Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 105, Issue 26

    Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:29:25 +0200 From: Frederik Ramm To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag Hi, it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call for s

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

On 09/06/18 09:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On 8 June 2018 at 21:01, > wrote: I agree that the 5 different values shown on the wiki describe distinctly different things and should all be retained. *From:*Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv.

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

On 8 June 2018 at 21:01, wrote: > I agree that the 5 different values shown on the wiki describe distinctly > different things and should all be retained. > > > > *From:* Andrew Harvey > *Sent:* Friday, 8 June 2018 20:41 > *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools < > tagging@openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

I would not support "blind" mass retagging. There is too much specific use of landuse and natural which should remain as it is, until mappers judge differently because of what's on the ground. In my neighbourhood, a lot of landuse=forest is actual maintained and managed forest. No need to specify

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

On 08/06/18 23:51, Leo Gaspard wrote: On 06/08/2018 02:37 PM, Jeroen Hoek wrote: On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote:   * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees   * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees The problem here is that I have use the tag landuse

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 09/06/18 01:32, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote: 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things differently ... I'm not. I am asking about an existing and growing tagging practice and existing tagging proposal, trying to see if things could move a little towards a solution within existing standard OSM practice. I only su

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 17:32 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, > which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the public? > What is the best strategy for keeping these areas

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/2018 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote: In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to address that. To echo what other people have suggested, you are entirely free to set up a rendering* of whatever OSM tags you want as however you want.  To do that for Belgium (a

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Am 08.06.2018 um 11:53 schrieb marc marc: > Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:34, Rory McCann a écrit : >> Replicate data from OSM, applying your data transformation programme > it's already what nearly all use of osm is doing. > it's named "preprocessor" or alias > it's waste that nearly all data use need to b

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > This is not 'deprecating' landuse=forest - - > > it's still there, it can be there indefinitely, it can render correctly. > > > It is exactly deprecating it - see for example > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation > > "In several fie

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com: > > In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a > land use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is > covered with trees.' > > > I see no rea

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

I am justr trying to get concrete answers and apply them to the argument at hand. Thanks for the answers. In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to address that. I have not seen wiki pages just to force rendering, though, but I can see how it sort of builds the pressure

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant > > criterion for decisions in the standard style if to render a > > certain tag. Tags have been added to rendering with less than a > > hundred uses and tags have been rejected with mor

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:34 Peter Elderson wrote: > > Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases.. > > that > convincing most that they need to change gets very hard. > > True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive > changes, 100% backwards c

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 04:20 François Lacombe wrote: > Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if > access=no can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not > possible. > designated is basically more yes than yes, but is specific to mode access only. pri

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:54 François Lacombe wrote: > On the "Other" section : > Bus-only roads (asphalt/tarmac): highway > =* + access > =no > + b

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:45 François Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > According to this page : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway > > it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this > too restrictive. > Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot. >

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

On 06/08/2018 02:37 PM, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote: >>   * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees >>   * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees > > Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=forest imply > landcover=t

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote: * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=forest imply landcover=trees instead? It seems like a sensible default (simil

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Depending on the exact situation, it might be necessary to do something like: access=no bus=designated foot=yes or vehicle=no bus=designated or motor_vehicle=no bus=designated or any number of other variants. It’s important to look closely at the transport mode tree.

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

>> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is >> appropriate? > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion > for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag. Tags > have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

2018-06-08 10:44 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe : > > it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this > too restrictive. > Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot. > It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes actually > for bus _l

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I > didn't see anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system - > derailing the community processes" . Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional from

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

W dniu 08.06.2018 o 11:34, Rory McCann pisze: > Yes it takes a lot of work, but what you're proposing is going to take > work anyway, so why not try? Well, you've said it - because it's a lot of work. :-) It would be much easier to set up an alternative rendering server with an trivial osm-carto

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

On 06/08/2018 10:29 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > (a) some people would be against any given mass retagging. > > So how to distinguish ones with broad support, sufficient to do that from > ones that should not be done? Well, basically tags are a kind of protocol, between the tagger and the rend

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I didn't see anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system - derailing the community processes" . At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is appropriate? At what usage level should it be documented

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Thank you for useful details osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au, I didn't get things that way before Then it's ok for access=no, I'll update my parser All the best *François Lacombe* fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux 2

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

I agree that the 5 different values shown on the wiki describe distinctly different things and should all be retained. From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Friday, 8 June 2018 20:41 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards I strongly disagree that they are t

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

I strongly disagree that they are the same, they are used to map different things, as noted on the wiki by the detailed descriptions https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aemergency#Lifeguards. Low usage is likely just because there aren't that many of these in the real world and not many peopl

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > > ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top > > down tagging system - by derailing the community processes > > I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why > the strawman argument? Just look at the edit hist

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

To be a bit more specific about it: All access tags follow the pattern: transport mode = access value All the different transport modes form a tree, as can bee seen here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation “access” is the key used for the trans

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Rory McCann wrote: > > One way to try this could be to fork OSM? It's open data, go for it. > As unlikely as it is that this will actually happen yes, this would be a very good idea. As Frederik has said there were projects competing with OSM following a more centralized

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top down tagging system - by derailing the community processes I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why the strawman argument? 2018-06-08 12:00 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz K

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with > it is to edit it > > (it generally takes less time than complaining). I try to do that but don't really have the stomach to engage in turf wars with defenders of religion-l

Re: [Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:34, Rory McCann a écrit : > Replicate data from OSM, applying your data transformation programme it's already what nearly all use of osm is doing. it's named "preprocessor" or alias it's waste that nearly all data use need to build their own list. ___

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 19:03, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de : The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on the wiki consider it their mission to

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it is to edit it Would you like me to add more realistic and more common examples of landuses which are not landuses? I just checked the residential I live in and most of the landuse=forest an landuse=grass areas are much mor

[Tagging] How about a Fork? Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.  And I wouldn't mind if these keys were enforced from now on.  And I wouldn't mind that I would have to relearn all the tagging I n

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Yes the idea behind access=* is a general tag - it indicate for every other transport types (except if another more specific tag is used) : so access=private just say that for every type of transport it is a private access, and if you add foot=yes, it became "private for everyone except people on f

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 11:20 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com : > Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if access=no > can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not possible. access=designated should never be used, see https:

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

The access=designated wiki page explains the concept very clearly: " *NOTE!* The exact key/value combination access =designated should *never* appear on an object. The value * =designated must be used with a

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

about "Bus-only roads" Le 08. 06. 18 à 11:00, François Lacombe a écrit : > highway=unclassified + access=designated + bus=yes + cycle=yes access=no + bus=designated (+ cycle=yes and/or taxi in some country) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if access=no can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not possible. Define bus access on a dedicated bus lane as an exception is confusing. Car access would be the more global access than bus or bicycle ? All the

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 11:10 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com : > When you parse some data with access=no you aren't supposed to look for > exceptions. Untrue, you are supposed to do that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@opens

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

I know Then since some access is allowed, access=designated is more suitable than access=no When you parse some data with access=no you aren't supposed to look for exceptions. Access=designated encourage you to look for more precise access possibilities. All the best *François Lacombe* fl dot

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 19:05, Peter Elderson wrote: Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on the map. natural=wood works... and is 'free' of the land use requirement. The word 'natural' has been taken to mean

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 18:43, Lionel Giard wrote: Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has 9[sic!] uses. I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition not used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules of "we should use the

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 11:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com : > Given problem is access=no stands for no one can use the way.> Then why buses > would be allowed? Because bus=yes tag specifies this. ___ Tagging mailing list Ta

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on the map. 2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > 8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com: > > - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putti

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de : > The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a > significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on > the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct use of > tags (based on c

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Given problem is access=no stands for no one can use the way. Then why buses would be allowed? On a bus lane, buses aren't an exception, they are the reason of why the lane was built. The sentence "The *designated* value, when used with a mode of transport key, indicates that a route has been spec

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com : > - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as > landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that > are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually he

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 18:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has 9[sic!] uses. I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to land

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On the "Other" section : Bus-only roads (asphalt/tarmac): highway =* + access =no + bus =yes Should ac

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

8. Jun 2018 10:44 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com : > Hi, > According to this page :> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway > > it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this >

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

According to this page : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway > > it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no > I can't find this statement on that page ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstree

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

So you would need a commitment from the tagger side not to do that, because it would invalidate the experiment. Maybe a provision can be made for cautious transitional measures if the experiment results in a go? Then all projects are aware and there is no need for undiscussed mechanical edits. 20

[Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

Hi, According to this page : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this too restrictive. Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot. It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes ac

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> > Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has > 9[sic!] uses. > I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition not used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules of "we should use the accepted tags in wiki...". But whatever, as

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : >> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestryand it >> has 9[sic!] uses. > > I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to > landuse=forestry ... there would then be

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 18:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a land use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is covered wit

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging (was: Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag)

Hi 2018-06-08 10:29 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > So how to distinguish ones with broad support, sufficient to do that from > ones that should not be done? > Exactly! It's a big issue since support of a tag is the main criteria to see it in renders or presets of many tools. > (b) any exist

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 10:33 by pelder...@gmail.com : > In this case, if there was a commitment from the renderer side, say to plan > the rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass if the use of the key > rises above [N] by [deadline], I think that would give taggers the

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

8. Jun 2018 00:54 by graemefi...@gmail.com : > What does everybody think? Are you proposing a mechanical edit or adding recommendation on wiki or something else? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org ht

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

> Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases.. that convincing most that they need to change gets very hard. True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive changes, 100% backwards compatible, the change is already in progress despite not being r

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging (was: Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag)

8. Jun 2018 02:10 by osm...@leo.gaspard.io : > Then, I heard there were strong opinions in OSM against mass-retaggings. > I honestly don't get why. Main issues are that  (a) some people would be against any given mass retagging. So how to distinguish ones with

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a land > use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is covered with > trees.' > I see no reason whatsoever to ren

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

8. Jun 2018 08:29 by frede...@remote.org : > Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to > get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to > something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not > convinced

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/18 16:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call for strong leadership to solve them once and for all. OSM is no exception. On 08.06.2018 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced