's easy to point your editor to dev.openstreetmap.org for example (quoting from memory, not 100% sure). You never know when a data consumer will stumble upon your experiment, live or in a downloaded snapshot. Nobody expects osm data to be perfect all the time, but there's no point in knowingly making it worse. -- Vincent Dp ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Handle with care (was: Accuracy of survey)
On 2014-12-29 15:27, Kotya Karapetyan wrote : Happy holidays and 2015 everyone! > what is needed here is some tag, saying "don't touch these > coordinates, they've been surveyed with high(est) accuracy". I second this idea. Just recently I discovered that something in this direction already exists: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_France/Rep%C3%A8res_G%C3%A9od%C3%A9siques#Permanence_des_rep.C3.A8res Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=23/43.42272/6.76665 However it seems to be France-specific. I don't know if a similar thing exists e.g. for Germany. Since such reference points are quite common, I would support the idea of creating a special tag for them, requiring that they are not moved. However we need a clear consensus on how we define the "sufficient" accuracy and how the data for such points will be updated. These are very good ideas but restricted to a very particular case. There are various reasons for warning other mappers to be careful about their updates. I once temporarily overlaid two walking routes to show the effect of displaying two sorts of icons. Or I left in for a while drawing errors of a plugin as the best way to show the author what I talk about. Despite a don't touch note explaining why, a good soul passes, not reading note and makes a "correction". What is needed here is an "are you sure" tag named [keyname:]warning=* or [keyname:caution]=* that the editor uses any time a mapper wants to change that key's value (not uploads a dozen updates) to display the message and ask for a confirmation. Or should it be [keyname:]note:warn=* and spare another wiki page? keyname can be "geometry" as in source:geometry. Et voilà. An all-purpose simple guardrail, a small update to the wiki and passing the word to the editors. What do you think? Cheers André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence
> Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM - > natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable. Well, maybe I should let that down, then, or put the data in the description field; this way, I won't mess with the OSM data, but they'll be there if someone is interested. > You can and should map the surface phenomena related to the underground > water flow of course - ponors, dolines, karst springs and other stuff. In fact, I'm drafting a proposal on this, which is why I asked this, to know if I could put something consistent on this matter in the proposal. Regards. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence
On Wednesday 09 September 2015, David Marchal wrote: > > As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I > can't map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link > exclusive, i.e. tell that the water only comes from one point and > exits at another? If so, I can't either, as no-one can be sure of > that in karstic systems: you can be sure that a ponor feeds a spring, > but not that only this single ponor feeds only this particular > spring, as there can be other ponors feeding this spring, and other > springs fed by this ponor. Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM - natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable. You can and should map the surface phenomena related to the underground water flow of course - ponors, dolines, karst springs and other stuff. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence
I would say that we need a new type of relation for that. Jo 2015-09-09 17:25 GMT+02:00 David Marchal : > > map the underground stream if possible. > > As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't > map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell > that the water only comes from one point and exits at another? If so, I > can't either, as no-one can be sure of that in karstic systems: you can be > sure that a ponor feeds a spring, but not that only this single ponor feeds > only this particular spring, as there can be other ponors feeding this > spring, and other springs fed by this ponor. > > Anyway, I can remember of some locations where a stream is known to be > undergroud, and that it is the same stream all along, running underground > below its dry bed during summer and filling it only during winter, so that > will be useful. > > > If mapping the underground stream is not an option use the quite normal > > relation waterway. > > The problem is that the resurgence is renowned as a separate river, even > if the link with the losing stream is well known, and those rivers both has > their waterway relation. How can I map the link without messing with the > separate waterway relations ? By creating a super-relation ? I don't want > to FUBAR the data. > > Regards. > > ___ > 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] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence
> map the underground stream if possible. As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell that the water only comes from one point and exits at another? If so, I can't either, as no-one can be sure of that in karstic systems: you can be sure that a ponor feeds a spring, but not that only this single ponor feeds only this particular spring, as there can be other ponors feeding this spring, and other springs fed by this ponor. Anyway, I can remember of some locations where a stream is known to be undergroud, and that it is the same stream all along, running underground below its dry bed during summer and filling it only during winter, so that will be useful. > If mapping the underground stream is not an option use the quite normal > relation waterway. The problem is that the resurgence is renowned as a separate river, even if the link with the losing stream is well known, and those rivers both has their waterway relation. How can I map the link without messing with the separate waterway relations ? By creating a super-relation ? I don't want to FUBAR the data. Regards. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:55:44AM +0200, David Marchal wrote: > Hello, there. > I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated > waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between > them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which relation? Should I > tag the resurgence by itself? map the underground stream if possible. I dont't think there is a standard way to do it but location=underground might work. Some people used variations of tunnel=* with additional tags for cave. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave has some info and discussion on the talk page If mapping the underground stream is not an option use the quite normal relation waterway. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
