Re: [Tagging] building=digester
Hi Dave, Marc Zoutendijk wrote in his mail that he does not consider a greenhouse a building. m. On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I don't know where the notion came from saying a greenhouse is not a > building. It is not a residence but it is most certainly a building - it has > doors, walls and a roof, Just because they're made of glass doesn't > disqualify it from the building category. > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> >> >> 2016-05-19 20:50 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : >>> >>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Marc Zoutendijk >>> wrote: >>> > That's because everything that is a building should be tagged as a >>> > building” >>> >>> so I looked at the wikipedia definition of building [1], and their >>> definition of non-buildings [2] >>> At this moment I think that digester/bioreactor belongs to the non- >>> building structures, as they list "Structures designed to support, >>> contain or convey liquid or gaseous matter, " >> >> >> >> actually, in osm there is some tradition in tagging non-building >> structures as buildings, indeed, there is no "non-building structure" key in >> OSM (man_made is far more generic and not referring to structures only). >> Yes, the term "building" has a more narrow meaning in language than what it >> is used for in OSM, and wikipedia reflects this, still, for OSM the osm wiki >> is relevant, not wikipedia. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> >> ___ >> 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 > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=digester
Martin, so what is the definition of building in OSM ? "The building key is used to mark areas as a building." from the wiki page is pretty useless as definition. Neither the Building, nor the Buildings page teach me what is considered a building and what not. The building page just has a "number of examples", but it does not make clear how I can decide whether a digester is a building or not. It is also not clear to me why a water mill or wind mill are man_made and not a building. So what is the definition of building you are referring to ? Do you digester is a building ? regards m On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-05-19 20:50 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Marc Zoutendijk >> wrote: >> > That's because everything that is a building should be tagged as a >> > building” >> >> so I looked at the wikipedia definition of building [1], and their >> definition of non-buildings [2] >> At this moment I think that digester/bioreactor belongs to the non- >> building structures, as they list "Structures designed to support, >> contain or convey liquid or gaseous matter, " > > > > actually, in osm there is some tradition in tagging non-building structures > as buildings, indeed, there is no "non-building structure" key in OSM > (man_made is far more generic and not referring to structures only). Yes, > the term "building" has a more narrow meaning in language than what it is > used for in OSM, and wikipedia reflects this, still, for OSM the osm wiki is > relevant, not wikipedia. > > 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] building=digester
I don't know where the notion came from saying a greenhouse is not a building. It is not a residence but it is most certainly a building - it has doors, walls and a roof, Just because they're made of glass doesn't disqualify it from the building category. On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-05-19 20:50 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Marc Zoutendijk >> wrote: >> > That's because everything that is a building should be tagged as a >> building” >> >> so I looked at the wikipedia definition of building [1], and their >> definition of non-buildings [2] >> At this moment I think that digester/bioreactor belongs to the non- >> building structures, as they list "Structures designed to support, >> contain or convey liquid or gaseous matter, " > > > > actually, in osm there is some tradition in tagging non-building > structures as buildings, indeed, there is no "non-building structure" key > in OSM (man_made is far more generic and not referring to structures only). > Yes, the term "building" has a more narrow meaning in language than what it > is used for in OSM, and wikipedia reflects this, still, for OSM the osm > wiki is relevant, not wikipedia. > > Cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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] building=digester
2016-05-19 20:50 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Marc Zoutendijk > wrote: > > That's because everything that is a building should be tagged as a > building” > > so I looked at the wikipedia definition of building [1], and their > definition of non-buildings [2] > At this moment I think that digester/bioreactor belongs to the non- > building structures, as they list "Structures designed to support, > contain or convey liquid or gaseous matter, " actually, in osm there is some tradition in tagging non-building structures as buildings, indeed, there is no "non-building structure" key in OSM (man_made is far more generic and not referring to structures only). Yes, the term "building" has a more narrow meaning in language than what it is used for in OSM, and wikipedia reflects this, still, for OSM the osm wiki is relevant, not wikipedia. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=digester
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Marc Zoutendijk wrote: > That's because everything that is a building should be tagged as a building” so I looked at the wikipedia definition of building [1], and their definition of non-buildings [2] At this moment I think that digester/bioreactor belongs to the non- building structures, as they list "Structures designed to support, contain or convey liquid or gaseous matter, " When you look at [3] the subsection of agricultural buildings, you see greenhouse listed. I don't know whether we want to follow the wikipedia definition or not, but it might help to decide where we have to place future tags. regards m [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonbuilding_structure [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_building_types#Agricultural_buildings ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping pergolas/arbors
What's about building=roof layer=1 roof:material=plants rendered on map, way may pass below, no new tags necessary Kurt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=digester
> Op 19 mei 2016, om 14:46 heeft Marc Gemis het volgende > geschreven: > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Marc Zoutendijk > wrote: >> And as a side note I could say: >> Combining man_made=* AND building=* on the same object (as is often done to >> make it appear on the map) is as wrong as using highway=* and waterway=* on >> the same object. It is one or the other, but cannot be both. > > Marc, it seems like the person that added the building=digester does > not agree with you: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Travelling_salesman > > ___ Yes, but he writes: "That's because everything that is a building should be tagged as a building” Which is the same as saying: "everything that is a tree should be tagged as a tree” The point is that there is confusion about the word “building”. In my opinion not everything that is built is a building. A car e.g. is built, but is it a building? A ship is built, is it a building? Marc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping pergolas/arbors
Thanks Marc, yes, shelter_type is the one I've used in the past. I was using my phone while boarding a plane and didn't have time to do a proper look-up. There have been discussions in the past about the use of the "type" key and so shelter_type would be much preferred. On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > Why not the established shelter_type [1], which is used over 69.000 > times according to taginfo [2] > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type > [2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=shelter_type > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:09 AM, David Swarthout > wrote: > > I would discourage the use of type as a key here as it is used to > > differentiate between relations. Suggest shelter:type or something > similar. > > Cheers > > Dave > > > > Get Outlook for iOS > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:29 PM -0700, "Mark Bradley" > > wrote: > > > >> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer > >> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > >> > > >> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Mapping pergolas/arbors > >> > > > >> > > I know of some pergolas I would like to map. (Wikipedia says other > >> > > words for these features are "arbors" and "arbours.") Looking on > the > >> > > wiki on the list of map features, there doesn't appear to be any > >> > > established tags for these features, so I'm asking for suggestions > >> > > before I make up my own. > >> > > >> > > >> > maybe the key "building" could be used, values could be "pergola" or > >> > "arbour" (BE > >> > spelling). This is about a frame on which plants are intended to grow > >> > for shade, right? > >> > > >> > > >> > cheers, > >> > Martin > >> > >> > >> Yes Martin, you're correct. > >> > >> Based on the discussion here, I will plan to go with amenity=shelter, > >> followed by type=pergola. > >> > >> Mark Bradley > >> > >> > >> > >> ___ > >> 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 > -- 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] building=digester
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Marc Zoutendijk wrote: > And as a side note I could say: > Combining man_made=* AND building=* on the same object (as is often done to > make it appear on the map) is as wrong as using highway=* and waterway=* on > the same object. It is one or the other, but cannot be both. Marc, it seems like the person that added the building=digester does not agree with you: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Travelling_salesman ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders
Rory McCann wrote: > Both of the example maps of Russia/Ukraine and India/Pakistan > require the use of another data set. Which is a shame. One should > be able to generate that from OSM entirely. Why? OSM's selling point is not "all geodata, ever, in one place". OSM's selling point is personally researched data that reflects reality. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Suggested-way-to-map-disputed-country-borders-tp5873085p5873781.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders
I see two parallel subjects here: 1) how do we represent disputed borders and "different versions of the truth" in OSM 2) how do we use that mechanism responsibly Whatever criteria are used for 2), the chances are there is always going to be a need for 1). //colin On 2016-05-19 12:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-05-19 11:55 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > >> The current mapping of de-facto boundaries of effective control is >> easily defensible and has a certain logic that even the greatest >> nationalists typically will accept (that knowing who really controls an >> area is helpful in avoiding getting killed). > > how would this help in the dispute between Italy and France about where the > mountain peak (area) of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco belongs to [1]? Or for > offshore areas? Our aim should not be to satisfy officials, but to depict the > actual situation. Yes, control of the area is a very good indication where it > can be used, but things are not always so clear (areas without effective > control by one party do exist). > > Most of the countries are involved in claims of disputed borders? Fine, then > it should be mapped like this, even if it doesn't please officials of one > country or another. > > cheers, > Martin > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzverlauf_auf_dem_Mont_Blanc > ___ > 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] Suggested way to map disputed country borders
2016-05-19 11:55 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > The current mapping of de-facto boundaries of effective control is > easily defensible and has a certain logic that even the greatest > nationalists typically will accept (that knowing who really controls an > area is helpful in avoiding getting killed). > how would this help in the dispute between Italy and France about where the mountain peak (area) of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco belongs to [1]? Or for offshore areas? Our aim should not be to satisfy officials, but to depict the actual situation. Yes, control of the area is a very good indication where it can be used, but things are not always so clear (areas without effective control by one party do exist). Most of the countries are involved in claims of disputed borders? Fine, then it should be mapped like this, even if it doesn't please officials of one country or another. cheers, Martin [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzverlauf_auf_dem_Mont_Blanc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders
As somebody who regularly has to respond to complaints from officials and others on boundary matters, I fail to see how mapping additional borders (and a lot of them, given that there are nearly no countries without disputes) is going to help. Matter of fact it is guaranteed to make things worse and at the same time not help with legislation as in China or proposed in India. The current mapping of de-facto boundaries of effective control is easily defensible and has a certain logic that even the greatest nationalists typically will accept (that knowing who really controls an area is helpful in avoiding getting killed). Simply adding 100s if not 1000s of possible variants to OSM proper (nothing against making them available elsewhere) will simply increase the pressure from all sides to get their version of reality rendered on osm.org (and other high profile sites). Simon Am 19.05.2016 um 10:05 schrieb Rory McCann: > On 07/05/16 11:54, Andy Townsend wrote: >> The problem with answering Rory's original question directly is that in >> OSM we try and "map what's on the ground", and don't map stuff that's >> never going to happen (for example, if a village thinks that it'd be >> really nice if there was a bypass around it, but there's no concrete >> proposal, no funding and no likelihood of it happening, we don't map >> that bypass). A number of territory claims are for national historic >> pride reasons only and are unlikely ever to result in any changes to >> actual administrative boundaries*. > I'm not suggesting mapping every little "someone in $COUNTRY thinks > $AREA should be in their country", I'm suggesting mapping areas which > governments claim. Imagine you had to make a map for the government of > $COUNTRY, and they required the borders to be one way. That's the kind > of thing that I think should be in OSM. You should be able to use OSM, > and only OSM, to make a map that is acceptable to any government. > > Both of the example maps of Russia/Ukraine and India/Pakistan require > the use of another data set. Which is a shame. One should be able to > generate that from OSM entirely. > > Rory > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders
2016-05-19 10:05 GMT+02:00 Rory McCann : > I'm not suggesting mapping every little "someone in $COUNTRY thinks > $AREA should be in their country", I'm suggesting mapping areas which > governments claim. Imagine you had to make a map for the government of > $COUNTRY, and they required the borders to be one way. That's the kind > of thing that I think should be in OSM. You should be able to use OSM, > and only OSM, to make a map that is acceptable to any government. > yes, (well, sometimes there might not be a government, or there might be more than one group claiming power over the same area), still, also those "official" disputes are not few, there's a lot of them, and we should have a way to store them in a neutral way (i.e. have all different claims/versions and let the people using the data decide which one to show). For reference (might not be complete): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes Also this might be interesting, but isn't complete (because e.g. Germany has dispute with the Netherlands about some maritime area, i.e. should be red as well, but you already see it: almost every country has disputed borders): http://metrocosm.com/mapping-every-disputed-territory-in-the-world/ Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders
On 07/05/16 11:54, Andy Townsend wrote: > The problem with answering Rory's original question directly is that in > OSM we try and "map what's on the ground", and don't map stuff that's > never going to happen (for example, if a village thinks that it'd be > really nice if there was a bypass around it, but there's no concrete > proposal, no funding and no likelihood of it happening, we don't map > that bypass). A number of territory claims are for national historic > pride reasons only and are unlikely ever to result in any changes to > actual administrative boundaries*. I'm not suggesting mapping every little "someone in $COUNTRY thinks $AREA should be in their country", I'm suggesting mapping areas which governments claim. Imagine you had to make a map for the government of $COUNTRY, and they required the borders to be one way. That's the kind of thing that I think should be in OSM. You should be able to use OSM, and only OSM, to make a map that is acceptable to any government. Both of the example maps of Russia/Ukraine and India/Pakistan require the use of another data set. Which is a shame. One should be able to generate that from OSM entirely. Rory ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
