Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4 Jun 2018, 23:50 by pelder...@gmail.com:

>
> Problem is, landcover is not rendered. Nobody is going to retag for 
> notrendered. Probably never going to change.
>
Using landcover (probably in addition to rendered tags) increases chance that
it will be rendered by at least some.

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

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

[Fernando Trebien]

Interesting. I'm not sure if this is a bug in Nominatim or a
misunderstanding of OSM definitions. Let's see:
- Dilermando de Aguiar is a Brazilian municipality with 3308
inhabitants, mapped as an administrative boundary with admin_level=8
with a place=village as its admin_centre node
- Sede is a municipal district, mapped as an administrative boundary
with admin_level=9 sharing the same admin_centre node from its parent
municipality (because it's the main district)
- São José da Porteirinha, currently mapped as as place=hamlet node,
is an urban agglomeration that is spatially disconnected from the main
urban agglomeration of its municipality, with no special political or
administrative status

For each enclosing area, Nominatim computes a rank, using distinct
rules for each country [1], and forms the address line by
concatenating comma-separated names in descending rank order. In this
particular case, it computed [2] rank 16 for São José da Porteirinha
and for Dilermando de Aguiar, and rank 18 for Sede. Thus, it concluded
that Sede (rank 18) is contained in any of the other two (rank 16), of
which only one was chosen.

The documentation of Nominatim [1] suggests that it assumes that a
hamlet will never exist within a village, since by definition in OSM
only certain types of places may be parts of other settlements [3]. It
could have worked if Sede was place=town/city (possibly incorrect or
more correct [4][5]) or if São José da Porteirinha was
place=neighbourhood, which depends on considering the latter distinct
or not from other settlements.

From the text in the wiki, I understand that any given small piece of
land can be considered part of an urban settlement, part of a rural
settlement, or unsettled land. In Brazil, all municipalities, all
municipal districts and the neighbourhoods with boundaries defined
legally can include any of these types of areas and therefore do not
correspond perfectly to the concept of settlement. If municipalities
are always considered fully settled, any place inside a municipality
must be of a type that may be part of another settlement (such as a
suburb or neighbourhood) and not a type of distinct settlement (such
as a hamlet or village), no matter if there's unsettled land between
remote places and the nucleus of the municipality. If municipalities
are not considered fully settled, it could be argued that their
boundary should not cover unsettled areas (probably undesirable). If
none of the interpretations are correct, Nominatim's ranking system
must have several bugs.

On a side note, Nominatim's default ranking [1] seems to suggest that
towns could be part of cities, though the wiki [3] does not explicitly
suggest this.

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/Development_overview#Indexing.2Faddress_calculation
[2] https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/details.php?place_id=4150595
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprefecture
[5] (pt) https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=702045#p702045

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:06 PM, santamariense  wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> In Brazil the tag place=hamlet is being used for smallest places, however,
> according to Wikipedia, hamlet may be an unincorporated place. And,
> I've always observed that place=hamlet isn't in the correct hierarchy
> when it's shown in Nominatin.
>
> Example: São José da Porteirinha (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/416766430 ) is shown replacing the
> name of the municipality (admin_level=8) in Nominatin: "Sede, São José
> da Porteirinha, Microrregião de Santa Maria, Mesorregião
> Centro-Ocidental Rio-Grandense, Rio Grande do Sul, Região Sul, Brasil"
> ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=São%20José%20da%20Porteirinha
> ), where, the correct hierarchy should be "São José da Porteirinha,
> Sede, Dilermando de Aguiar, Microrregião de Santa Maria, Mesorregião
> Centro-Ocidental Rio-Grandense, Rio Grande do Sul, Região Sul, Brasil"
>
> Then, I believe that for Nominatin, all place=hamlet is being taken as
> unincorporated place. There's no place in Brazil that is
> unincorporated. By the correct hierarchy, place=hamlet in Brazil
> should be hierarchly got after level=10.
>
> That's so weird as saying that Nominatin should show a hierarchy like
> State, City, Country instead of City, State, Country.
>
> The question is: Is Nominatin wrong or are we mapping a thing that
> there not be in Brazil and a best tag should be applied? Or maybe a
> new tag like unincorporated=yes/no should be created to complement the
> type of hamlet?
>
> []'s
>
> user santamariense
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien

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

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Here's how it sort of worked in the UK.
>

​In the early days of Colonial New England, town governance and church
parish borders were essentially identified.

When the sea-side town of Ipswich opened a new section of land further
inland for bigger farms and called it literally "The Hamlet," since a large
acreage with a small number of houses at the crossroads.

When The Hamlet later incorporated as a separate town (having grown, and
having different agrarian concerns than a coastal town), it took the name
"Hamilton."

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:

>
>
> Problem is, landcover is not rendered. Nobody is going to retag for
> notrendered. Probably never going to change.
>

I just checked, since I see grass rendered where I mapped it.  When I ask
iD for grass it gives me landuse=grass.
Whether or not that is considered valid, that's what iD gives me for grass
and it gets rendered.  Hmmm, since it
is maintained, and the intention is that it be grass, I think it's just
about arguable that it is landuse.  YMMV.

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

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

[Peter Elderson]

Op ma 4 jun. 2018 om 23:30 schreef Paul Allen 

> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> No need to tag the operator, it's just how it's collectively known here.
>> In fact nobody knows or cares who actually takes care of it, as long as it
>> is kept tidy by people in safety vests leaning on gardening gear and
>> operating loud chainsawlike machines. People feel that using all kinds of
>> different landuses for this, as now happens, is not right, when it’s
>> actually one type of landuse with different landcover types.
>>
>> In which case you're not really asking how to tag municipal greenery,
> just how to tag greenery that isn't in people's
> gardens.  I'd still say use descriptive tagging and the fact that it's not
> in somebody's garden explains what it is.  In
> fact, all that matters is what it is, not where it is.  It's green and
> might be pretty to look at. :)  That's what I've done around
> my town where there are patches of greenery, like landcover=grass,
> landcover=trees, etc.  If it's a park it's tagged as
> a park, too.
>

Problem is, landcover is not rendered. Nobody is going to retag for
notrendered. Probably never going to change.

> --
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> No need to tag the operator, it's just how it's collectively known here.
> In fact nobody knows or cares who actually takes care of it, as long as it
> is kept tidy by people in safety vests leaning on gardening gear and
> operating loud chainsawlike machines. People feel that using all kinds of
> different landuses for this, as now happens, is not right, when it’s
> actually one type of landuse with different landcover types.
>
> In which case you're not really asking how to tag municipal greenery, just
how to tag greenery that isn't in people's
gardens.  I'd still say use descriptive tagging and the fact that it's not
in somebody's garden explains what it is.  In
fact, all that matters is what it is, not where it is.  It's green and
might be pretty to look at. :)  That's what I've done around
my town where there are patches of greenery, like landcover=grass,
landcover=trees, etc.  If it's a park it's tagged as
a park, too.

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

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

[Peter Elderson]

No need to tag the operator, it's just how it's collectively known here. In 
fact nobody knows or cares who actually takes care of it, as long as it is kept 
tidy by people in safety vests leaning on gardening gear and operating loud 
chainsawlike machines. People feel that using all kinds of different landuses 
for this, as now happens, is not right, when it’s actually one type of landuse 
with different landcover types.

Op ma 4 jun. 2018 22:44 schreef Paul Allen :
> Ummm, why not use existing tagging and add operator=name_of_local_authority?  
>  No need to invent a new tag
> No need to invent new values specifically to indicate it's municipal.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> 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] British term for municipal greenery?

[Paul Allen]

Ummm, why not use existing tagging and add
operator=name_of_local_authority?   No need to invent a new tag
No need to invent new values specifically to indicate it's municipal.

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

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

[Paul Allen]

Here's how it sort of worked in the UK.

A city has a cathedral.  Or a royal charter.  Or is a big town that feels
like calling itself a city.

A town has a weekly (or more frequent) market.  Or used to have a market.
No cathedral.

A village has one or more churches.  Or used to, before they closed due to
lack of
worshippers.  No cathedral, no market.

A hamlet doesn't even have a church, let alone a market or cathedral.

Yes, there are exceptions.  :)

-- 
Paul


On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:06 PM, santamariense 
> wrote:
>>
>> The question is: Is Nominatin wrong or are we mapping a thing that
>> there not be in Brazil and a best tag should be applied? Or maybe a
>> new tag like unincorporated=yes/no should be created to complement the
>> type of hamlet?
>>
>
> It can vary from place to place.  In the US, village tends to be the value
> used for small unincorporated towns, with hamlet being not much more than a
> named crossroads with maybe one or two residences.  For us, town and city
> is a little stickier, since towns and cities are specific kinds of
> incorporated places in much of America.
>
> ___
> 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] British term for municipal greenery?

[Peter Elderson]

They are within blanket-type landuses such a commercial, industrial,
residential.
They are not constructions like most man_made=* objects are.
More like the gazillion other landuses within the blanket types.

It's meant to replace the many small areas now marked as landuse=forest,
landuse=scrub, landuse=grass, landuse=orchard etc.
landcover=* would be used to indicate what's on it: grass, scrub,
flowerbed, mixed_vegetables :)

2018-06-02 17:11 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
>
> 1. Jun 2018 09:58 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>
> landuse=flowerbed/garden are both present.
> However if the thing changes from time to time it may be best to use a new
> value ... say landuse=decorative?
>
>
>  These are typically within other landuses,
>
> so I would use man_made=flowerbed or
>
> man_made=greenery or something
>
> like that.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:06 PM, santamariense  wrote:
>
> The question is: Is Nominatin wrong or are we mapping a thing that
> there not be in Brazil and a best tag should be applied? Or maybe a
> new tag like unincorporated=yes/no should be created to complement the
> type of hamlet?
>

It can vary from place to place.  In the US, village tends to be the value
used for small unincorporated towns, with hamlet being not much more than a
named crossroads with maybe one or two residences.  For us, town and city
is a little stickier, since towns and cities are specific kinds of
incorporated places in much of America.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4. Jun 2018 22:06 by imagens...@gmail.com :


> are we mapping a thing that
> there not be in Brazil




Add I understand it place=hamlet describes very small settlement and

administrative boundaries are for mapping

legal hierarchy.




See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dhamlet 






So legal hierarchy of admin areas does not 


matter at all whatever something is place=hamlet or not.




I will not comment whatever Nominatim has bug or not - 
it depends on what was desired target of authors.




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

[Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

[santamariense]

Hello everyone,

In Brazil the tag place=hamlet is being used for smallest places, however,
according to Wikipedia, hamlet may be an unincorporated place. And,
I've always observed that place=hamlet isn't in the correct hierarchy
when it's shown in Nominatin.

Example: São José da Porteirinha (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/416766430 ) is shown replacing the
name of the municipality (admin_level=8) in Nominatin: "Sede, São José
da Porteirinha, Microrregião de Santa Maria, Mesorregião
Centro-Ocidental Rio-Grandense, Rio Grande do Sul, Região Sul, Brasil"
( https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=São%20José%20da%20Porteirinha
), where, the correct hierarchy should be "São José da Porteirinha,
Sede, Dilermando de Aguiar, Microrregião de Santa Maria, Mesorregião
Centro-Ocidental Rio-Grandense, Rio Grande do Sul, Região Sul, Brasil"

Then, I believe that for Nominatin, all place=hamlet is being taken as
unincorporated place. There's no place in Brazil that is
unincorporated. By the correct hierarchy, place=hamlet in Brazil
should be hierarchly got after level=10.

That's so weird as saying that Nominatin should show a hierarchy like
State, City, Country instead of City, State, Country.

The question is: Is Nominatin wrong or are we mapping a thing that
there not be in Brazil and a best tag should be applied? Or maybe a
new tag like unincorporated=yes/no should be created to complement the
type of hamlet?

[]'s

user santamariense

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