Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi Hans,


that was my thought as well. I assume I have to check all the suspicious 
entries that

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values


shows. The data is a bit out-aged now (2015-10-14 23:58 UTC)

as I am constantly cleaning up but I think 842 different highway=* tags

are far too many, both for consumers and for newbies.


Gerd


Von: Hans De Kryger 
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 08:13
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples. Makes no 
sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be 
reverted/deleted.

Regards,
Hans

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
[http://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo-0e19527a1cc9fdf566c217d6e1863d88cac7bb743914792dea5d8db813501ad6.png]

OpenStreetMap | TheDutchMan13
OpenStreetMap is the free wiki world map. ... "Changing the world one edit at a 
time" In love with OpenStreetMap! I mostly map within the borders of Arizona.
Weitere Informationen...


On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann 
mailto:gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Oops, forgot to set the list on cc


Von: Gerd Petermann
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
An: Hans De Kryger
Betreff: AW: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?


Example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185

which is just the first best from 130 "highway=unbuilt" ways,

Its history shows that it was imported in 2007.


Just a few m south is another one:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199739291

which doesn't have a long history but seems to be

exactly like it.


Gerd





Von: Hans De Kryger 
mailto:hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>>
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 01:09
An: OpenStreetMap
Cc: Gerd Petermann
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?


Do you have any examples?

On Oct 15, 2015 12:27 PM, "Mateusz Konieczny" 
mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
Gerd Petermann 
mailto:gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> forgive me if this was discussed before:
> There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
> I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
> as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that
> we have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to
> mean the same) but why do we have ways with
> highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and
> several more with similar meaning ?
> They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal
> highway=* to the database and later someone found out that there is
> no highway, but did not dare to remove the way.
>
> Is that meant to document something important?
>
> Gerd
>

Purpose of such objects is to ensure that armchair mappers will not
remap it again. Object with note=* seem better than highway=neverbuilt.

In case of low risk of remapping by armachair mappers such ways may be
safely deleted.

___
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] manège - area for horse training

[Georg Feddern]

Am 15.10.2015 um 22:57 schrieb Warin:

On 16/10/2015 7:08 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:


What the picture shows is a Carrière, which is to be tagged as
leisure=pitch
sport=equestrian




+1

And someone will now say that it is not a sport... just like for 
cricket_nets ...


Anyone for another key sport_practice?

Would have similar values to the key sport but used for 'pitches' that 
are only used for practice/training as they cannot be used for the 
full 'sport'.


-1

Ever worked/trained with horses?

What is the key definition for sport?
Concentration? Reactions? Best moves? Power?

Is a carrière
- sport_practice when there is just training
but
- sport when there is a competion?

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

Re: [Tagging] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Hans De Kryger]

Thanks for the examples, i definitely disagree with both examples. Makes no
sense to have those at all to me. In my opinion they need to be
reverted/deleted.

*Regards,*

*Hans*

*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Oops, forgot to set the list on cc
>
> --
> *Von:* Gerd Petermann
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
> *An:* Hans De Kryger
> *Betreff:* AW: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
>
>
> Example:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185
>
> which is just the first best from 130 "highway=unbuilt" ways,
>
> Its history shows that it was imported in 2007.
>
>
> Just a few m south is another one:
>
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199739291
>
> which doesn't have a long history but seems to be
>
> exactly like it.
>
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Von:* Hans De Kryger 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 01:09
> *An:* OpenStreetMap
> *Cc:* Gerd Petermann
> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?
>
>
> Do you have any examples?
> On Oct 15, 2015 12:27 PM, "Mateusz Konieczny" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
>> Gerd Petermann  wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > forgive me if this was discussed before:
>> > There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
>> > I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
>> > as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that
>> > we have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to
>> > mean the same) but why do we have ways with
>> > highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and
>> > several more with similar meaning ?
>> > They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal
>> > highway=* to the database and later someone found out that there is
>> > no highway, but did not dare to remove the way.
>> >
>> > Is that meant to document something important?
>> >
>> > Gerd
>> >
>>
>> Purpose of such objects is to ensure that armchair mappers will not
>> remap it again. Object with note=* seem better than highway=neverbuilt.
>>
>> In case of low risk of remapping by armachair mappers such ways may be
>> safely deleted.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] WG: how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Gerd Petermann]

Oops, forgot to set the list on cc


Von: Gerd Petermann
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 07:21
An: Hans De Kryger
Betreff: AW: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?


Example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5987185

which is just the first best from 130 "highway=unbuilt" ways,

Its history shows that it was imported in 2007.


Just a few m south is another one:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199739291

which doesn't have a long history but seems to be

exactly like it.


Gerd





Von: Hans De Kryger 
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2015 01:09
An: OpenStreetMap
Cc: Gerd Petermann
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?


Do you have any examples?

On Oct 15, 2015 12:27 PM, "Mateusz Konieczny" 
mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
Gerd Petermann 
mailto:gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> forgive me if this was discussed before:
> There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
> I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
> as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that
> we have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to
> mean the same) but why do we have ways with
> highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and
> several more with similar meaning ?
> They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal
> highway=* to the database and later someone found out that there is
> no highway, but did not dare to remove the way.
>
> Is that meant to document something important?
>
> Gerd
>

Purpose of such objects is to ensure that armchair mappers will not
remap it again. Object with note=* seem better than highway=neverbuilt.

In case of low risk of remapping by armachair mappers such ways may be
safely deleted.

___
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] Postindustrial Castle

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Oct 16, 2015, at 3:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> t least the intention was to build a castle, the typology is copying
> from castles, Hearst ruled an imperium (of publishing), he organized
> impressive receptions, held formal dinners, etc. --- for me the
> meaning of castle as you describe it would not have to be stretched
> (much).

No, it wouldn't, you're right. 

Apple is building a big round HQ in Cupertino - it is very large and imposing 
structure - holding thousands of "troops" - famous "generals" of Ive and Cook", 
and their formidable "weapons" to fight against their enemy across the valley 
in the "Googolplex" castle. 

Its easy to use language to make anything anything, especially if you conflate 
the personality of the occupants with the building, rather than the usage and 
purpose(s) of the building itself. 

All of the things that make Hearst castle not a castle are in its intended 
purpose and usage before it was a historical museum. The qualities of the man 
made it seem more formidable, and its location is also topographically 
imposing, but the intended use of the facility was a lavish residence in the 
style of a castle. My aunt has a giant log cabin on a 1500m hill, much higher 
than Hearst's lavish residence on the coast. 

This height advantage doesn't make her residence any more of a castle, nor more 
important than Heart Castle (the elevation importance argument). 

Apple is calling their new campus a "spaceship" - and though large and 
imposing, it is not a craft for space travel. It's just a name. 

"A man's home is his castle" - but the structure is still a "house". Same with 
Hearst. 

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

Re: [Tagging] post_box:type values, meter in particular

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-10-15 20:54, Holger Mappt wrote:

Hi,

The post_box:type Wiki page [1] was created two months ago and the key
was added to the JOSM preset recently [2]. That means that the values
show up in Launchpad for translation. The "meter" type in particular is
hard to translate as it is not clear for non-UK citizens like me what
that type refers to. The Wiki page states that post_box:type is about
the physical style (size/shape) of the post box, but "meter" refers to
the type of mail the post box is intended for. What would be the value
if there is a pillar box for meter mail in some country? Any ideas how
this can be improved? There is no word for "meter" in my language and
the translation would be either incomprehensible or too long.

Holger

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:post_box:type
[2] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11933


In the UK, meter mail postboxes are usually a different physical 
size/shape. ie they are rectangular, and usually bigger than a standard 
postbox. And a larger aperture for posting mail, which may be locked at 
times.
So I think they would be considered as different to pillar boxes. I'm 
not sure if they have an official/common name or not. Sometimes known as 
a "business mail post box".


Note there are also proposed tags for what mail is accepted by a 
postbox. See 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_post_box

ie mail:stamped / mail:meter / mail:1st_class / mail:2nd_class

So for a postbox that only accepts meter mail, you could tag it as 
mail:stamped=no, mail:meter=yes. So that could be used along with the 
tag for post_box:type


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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Hans De Kryger]

Do you have any examples?
On Oct 15, 2015 12:27 PM, "Mateusz Konieczny"  wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
> Gerd Petermann  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > forgive me if this was discussed before:
> > There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
> > I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
> > as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that
> > we have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to
> > mean the same) but why do we have ways with
> > highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and
> > several more with similar meaning ?
> > They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal
> > highway=* to the database and later someone found out that there is
> > no highway, but did not dare to remove the way.
> >
> > Is that meant to document something important?
> >
> > Gerd
> >
>
> Purpose of such objects is to ensure that armchair mappers will not
> remap it again. Object with note=* seem better than highway=neverbuilt.
>
> In case of low risk of remapping by armachair mappers such ways may be
> safely deleted.
>
> ___
> 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] manège - area for horse training

[Colin Smale]

 

Seems to be a hot item in the equestrian world: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=menage+manege&oq=menage+manege&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.6298j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8


Management summary is that manège is correct (it is the proper french
word), menage really means something different (household or family
group), but Brits have been using the wrong word so much that it has
almost become right. 

Certainly manège (or even the unaccented form manege) would be well
recognised in many countries (including the UK, whatever your
preference), whereas menage would probably be recognised (with the
intended meaning) in the UK and would raise eyebrows everywhere else. 

--colin 

On 2015-10-15 22:28, Philip Barnes wrote: 

> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 21:14 +0200, Marc Zoutendijk wrote: 
> Op 15 okt. 2015, om 19:43 heeft Philip Barnes  volgende geschreven: 
> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 16:49 +0100, Dave F. wrote: Hi
> 
> http://www.martincollins.com/Portals/0/Images/menage-surfaces/men
> age-surface-martin-collins.jpg
> 
> I'm trying to find an appropriate tag for these areas used to 
> exercise/train horses. Manège seemed correct, but at only 141 
> occurrences, I'm wondering if there's a more common name in use.
> Any ideas? I think its a menage, thats what usually appears on planning
> applications for such things.
 Check this:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/menage

I don't think that that's what you mean. 
That is the French meaning. English is different, although the French
is widely understood once the phrase is completed. 

> In French Manège is the word used to descibe the collection of
> training facilities for horses, like stables and arenas.
> 
> Also check this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dressage
> 
> I think that what is shown on the photo in the original post is
> correctly called Arena.
 An example of usage of menage in a planning application, https://pa.shr
opshire.gov.uk/online
-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NKAIN9TDIQ
900

Phil (trigpoint)

___
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] manège - area for horse training

[Warin]

On 16/10/2015 7:08 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

The French wiki seems to be very clear:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Riding

What the picture shows is a Carrière, which is to be tagged as
leisure=pitch
sport=equestrian




And someone will now say that it is not a sport... just like for 
cricket_nets ...


Anyone for another key sport_practice?

Would have similar values to the key sport but used for 'pitches' that 
are only used for practice/training as they cannot be used for the full 
'sport'.



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

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 21:14 +0200, Marc Zoutendijk wrote:
> 
> > Op 15 okt. 2015, om 19:43 heeft Philip Barnes  > > het volgende geschreven:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 16:49 +0100, Dave F. wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > http://www.martincollins.com/Portals/0/Images/menage-surfaces/men
> > > age-surface-martin-collins.jpg
> > > 
> > > I'm trying to find an appropriate tag for these areas used to 
> > > exercise/train horses. Manège seemed correct, but at only 141 
> > > occurrences, I'm wondering if there's a more common name in use.
> > > Any ideas?
> > I think its a menage, thats what usually appears on planning
> > applications for such things.
> > 
> Check this:
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/menage
> 
> I don’t think that that’s what you mean.

That is the French meaning. English is different, although the French
is widely understood once the phrase is completed.
> 
> In French Manège is the word used to descibe the collection of
> training facilities for horses, like stables and arenas.
> 
> Also check this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dressage
> 
> I think that what is shown on the photo in the original post is
> correctly called Arena.
> 
An example of usage of menage in a planning application, https://pa.shr
opshire.gov.uk/online
-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NKAIN9TDIQ
900


Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] post_box:type values, meter in particular

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 21:54 +0200, Holger Mappt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The post_box:type Wiki page [1] was created two months ago and the
> key 
> was added to the JOSM preset recently [2]. That means that the values
> show up in Launchpad for translation. The "meter" type in particular
> is 
> hard to translate as it is not clear for non-UK citizens like me what
> that type refers to. The Wiki page states that post_box:type is about
> the physical style (size/shape) of the post box, but "meter" refers
> to 
> the type of mail the post box is intended for. What would be the
> value 
> if there is a pillar box for meter mail in some country? Any ideas
> how 
> this can be improved? There is no word for "meter" in my language and
> the translation would be either incomprehensible or too long.
> 
The meter mail, although I find it an odd term as that type of mail is
normally called franked. This means that only mail that is pre-paid by
a business which has a machine can use the box. You or I, who buy
normal stamps cannot post things there. Usually these boxes are on
industrial estates. 

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

[Volker Schmidt]

The French wiki seems to be very clear:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Riding

What the picture shows is a Carrière, which is to be tagged as
leisure=pitch
sport=equestrian
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] post_box:type values, meter in particular

[Holger Mappt]

Hi,

The post_box:type Wiki page [1] was created two months ago and the key 
was added to the JOSM preset recently [2]. That means that the values 
show up in Launchpad for translation. The "meter" type in particular is 
hard to translate as it is not clear for non-UK citizens like me what 
that type refers to. The Wiki page states that post_box:type is about 
the physical style (size/shape) of the post box, but "meter" refers to 
the type of mail the post box is intended for. What would be the value 
if there is a pillar box for meter mail in some country? Any ideas how 
this can be improved? There is no word for "meter" in my language and 
the translation would be either incomprehensible or too long.


Holger

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:post_box:type
[2] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11933

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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
Gerd Petermann  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> forgive me if this was discussed before:
> There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
> I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
> as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that
> we have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to
> mean the same) but why do we have ways with
> highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and
> several more with similar meaning ?
> They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal
> highway=* to the database and later someone found out that there is
> no highway, but did not dare to remove the way.
> 
> Is that meant to document something important?
> 
> Gerd
> 

Purpose of such objects is to ensure that armchair mappers will not
remap it again. Object with note=* seem better than highway=neverbuilt.

In case of low risk of remapping by armachair mappers such ways may be
safely deleted.

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

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 15 okt. 2015, om 19:43 heeft Philip Barnes  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 16:49 +0100, Dave F. wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> http://www.martincollins.com/Portals/0/Images/menage-surfaces/menage-surface-martin-collins.jpg
>> 
>> I'm trying to find an appropriate tag for these areas used to 
>> exercise/train horses. Manège seemed correct, but at only 141 
>> occurrences, I'm wondering if there's a more common name in use. Any ideas?
> 
> I think its a menage, thats what usually appears on planning
> applications for such things.
> 

Check this:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/menage 


I don’t think that that’s what you mean.

In French Manège is the word used to descibe the collection of training 
facilities for horses, like stables and arenas.

Also check this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dressage 

I think that what is shown on the photo in the original post is correctly 
called Arena.

Marc.




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

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 15.10.2015 um 11:07 schrieb John Willis :
>
> Hearst castle is a very imposing and dominating structure. It was styled 
> somewhat as a castle (good imagery in google street view) Hearst was also a 
> powerful figure - but was it a seat of dominance over the land? A home to 
> political power?  A place to defend the leaders from attack? Nope.


at least the intention was to build a castle, the typology is copying
from castles, Hearst ruled an imperium (of publishing), he organized
impressive receptions, held formal dinners, etc. --- for me the
meaning of castle as you describe it would not have to be stretched
(much).

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-15 13:56 GMT+02:00 André Pirard :

> The historic key is correct, but used as an adjective as the attribute of
> an object, not as a noun for it.
> building=castlea building that is a castle, and not
> historic=castle a historic that is a castle; but a castle, like many
> other objects, can be
> historic=yes or not
>


the building tag is used for exactly one building (or it is approximate). A
castle is often more than a building (could be a group of buildings, plus a
walled outdoor area, defensive structures in front of it (e.g.
ditches/trenches, bastions, walls, towers, etc.) Other keys like amenity,
historic, man_made are a mix of stuff (from whole sites to small objects).
They are kind of a thematic context that is given to the tag, but should
not be over interpreted (think amenity=prison).

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

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 16:49 +0100, Dave F. wrote:
> Hi
> 
> http://www.martincollins.com/Portals/0/Images/menage-surfaces/menage-surface-martin-collins.jpg
> 
> I'm trying to find an appropriate tag for these areas used to 
> exercise/train horses. Manège seemed correct, but at only 141 
> occurrences, I'm wondering if there's a more common name in use. Any ideas?

I think its a menage, thats what usually appears on planning
applications for such things.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] manège - area for horse training

[Marc Gemis]

There are 2 pages related to horse riding actiities [1] in English, [2] in
German. They do not have the same content. The German page mentions
amenity=stables+sport=equestrian (for sport competions) as well as
building=riding_school (for learning how to ride)

regards

m


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Riding
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Reiten

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> http://www.martincollins.com/Portals/0/Images/menage-surfaces/menage-surface-martin-collins.jpg
>
> I'm trying to find an appropriate tag for these areas used to
> exercise/train horses. Manège seemed correct, but at only 141 occurrences,
> I'm wondering if there's a more common name in use. Any ideas?
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] manège - area for horse training

[Dave F.]

Hi

http://www.martincollins.com/Portals/0/Images/menage-surfaces/menage-surface-martin-collins.jpg

I'm trying to find an appropriate tag for these areas used to 
exercise/train horses. Manège seemed correct, but at only 141 
occurrences, I'm wondering if there's a more common name in use. Any ideas?


Cheers
Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[John Willis]

Javbw

On Oct 15, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Éric Gillet  wrote:

>> > On Oct 15, 2015, at 4:02 AM, François Lacombe  
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > importance=*
>> 
>> That word is not allowed over in -carto github,  no matter how relevant or 
>> useful - like with mountains or regional features that need to shown at 
>> varying z levels based on... Importance.
>> 
>> In OSM, 30m tall hill and Mt Everest (and all its little named points) are 
>> equal - usability and readability of the map be dammed.
> 
> If the height of a mountain define its importante, simply use the 'ele=*' 
> attribute to sort them, no need for another subjective 'importante' tag.

Mt fuji is 20% taller than than Mt Tate in Central Japan. 

It is several orders of magnitude more famous. Not 20%. Have you ever heard of 
Mt Tate, or the other "100 famous mountains of Japan" besides 3 or 4 active 
volcanoes in the news? Mt fuji is an internationally recognized symbol. Though 
just ~800m taller, it is probably the only mountain most people can name from 
Japan. It should have its icon rendered as soon as the label for Tokyo is 
rendered - it is arguably as well known. Same with Denali, vesuvius, Everest, 
Kilimanjaro, The Matterhorn, and other iconic mountains from around the globe. 

Mt Akagi is ~40% shorter than Tateyama. It is also more famous. But not 25% as 
famous as mount Fuji

your suggestion to use elevation as some substitution for what z level a 
mountain should have its icon/label shown breaks at the most fundamental level 
on first attempt of application. 

Please think it through and try again. 

Mt Fuji - 3776m -Internationally iconic. 
Mt Tate ~3000m - regionally famous 
Mt Akagi ~1700m - nationally famous. 

Hill near my house - 25m AGL-  not important.

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

[Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[Gerd Petermann]

Hi all,

forgive me if this was discussed before:
There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that we
have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to mean the 
same)
but why do we have ways with
highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and several
more with similar meaning ?
They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal highway=*
to the database and later someone found out that there is no highway,
but did not dare to remove the way.

Is that meant to document something important?

Gerd

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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[Greg Troxel]

David Marchal  writes:

> Thanks for the full story, Lauri. I understand now why the subject
> seems so sensitive to some. I retain from your story, if I correctly
> understood it that:* the current usage of minor_line/line is the one I
> previously suggested: use minor_line for lines mainly on poles and
> line for lines mainly on towers, with a tolerance if a line
> occasionally uses something different;* the problem of this modelling,
> which bothers some, is that it leads to a fuzzy modelling from a
> technical, power network point of view, because it doesn't reflect the
> actual usage, voltage or any technical characteristics of the power
> line;* the current usage of minor_line/line is nevertheless retained
> as it is a perceptible, beginners-friendly distinction, allows easy
> rendering, and as other essential characteristics, as voltage, number
> of cables or tower/pole shapes are already managed by other tags, even
> if some others, as the distribution/transport distinction, isn't
> modelled.

I'm coming into this late, but I think key questions are:

  transmission vs distribution: in the US, this is a big divide.
  Sometimes transmission lines are on "poles" and sometimes on
  "towers".  That doesn't really matter in terms of how they work and
  are used.  The point is that 115 kV or even 69 kV is distribution to
  town-based substations, not from substations to customers.  Is the
  rest of the world like this?

  do we expect power-line mappers to be able to tell transmission vs
  distribution?


I think it's reasonable to expect mappers to tell distribution from
transmission.  Do we mean minor_line is for distribution?  Or is it some
kind of transmission?



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[David Marchal]

In fact, this problem leaded me to my question: I noticed some minor lines 
tagged as power=line, cluttering the Mapnik rendering, so I searched the 
correct way of modelling them, to see if it was a rendering or modelling issue, 
and one thing leading to another…
Regarding the parting between minor_line and line, I can see that my opinion is 
common, although without unanimity, so I suppose I can safely work with my 
vision of the minor_line/line parting from now.
Thanks for your help, everybody; I'll hold the line in case of further 
developments.
Regards.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:26:26 +0200
From: dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

the problem is that people often can't provide the information about voltage or 
operator, so you will end up with minor distribution lines tagged as power=line 
and nothing else, and will not have the basis to make a decision about the 
importance.

I agree that additional details like voltage, ref, operator etc. are nice to 
have, but an unambiguous decision between minor lines and transmission lines 
can be made much easier (you see this in most cases even from far away), and is 
what many mappers seem to consider sufficient, so I wouldn't deprecate this 
established system.

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] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[David Marchal]

Thanks for the full story, Lauri. I understand now why the subject seems so 
sensitive to some. I retain from your story, if I correctly understood it 
that:* the current usage of minor_line/line is the one I previously suggested: 
use minor_line for lines mainly on poles and line for lines mainly on towers, 
with a tolerance if a line occasionally uses something different;* the problem 
of this modelling, which bothers some, is that it leads to a fuzzy modelling 
from a technical, power network point of view, because it doesn't reflect the 
actual usage, voltage or any technical characteristics of the power line;* the 
current usage of minor_line/line is nevertheless retained as it is a 
perceptible, beginners-friendly distinction, allows easy rendering, and as 
other essential characteristics, as voltage, number of cables or tower/pole 
shapes are already managed by other tags, even if some others, as the 
distribution/transport distinction, isn't modelled.
Am I correct?
Regards.

> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:12:02 +0300
> From: lkyto...@gmail.com
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line
> 
> David Marchal wrote:
> > I saw conflicting points of view regarding the difference between these two
> > ways for modelling aerial power lines: some say that it is the voltage which
> > matters, others say that it's the visibility difference that matters, others
> 
> Hi.
> 
> To properly understand this issue, here's the history of the tags:
> - originally, in 2006, there was just the page Key:power (then under the
> title "Proposed features/Power Lines") with discussions specifically
> agreeing that the project should use a different tag for "large" lines
> "strung from latticework pylons" and other lines. At that time, nobody had
> seriously thought about ever mapping the smaller ones, and it is a common
> separation on all pre-OSM maps (and their source data). Being a global
> project, "latticework pylons" referred to the type of construction common in
> the countries where the early mappers resided, so even if other countries
> used different constructions for high voltage lines, they would still be
> power=tower. The original description/proposal
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:power&oldid=6410
> and after discussions agreeing:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:power&oldid=17349#Notes
> 
> Power=pole was suggested already in November 2006 for support structures
> smaller than power=tower (in the link above)
> 
> - in July 2007 the descriptions of power=line and power=tower were copied
> to the Map_Features. Still, the assumption and the practice was that people
> didn't map "smaller" power lines at all; even if the description of 'line' 
> only
> referenced "the path of power cables", it was assumed they'd only be drawn
> between power=tower nodes, i.e. only high voltage lines on "big" pylons.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Map_Features&diff=39342&oldid=39308
> 
> - in January 2008 pages were created for
> * Tag:power=tower, with the sentence still present "Should not be used for
> electricity or telephone cables carried on single wooden pole."
> * Tag:power=line, which still had a description referencing "way following
> power cables"
> * Key:power was changed to reference the template Map_features:power,
> with no change in wording
> - In March 2008 some had discussed on the osm talk list that minor
> lines could be mapped with a different tag.
> 
> - following my question in September 2008 on Talk:Key:power, minor_line was
> suggested and others started using it, too, if they hadn't already
> prior to that.
> 
> - in January 2009 the suggestion to use minor_line for "minor lines with poles
> and not towers" was added to the list template, as well as
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:power&diff=next&oldid=206851
> 
> - In July 2009 rendering minor_line was already discussed on the talk-de 
> mailing
> list.
> 
> - in January 2010 the values minor_line and pole were added to the
> list template,
> after they had proved to be used.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:power&diff=401683&oldid=344715
> 
> In June 2011 some user(s) wrote a proposal to change everything above ground 
> to
> 'line' and use other tags with an unlimited list of values for
> describing their differences.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement&oldid=652518
> After discussions and a wiki vote such a change was even rejected in
> October 2013,
> and the next modified proposal (Power supports refinement) for
> redefining power=tower
> and power=pole was turned down in May 2015. There is no method in osm to have
> the mappers resurvey, reclassify and retag the old data at a whim, nor
> a method to
> propagate the changes in the contested meaning of tags to (even unknown) data
> consumers.
> 
> (Digging u

Re: [Tagging] How one may tag object as castle?

[André Pirard]

On 2015-10-15 09:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Am 14.10.2015 um 23:49 schrieb André Pirard :
>>
>> Under the thread "château" I pointed out that there are buildings that can 
>> be called château ≃ castle and that are not historic at all.
>
> the question what is historic is a philosophical one. Anyway, some château 
> are castles, others not. Similarly in Italian there are different 
> translations for the English word castle, one of them being castello, but 
> others are different and not all castelli are castles in English. We should 
> go by our own definitions for the tags, and not analyze all different 
> meanings of the word in a tag and which meaning they have in different 
> contexts 
>
> http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/château/14902
The problem that I explain in the important part of my message that
isn't quoted is that we are obviously talking of
building=castlea building that is a castle, and not
historic=castle a historic that is a castle; but a castle, like many
other objects, can be
historic=yes or not

Exactly like
natural=water
water=lock
artificial=yes
Should be
water=lock
artificial=yes
As well as
water=lake
natural=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[André Pirard]

On 2015-10-15 09:27, Volker Schmidt wrote :
> Another famous example: Hearst Castle [1]
>
> I think the "historic" key is correct.
>
> This is what Google proposes as definition and synonyms:
>
>
> adjective: historic
>
> 1.
> famous or important in history, or potentially so.
> "we are standing on a historic site"
> synonyms:significant
> ,
> notable
> ,
> important
> ,
> momentous
> ,
> consequential
> ,
> memorable
> ,
> newsworthy
> ,
> unforgettable
> ,
> remarkable
> ;
> famous
> ,
> famed
> ,
> celebrated
> ,
> renowned
> ,
> legendary
> ;
> landmark
> ,
> sensational
> ,
> groundbreaking
> ,
> epoch-making
> ,
> red-letter, earth-shattering
> 
> "the historic first flight at Kitty Hawk"
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90954902
>
The historic key is correct, but used as an adjective as the attribute
of an object, not as a noun for it.
building=castlea building that is a castle, and not
historic=castle a historic that is a castle; but a castle, like many
other objects, can be
historic=yes or not

Exactly like
natural=water
water=lock
artificial=yes
Should be
water=lock
artificial=yes
As well as
water=lake
natural=yes


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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[Lauri Kytömaa]

David Marchal wrote:
> I saw conflicting points of view regarding the difference between these two
> ways for modelling aerial power lines: some say that it is the voltage which
> matters, others say that it's the visibility difference that matters, others

Hi.

To properly understand this issue, here's the history of the tags:
- originally, in 2006, there was just the page Key:power (then under the
title "Proposed features/Power Lines") with discussions specifically
agreeing that the project should use a different tag for "large" lines
"strung from latticework pylons" and other lines. At that time, nobody had
seriously thought about ever mapping the smaller ones, and it is a common
separation on all pre-OSM maps (and their source data). Being a global
project, "latticework pylons" referred to the type of construction common in
the countries where the early mappers resided, so even if other countries
used different constructions for high voltage lines, they would still be
power=tower. The original description/proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:power&oldid=6410
and after discussions agreeing:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:power&oldid=17349#Notes

Power=pole was suggested already in November 2006 for support structures
smaller than power=tower (in the link above)

- in July 2007 the descriptions of power=line and power=tower were copied
to the Map_Features. Still, the assumption and the practice was that people
didn't map "smaller" power lines at all; even if the description of 'line' only
referenced "the path of power cables", it was assumed they'd only be drawn
between power=tower nodes, i.e. only high voltage lines on "big" pylons.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Map_Features&diff=39342&oldid=39308

- in January 2008 pages were created for
* Tag:power=tower, with the sentence still present "Should not be used for
electricity or telephone cables carried on single wooden pole."
* Tag:power=line, which still had a description referencing "way following
power cables"
* Key:power was changed to reference the template Map_features:power,
with no change in wording
- In March 2008 some had discussed on the osm talk list that minor
lines could be mapped with a different tag.

- following my question in September 2008 on Talk:Key:power, minor_line was
suggested and others started using it, too, if they hadn't already
prior to that.

- in January 2009 the suggestion to use minor_line for "minor lines with poles
and not towers" was added to the list template, as well as
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:power&diff=next&oldid=206851

- In July 2009 rendering minor_line was already discussed on the talk-de mailing
list.

- in January 2010 the values minor_line and pole were added to the
list template,
after they had proved to be used.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:power&diff=401683&oldid=344715

In June 2011 some user(s) wrote a proposal to change everything above ground to
'line' and use other tags with an unlimited list of values for
describing their differences.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement&oldid=652518
After discussions and a wiki vote such a change was even rejected in
October 2013,
and the next modified proposal (Power supports refinement) for
redefining power=tower
and power=pole was turned down in May 2015. There is no method in osm to have
the mappers resurvey, reclassify and retag the old data at a whim, nor
a method to
propagate the changes in the contested meaning of tags to (even unknown) data
consumers.

(Digging up these dates I did see a "(overground)" thrown in the
'line' definition to
clarify, but already lost where it was originally. )

In summay, the tags have been used for 9 years as such:
- power=tower: high voltage towers, usually steel latticework
- power=line: overhead lines on strung on high voltage towers
- power=pole: smaller supports, usually one-legged and/or wooden
- power=minor_line: other overhead power lines that don't qualify as power=line
Do note that even if a 'minor_line' has two bigger towers in the
middle, for example to
cross a river or similar, the line as a whole is still minor_line. The
border case of a
remote mapper using the wrong tag for a line or minor line wrongly
identified from aerial
imagery is no different from remote road classification: the local
mappers can and will
correct it later.


-- 
alv

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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[David Marchal]

Wow, I only asked about using the single line/minor_line distinction; if this 
one isn't easy at all, what will it be by adding importance or usage, which 
seems far less obvious than minor_line/line, itself not as obvious as I thought 
at first? The current disctinction has the advantage it can be discussed on the 
simple viewing of the whole line; on the opposite, importance and usage will 
not be easy to retrieve without using network managers data. Won't it be better 
to determine once and for all the correct usage of current tagging, than 
creating a new scheme which, IMHO, will add more complexity to an already 
complex question?
Regards.

> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:02:07 +0200
> From: fl.infosrese...@gmail.com
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line
> 
> We are not talking about stop to differentiate power lines but to use
> different tags to do so.
> 
> By landscape : importance=* may support the difference between "big"
> and "small" power lines.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance
> power=line + importance=local
> power=line + importance=regional
> power=line + importance=minor
> power=line + importance=major
> and so on
> 
> On supports : color=*, structure=*, height=*
> 
> By power grid function :
> power=line + usage=distribution
> power=line + usage=transmission
> power=line + usage=traction
> and so on
> 
> I completely second what Ralph said.
> The problem is also no one has really the same point of view regarding
> power lines classification.
> 
> And we are forcing people who can't/don't want to handle such a choice
> between minor/major, huge/small, useful/not useful.
> 
> 
> Finally, how would you tag such feature ?
> https://www.google.fr/maps/@46.0051218,6.6292445,3a,75y,140.55h,108.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snMHy5MWRsC1Q39kjLUSkag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> 
> cheers
> 
> François
> 
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-15 11:31 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet :

> If the height of a mountain define its importante, simply use the 'ele=*'
> attribute to sort them, no need for another subjective 'importante' tag.



on a side note, it is not simple as that, because a peak is just local, the
importance has to be found by analyzing the context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation

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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[Éric Gillet]

2015-10-15 11:31 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet :
>
> If the height of a mountain define its importance, simply use the 'ele=*'
> attribute to sort them, no need for another subjective 'importance' tag.
>

Sorry for typos in my previous email, I meant 'importance' and not
'important'.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[Éric Gillet]

>
> > On Oct 15, 2015, at 4:02 AM, François Lacombe 
> wrote:
> >
> > importance=*
>
> That word is not allowed over in -carto github,  no matter how relevant or
> useful - like with mountains or regional features that need to shown at
> varying z levels based on... Importance.
>
> In OSM, 30m tall hill and Mt Everest (and all its little named points) are
> equal - usability and readability of the map be dammed.
>

If the height of a mountain define its importante, simply use the 'ele=*'
attribute to sort them, no need for another subjective 'importante' tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[John Willis]

> On Oct 15, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Another famous example: Hearst Castle [1]
> I think the "historic" key is correct. 
> 
+1

Hearst castle is definitely historic, its on several historic records. 

My parent's house in California, built in 1922 out of 40cm cut granite stones 
and mortared together is similarly on our city's historic  list - but it 
certainly isn't a castle. Even if they put turrets and a moat around it, it 
still isn't a castle. It is a house. It just looks like a castle. 

Hearst castle is a very imposing and dominating structure. It was styled 
somewhat as a castle (good imagery in google street view) Hearst was also a 
powerful figure - but was it a seat of dominance over the land? A home to 
political power?  A place to defend the leaders from attack? Nope. 

It was just his lavash palace on the coast - there is no town or region to 
dominate. The spot was chosen for its beauty and isolation. 

It certainly is a historic residence, and is named a castle, but is it really a 
castle? 

Osm would reflect the "castle" in the name, and its historic and museum 
qualities in other tags. That should be good enough. 

Otherwise we need a tag for "modern" replicas or castle-esque things or 
something. 

Every imposing building with the name castle would get the tag =castle then.

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[John Willis]

> On Oct 15, 2015, at 4:02 AM, François Lacombe  
> wrote:
> 
> importance=*

That word is not allowed over in -carto github,  no matter how relevant or 
useful - like with mountains or regional features that need to shown at varying 
z levels based on... Importance. 

In OSM, 30m tall hill and Mt Everest (and all its little named points) are 
equal - usability and readability of the map be dammed. 

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

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:11 AM, David Marchal  wrote:
> 
> Do you mean that the landscape impact criteria is already the one used to 
> distinguish minor_line and line?

I think he means that there is usually a huge difference in voltage and line 
type between lines on giant towers or lines on smaller single wooden / concrete 
poles - and that also happens to be where a novice mapper can tell the 
difference in arial imagery. 

Because of this, it is a good idea to differentiate between line and minor line 
at that point - the lines are usually a very different class, and the novice 
mapper can easily tell the difference from decent imagery or when directly 
surveying their area. 

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091291246/

One of these things is not like the other! 
Two lines and 1 minor line (at least in the foreground). 

Having something be that obvious might be good for tagging and ease of mapping 
at the same time. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How one may tag object as castle?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 14.10.2015 um 23:49 schrieb André Pirard :
> 
> Under the thread "château" I pointed out that there are buildings that can be 
> called château ≃ castle and that are not historic at all.


the question what is historic is a philosophical one. Anyway, some château are 
castles, others not. Similarly in Italian there are different translations for 
the English word castle, one of them being castello, but others are different 
and not all castelli are castles in English. We should go by our own 
definitions for the tags, and not analyze all different meanings of the word in 
a tag and which meaning they have in different contexts 

http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/château/14902

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

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

[Volker Schmidt]

Another famous example: Hearst Castle [1]

I think the "historic" key is correct.

This is what Google proposes as definition and synonyms:
adjective: historic
1.
famous or important in history, or potentially so.
"we are standing on a historic site"
synonyms:significant
,
notable
,
important
,
momentous
,
consequential
,
memorable
,
newsworthy
,
unforgettable
,
remarkable

;
famous
,
famed
,
celebrated
,
renowned
,
legendary

;
landmark
,
sensational
,
groundbreaking
,
epoch-making
,
red-letter, earth-shattering

"the historic first flight at Kitty Hawk"

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90954902


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