Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 16:24, Bryan Housel pisze:
“official_length" is actually a good example of something that really 
does not need to be tagged in OSM, and could instead be looked up if 
the river has a wikidata tag.   See 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3392 for others.


Of course I wouldn't use all the data from here, but for example we use 
similar field "population" for tuning rendering place names:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/a7bb1e14389f491475c0c59929a33cff92f6b3bb/placenames.mss#L67

BTW - distance is already defined as optional tag for waterway relation, 
it's just not mentioned for waterway=river:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:waterway#Tags

--
"Like a halo in reverse" [M. Gore]


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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

[Bryan Housel]

“official_length" is actually a good example of something that really does not 
need to be tagged in OSM, and could instead be looked up if the river has a 
wikidata tag.   See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3392 
  for others.

Bryan




> On Aug 8, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Richard  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:20:31PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
>> W dniu 08.08.2017 o 12:07, Daniel Koć pisze:
>>> I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to waterways
>>> (almost 72% uses):
>>> 
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations
>>> 
>>> Taginfo does not show such combination with rivers (it probably omits
>>> anything <1000 uses), but it's 446 lines already:
>>> 
>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qS7
>> 
>> Looks like a "distance" tag is better than "length" when it comes to long
>> objects like rivers, so I would recommend it in waterway Wiki pages instead.
>> We have 915 such uses with waterways:
> 
> I know that you want save some computing power but nothing should be easier 
> to compute than the length so encouraging mappers to add their own estimates 
> doesn't seem like the best idea. The 915 uses possibly have a special purpose?
> 
> However if there is something like "official_length" of a river (for example
> mentioned in wikipedia) that could be certainly tagged.
> 
> Other tags that might help are those relating to ships.
> 
> Richard
> 
> ___
> 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] Rivers classification

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 16:01, Richard pisze:

I know that you want save some computing power but nothing should be 
easier

to compute than the length so encouraging mappers to add their own estimates
doesn't seem like the best idea. The 915 uses possibly have a special purpose?

However if there is something like "official_length" of a river (for example
mentioned in wikipedia) that could be certainly tagged.


Why do you think I want to encourage mappers to make their own 
estimates? Remember that my purpose is rendering biggest rivers in the 
world and they tend to be well documented.


--
"Like a halo in reverse" [M. Gore]


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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

[Richard]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:20:31PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 08.08.2017 o 12:07, Daniel Koć pisze:
> >I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to waterways
> >(almost 72% uses):
> >
> >https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations
> >
> >Taginfo does not show such combination with rivers (it probably omits
> >anything <1000 uses), but it's 446 lines already:
> >
> >http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qS7
> 
> Looks like a "distance" tag is better than "length" when it comes to long
> objects like rivers, so I would recommend it in waterway Wiki pages instead.
> We have 915 such uses with waterways:

I know that you want save some computing power but nothing should be easier 
to compute than the length so encouraging mappers to add their own estimates 
doesn't seem like the best idea. The 915 uses possibly have a special purpose?

However if there is something like "official_length" of a river (for example
mentioned in wikipedia) that could be certainly tagged.

Other tags that might help are those relating to ships.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 12:07, Daniel Koć pisze:
I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to 
waterways (almost 72% uses):


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations

Taginfo does not show such combination with rivers (it probably omits 
anything <1000 uses), but it's 446 lines already:


http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qS7


Looks like a "distance" tag is better than "length" when it comes to 
long objects like rivers, so I would recommend it in waterway Wiki pages 
instead. We have 915 such uses with waterways:


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=distance#combinations

Overpass is lagging, so I don't know how many of them are related to the 
rivers:


http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qSq

--
"Like a halo in reverse" [M. Gore]


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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 07.08.2017 o 21:46, Daniel Koć pisze:

I don't know which classification would be good for my purposes (low 
zoom rendering), but currently we have not a single one defined nor 
used in practice, so I want to start with something. It doesn't need 
to be perfect, maybe simple length=* tag would be useful - but we 
don't even have it currently.


I've just found that length=* tag is quite closely connected to 
waterways (almost 72% uses):


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/length#combinations

Taginfo does not show such combination with rivers (it probably omits 
anything <1000 uses), but it's 446 lines already:


http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qS7

I'd like to add length=* as Additional tags/Useful combination in some 
Wiki articles, like:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Awaterway%3Dstream

I hope length combined with some simple classification (like 
order:classic=1) can be quite useful in case of low zoom rendering.


--
"Like a halo in reverse" [M. Gore]


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

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 08.08.2017 o 10:44, Janko Mihelić pisze:
pon, 7. kol 2017. u 21:48 Daniel Koć > napisao je:


We could also try to craft internal classification similar to mix used
with roads, for example:

"big river - "medium river - "small river -


I agree with this, but we should also correlate these tags with some 
objective attributes like CEMT if available. Countries love their own 
features, so the biggest river in a country will always get the "big 
river" tag, however small it is. Luckily, big rivers are often 
international so that should correct things a bit.


There can be more data about the river and the user can combine them if 
she wants something more precise than general class, which may be 
relative. For roads it could be surface=* or lanes=*, but most of the 
time rough, relative classification is good enough.


--
"Like a halo in reverse" [M. Gore]

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

Re: [Tagging] Brasserie

[Thomas Bertels]

Based on https://www.lemoniteur.be/documentation/horeca-135.html it 
seems that a brasserie is a café that serves simple food, and hence the 
manager doesn't need to be a professional cook:

_Café_
Vous ne devez pas avoir un accès à la profession Restaurateurs et 
Traiteurs-organisateurs de banquets à condition de n'offrir que de la 
petite restauration (potages, croques et toutes sortes de toasts, 
croquettes, à l’exception de croquettes de pommes de terre, 
vol-au-vent, boudins noirs et boudins blancs, brochettes grilles, 
pains fourrés, hamburgers, hot-dogs, pittas et croissants, pâtes, 
pizzas, quiches ou autres tartes sales, salades froides, assiettes 
anglaises, œufs prépares, desserts (notamment des crêpes, des glaces, 
des gaufres, des gâteaux, des brioches, des yaourts et des 
milk-shakes). Ces repas légers ne peuvent être servis qu’avec du pain.
This category applies too to the "restaurants" that serve only pizzas 
(pizzerias), pitas, hamburgers... except french fries ("à l’exception de 
croquettes de pommes de terre").


Currently, amenity=pub food=yes seems to be the most used.

Le 8/08/2017 à 05:45, Marc Gemis a écrit :

But unlike a real pub (a "café"  in Dutch and French - or "bruine
kroeg"), you can get a decent meal in a brasserie, or  ice cream,
pancakes around 4pm etc. So the focus is much more on food imho.
So are you suggesting that amenity=pub; food=yes is better ?

the description tag is very general, but could be used. However, I
want something like the school:FR-tag. I believe that such a tag (or
tags) would make it easier for apps to allow the user to search in
their native language. It's my feeling that information gets lost by
translating bistro, taverne, brasserie, etc. to amenity=pub +
food=yes. (or amenity=restaurant).



On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:38 AM, marc marc  wrote:

Thomas Bertels  wrote:
  > A brasserie is "a small, informal restaurant that serves beer
  > and wine as well as simple food"
  > So should it be tagged as
  > - amenity=restaurant cuisine=brasserie (emphasis on food)?
  > - amenity=pub food=yes (emphasis on drinks)?
  > - amenity=brasserie?

For me, a "brasserie" in Belgium is not a restaurant (I didn't go to a
restaurant at 06:00pm to drink a beer as you can do with a "brasserie")

Le 07. 08. 17 à 13:01, Marc Gemis a écrit :

I typically tag them as amenity=restaurant.

somebody create a wiki page yesterday describing your opinion as the
advice to follow.
If it is your edit, at least it would be useful to wait for several
opinions before claiming that your opinion is the way to follow.
If it isn't yours, my remark applies to the one who created it


I also add a tag restaurant:type:NL or horeca:type:NL (I know both are
bad, undocumented tags) in which I place the "type" as indicated on
the building.

sorry I don't understand the mean of this tag
did you mean it is like a description in one word using what's written
on the wall of the building ? why not the description tag ?
___
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] Rivers classification

[Janko Mihelić]

pon, 7. kol 2017. u 21:48 Daniel Koć  napisao je:

> We could also try to craft internal classification similar to mix used
> with roads, for example:
>
> "big river - "medium river - "small river -
>
>
I agree with this, but we should also correlate these tags with some
objective attributes like CEMT if available. Countries love their own
features, so the biggest river in a country will always get the "big river"
tag, however small it is. Luckily, big rivers are often international so
that should correct things a bit.

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