Re: [Tagging] Nominatim’s use of is_in and tag documentation
Hi Andrew, +1 to add this piece of information on the wiki to focus efforts where they would really be useful (where boundaries are not properly mapped) This tag looks like a scaffold : when works are done, let it go ! All the best François Le 23 août 2016 11:58 PM, "Andrew Hain" a écrit : > A detailed explanation of when Nominatim uses the is_in tag was recently > posted to the talk mailing list [https://lists.openstreetmap. > org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076596.html]; it only does so for certain > objects and only when boundaries haven’t been mapped properly. > > > It may therefore be possible to add advice to the wiki saying that anyone > who adds this tag anywhere else is wasting their time, but as with other > tags you would want to consider other data consumers. > > > So, is there anyone else out there who uses the tag differently and is it > safe to add this information to the wiki without a health warning? > > > -- > > Andrew > > ___ > 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] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
please also note that there is orthoimagery from the PCN available for the whole of Italy. This is typically better aligned than Bing. More info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Italy/PCN Cheers, Martin sent from a phone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Nominatim’s use of is_in and tag documentation
A detailed explanation of when Nominatim uses the is_in tag was recently posted to the talk mailing list [https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076596.html]; it only does so for certain objects and only when boundaries haven’t been mapped properly. It may therefore be possible to add advice to the wiki saying that anyone who adds this tag anywhere else is wasting their time, but as with other tags you would want to consider other data consumers. So, is there anyone else out there who uses the tag differently and is it safe to add this information to the wiki without a health warning? -- Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
Hi Martin, I am planning to review the objects systematically, and sometimes the tagging doesn't give much information. Also, as we know, sometimes an object is added, but the accuracy may not be that high. So - when I review an object (with no source information provided in the tags), and can clearly see it on bing, then would it not be useful to add this information to the tags, as a verification? We don't know how it was originally added, but the satellite view verifies this. (For the objects in question, as they are outdoors towers, and as long as they have reasonable preservation, they are very clearly visible. I appreciate the earlier comment that it's not possible to validate arbitrary archaeological sites like that.) Bjoern On 23 August 2016 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Il giorno 23 ago 2016, alle ore 14:02, Bjoern Hassler < > bjohas...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Strictly speaking, bing may not have been the source, as the data may > come from a ground survey. But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" > if the structure is visible on bing? I suppose "verified:bing2012" may be > clearer, and avoid confusion? > > > any ground survey is much more reliable than an assessment from remote, > that's why I would put survey in the source tag when I did perform a > survey. Maybe I just don't get the point why you would add bing tags for a > site where you have been to. What is the scope? > > > 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] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
sent from a phone > Il giorno 23 ago 2016, alle ore 14:02, Bjoern Hassler > ha scritto: > > Strictly speaking, bing may not have been the source, as the data may come > from a ground survey. But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" if the > structure is visible on bing? I suppose "verified:bing2012" may be clearer, > and avoid confusion? any ground survey is much more reliable than an assessment from remote, that's why I would put survey in the source tag when I did perform a survey. Maybe I just don't get the point why you would add bing tags for a site where you have been to. What is the scope? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
Bjoern Hassler wrote on 2016/08/23 14:02: Hi Martin, hi Marc, thanks for the response. I suppose another way of looking at it would be to say that the site's existence is verifiable from satellite images. Is there a tag for that? It could always be added to the note tag, but a structured tag may be better. E.g. "visible:bing2012=1" or "verified:bing2012=1". Alternatively maybe "source=bing' would also be ok? Strictly speaking, bing may not have been the source, as the data may come from a ground survey. But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" if the structure is visible on bing? I suppose "verified:bing2012" may be clearer, and avoid confusion? Btw. I'm not proposing a new tag, just seeing whether there is an existing tag I can use. I prefer nowadays to keep track of those activities in the changeset comment and the changeset source field. Putting it on each object clutters it with redundant information, and the first mapper verifies the shape, the next the height and the next the colour, so in the end you don't know anymore which action it refers to, and people might use different layers for mapping/verification. I only use source, source:geometry, source:name tags on the object if it is a method different from the surroundings, such as the new road not yet visible in aerial imagery, with source=gps-trace, or a new building with source=visual estimation. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
2016-08-23 13:42 GMT+02:00 Bjoern Hassler : > Hi all, > > how would you tag whether an archaeological site is visible on satellite > images? > > Sardinia has several 1,000 large megalithic stone towers (nuraghe), about > 600 of which are in OSM. However, they have different states of > preservation. Some are clearly visible on the satellite image (with > extensive structures present), but others aren't (and there probably isn't > much remaining). > > This doesn't necessarily indicate their preservation - some are covered by > forest. So a tag like "preservation" may not be easy to add unless you do a > ground survey. > > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether > the site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth > visiting). > > What do you think? What tag should I use? > Probably you could use tourism = attraction for the most important (Su Nuraxi, Nuraghe Losa, and so on, perhaps the ones mantained by someone?). I never had the possibility to further extend the tagging, but the nuraghes differ by period and by shape (single tower towards castle). See this for the tagging (I discussed it some years ago with the italian community) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Glossario_OSM#Nuraghe Here's my map of them (manually updated) http://nuraghe.org/map.html#8/40.097/9.124 > Bjoern > > Regards, Stefano > ___ > 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] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
I guess I am looking for something like - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:survey:date - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:check_date but for satellite image cross-check (unlike survey:date, which is for verification in person). Bjoern On 23 August 2016 at 13:02, Bjoern Hassler wrote: > Hi Martin, hi Marc, > > thanks for the response. I suppose another way of looking at it would be > to say that the site's existence is verifiable from satellite images. Is > there a tag for that? It could always be added to the note tag, but a > structured tag may be better. E.g. "visible:bing2012=1" or > "verified:bing2012=1". > > Alternatively maybe "source=bing' would also be ok? Strictly speaking, > bing may not have been the source, as the data may come from a ground > survey. But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" if the structure is > visible on bing? I suppose "verified:bing2012" may be clearer, and avoid > confusion? > > Btw. I'm not proposing a new tag, just seeing whether there is an existing > tag I can use. > > Bjoern > > On 23 August 2016 at 12:57, Marc Zoutendijk > wrote: > >> >> > Op 23 aug. 2016, om 13:42 heeft Bjoern Hassler >> het volgende geschreven: >> > >> > […] >> >> > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating >> whether the site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be >> worth visiting). >> > >> > What do you think? What tag should I use? >> >> Satellite images come in various degrees of resolution and hence the >> visibility tag would have to account for that. Because those sites may not >> be visible at all on different areal images. >> >> And “being worth a vist” can easily be set with one of the tourism=* >> solutions. >> >> Marc. >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
Hi Martin, hi Marc, thanks for the response. I suppose another way of looking at it would be to say that the site's existence is verifiable from satellite images. Is there a tag for that? It could always be added to the note tag, but a structured tag may be better. E.g. "visible:bing2012=1" or "verified:bing2012=1". Alternatively maybe "source=bing' would also be ok? Strictly speaking, bing may not have been the source, as the data may come from a ground survey. But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" if the structure is visible on bing? I suppose "verified:bing2012" may be clearer, and avoid confusion? Btw. I'm not proposing a new tag, just seeing whether there is an existing tag I can use. Bjoern On 23 August 2016 at 12:57, Marc Zoutendijk wrote: > > > Op 23 aug. 2016, om 13:42 heeft Bjoern Hassler > het volgende geschreven: > > > > […] > > > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether > the site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth > visiting). > > > > What do you think? What tag should I use? > > Satellite images come in various degrees of resolution and hence the > visibility tag would have to account for that. Because those sites may not > be visible at all on different areal images. > > And “being worth a vist” can easily be set with one of the tourism=* > solutions. > > Marc. > > > > > ___ > 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] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
> Op 23 aug. 2016, om 13:42 heeft Bjoern Hassler het > volgende geschreven: > > […] > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether the > site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth > visiting). > > What do you think? What tag should I use? Satellite images come in various degrees of resolution and hence the visibility tag would have to account for that. Because those sites may not be visible at all on different areal images. And “being worth a vist” can easily be set with one of the tourism=* solutions. Marc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
sent from a phone > Il giorno 23 ago 2016, alle ore 13:42, Bjoern Hassler > ha scritto: > > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether the > site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth > visiting). > > What do you think? What tag should I use? I don't think there is a strong relationship between visibility on aerial imagery and worthiness of a visit, e.g. some sites are underground or covered by trees or protective roofs, and there are other features that determine the interestingness of a site than pure size/extent. If I encountered a tag "visibility" I would expect it to be the visibility on the ground, not from aerial imagery. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites
Hi all, how would you tag whether an archaeological site is visible on satellite images? Sardinia has several 1,000 large megalithic stone towers (nuraghe), about 600 of which are in OSM. However, they have different states of preservation. Some are clearly visible on the satellite image (with extensive structures present), but others aren't (and there probably isn't much remaining). This doesn't necessarily indicate their preservation - some are covered by forest. So a tag like "preservation" may not be easy to add unless you do a ground survey. However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether the site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth visiting). What do you think? What tag should I use? Bjoern ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging